On January 8 2011, a criminal named Jared Loughner opened fire on a crowd outside a Safeway grocery store in Tucson, Arizona. As a result, six people were killed and many others injured: among them, U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).

What happened that day was a crime and a tragedy. And while it reminded sensible, salt-of-the-earth Americans of the need to arm ourselves to protect our families from criminals like Loughner, it has taught the left nothing. This is demonstrated by the fact that they have spent the months since January calling for more gun control while also doing their best to spare Loughner from prosecution because of his mental state.

Moreover, from the moment the shooting happened till now, they have continued to blame it on Sarah Palin. (I have no doubt they would also be blaming Charlton Heston, were he not already in heaven where their machinations cannot harm him.)

But as it is, wimpy leftists like Piers Morgan are still trying to demonstrate that Palin had some culpability in Giffords’ shooting because she had marked certain congressional races with crosshairs on a map to show tea partiers which races needed to be focused on. (To my knowledge, Morgan has yet to say anything about the fact the left was targeting certain conservative congressional districts with bulls-eyes at the same time that Palin was using crosshairs.)

As a matter of fact, just this week—over 11 months since Giffords was shot—Morgan wasted another entire segment of his unwatched show expressing outrage over the fact that Palin has yet to apologize for the fact that Giffords was shot.

Talking to Giffords’ husband, Mark Kelly (who is doing his shameful best to sell books in the wake of his wife’s shooting), Morgan said:

In her haste to take no responsibility, [Palin] didn’t even bother to pick the phone up, to write, to do anything. I find that extraordinary.

Since when is Palin obligated to call members of congress who face some extraordinary hardship?  Even the hint that should she have called demonstrates just how divorced from reality Morgan really is.

(more…)

On November 16, Alec Baldwin had a column in the Huffington Post titled, “What Occupy Wall Street Has Taught Me.” In it, the actor who promised to leave the United States if George W. Bush were re-elected in 2004 reminds us not only that he’s still here, but that he is still as arrogant and illogical as ever.

For example, throughout the column Baldwin talks about the struggles faced by people who are unemployed.  And although he doesn’t explicitly say it’s not their fault that they’re unemployed—as it clearly is in some cases—he implies as much when complains that those of us who are gainfully employed seem to believe “that we are not responsible in any way” for those who aren’t.

In other words, it’s not their fault that their unemployed. Rather, it’s the fault of the corporations, of Wall Street, and of big oil. (In case these points seem little more than restatements of what the hippies and freaks of #OccupyWallStreet have been saying, Baldwin admits: “Everything I have put forth here, I have heard articulated from the Occupy Wall Street movement.”)

By the way, according to Baldwin, our bailouts to big oil weren’t always monetary in nature. Rather, “[we] bailed out the oil companies every time you watched … as American troops went to Iraq to fight a war for oil.”

As an aside, I can’t figure out why leftists like Baldwin keep spewing this trash. If we fought in Iraq for oil, where’s the oil? Why are our gas prices rising instead of falling? Don’t get me wrong, I think oil would be a great way for Iraq to repay us for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but thus far, none has been forthcoming.

The further you read into Baldwin’s column, the more random things get. For instance, at one point he blames our economic woes on the fact that “we have no high speed rail in this country.” The last time he said something this random was in a September column, when he blamed our current economy on the fact that we spent the Bush years fighting “a trillion dollars worth of wars with no tax hikes.”

(more…)

So far this month, two MSNBC personalities—Alex Wagner and Craig Melvin—have twice mocked or otherwise maligned the Second Amendment and the people who look to it as a bedrock guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. In one instance, Wagner even called for us to “get rid of the second Amendment” altogether and to bid adieu to “the right to bear arms.”

If you’re thinking that you’ve never heard of either Wagner or Melvin, that’s okay, no one else has either; they’re on MSNBC, for Pete’s sake.

Anyway, MSNBC or not, the two mental heavyweights each made some statements that are so ludicrous they must either flow from raw ignorance or an ideologically-driven arrogance that is unimaginable to the average American.

For example, on November 1st, Melvin was guest hosting News Nation when he tried to take Spartanburg, S.C. Sheriff Chuck Wright to task for suggesting women in Spartanburg should arm themselves to defend against would-be rapists. In fact, the Sheriff not only suggested getting a weapon, but actually used a press conference to describe the best kinds of handguns women should consider carrying: “They got one called ‘The Judge’ that shoots a .45 or a .410 shell. [With it] you ain’t gotta be accurate. You just gotta get close.”

Asked Melvin: “If women are shooting potential attackers, aren’t they presuming guilt before innocence? What if a woman kills an attacker? Isn’t that opening another whole legal can of worms?”

Sheriff Wright responded: “Well, it’s easy to fix that. Just don’t attack a woman.” (more…)

No matter how you slice it, Operation Fast and Furious is a serious problem for the Obama administration. It’s beyond question that the ATF oversaw the sale of approximately 2,500 weapons to straw purchasers whom they knew were going to pass the guns go criminals. And it’s also beyond question that some of those weapons were used to kill U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010. (And it’s also beyond question that Attorney General Eric Holder knew about this mess sooner than he admitted to Congressman Darrell Issa [R-CA] on May 3rd of this year.)

These are big stories. Stories that demand attention, and which could be very damning to the steadily declining Obama administration. Nevertheless, for the most part the mainstream media has stayed far away from Fast and Furious.

But there is one exception, and that is CBS News.

That’s right: While NBC, ABC, and others have looked the other way, CBS News has spent the past few weeks doggedly reporting cover-ups tied to Fast and Furious. They’ve also been asking how far up the chain of command Fast and Furious goes? (In other words – who authorized this mess to begin with?)

For example, on September 1, it was CBS News that broke the story about how the U.S. Attorney’s office in Arizona had tried to conceal the fact that Brian Terry was killed with Fast and Furious weapons. According to CBS News, internal ATF emails showed that former U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke asked investigators not to report the link between the murder and Fast and Furious weapons in order to keep from revealing Fast and Furious to the public.

(more…)

Remember the news coverage Joe McGinniss garnered when people learned he was moving next door to the Sarah Palin in May 2010? Accused of stalking her, his son came to his defense by telling reporters his dad had not sought to live by Palin. Yes he was writing a book on her, but the only reason he was living next door was because Palin’s neighbor wanted McGinniss as a tenant in order to get back at Palin because of bad blood between them.

McGinniss moved in next door to the Palins and could spy on them from his deck.

(Quick side note: What does it say about McGinniss if having him next door is a way to get back at someone?)

Anyway, McGinniss’ son went on to talk of how Palin inspired “a lot of hate in people” by appealing to “their worst instincts.” And of course he added a heartfelt, “[It’s] sad and scary,” for good measure.

So the template was set: McGinniss had been looking for a place to live in Alaska because he was writing a book on Palin and low and behold, Palin’s neighbor wanted to rent her house to him. No, he wasn’t a stalker, and yes, Palin was scary.

Hmmm….

(more…)

On Monday the New York Times ran what can only be described as a hit piece against Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA). Written by Eric Lichtblau, the ostensive goal of the column was to demonstrate how Issa has supposedly used his position in congress to enrich himself, but my guess is that the real goal of the piece was to malign Issa’s character, thereby undercutting the momentum his investigation of “Fast and Furious” has gained.

Why would I think this? A better question is why wouldn’t I? The piece is so full of distortions, exaggerations, and outright lies that there’s really nothing other than character assassination that justifies it.

For example, the piece opens by describing Issa’s home office on “the third floor of a gleaming office building overlooking a golf course in the rugged foothills north of San Diego.” The problem with this is that Issa’s office isn’t in that location. Rather, the office is located at 1800 Thibodo Road, in a building that does not overlook a golf course.

The piece also states that the Issa Family Foundation made “$357,000 on an initial investment of less than $19,000” when the truth is the foundation “took a loss of $125,000” on what was actually an initial investment of $500,000.

(more…)

While speaking at the Washington Area Community Center’s Lessons for Leaders (Washington, IL) on August 6, Coach Mike Ditka lambasted the mainstream media (MSM) and heaped praise on Gov. Sarah Palin. Said Ditka:

“I understand Sarah Palin spoke here last year. I admire her. She’s a great lady, mother and wife, and that’s more important than the [bull****] the media spreads about her.”

Ditka has offered up a strong defense of Palin before. For instance, in 2010, during an interview on Fox and Friends, he said “Sarah Palin is one of the greatest people I’ve ever met.”

When he stumped for Palin/McCain in 2008, Ditka said Palin “epitomizes all the good qualities of this country.” He also called on audience members to put party affiliation and anything else that divided them aside long enough “put Country First” for a change. (Ditka lead by example by unashamedly admitting he was a Republican and a conservative, and most importantly, he said, “I am an American.”)

Of course, I don’t recall hearing Chris Matthews, Matt Lauer, or anyone in the MSM mention Ditka’s kind words for the Governor in 2010 (nor do I remember them making fun of him for being a Republican). And since that was back in the days when Keith Olbermann still had a show, you’d at least think Ditka would have made the “Worst Person in the World” list.

But alas, just silence.

(more…)

Chris Matthews has always been somewhat of an enigma. He’s not a good anchor, which is why he can’t draw an audience, yet he remains on the air, which is why I asked long ago whether someone was subsidizing him.

On a similar note, John McCain’s re-election to the Senate in 2010 was nearly inexplicable (unless you take into account the fact that he, Mister “get the money out of politics,” dumped $20,000,000.00 into his re-election campaign). To be honest, all that money is the only feasible explanation for how he secured another term during an election cycle that witnessed Tea Party candidates wiping the floor with nearly everyone else.

Speaking of the Tea Party, that reminds me that Matthews and McCain have something else in common – they both hate the Tea Party. Matthews hates it because it’s full of people who don’t care about what he thinks and who can’t be intimidated into shutting up and acting like good RINOS (Republicans-In-Name-Only). McCain hates it for the same reasons, plus the fact that they see right through his “Maverick” façade.

In a word, the tea party poses a political impediment to both men insomuch as it literally stands to undo the big government that Matthew and McCain have fought so hard to preserve.

This is why it really was no shock to see Matthews throw a love fest for McCain on Thursday, July 28, because McCain stood on the Senate floor and referred to tea party candidates from 2008 as “hobbits.” (McCain did this because that little temper of his got the best of him again, and he simply couldn’t handle knowing a small group of Tea Party conservatives in the House of Representatives managed to stall debt ceiling talks to the point of almost ending them altogether.)

(more…)

It wasn’t that long ago that George W. Bush was president.  Perhaps you remember him: he’s the president whom the mainstream media (MSM) blamed for making up reasons to go to war in Iraq, for giving tax cuts to the rich, for being too dumb to be president, for making America look bad on the international stage, and for sacrificing the planet at the feet of big, bad oil companies.

For the eight years Bush was in office it was a fact of life that anchors like Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann could barely go a broadcast minute without bashing him. And the whole of the MSM couldn’t keep from telling us how deceptive and criminal the Bush/Cheney White House was.

(Remember how Keith Olbermann used to get so mad at Bush that he’d get that spittle in the corner of his mouth but just keep right on talking anyway?)

Sitting here, I wonder what the MSM would have done if they’d learned that the Bush administration had overseen the sale of 2,500 guns to “straw purchasers” who were expected to illegally transport those weapons into Mexico and get them in the hands of cartel members? Moreover, what would they have done had they learned that of those 2,500 guns, only 1,300 were ever recovered (thus leaving 1,200 in the hands of criminals throughout Mexico and along the U.S. southern border)?

In other words – if “Fast and Furious” had taken place under Bush instead of Obama, would the New York Times have reported it as quickly as they reported our phone-taps to the enemy?

(more…)

While reading through newspaper stories about Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s cowardly attacks on Congressman Allen West earlier in the week, I came across an even more repulsive attack on him from a Palm Beach Post columnist named Frank Cerabino: the latter was especially repugnant because of the fact that it was full of haughtiness and a not-so-veiled attack against West’s military pride.

Dated October 20, 2010, Cerabino’s column was obviously part of a larger attempt to prevent West from being elected to Congress in November of that same year (and fortunately, it was an effort that failed).

In the column, Cerabino mocks Congressman West for writing articles that appeared in a biker magazine. Thus he refers to West as an “unhinged future AM-radio talk-show host” and “a regular contributor to Wheels on the Road, a South Florida bikers magazine bursting with right-wing political commentary.”

Elsewhere in the column, Cerabino haughtily remarked that he hadn’t known West was a “fellow columnist” until he found out about the West’s work in Wheels on the Road. The clear intent of this statement was to demonstrate Cerabino’s superiority because he was writing for the Post while West was writing for a lowly biker magazine. (Note to Cerabino – I’d rather read the biker magazine.)

Anyway, Cerabino’s column also took the criticism of Congressman West to new levels by mocking the pride West takes in his military service. Wrote Cerabino: “[West has] a penchant for wearing his Army jump wings on civilian blazers.” (Note to Cerabino – mocking a Republican’s pride in the military might be the cool thing to at the cocktail parties which the Post’s columnists attend, but in heartland American it’s viewed as despicable.)

Now, before anyone gets all bent out of shape and sends me emails about how Cerabino was in the Navy years ago and therefore can’t be accused of mocking the military, please note that I know he was in the Navy. Please also note that John Kerry served in Vietnam, yet he described our troops fighting in Iraq as terrorists.

(more…)

On Friday, June 10^th, when 24,000 of Sarah Palin’s personal emails were released for public consumption, the mainstream media went crazy. Matt Lauer, Chris Matthews, and Lester Holt thought for sure Palin was going down. And just like I wrote in a post for Big Journalism on that day, the Washington Post and the New York Times posted the emails online and begged their readers to go through them and find some trash on Palin.

During that morning’s episode of NBC’s “Today,” Lauer showed up live in Juneau, Alaska, where the emails were being released in hard copy, and from where he told viewers: “[Today] could be a tough day for potential presidential candidate Sarah Palin.”

Turns out it was a tough day for somebody Mr. Lauer, but that somebody wasn’t Palin.

Of course Matthews couldn’t wait to see Palin get what was coming to her for being a beautiful, decent, human who dares to champion faith, family, and America the exceptional. (I honestly think Matthews knows that if forced to stand side-by-side with Palin, Democrats in general look even more secular, Obama looks even more anti-American, and Hillary Clinton even less camera friendly.)

When Matthews’s show began on the afternoon of the 10^th, he compared the feelings he had that day to the feelings someone has on Christmas.  As he conversed on air with Michael Isikoff – an MSNBC reporter who had traveled to Juneau to get the good stuff on Palin – you could literally hear the excitement in his voice:

“It’s Christmas morning, you’re opening up Santa’s mailbox here or Santa’s pack. Mike Isikoff what do you have in the bag so far?”

Now just imagine the 300 or so viewers who watch Matthews’s show leaning in toward their televisions, just waiting for Isikoff to drop the big news. And they’re waiting, and they’re wating, and they’re waiting … and Isikoff pretty much says “move on folks, nothing to see here.” (Actually, some of his exact words were: “I gotta say so far I don’t think anybody’s found any bombshells here.”)

Enter Lester Holt, who was sitting in for Brian Williams on the night of the 10^th, and opening the “Mail Call” segment of the show with this narrative:

Responding to media requests, the state of Alaska released 24,000 pages of e-mails covering the period from December 2006, when she was sworn in as governor, to September 2008 when she was named John McCain’s running mate. With Palin a potential presidential challenger, the question tonight is: Could her foes try to use them to try and define her candidacy?

How about that Lester, huh? Here he is, as liberal as the next guy at NBC, yet he has the nerve to try to sound neutral and, with a straight face, ask: “Could her foes try to use [the emails] to try and define her candidacy?” Well the answer to Holt’s question came soon enough as the camera panned to none other than Isikoff, who was still standing in Juneau wondering how much longer he was expected to keep talking in a way that made the dwindling viewing audience believe there might actually be something in the Palin emails.

I have an idea: How about we get 6,000 of Lauer’s emails, 6,000 of Matthews’, 6,000 of Holt’s, and just for fun, 6,000 of Isikoff’s? Although that’s a total of 24,000 emails, each man is only turning over a quarter of the number of emails that Palin was forced to make public.

And there’s no need for them to be overly nervous about it. All we’ll be doing is following Holt’s lead to see if there’s something in those communiqués by which we might “define” them.

On Sunday, June 12^th, the New York Times ran an old-fashioned hit piece on Texas Governor Rick Perry. They’re all worked up over the fact that Perry dared invite people to join him on August 6^th for “a day of prayer and fasting on behalf of our troubled nation.” To make matters even worse (in the eyes of the Times), the service Perry plans to attend is a “Christian prayer service,” sponsored by the American Family Association (AFA).

Manny Fernandez and Erik Eckholm, the two obviously talented and extremely observant reporters who wrote the piece on Perry, even noticed there will be people at the service who hold radical positions like a belief in the infallibility of the Bible, the centrality of Jesus Christ, and a future judgment.

But the best part about the Times’ hit piece was that Fernandez and Echholm were so outraged by Perry’s announcement that they let their liberal intolerance fly and blurted out some things in print that are priceless. Like when they wrote of how Democrats largely opposed Perry’s call to prayer but Republicans supported it. Or more specifically, when they said the Democrat opposition to Perry’s call for prayer was “predictable.”

Did you get that folks? The Times is on record (in print) saying Democrat opposition to prayer is predictable. (Keep this mind when Obama is getting trounced by Sarah Palin in 2012 and he suddenly starts quoting scripture and remembering the line “One nation under God” when saying the Pledge of Allegiance.)

If you think I’m taking this out of context, here are Fernandez and Eckholm exact words: “The governor’s announcement of the prayer event provoked predictable scorn from Democrats and praise from some Republicans.”

In other portions of the Times’ hit piece, Barry Lynn, executive director of “Americans United for Separation of Church and State,” stood with the Democrats by criticizing Perry’s call to attend “a sectarian gathering that excludes millions of Americans.” Lynn apparently had no comment on how the fallacious, secularizing belief system that undergirds “Americans United for Separation of Church and State” excludes tens of millions of Americans from its membership.

In case you’re not familiar with “Americans United for Separation of Church and State,” they’re the conniving group that files lawsuits to prevent praying during graduation ceremonies, that opposes the existence of the National Day of Prayer, that promotes the idea that opposition to same-sex marriage is an “assault” on homosexuals, and that now stands against Governor Perry’s call to prayer.

Wow. What a group, huh? Sounds like a better name for them would be “That Bunch of Liberal, Jack Booted Thugs Barry Lynn’s In Charge Of.”

Anyway, the bottom line is that in the course of trying to bring down Governor Rick Perry, the Times inadvertently reminded us of two very important things: 1. Republicans largely support Perry’s call to prayer for this nation. 2. Democrats don’t.

Therefore, on August 6^th, while Perry, Tea Partiers, and Republicans throughout the nation are asking God to guide and protect us, Democrats will be mailing in checks to renew their annual memberships in “Americans United for Separation of Church and State.”

But that’s “predictable” isn’t it?

Today, at 1 pm (EST), a cache of emails Sarah Palin sent and/or received while Governor of Alaska is set to be released.

How many emails? Figures range from 20,000 to upwards of 24,000. They cover a large time period – December 2006 to September 2008 – and the same media machine that couldn’t find anything wrong, or even worth investigating, as far as Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama were concerned, is now asking readers to help them pour through the emails and get the dirt on Palin.

That’s right: both the Washington Post and the New York Times have announced they will publish the emails tomorrow as they get them, and they want readers to read over them, find the things that are “most interesting” or “most noteworthy,” and email notes on those portions to the respective papers. (Any of you who did a research intensive degree in college know what this means: it means the newspaper is then going to take those “most interesting” pieces, paste them on the front page of their website, and say, “Look here folks! We found a chink in Palin’s armor! She’s beatable! She’s beatable!”)

In making this request, both the Washington Post and the New York Times prove they’ve yet to learn how much the people love Palin. But we can help them learn this lesson after 1 pm by sending a ton of emails that have absolutely nothing to with Palin’s correspondence cache.

(more…)

On Monday, February 28, CNN stopped carrying water for Democrat politicians just long enough to carry a little bit for Islamic extremists instead. This happened when host Don Lemon modeled the Hollywood mentality that explains away America’s distrust of radical Islamists by accusing salt-of-the-earth Americans of being ignorant or un-edgumacated (like Sarah Palin or Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush or Dick Cheney).

This mentality allowed Lemon to provide film director Qasim Basir a platform from which to promote “Mooz-lum” – a movie intended to “clear up some of [the] ignorance” Americans seemingly have about Islam.

(Don’t you love it when CNN, or any other MSM outlet, begins a story on the relationship between Americans and Muslims by focusing on how ignorant the Americans are?)

In addition mocking Americans’ supposed lack of knowledge pertaining to Islam, the Lemon/Basir segment highlighted the need for tolerance in religion. Not surprisingly, they focused on a lack of tolerance in the U.S. without ever mentioning the modesty police in Muslim countries like Iran: modesty police publicly flog women for wearing skirts that are too short or clothes that are too revealing. Nor did they mention the fact that it’s still illegal to build a Christian church in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia (where it’s also against the law for women to drive cars). And the list goes on … (more…)

When MSNBC brought Rachel Maddow aboard in 2008, her education at Stanford and Oxford made us hopeful that she’d reverse the trend of lackadaisical journalism we’d grown accustomed to receiving from Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.  But alas, any great contribution Maddow could have made was soon blunted by the fact that she is a leftist through and through.

Maddow has actually proven to be even more of an ideologue than Matthews, although she still remains a few steps behind Olbermann’s kookiness.  She is so eager to stick it conservatives, and particularly conservative Republicans, that she twists the news to benefit herself and her ideologically monolithic listening audience.

How exactly does she twist the news? Mainly by relying on random sources or source fragments that she hopes are true because they paint Republicans in a bad light, instead of testing those sources to be sure they’re true before airing a segment based on them.

(more…)

When news broke that ABC would air the first “live interview” with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld since 2006, I determined to tune in. The host was George Stephanopoulos, the setting was Good Morning America (GMA), and the topic was Rumsfeld’s recently released memoir, Known and Unknown.

On paper, everything seemed harmless: the Navy Captain and political figure who embarked on his career in public service while Dwight Eisenhower was president, became a Congressman in his own right, held the post of Secretary of Defense in both the Ford and George W. Bush administrations, and served in various capacities for Nixon and Reagan, was going to sit down and talk about what he’d experienced through decades of service to the nation he loved.

(more…)

Over the weekend, AP stories conveying the supposed outrage Asian-Americans felt toward Rush Limbaugh’s mockery of Chinese president Hu Jintao were ubiquitous. The stories were so racially charged and unapologetically one-sided that it was evident someone somewhere was either not telling the whole truth about what Limbaugh said or was not telling the truth about why he said what he said (or that their liberal minds simply couldn’t comprehend the crux of what Limbaugh was trying to accomplish).

As I looked deeper into the AP’s contention about Asian-American outrage toward Limbaugh, I quickly saw that all the news stories rested on the complaints of three different politicians, all of whom happened to be Democrats: an important point which was not brought to the forefront in the coverage. (I guess a headline of “Democrats Outraged at Limbaugh for the 1,000,000^th Time” doesn’t draw near as many readers as “Asian-American Politicians Demand Limbaugh Apology.”)

The three politicians upon whom the demands of the AP stories rest are Representative Judy Chu (D-Ca), Representative David Wu (D-Or), and California state Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco).  All three are quoted as feeling various degrees of disgust with the way Limbaugh mocked the Chinese president’s White House speech last week. Chu said she was “shocked and appalled,” Wu believed Limbaugh demonstrated a “fundamental lack of character,” and Yee called it a “classless act [that] is an insult to over 3,000 years of cultural history.” (There was no mention as to whether these same three lawmakers have been bothered by China’s blatant Human Rights’ violations, evident in China’s ongoing persecution of Christians and their forced abortion/one child policy, or the steadfast Communist mindset that robs their citizens of freedom in a myriad of cruel and unimaginable ways.)

(more…)

When Sarah Palin recently cited the legendary C.S. Lewis and the phrase “divine inspiration” in the same sentence during a Barbara Walters interview, liberal talking heads went apoplectic.  MSNBC’s Richard Wolffe thought there were a lot of things Palin could have read besides C.S. Lewis if “divine inspiration” was the goal, and The View’s Joy Behar mocked her for reading books that were (supposedly) written for children.

Such desperate and unprofessional commentary from Wolffe and Behar is undone by the fact that millions upon millions of people have read Lewis for divine inspiration throughout the years. Moreover, those reading him for such inspiration are adults, not children. (Sure, children do enjoy Lewis’ “Chronicles of Narnia,” but his eye-opening works like “Mere Christianity,” “The Great Divorce,” and “The Abolition of Man,” to name but a few, are so in depth that an adult must read them time and again to grasp everything that Lewis is saying.)

Of course, this really isn’t about whether Lewis wrote children’s books or not, nor is it about whether Palin reads such books. Rather, it is just one more attempt to prove how dumb Palin is, and thereby show the public how unfit she is for office.

The liberal talking heads want us to know that only a megalomaniac like Adolf Hitler or, even worse, an idiot like George W. Bush, would talk so openly about divinity or divine inspiration in this secular world. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews revealed as much just days after the 2008 Presidential Elections when he examined Palin’s claim that she was “putting [her] life in [her] creator’s hands” and would make a decision on a possible run in 2012 based on whether God opened the door for her or not. (more…)

While appearing on Ed Schultz’s MSNBC show November 17, 2010, Al Sharpton joined Schultz in criticizing Rush Limbaugh for “race-[baiting]” and using “federally-regulated airwaves to malign people.” Sharpton was bothered by the fact that Limbaugh dared talked about the racism inherent in the Democrat Party, particularly the racism white Democrats like former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) and former Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md) displayed in pushing a black Democrat, Jim Clyburn (D-Sc), to the back of the bus” in order to preserve their own prominence.

It seems that when the Democrats restructured their positions in the House after losing control of it on November 2^nd, they made sure that the top two positions went to white people (Pelosi and Hoyer) even though Clyburn, who happens to be black, already held the position Hoyer wanted. Because Limbaugh dared point this hypocrisy out, Sharpton pounced and equated Limbaugh’s monologue on Clyburn with “race-[baiting.”

Two things need to be pointed out here. First, Limbaugh has the Democrat Party (and particularly Pelosi and Hoyer) dead to rights, and that’s why men like Sharpton are using accusations of racism to silence him. But no matter what Sharpton says, Pelosi and Hoyer did move Clyburn to the back of the bus in order to guarantee that they, two white folks, would hold the key positions on the Democrat side of the House.

(more…)

No matter what you call the mainstream media (the “old media,” the “state-run media,” etc.), it has to be admitted that those who comprise it have a vested interest in preserving an outdated, and dangerous, liberal establishment in this country. To that end, members of the mainstream media not only present the news in half-truths that make conservatism and conservatives look bad, they also do (and say) whatever they have to do in order to make liberals look good.

In this way, they have actually become an extension of the liberal-most portions of the Democrat Party.

For example, just think of how they vilified Republican candidates Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and Joe Miller in Alaska during last the recent elections. Because both candidates were true conservatives, the media was quick to pounce on them and prove them unfit for office, in an effort to dissuade voters from supporting them.

On the other hand, think about how members of the mainstream media are now carrying water for Chicago Mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel: a liberal candidate who may not even be a legal resident of Chicago and who, while serving as President Obama’s Chief of Staff, may have pushed for the passage of Stimulus legislation in order to increase his own personal wealth.

(more…)