Image credit: Corey Wilson, Green Bay Press-Gazette

Let’s shower this POS with our calls. I have left a message. So should all of you. Maybe this is a distraction, but much is at stake-a woman’s right to choose. And not to mention the poor and their hunger are being used as political chips by the callous right. Pro-life. Bullshit.

The Planned Parenthood location posted an item on their Facebook page. A scroll down the page indicates they were very active in the campaign to intimidate Komen over Planned Parenthood funding.

Paul’s Pantry refused our food donations collected by our area health center to help combat local hunger. This level of extremism impeding individual access to essential health care and now food is outrageous and must be stopped.

As best as can be ascertained for now, Paul’s Pantry claims this has always been standard policy. Evidently, that’s not enough for Planned Parenthood and the left. Now, to operate as a private charity in America, it would seem any organization must support abortion and Planned Parenthood in particular or risk attack.

Below is contact information for Paul’s Pantry, if you wish to offer your support to counter the left’s attempt at intimidation.

920-433-0343
Paul’s Pantry 1529 Leo Frigo Way Green Bay, WI 54302-1163
info@paulspantry.org
Craig Robbins – Director

When the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure made a decision to sever its ties with America’s number one seller of abortions, Planned Parenthood, the media went to war. The media coverage was slanted in such a way that “mainstream” reporters like Andrea Mitchell and Lisa Myers of NBC News were openly advocating for a point of view—pressuring Komen to reverse course and give in to Planned Parenthood.

Why would the media go to war over something as seemingly insignificant as a policy change regarding funding at Komen, a private cancer charity? Part of the answer lies in the fact that, for the media, “women’s rights” take precedence over all other rights, including the rights of children. This is what “feminism” has become and this is what the Komen controversy was supposed to be about. In reality, it had nothing to do with breast cancer because the fact is that most Planned Parenthood affiliates don’t even provide mammograms. That money from Komen was used to refer women at risk of contracting the disease somewhere else.

So the issue was something else as well. While there were references to Planned Parenthood being an “abortion provider,” there was no explanation of what this “service” actually “provides”—a procedure that destroys a human life. This is why the annual March for Life against abortion is mostly ignored by the major media. It is a sad fact that even some conservative women still think that Planned Parenthood is simply an organization that provides information about voluntary family planning.

You saw very little in the mainstream media from pro-life people who supported Komen’s initial decision. The bias is so pronounced that the media long ago adopted the language of the Left. The term “pro-life” is never used. But “pro-choice” is. Newspapers use the term “abortion rights” to describe the political process of terminating the lives of the unborn, but use “anti-abortion” when referring to those of us who value human life. We are “against.” They are for “rights.”

So we made it a point to tune into the Big Three network newscasts on Friday night—hours after Nancy Brinker of Komen had caved. We wanted to see if this story would be treated in a neutral manner, or if the stories would be written from the standpoint that Brinker did the right thing—and, why did it take her so long? We did receive a shock, though it was a mild one. One of the three networks actually did a fairly nice job.

NBC was first. Brian Williams handed the story off to Lisa Myers. She had a packaged piece in which she featured several pro-abortion video bites, but no sound-on-tape from any pro-life people. She provided one very short pro-life quote, as a throwaway. It was advocacy journalism, pure and simple.

On ABC, Diane Sawyer did not hand off to a field reporter and did just a brief rundown of the story. But she was giddy about “people power.” There simply was no thought that anyone in the audience might have disagreed with her viewpoint.

It was a different story on CBS. Anchor Scott Pelley put the story later in his broadcast, opting for some national/international stories that he considered more important. When he handed off to Nancy Cordes, she presented a more balanced report with on-camera reaction from both sides of the issue. We suspect Pelley is influencing the CBS Evening News, and taking it down a more journalistic path. This may have to do with his journalism background in Texas.

Pelley is a native Texan who started his TV career in Lubbock and then moved to the Dallas-Fort Worth market where he eventually landed at WFAA-TV. This station is well known as one of the country’s premier news operations with virtually every reporter on staff having a fine journalistic reputation. Pelley worked there for seven years. As a correspondent for 60 Minutes, he has helped move the CBS Evening News into a more serious direction.

It is significant that the CBS Evening News employs investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, the recipient of one of the Reed Irvine Investigative Awards at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. Attkisson is not afraid to offend the Obama Administration by pursuing stories such as the Department of Justice cover-up of the officially-sanctioned “Fast & Furious” arms trafficking from the U.S. to the Mexican drugs cartels. Such reporting would not be tolerated at NBC News or ABC News.

It seems unlikely that any network, however, would do an investigative piece on Planned Parenthood. This is truly a taboo subject for much of the media. Not only does Cecile Richards’ organization sell abortions to young women in trouble, but it also promotes the anything-goes sexual attitude that often leads to abortions. Baylor University economics professor Dr. John Pisciotta, in his role as head of Pro-Life Waco, has documented the despicable outreach of the local chapter that he calls “Planned Promiscuity.” The implication is that Planned Parenthood is a racket that victimizes young women and then exploits them for profit.

Meanwhile, Keach Hagey at Politico and other so-called liberal media watchdogs are assigning credit to social media for the Komen cave. We understand that liberals by the thousands got on Facebook and Twitter to complain. But what is it they were complaining about? The issue for the media was that the Komen decision could have snowballed, leading to more scrutiny of what Planned Parenthood is actually doing with the money, including federal dollars, it receives. And some of that money goes into the coffers of liberal Democrats running for office this year.

When Nancy Brinker dared to offend the leading organization behind the “sacrament” of abortion, the lines were drawn. That meant all the minions of the Left dropped what they were doing. It was time to go to war! The lives of women facing the risk of cancer were not the issue. They get their mammograms at other places anyway. The issue was the human lives already being lost at the Planned Parenthood clinics. This was the scandal that stood to be exposed, if Komen was not beaten down and put in its place.

The photo slide show initially featured seven photos of abortion supporters, such as one of marchers holding signs saying “Family Planning Saves Lives Worldwide,” one featuring women holding signs saying that abortion should be kept legal, and another showing a woman sporting an abortion on demand sticker.

Upwards of 50,000 pro-life supporters turned out in the DC cold to participate in the March for Life, yet apparently CBS could only find the small handful of pro-abortion supporters to photograph.

Pro-life advocates like Jill Stanek were incredulous, and it wasn’t long before the comments section on the CBS website exploded with pro-lifers crying foul. Dozens of unhappy commenters remarked how badly the bias of CBS galled them.

Finally, a day or so later, CBS altered its slide show and added some photos of some of the actual participants of the pro-life march. The slide show now features seven photos of pro-lifers and an equal amount of pro-abortion supporters.

Interestingly, though, there was no notice and no explanation by the CBS affiliate that it altered/added to the slide show and no explanation why the slide show had no pro-life photos for the first few days it was live on the web.

Pro-lifers can take heart that they were heard by the TV station, causing it to take action to correct the sleight. But the fact that CBS put up a slide show of photos taken at a pro-life rally but didn’t feature a single photo of any pro-lifers pretty much shows the bias from which the TV station came when it initially posted the webpage.

Credit Elizabeth Avis @Beth_Avis

Before the march Michelle Malkin wrote a post about the media’s lack of attention. It got me interested and I decided to tune into DirecTV News Mix and the C-SPAN coverage all afternoon. Some people on Twitter, especially Sharon Cabana, helped me out by keeping an eye on CNN and MSNBC. There were a a few seconds of coverage on FOX News & MSNBC, but didn’t see anything on CNN. I’m not shocked, but it doesn’t mean I’m not disappointed. The Old Media was on hand to cover OWS at all times. They knew this was happening and yet no one on stand by. It’s awful how these peaceful, clean, and civilized people were completely ignored by the Old Media while the disgusting and uncivilized people of Occupy Wall Street received so much attention.

Thank goodness for social media like Twitter. Since I knew I wasn’t going to receive anything from the Old Media I knew I had to use the New Media. I reached out to people on the #MarchForLife hash tag and people have been tweeting me pictures. Here are a few:

Credit Elizabeth Avis @Beth_Avis

Credit Catholic Jedi Academy @CatholicJedi

Credit Elizabeth Avis @Beth_Avis

Tomorrow morning I will investigate the after-coverage of March For Life and interview people, including Michelle Fields from The Daily Caller, who were there to see how their observation matches up with the Old Media. Something tells me they’ll downplay this rally.

From Jonah Goldberg:

Romney, the son of a politician, has been running for office, holding office or thinking about running for office for more than two decades. “Just level with the American people,” Gingrich growled. “You’ve been running … at least since the 1990s.”

For some reason, Romney can’t do that. Or at least it seems like he can’t. His authentic inauthenticity problem isn’t going away. And it’s sapping enthusiasm from the rank and file.

Goldberg is right, but the underlying theme that voters need to be reminded of is that during so many important debates from healthcare, jobs, Wall Street Reform, confirmations, recess appointments, to taxes the culprits to invoke cloture or side with the Democrats typically are the same:  Senators Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe,  and Scott Brown–the trifecta of RINOs. All from the northeast, too.  See where I’m going with this?

Frankly, Romney, who the mainstream liberal media would like to see win the nomination, has yet to unite the GOP base.  His used car salesman pitch simply rubs people the wrong way.  We’ve seen this over and over again–even John McCain pointed this out and won in 2007’s primary–and now supports him–that should speak volumes to my point.  Romney has always been dogged by this and this is why we have such a large ‘Not Romney’ camp on the right side of the aisle.

The GOP is also paying the bitter price for not having anyone in line to succeed GW Bush.  The party’s internal tug of war will be an historical teachable moment and prepare the party for future elections.  The one saving grace is that, while the Democrats have Hillary, they have no one to succeed her at this point in time.  I say Hillary because she seems to be the only power broker left untarnished by Obama–even though she is an Alinsky kinda girl.

Additionally, the GOP presidential candidate will have a two-pronged mission as the nominee:  to beat the MSM and Obama.  However, enlightened voters now know for sure the media is mostly state-controlled, Obama was never vetted, and that his radical leftist ideology drives his policies, appointments, and regulations out of the mainstream.

Furthermore, the MSM needs Romney to offset Obama.  The formula is quite simple: RomneyCare is to ObamaCare as Obama’s rhetoric is to Romney’s rhetoric all of which cancel each other out according to how the media sees it.

The primary is the primary and the game changes in the general.  Voters are more inclined to vote with their wallets.  We have gas prices averaging at almost $4 per gallon across the country, skyrocketing food prices, record foreclosures, record number of people on food stamps, high unemployment, ObamaCare, crippling regulations, and much more.  So if the MSM thinks that the historic 2010 midterm GOP wave was a whim, think again.  The Right accomplished its key mission of splitting the Congress so that Obama’s agenda could not be rammed through anymore.  Would we have liked the Senate, sure, but in 2012, the job will be finished.  My point is that who do we really want in the Oval Office?  A northeastern Republican who disavows the GOP or not.  We already have someone who does not have the consent of the governed.  Are we really going to take that risk again?

Finally, Romney has always touted RomneyCare as a great model for all the states to implement, but the reality is, the only person who implemented RomneyCare was Obama and now we have ObamaCare.  No thanks.

The Post story was a mishmash of innuendo, guesswork, and partisan claims, all amounting to much of nothing for proof of wrong doing. The Post even took the opportunity to use the word “whitewashed” when describing the color of the building housing the museum commemorating Justice Thomas’ birthplace. None too subtle, that.

There was plenty of other coverage of the opening of the museum that was positive, of course. Still it is apparent that the left hates Justice Thomas so much that they can’t even stand it that a small commemoration of his place of birth be created.

But real facts weren’t on the agenda for this article on Thomas. This article was meant as yet another slap at Thomas in order to mount pressure against him for the upcoming case against Obamacare. The left has been floating the demand that Justice Thomas recuse himself because his wife has worked as a “conservative activist and lobbyist, where she specifically agitated for the repeal of ‘Obamacare.’”

Contrary to the left’s new attack on Thomas, in America we do not hold the work of a spouse against someone. If we did that, half the members of Congress would have to be removed for the boards, or agencies, or organizations that their spouses work for. The pertinent fact is, though, that Justice Thomas himself was not the one working for any group that advocated for or against Obamacare.

This, however, is not true of another member of the Supreme Court. Justice Elana Kagan was actually involved in advising how to defend against challenges to Obamacare. If that isn’t directly relevant, what is?

Last week it was discovered that when Obamacare passed, Kagan sent euphoric emails to Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe who was then serving in the Department of Justice. This in itself should be enough to show that Kagan’s opinion on Obamacare has already been decided easily bringing into question her unbiased judgment on the case.

But that isn’t the only problem with Kagan’s serving as one of those that will have the final word on the constitutionality of Obamacare. She wasn’t simply elated that Obamacare passed. She was also part of the team that advised the Democrats on how to support Obamacare and keep it from being challenged.

You see, at the time, Kagan was Solicitor General at the time and was, “personally involved, even if only to a limited degree (though without a complete record, it’s difficult to know how limited), in advising how to defend against challenges to Obamacare.”

Yet, here we have the left attacking justice Thomas because his wife said she doesn’t like Obamacare and saying that is a basis to force him to recuse himself from the case while ignoring Kagan’s actual involvement in favor of Obamacare. Not too blatantly partisan, is it?

So, how is the Old Media reporting this story? A recent piece by Politico is a perfect example of how the left is minimizing the facts. The meme du jour is to report that there is, “No sign Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas will recuse on health care law.”

Politico isn’t the only one. The Week did a similar piece juxtaposing calls for both Thomas and Kagan to step down as if the calls were equal in seriousness.

In other words, by linking the two calls for recusal as if they are coequal in import minimizes the call for either to recuse themselves. Readers will simply see the calls for recusal as a partisan maneuver and the more legitimate reason Kagan should step back from the Obamacare case will go unaddressed.

Further, the left also knows that the right is traditionally spineless in the face of criticism. They are banking on the fact that the right will cower — like it always does — and Thomas will remove himself from the case, even though there is no legitimate reason he should, while Kagan will never in a million years remove herself despite that there is good, legal reasons for her to do so. The left doesn’t care about propriety or legality when it comes to pushing its agenda, we all know.

The case for Kagan’s recusal, though, is quite serious, indeed. So serious that Eric Holder was called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee where he said that Kagan was not involved in Obamacare. Holder’s testimony is questionable, though. Recently Republican leaders in the Senate sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder expressing their belief that Holder’s testimony about Kagan’s involvement in past Obamacare policy making was “belied by the facts.” Holder’s office has been stonewalling calls by the Senate that he provide it with documents regarding Kagan’s involvement in the healthcare law.

It is interesting to note that the Old Media knocked itself out to send reporter after reporter to Alaska to uncover dirt on 2008 GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin. Back then they wanted to uncover every single piece of dirt they could find. Yet in this case the Old Media is uninterested in discovering to what extent a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court had in a case that she will be tasked with adjudicating. Remember, a vice president has little real power, but the Old Media was losing its mind over Palin. On the other hand, a Supreme Court Judge has incredible power and the media are disinterested in finding out about this judge.

If this all doesn’t show the left-wing bias of the media, well, “you can’t handle the truth.”

Since people started camping out in the name of socialism or something, there have only been half measures by the media to determine whether union organizers were using dues to provide transportation, food and lodging for the Occupiers.  Accuracy in Media infiltrated the National Nurses United for the duration of their Occupy DC protest tour. As the footage reveals, NNU in association with the AFL-CIO sent over 1,000 nurses from across the country, public and private sector, all expenses paid. It’s pretty sad to think that American veterans are sitting in a hospital room wondering where their nurse went.

Accuracy in Media has recently received inquiries as to why we release video projects like this one. The answer is simple: we’re performing a new type of media criticism. Rather than simply screaming bias or demanding corrections, AIM has taken a proactive stance to challenge media narratives by mixing elements of citizen journalism with reality television production tactics.

We’ve found that the combination reveals a new level of truth with the Occupy movement, not found in the conventional media.

Yes, even though these calumnies against conservatives and Sarah Palin have been thoroughly discredited, Sawyer links them anyway to the shocking crime that took the lives of six people, injured others, and delivered a debilitating head wound to Representative Giffords.

It was only hours after the shooting occurred on January 8, 2011, that left-wing activists, purported journalists, and Democrat operatives alike began blaming the shooting of Rep. Giffords on “Tea Party hate” and the “violent rhetoric of the right.”

The false narrative was picked up by nearly every Old Media outlet and disgorged from their talking points sheets over and over again. It was days before everyone learned that the killer, one Jared Lee Loughner, had been stalking Giffords for several years before the tea party, Obamacare or Sarah Palin became national news.

In fact, killer Loughner was not interested in politics at all. He was just a sick-minded, lunatic that had a crazy infatuation with Rep. Giffords.

The media ultimately stopped bandying about its discredited theory that the shooting was spurred by conservatives, the tea party and Gov. Palin, but no apologies were ever uttered by the spinmeisters in the press.

At least we thought that the discredited theory that the Giffords shooting was the fault of conservatives had disappeared. Now, with Sawyer’s new interview, we are once again treated to scenes of tea partiers unhappy at townhall meetings in the days before the shooting. We also get a brief scene of Gov. Palin addressing a crowd. So, once more we are visited with the lie that conservatives are at fault for Giffords shooting. Sawyer didn’t say so directly, of course. She’s too slick for that. But by showing tea partiers, conservatives, and Palin and painting them as a hostile force against Giffords, Sawyer was obviously linking them to the crime. Sawyer slyly floated irate conservatives as the reason the “atmosphere” of the days before her shooting were so filled with portent of the dangers to come.

Only it’s all a lie. The tea party, the dislike the nation has for Obamacare (which is still extant, by the way), and the political activism of Governor Sarah Palin had precisely nothing to do with Giffords’ shooting. Giffords was in Jared Lee Loughner’s gunsights regardless of the political situation in the country in the days leading up to his crime.

In fact, if the left insists on playing this blame game and politicizing tragedy, it is more sensible to blame Obama and Democrats for the enflamed political environment then and now. Such levels of vitriol didn’t exist until Obama and Democrats rammed Obamacare through Congress. Dispensing with our proper legislative process, the Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and President Obama pushed through a bill that was not actually even written, a bill we had to “pass to know what is in it.” In fact, it is a bill that still has high unfavorables that run across party lines.

That Giffords’ shooting is not the Democrat’s fault should go without saying. The enflamed political environment had nothing at all to do with the crime committed that January morning. Democrats aren’t at fault for it. Certainly, neither are tea partiers, conservatives, anti-Obamacare activists, or Governor Sarah Palin.

The report is not without its nearly tear inducing moments, though. It is heartwarming to see Rep. Giffords on the road to recovery. It is wonderful to see her speaking clearly, even if she is sometimes reaching for the right words. Sadly, Diane Sawyer sullies these wonderful moments by bringing into her report an biased statement against conservatives. But despite Diane Sawyer’s best efforts at further inciting partisan ill will, Giffords’ pluck and determination shines brightly through. That is the triumph.

Alter

Alter put on his strongest rose-colored glasses and penned an uproarious piece headlined: “The Obama Miracle, a White House Free of Scandal.”

In his Bloomberg piece Alter claimed that Obama is “honest” and falsely asserted that his White House has been “free of scandal.” In fact, some of the incidents that Alter himself notes, and immediately dismisses, carry at least a whiff of scandal — if not untruthfulness.

Naturally, Alter ignores far more than he reports on Obama scandals but he also misses the biggest reason why Obama seems to him to have a scandal free presidency. The Media refuses to call anything Obama does a scandal!

After all, if you have a guy that wantonly lies, that double deals, that hides facts, that also allows subordinates to lie and that fellow is allowed to just get away with it without repercussion from journalists, I guess that makes for a “scandal free” guy, eh?

Alter’s first attempt to give succor to Obama’s failing presidency comes with a baseless swipe at “the whole” Republican Party.

The sight of Texas Governor Rick Perry tumbling out of the clown car recently as a “birther” (or at least a birther- enabler) is a sign of weakness, not just for the Perry campaign but for the whole Republican effort to tarnish the president’s character.

This is a false premise. It assumes that “the whole” Republican Party is using birtherism to “tarnish the president’s character.” This is a flat out untruth. Only a small portion of the center right polity in America has any interest in Obama’s birth certificate. Alter’s attempt to make the whole of the GOP into birthers is simply baseless.

Next, Alter dismisses the Solyndra scandal as meaningless. I guess if you don’t think its a touch scandalous when you have millions upon millions of tax dollars going into the pockets of buddies who turn around and go bankrupt almost immediately, well, what can you say to that?

Alter also dismisses both Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s tax evasion and Obama’s firing of Ag. Dept. official Shirley Sherrod without knowing what she really did. Then Alter makes the silly claim that Obama’s stimulus spending was free of any waste or abuse — the latter claim is laughable on its face. Have you ever heard of a government spending program that had no waste at all?

Just this week, for instance, it was discovered that so-called stimulus money went to fund federal healthy eating advertisements instead of actually going to stimulate the economy as Obama claimed it was for.

Is that not waste or fraud?

Alter then admits that we might be missing some scandals because of failure of the Old Media to uncover them. While Alter does seem to acknowledge that the Old Media might be ignoring real scandals — ones he is unaware of — he absurdly ascribes that failure to newsroom budget cuts and the demise of the Office of Independent Counsel (a ready source of scandal for lazy reporters past). He doesn’t even bother wondering if it might be reporter’s ideology that prevents the reportage of Obama scandals.

Like the biased left-winger he is, he also blames Fox News for apparently inventing partisan political commentary. I guess he’s never seen ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, or MSNBC, for that matter.

There ends Alter’s “analysis.” We are left wondering why Alter didn’t mention the fact that Obama’s close personal friend and Attorney General Eric Holder is stonewalling Congress over Obama’s arming of Mexican narco-terrorists with his Operation Fast and Furious, a program that has so far killed at least two American officials and hundreds of Mexicans. As long as we are on Eric Holder, why doesn’t Alter think it is a scandal that Obama decided not to prosecute the criminals of the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation when they stood in front of polling places in 2008 brandishing weapons at white voters?

One also wonders how Obama can be considered “honest” when he said if you like your doctor, you could keep him when his plan clearly means to eliminate everyone’s private insurance policies? How can Obama still be “honest” when he said he wanted to end private insurance, then claimed he never said it? Why is Obama not dishonest for pretending he wants to make energy costs affordable when he fully intended to make the cost of electricity “necessarily skyrocket“?

We are also left wondering why Alter missed Obama’s recent lie that he’s fulfilled “60% of his campaign promises,” when even a left-wing news paper says it’s closer to 39%. Then there is his lie that he wouldn’t hire lobbyists for his administration when he’s hired dozens of them.

But I guess it’s hard for Alter to hear of scandals when he is standing there with his fingers in his ears screaming “la, la, la, la” at the top of his lungs. But his fawning, slavish devotion to Obama the “honest” President “free of scandal” is not much different than the fawning from the rest of his Old Media comrades.

—–

In a single year, health care premium costs have jumped 9% and nowhere in this report does the NBC Nightly News bother to look at the reasons why. All they appear to be doing is trying to scare people … right into the arms of the federal government and ObamaCare.

Furthermore, at no time does NBC even float the idea that maybe, just maybe, the very idea of ObamaCare – the inevitable burdens, costs and mandates just a year or so away  – might have something to do with this jump in the cost of premiums.

My favorite part of the report, however, is when they announce that 31% of those covered by health insurance pay the first thousand dollars of their health care costs out of their own pocket.

Well, gasp and egads.

As far as I’m concerned, out-of-pocket costs are mostly a good thing. And I say that as someone who regularly pays upwards of  $10,000 a year in co-pays and deductibles. But as someone who puts the well-being of his country over his own selfish interests, I realize that one component in bringing down the artificially-inflated cost of  health care is to have the customers incentivized to shop around a little bit — create something along the lines of a free market atmosphere. As things stand now, there’s no benefit to doing that because insurance pays for everything. But if, for instance, you have to pay for your own MRI, you might actually make a few phone calls.

Why is it that every other technology in America gets cheaper by the year, but not health care?  Computers, televisions, and DVD players are all so ridiculously cheap today that welfare recipients own them. Moreover, some health care actually is getting cheaper. Lasik eye surgery is much more affordable than it was a decade ago. So is plastic surgery. The reason for this is that most insurance companies don’t cover these procedures which forces providers (who face the same red tape and malpractice costs) to compete for customers.

That’s the beauty of the market at work. An MRI, however, remains outrageously expensive. Why? Because health insurance removes the market incentive. There’s also the odious trial lawyer lobby blocking legal reform and the crushing burden of  government red tape EVERYWHERE.

But does NBC even bother to look at WHY there’s this rise in premium costs? No. Obviously, they’re afraid of what they might discover – and worse, what they might have to pass on to their viewers. So instead, at the very end of their report, they pretend that ObamaCare has nothing to do with any of this because it hasn’t really kicked in yet. The dishonest message being: Don’t blame Our Precious One and ObamaCare might just make it all better!   

Worse still, the entire tone and subtext of this report is modulated to make it sound as though paying for your own health care is some kind injustice. It’s also fear-mongering and borderline hysterical.

Remember, Leftists like NBC News never let a crisis go to waste.