Vocal Minority

Liberal Media Bias: Newsweek Is Just So ... Newsweek

Remember this pathetic Newsweek cover story from a few weeks ago?

 

Just when you thought this left-wing rag couldn’t become any more of a sad caricature of itself, they surprise you:

 

The Thinking Man's Thinking Man? How about the Con Man's Con Man?

Robocop at Angry White Dude has some more select words:

The Thinking Man’s Thinking Man??? Just what the hell is that supposed to mean when you are referring to an absolute dunce???

The story is titled, “The Evolution of an Eco-Prophet”. An Eco-Prophet? So, they make up titles for him just like he makes up his “Junk Science”. Perhaps they should try just a moment of truth and use a more accurate title, “The Evolution of a Lying Eco-Profiteer”.

Get your spew bag ready … this is just more of the “Main Stream Media” being a bitch for the extreme leftist, socialist agenda of the demonrats and this Gorey buffoon. The tripe cover story is another love fest of the media whores being pimped by the sleazy “Inventor of the Internet” for his boundless ego and his shameless profiteering. Read it and you will feel slimy … guaranteed.

Stop the madness. Think for yourself. Get the real facts from real scientists who are experts in the field of climatology. Then you decide why anyone should listen to this fraud and wonder why people continue to line his pockets with gold.

Here here!

On a similar note, here's the latest from Zack R. at the infamous Diversity Lane:

Around the Web in 80 Minutes (11/3/09)

My favorite articles of the day …

On today’s closely-followed elections:

November 3, 2009 | USA Today
Don’t bury GOP yet: Prophecies of party’s demise this election are way overdone.
By Jonah Goldberg

After Obama’s presidential election, a cottage industry of punditry sprang up to forge a new conventional wisdom. It goes something like this: The Republican Party has been discredited by the Bush presidency, congressional scandals and overspending. Worse, it is “out of touch” due to the stranglehold of knuckle-dragging, troglodytic, Bible-thumping, gun-nuts and greedy capitalists. Confronted with the divine light of Obama, these hissing conservatives must scurry to the shadows like vampires fearful of the burning rays of the sun. The only chance for Republican survival is to embrace moderation, compromise and, in some cases, what Barry Goldwater called “me-too Republicanism.” Whatever the merits of this advice, two things are now quite clear.

First, most conservatives and Republicans have next to no desire to follow it. And, second, it looks like they’re right not to.

The Virginia contest alone shows that much of this talk about “moderates” vs. “extremists” or “pragmatists” vs. “ideologues” within the GOP was nonsense.

McDonnell is socially and economically very conservative, but he has dominated the race by focusing on mainstream issues such as transportation, taxes and the economy. Meanwhile, Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have been working overtime to recast the Democrats as big spenders more committed to an ideological agenda than setting the country right. As a result, independents — the same voters who delivered the election for Obama — are now flocking to the Republicans. McDonnell beats Democrat Creigh Deedsamong independents by 2-1.

The best illustration of the conservative comeback is the special election for the 23rd congressional district in New York (a district Obama carried in 2008). Before last Saturday, the race was being cast a “civil war” on the right because many conservatives were supporting not the Republican nominee, Dierdre Scozzafava, but Doug Hoffman, a Republican who switched to theConservative Party ticket when he failed to get the nomination. Scozzafava is a very liberal, pro-choice Republican, the sort of candidate the conventional wisdom says the right must embrace to stay relevant. Hoffman is a mainstream conservative. On Saturday, Scozzafava dropped out of the race because Hoffman was crushing her in the polls. Most tellingly, it was Hoffman’s support among independents that gave him the advantage.

There’s more than one way to read all of this. Independents might just want to be a counterweight to the Democratic Party’s lurch to the left. Corzine and Deeds might just be lousy candidates in a bad economy.

All of that’s true. But it’s also true that the GOP is not much interested in becoming a Democrat-lite party, and it seems voters don’t want it to, either.

On government-run health (s)care:

November 3, 2009 | Real Clear Politics
The “Costs” of Medical Care
By Thomas Sowell

… There is a fundamental difference between reducing costs and simply shifting costs around, like a pea in a shell game at a carnival. Costs are not reduced simply because you pay less at a doctor’s office and more in taxes—or more in insurance premiums, or more in higher prices for other goods and services that you buy, because the government has put the costs on businesses that pass those costs on to you.

Costs are not reduced simply because you don’t pay them. It would undoubtedly be cheaper for me to do without the medications that keep me alive and more vigorous in my old age than people of a similar age were in generations past.

Letting old people die would undoubtedly be cheaper than keeping them alive—but that does not mean that the costs have gone down. It just means that we refuse to pay the costs. Instead, we pay the consequences. There is no free lunch.

Providing free lunches to people who go to hospital emergency rooms is one of the reasons for the current high costs of medical care for others. Politicians mandating what insurance companies must cover is another free lunch that leads to higher premiums for medical insurance—and fewer people who can afford it.

Despite all the demonizing of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies or doctors for what they charge, the fundamental costs of goods and services are the costs of producing them.

If highly paid chief executives of insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies agreed to work free of charge, it would make very little difference in the cost of insurance or medications. If doctors’ incomes were cut in half, that would not lower the cost of producing doctors through years of expensive training in medical schools and hospitals, nor the overhead costs of running doctors’ offices.

What it would do is reduce the number of very able people who are willing to take on the high costs of a medical education when the return on that investment is greatly reduced and the aggravations of dealing with government bureaucrats are added to the burdens of the work. …

Jewish World Review | Nov. 3, 2009
A Society that Venerates Lawyers More than Doctors
By Dennis Prager

… Nothing better illustrates the reorientation — indeed, the transformation — of values that will take place if the Democrats’ health care legislation is passed. Thanks to trial lawyer/Democratic influence, for decades, we have been moving in the direction of litigation-based society. But with a Democratic health care bill, the movement will accelerate exponentially.

Much of our money, our innovation, our creativity and our ingenuity will gravitate from medicine to law. …

No rational person argues that society doesn’t need law or lawyers, or that all lawyers, even trial lawyers, do no good. That is certainly not what is being argued here.

But it does say something about a society when those who sue physicians and hospitals make as much or more money than those who heal disease. It says something about a society when it glorifies and rewards those who litigate while it demonizes and punishes those who produce the drugs and devices that keep its citizens alive and well.

This is part of the upside-down world the left is bequeathing to us and our children in the name of health care “reform.”

On the Leftocracy’s continued pile-up on Rush Limbaugh:

American Thinker | November 02, 2009
The Vilification of Rush
By Kenneth L. Hutcherson

[NB: Ken “Hutch” Hutcherson is a former NFL player, a pastor, and an African-American. - ETR]

... The Minority Thought Pattern is aimed at destroying America, at rending the very fabric that makes America great. The Minority Thought Pattern denies the greatness, honor, bravery, courage, humility, and sacrifice that has brought us the power to be the greatest nation that has ever existed. The Minority Thought Pattern has a mission to undermine and redefine every characteristic of America, maintaining that it is a nation based on greed, cowardice, selfishness, and a lack of genuine humility. The Minority Thought Pattern is the reason for all the apologies to the rest of the world for how bad American is, coming even from our top leader. …

This is extremely personal to me. It’s about a friend. When I look at Rush, I don’t see a white man; I see a friend. I don’t see a talk show host (a very famous talk show host); I see a friend, and friendship overrides color and political stances. I don’t see a controversial figure, but a man whose heart and thoughts I know, and a man who is not a racist.

I believe with all my heart that minorities, especially African-Americans, will never be free until they stop allowing people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to insist they adopt the mentality of victims. Likewise, they will not be free until they take the next bold step: start thanking God for America, and stop condemning the white male.

It is time for America to reject the Minority Thought Pattern and the hateful campaign against Rush Limbaugh.

On Obama’s dithering in Afghanistan and photo-op at Dover AFB:

American Thinker | November 01, 2009
O isn’t dithering on Afghanistan! It’s a Harvard Law Seminar!
By James Lewis

… Why would Obama be any better informed than the rest of the Left? He’s swallowed the Party Line for decades. He never has an original thought when it comes to liberalism; he memorized it when he was a kid, and by gum, it’s still exactly the same as it was decades ago. So he must have gulped down the whole peacenik delusion wholesale. And now a Divine Providence with a highly developed sense of irony has made him Commander in Chief.

After all, what does a Chicago pol have to really know about national security? Nothing. Chicago pols don’t even know about school security on the South Side. If they did, the schools would be much more peaceful. In New York City, it took Rudy Giuliani to clean up crime because generations of liberal mayors couldn’t figure it out. If they can’t run safe schools, what can they know about keeping peace on a global scale? When Obama and Bill Ayers got together on that Chicago inner-city program for fixing schools and buying votes, the best he came up with was a “jazz curriculum.” That’s the Dixiecrat solution for African-American education. It is disrespectful to parents and children of any race. …

George W. Bush accepted six years of foaming rage from the yapping Left with good grace. I think he could shrug it off because he understood what was important and what was merely self-serving. The Bush family has a record of solid values. Dad still jumps out of airplanes at 85. George W. Bush used to visit privately with wounded soldiers and their families, and go to see the dead coming home. Real tears are private. Bill Clinton had Hollywood photo ops in Normandy. …

On the latest from the “Religion of Peace”:

November 02, 2009 | World Net Daily
‘Everyone hates Jews,’ declares Islamic cleric
By Aaron Klein

JERUSALEM – Trees, animals and non-Jewish athletes despise Jews, declared an Egyptian cleric on his country’s television network.

“People hate (Jews). They don’t like them. We are not talking only about people. [The same goes] even for trees and animals,” stated Egyptian cleric Amin Al-Ansari on a program two weeks ago that aired on Egypt’s Al-Rahma satellite network. …

“The proof is that the Prophet Muhammad said that when Judgment Day draws near, the final war between the Muslims and the Jews will take place. The Prophet said that the Muslims would kill the Jews. ‘Judgment Day will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them,’“ declared Al-Ansari.

He added, citing from a hadith, a collection of the sayings of Muhammad: “The Muslims will kill the Jews. Be patient. All the trees and all the stones will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him – except for the Gharqad tree.’ Only one kind of tree will not call [the Muslims]. It is the Gharqad tree.”

On man-made global warming climate change:

November 3, 2009 | U.K. Telegraph
Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire

Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world's first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.

On liberal media bias:

November 3, 2009 | NewsBusters
USA Today Defines Sycophantic Media in Front Page Homage to Obamas
By Brent Baker

… USA Today’s Mimi Hall and Maria Puente gushed in a front page story on Tuesday marking a year since President Obama’s election, “With cultural ‘flair,’ Obamas updating first family’s image.” The two reporters began by describing Barack and Michelle Obama as just like any other hip couple:

He carries a smartphone on his hip, goes out for burgers and plays pickup hoops. She goes to their daughters’ soccer games, works in the garden and loves listening to her iPod. Together, they host poets, artists and musicians at their house and invite neighborhood kids to drop by.

The journalistic duo soon featured this glowing assessment: “‘The Obamas’ White House is the most open for cultural and intellectual activities since the Kennedy administration,’ says Douglas Brinkley, author and presidential historian at Rice University in Houston. ‘It’s not simply a matter of doing events of statecraft and cultural gravitas. They have a great flair for American pop culture.’”

November 02, 2009 | TimesWatch
‘The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York.’
By Clay Waters

Though he’s predicting Democrats will prevail in the end, former theatre critic turned over-dramatic liberal columnist Frank Rich sounded even more skittish than usual in his pre-election column in the Sunday Week in Review, “The G.O.P. Stalinists Invade Upstate New York.”

Barack Obama’s most devilish political move since the 2008 campaign was to appoint a Republican congressman from upstate New York as secretary of the Army. This week’s election to fill that vacant seat has set off nothing less than a riotous and bloody national G.O.P. civil war. No matter what the results in that race on Tuesday, the Republicans are the sure losers. This could be a gift that keeps on giving to the Democrats through 2010, and perhaps beyond.

Have a blessed day!

Profiles in Liberal Ignorance, Hate, and Intolerance: Frank Rich

President Hope&Change must get on his knees every day and thank goodness for his submissive sycophants in the mainstream media. Consider — the current president is a veritable man of hoaxes:

Obama’s persona in the 2008 campaign of a moderate liberal who loves the Constitution, the country, and the capitalist system? Big fat freaking hoax.

Obama’s promise that he would be oversee a transparent government, end “business as usual” in Washington, and nuture bipartisanship? Big fat freaking hoax.

Obama’s promise to end animosity between the races, and unify a divided citizenry? Big fat freaking hoax.

Obama’s stimulus package, which he insisted needed to passed immediately in order to bring the U.S. economy “back from the brink,” create jobs, and keep unemployment from exceeding 8% or so? Big fat freaking hoax.

Obama’s health care plan, which he has promised wouldn’t squelch competition, be financially unsustainable, cover abortions, or phase out (i.e., kill) senior citizens? Big fat freaking hoax.

That’s five super-huge hoaxes just off the top of my head. And that’s just in nine months.

So when NY Times editorialist commented yesterday on the media-abetted “balloon boy” fiasco, what “hoax” does he dredge up? Here’s how:

Next to the other hoaxes and fantasies that have been abetted by the news media in recent years, both the “balloon boy” and Chamber of Commerce ruses are benign. The Colorado balloon may have led to the rerouting of flights and the wasteful deployment of law enforcement resources. But at least it didn’t lead the country into fiasco the way George W. Bush’s flyboy spectacle on an aircraft carrier helped beguile most of the Beltway press and too much of the public into believing that the mission had been accomplished in Iraq.

Let me get this straight. Above you have a litany of genuine hoaxes from the first nine months of this current president’s term staring Frank Rich right in the face, and he goes back six years to the media-overblown “Mission Accomplished” thing?

As Clay Waters at TimesWatch says: Nine months into Obama’s presidency, everything is still officially about Bush.

Professor William Jacobson, who blogs at Le•gal In•sur•rec•tion [h/t Patterico], quips:

I’ve been waiting patiently, armed with foresight that one of these days Bush Derangement Syndrome would work its way into the Balloon Boy hoax story.

And I’ve waited. And waited. It has been almost a week. My faith tested but not broken.

Thank you Frank. Mission accomplished. For both of us.

What a Class A schmuck this Rich guy is. And what does he mean by “beguile most of the Beltway press and too much of the public into believing that the mission had been accomplished in Iraq”? I don’t recall a single media outlet or any prominent figure who believed that President Bush’s appearance on that ship meant the mission had been accomplished in Iraq. On the contrary, the media, led by liberal hacks with a word processor like Rich, endlessly mocked Bush.

Not even Bush believed that when he stood on the U.S.S. Abrahama Lincoln on May 1, 2003 that the mission had been accomplished in Iraq. Here he is in his own words [bolds are mine]:

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq.

The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on. …

According to his own statements, Bush certainly wasn’t a hoax that our mission in Iraq has been accomplished, only that major combat was completed. This message was echoed by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. No one in the administration gave the least bit impression that our work was done and that all our troops can now leave.

So who invented the hoax that Bush’s U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln speech meant the mission was accomplished in Iraq? Liberal mainstream media types like Frank Rich! For instance, here he is perpetuating the hoax on November 9, 2003:

Ah, the dazzling pyrotechnics of "shock and awe." The finality of the toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue. The thrill of that re-enactment of "Top Gun." The sense of closure provided by the banner reading "Mission Accomplished." Like all wars of the TV age, the war in Iraq is not just a clash of armies, but a succession of iconic images. Those who control the images, and the narratives they encapsulate, control history. At least until a new reality crashes in.

In fact, a search of the NY Times archives yields 58 pieces in which Frank Rich perpetuated the hoax that Bush’s speech meant “mission accomplished.”

Frank Rich must believe that axiom of propaganda that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes truth.

What a pathetic excuse for a journalist and a human being.

"Operation: Can You Hear Us Now?" Starts Today

World Net Daily has the scoop on today and tomorrow’s Tea Partying insurgency on the country’s willfully blind Obamedia:

 

SOMETHING IN THE AIR

It’s T-Day for Obama ‘Minion Media’
Taxpayers rally outside more than 100 press offices
October 16, 2009 | By Chelsea Schilling

American taxpayers are e-mailing and fax-blasting mainstream media and preparing to storm press offices and stations from Maui, Hawaii, to Atlanta, Ga. – and more than 100 locations in between – this Friday and Saturday.

They are protesting mainstream media bias and a news blackout of the growing movement against Obama administration policies.

An organizer who goes by the name “Thomas Paine,” told WND he became fed up with the media after he noticed the press ignored nearly 1 million protesters as they descended on Washington, D.C., on Sept. 12.

“I surfed al the channels looking for the big story on the D.C. march and found none – save Fox News,” he said. “I was infuriated. How can anyone who calls themself a journalist ignore this?”

He came up with the idea for “Operation: Can You Hear Us Now?” More than 100 media protests across the nation are set to take place this weekend. Nearly 9,500 fans have flocked to a Facebook page for the event.

Tea partiers in New York are set to march to offices of CBS, CNN, NBC/MSNBC, Fox News and ABC News. A New York march route has been posted online.

I’m right with you guys! Give ‘em heck!

Liberal Stupid-Ass Comment: WH Communications Director Anita Dunn Disses Fox News

So much for “changing the tone in Washington.” After all, even Nobel “Peace” Prize winner President Golden Calf admits he’s essentially all talk and no action.

In a despicable, arrogant, and rather hypocritical display today, White House communications director (whatever the hell that is) Anita Dunn delegitimized the Fox News Channel as a bona fide news station. Among the gems shared by her with CNN’s Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz (h/t: Breitbart, via Mediaite]:

Let’s be realistic here, Howie, they’re widely viewed as a part of the Republican party: Take their talking points, put ‘em on the air. Take their opposition research, put ‘em on the air. And that’s fine, but let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.

The reality of it is FOX News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party.... What I think is fair to say about FOX, and certainly the way we view it, is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party.

When [Democrat Chris Wallace] goes on FOX he understands he's not going on it really as a news network at this point. He's going on to debate the opposition, and that's fine. He never minds doing that.

You just can’t make this up, folks. It’s so hypocritical, given the fact that the alphabet networks, MSNBC, and CNN have been so overtly cheerleaders for anything pro-liberal/Democrat and particularly pro-Obama.

ABC, which gave Obama free publicity with his three-day infomercial on government-run health (s)care, is evidently a legitimate news network.

MSNBC, lined up from daytime to nighttime with overtly gaga-for-Obama liberal Democrats, is evidently a legitimate news network.

CNN, which actually fact-checked a Saturday Night Live skit teasing President Golden Calf, is evidently a legitimate news network.

CBS, who had to fire its star anchor for reporting fake documents as real for the specific purpose of destroying a sitting Republican president just weeks before an election, is evidently a legitimate news network.

And so on and so forth.

It’s one thing for liberal hacks from these stations to back the right. We’re used to that by now.

But for a White House representative to do it? This should chill the bones of anyone who loves liberty, free speech, and the free exchange of ideas.

Mary at Freedom Eden makes this valid point:

Dunn has just made the case for how important FOX News is as a watchdog on Obama and the U.S. government.

Indeed. Accuse me of reading too much between the lines, but this woman is dangerous. She’s an authoritarian and she’s power-hungry. She’s an enemy of free speech and an enemy of liberty. Like the rest of the Obama’s band of merry men and women. And the president himself.

Liberal Media Bias: How Does the Guardian Really Feel About Israeli Nobel Winners?

Melanie Phillips at the Spectator reports [h/t Mark Steyn]:

Here is a little quiz. The [U.K.] Guardian has posted up a list here of everyone who has won the Nobel Peace Prize since its inception.

Q: Which three names are omitted from the Guardian list (even though they do appear on the Nobelprize.org list which the Guardian has purportedly reproduced)?***

A: Menachem Begin, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin.

And what is the common link between these three names? Precisely.

It appears someone at the Guardian actually went to the effort of removing the names of the three Israeli statesmen who won the prize. Facts are sacred?

Here’s a further curiosity. If you look at the years 1978 and 1994, although the Guardian has air-brushed out the names of Begin, Peres and Rabin it has apparently added in the name of their country, Israel, which is given in a neighbouring column—thus managing to suggest that Sadat and Arafat represented Israel along with Egypt and ‘Palestine’ in winning the prize in those years. So what happend? Did the hand typing in the name of the country accidentally hit the keys three times so that the names that went with it were coincidentally all deleted?

Tsk—standards of censorship on Planet Bigotry are clearly slipping.

***Update, 1650: Lo and behold, the three Israeli names have now been added to the Guardian list.

Oh well, that’s better. Must’ve been an innocent oversight …

Liberal Media Bias: Bloomberg Makes Up Own Headline on Public ObamaCare Support

Today a Bloomberg headline blared:

Voters Back Obama Over Republicans on Health Care, Poll Finds

Except that’s not what the Quinnipiac poll cited therein shows. The poll actually shows 47% opposing Obamacare and only 40% approving. Whoops.

And notice how the headline sneakily pits “Obama vs. Republicans”? The issue should be yes vs. no on government-run health (s)care, not Obama vs. Republicans. Unless you’re trying to be … oh, what’s that word the left is always calling the right? … oh yeah, divisive.

That’s the Obamedia for ya. When the facts don’t suit you, make up the headline — and make it really big too, hoping readers decide they’ve seen enough and don’t read the column.

Gateway Pundit asks: “Could the media be any more in the tank for these guys? Honestly.”

Probably. Every time you think the Obamedia can’t skew the news any more pathetically, they surprise you.

GP also refers us to this Pew Research poll (via Hot Air) from today which shows 47% opposing ObamaCare and only 34% supporting.

No wonder the latest polls (e.g., here and here) show the public’s trust in the mainstream news media at the lowest level in years.

Liberal Hypocrisy: Paul Krugman Accuses GOP of Unprincipled Spiteful Opposition to Obama

Rarely does such an example appear that so brilliantly illustrates why Projection is one of the two official defense mechanisms of the Democrat Party (the other is Denial). The other day, NY Times editorialist (and, somehow, Economics Nobel Prize laureate) penned a piece accusing Republicans of automatically opposing any policy, action, or statement made by President Obama simply out of spite. He even suggested they do so even at the expense of the good of the country. The piece starts:

The Politics of Spite
October 5, 2009

If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it whether or not it’s good for America.

I almost fell out of my chair. Is this rich or is this rich?

First, let’s tackle the problem that exists in the present tense: Barack Obama’s policies—economic and otherwise—are disastrous for this republic on every historical and empirical scale. Only in the liberal bubble in which knee-jerk Marxist-socialists like Paul Krugman reside could such a blatant fact be so elusive. And only in such a liberal bubble could Krugman see Republicans’ opposition to Obama’s policy as playing politics. If Krugman sees nothing principled in Republican opposition to Obama’s economic plans, maybe he should return that Nobel Prize in economics.

But now let’s leave the present tense and analyze Krugman fourth-dimensionally. Here’s a liberal Democrat New York Times writer accusing Republicans of opposing the president simply because he’s from the other party. Only someone who has lived on a deserted island from 2000 to the present would not be aware that this is exactly what Democrats did to George W. Bush.

Legitimacy of Bush’s election: Liberals/Democrats rejected just because it was Bush.

Tax cuts: Liberals/Democrats opposed just because it was Bush.

Social Security reform: Liberals/Democrats opposed just because it was Bush.

Initial response to 9/11: When they weren’t milking the My Pet Goat angle, Liberals/Democrats supported Bush for about a week, when the country was united and he was getting like a 90% approval rating. But the second it became politically expedient, Liberals/Democrats opposed just because it was Bush.

War in Afghanistan: Liberals/Democrats opposed just because it was Bush. Yes, there were those who claimed to support Afghanistan, insisting it was necessary and legitimate but Iraq distracted us from it have now been exposed as liars. This includes Obama himself, who has shown virtually no interest in Afghanistan, even as troops are being killed at a rate higher than any time since the U.S. went in there in 2001. The lib media? Couldn’t care less about Iraq, Afghanistan, or dead troops.

War in Iraq: Need I even say it?

Patriot Act: Liberals/Democrats opposed just because it was Bush.

No Child Left Behind: Liberals/Democrats opposed just because it was Bush, except for Ted Kennedy who worked with him on it. On all other issues, Kennedy was front and center in bashing Bush. (Even righties were against NCLB; it was just a bad, albeit well-intentioned, piece of legislation.)

Spiteful opposition of Bush at the expense of the security and prosperity of the country: Hmm, let’s see …

• leaking classified information on the front page of the NY Times on several occasions
• propping up anyone who would undermine the war effort, from Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame to Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore to every author (even former administration members) who penned an anti-Bush book
• focusing on every military setback and “scandal” (e.g., Abu Ghraib, Club G’tmo, Haditha) and ignoring/dismissing/mocking every advancement (e.g., capture and ultimate execution of Saddam Hussein, several Iraqi elections)
• calling Bush (and Cheney) a liar who either planned or allowed 9/11 to happen in order to invade Iraq for a number of nefarious reasons
• bashing the troops, calling them stupid, uneducated, and even cold-blooded murderers

And so forth and so on.

Maybe someone can make the case Paul Krugman just wasn’t following what was going on during the Bush years and simply didn’t know that if George W. Bush said it, libs/Dems refuted it; if Bush proposed it, libs/Dems opposed it; if Bush believed it, libs/Dems rejected it.

But that case would not hold water. Because obviously Krugman knew about the Bash Bush at Any Cost contingent; he was part it. Consider these editorials:

Reckonings; Jerking The Other Knee   January 21, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column sees incoming Bush administration reflecting knee-jerk conservatism …

Reckonings; Et Tu, Alan?   January 28, 2001
Op-Ed column by Paul Krugman says Alan Greenspan’s most recent testimony before Senate Budget Committee was evasive and often inconsistent; says Greenspan was out of bounds when he voiced his favor for tax cuts over spending increases; says it is not Federal Reserve’s business to support tax cut over spending for government program; says it is disburbing that man who is usually clear thinker tied himself in intellectual knots to find way to say exactly what Pres Bush wants to hear.

Reckonings; Smog and Mirrors   January 31, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column contends that Pres Bush is trying to dispel doubts about his legitimacy when he blames pollution controls for California energy crisis and uses crisis to argue for opening Arctic tundra to oil drilling; asserts that that by winning series of striking victories against moderates Bush hopes he can create an ‘illusion of a mandate’ that the election did not give him.

Reckonings; Guns And Bitterness   February 4, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says Pres Bush is betraying campaign promises on Medicare and military spending in name of tax cuts; recalls that military personnel overwhelmingly supported Bush, believing they had understanding that he would quickly expand defense spending; adds that Bush administration refuses to rule out raiding Medicare funds to support tax cut

Reckonings; Bums and Rushes   February 7, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column on Pres Bush’s call for immediate, even retroactive, tax cuts as ‘bum’s rush’ that would run skeptics out of town before they can make their case; warns of tactic that Bush’s people clearly like, as when they use California’s electricity crisis to ‘hustle through’ weakening of environmental protections

Reckonings; Slicing The Salami   February 11, 2001
Paul Krugman column explains that selling of Pres Bush’s tax cut relies heavily on ‘salami’ tactic of slicing away opposition bit at a time; analyzes ‘whole salami’ of three basic federal taxes on individuals

Reckonings; Doing the Wrong Thing   February 14, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column scores Federal Reserve Chmn Alan Greenspan’s failure to try to curb tax-cutting frenzy he helped inspire

Reckonings; Fowl Play   February 21, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column suggests that George W Bush, who likes to bestow nicknames, call himself Chicken Little, for running around saying ‘The sky is falling! Hurry up and pass my tax cut!’; points out that economic data do not support such gloomy views, except for consumer confidence, which seems to be plunging in direct relation to dire headlines

Reckonings; Debt and Taxes   February 28, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says Pres George W Bush’s tax cut is irresponsible; says federal government is running large budget surpluses right now, but most of that comes from Social Security and Medicare, which must run surpluses now, while baby boomers are still paying into them, if we are to avoid either sharp tax increase or sharp benefits cuts when boomers retire; says Bush’s proposal to divert part of Social Security taxes into new personal acccounts for younger workers would further reduc...

Reckonings; Bashing the Boomers   March 7, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says middle-income baby boomers will be among victims of Pres George W Bush’s budget and tax plan since he intends to ‘raid’ the funds that were supposed to support boomers’ retirement; says Social Security and Medicare were expected to accumulate almost $3 trillion in reserves over next decade, and Bush proposes to divert about $1 trillion into other uses; holds that without those reserves, Medicare will be in trouble in next decade and Social Security a bit later, bu...

Reckonings; The Money Pit   March 18, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column warns that Pres Bush’s so-called trillion-dollar tax cut is more likely to cost a lot more, and is likely to become a $2.5 trillion tax cut; holds estimates have exploded because original estimates were dishonest

Reckonings; The Hostage Economy   March 28, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says George W Bush’s tax cut plan is virtually useless as short-run economic stimulus; says plan delays big tax cut far into future, putting hardly any money into hands of consumers this year and not much next year; says better approach is to implement one of short-term stimulus plans proposed by Democrats, and hope that Bush’s strategy of using slowdown to press Congress into passing tax cut mainly benefiting the rich will miss its window of opportunity

Reckonings; The Levitating Dollar   April 1, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column discusses why United States dollar is still rising, even as everthing else about American economy is down lately: manufacturing, production, overall growth, and stocks

Reckonings; The Class Warrior   April 4, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column scores Pres Bush’s push to pass his tax cut quickly with minimal discussion; holds plan is even more tilted toward rich than previously thought because estate tax repeal would make it easier for rich to avoid income taxes

Reckonings; Two Untrue Things   April 8, 2001
Paul Krugman column says it is not enough to scale down Pres Bush’s tax plan because it is contrary to interests of great majority of Americans and has been sold under utterly false pretenses; rejects claim that there is enough money for cuts, and that cut is for ordinary families

Reckonings; Muddled in the Middle   April 11, 2001
Paul W Krugman Op-Ed column wonders what the heartland was thinking when it voted for George W Bush, who failed to tell them that promises to cut taxes and spending meant tax cuts for the urban elite and less money for farmers; points out that Bush’s budget punishes very people whose votes, as opposed to campaign contributions, put him in power; cites Montana, which is bigger recipient of federal money than New Jersey, and notes that nobody has found example of ‘family farm’ that actually has t...

Reckonings; The Farce Is With Us   May 6, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says two pages missing from House budget resolution only begin to suggest full dishonesty of Republican leadership as it pushes through huge tax cut before anyone has chance to look at details

Reckonings; The Unrefined Truth   May 9, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column disputes Vice Pres Dick Cheney’s intimation that high gas prices are result of shortage for which environmentalists are largely responsible; says conservation should be major element in our energy strategy, and that lack of conservation is large part of what we have been doing wrong; holds this year’s gasoline price spike has nothing to do with a shortage of crude oil and binding constraint right now is nation’s limited capacity to refine crude oil into gasoline; says ...

Reckonings; The Universal Elixir   May 16, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column examines campaign by Bush administration to sell huge tax-cut package; provides facetious schedule of progress of tax cut legislation in next few months

Reckonings; Burn, Baby, Burn   May 20, 2001
Who knew that Dick Cheney had such a sense of humor? He had us rolling in the aisles after the famous put-down in which he dismissed energy conservation as nothing more than a ‘‘sign of personal virtue.’’ But the joke got much better Thursday, with the release of the administration’s energy plan. Just for laughs, Mr. Cheney threw in a few mock conservation measures. Topping the list was a tax credit for -- get this -- people who purchase hybrid gas-electric cars.

Reckonings; The Big Lie   May 27, 2001
Paul Krugman column wonders whether new Democratic control of Senate will really make difference in efforts to fend off Pres Bush’s huge tax cut

Reckonings; Bad Heir Day   May 30, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says tax legislation passed by Congress and signed by Pres Bush is absurd, noting that one provision on estate taxes would create great temptation to kill off one’s parents before Jan 1, 2011, to save half one’s inheritance; says there are other ‘weird’ and ‘bizarre’ elements in tax plan, especially some provisions that are deferred well into the future; says that someday, responsible politicians will have to ‘untangle this mess’

Reckonings; Red Tide Rising   July 6, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says Senate moderates who voted for Bush administration tax cut were snookered into thinking that budget surpluses would continue; says nation will spend years paying for consequences of their gullibility; notes that only after Bush signed tax cut into law did White House officials admit that budget outlook is not rosy after all; says Congressional Budget Office’s projections next month will certainly mark revenues down; says from now on, prospect is for chronic budget...

Reckonings; Outside the Box   July 11, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column recalls Pres Bush’s solemn pledge that tax cuts would not be at expense of Social Security money, which would be kept in ‘lockbox’; reports that Bush takes some of his promises more seriously than others, pushing through big tax cuts for the rich and then discovering that lockbox is silly idea; quotes Mitch Daniels, director of Office of Management and Budget, saying, ‘box has nothing but promissory notes in it’

Reckonings; 2016 And All That   July 22, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column on draft report by commission on Social Security reform, appointed by Pres Bush; holds report is ‘sheer, mean-spirited nonsense’; deplores commission’s attempt to sow panic

Reckonings; Sins of Commission   July 25, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column scorns Pres Bush’s hand-picked commission for its ‘doublethink’ proposals on Social Security and for trying to have it both ways on how Social Security contribution dollars are used, or not used, by general treasury; debunks commission’s reasoning on trust fund

Reckonings; Rebate and Switch   July 29, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column mocks White House economist Lawrence Lindsey’s defense of Bush administration’s tax rebates

Reckonings; Feeling OPEC’s Pain   August 5, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column on Pres Bush’s expressions of sympathy for OPEC’s cause; suggests that his heart belongs to people, of whatever nationality, who sell oil

Reckonings; Nothing For Something   August 8, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column contends that Bush administration is not interested in realistic proposal for privatizing Social Security but intends to promote private accounts with false advertising and promise of something for nothing; says administration is equally uninterested in realistic assessment of current Social Security system, and instead will attempt to convince people that huge surpluses of today somehow make no contribution to system’s future solvency

Reckonings; Delusions of Prosperity   August 14, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column on outlook for US economy; says excessive confidence may be part of problem causing current economic slowdown; says instead of being victims of self-fulfilling pessimism, we may be suffering from self-defeating optimism; says driving force in slowdown is plunge in business investment and that recovery will take more than simply trying to restore confidence

Reckonings; Enron Goes Overboard   August 17, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column on Enron Corp’s failed effort to become broker for wholesale electricity as deregulation spreadsd across United States; says state and local governments, alerted by what happened in California, are now wary of electricity deregulation, leaving fewer oportunities for Enron; notes that Bush administration’s faith in absolutely unregulated markets is unshaken in spite of debacle in California when it deregulated its electricity market

Reckonings; Fabricating A Crisis   August 21, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column accuses Bush administration of fabricating crisis over Social Security reform by building on notion that system must be destroyed in order to save it; says only serious threat to Social Security comes from those want to panic Americans into junking system, when all it needs are minor repairs

Reckonings; Pants On Fire   August 24, 2001
Op-Ed column by Paul Krugman, in form of open letter to Mitch Daniels of Office of Management and Budget; says Daniels’ claim that budget surplus has vanished because of Congressional big spending is bogus; notes that International Monetary Fund’s recent report points out that Pres Bush’s $1.35 trillion tax cut will actually cost at least $2.5 trillion; says fact is that money that was supposed to be accumulated to pay retirement benefits will be used instead to provide big tax cuts to very, ve...

Reckonings; That Sinking Feeling   August 26, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column scores likelihood that Bush administration will raid Social Security surplus; fears any temporary raid on surplus would become permanent

Reckonings; Truth And Lies   August 28, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says Pres Bush broke promise not to raid Social Security surplus to finance government programs; charges that Bush continues to lie about effect of ‘ill-advised’ $1.6 billion tax cut in negating budget surplus

Reckonings; Hold Him To It   September 9, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says Pres Bush must be held to his promises to protect Social Security surplus

Reckonings; Paying the Price   September 16, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says terrorist attacks on New York and Washington are partly self-inflicted because nation has not been willing to pay price of protecting itself, particularly at its airports; says spirit of the times was against anything that looked like increase in government spending unless it was explicitly military

Reckonings; What to Do   September 19, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says best way to help US economy survive terrorist attacks is not with tax cut, but with large, temporary increase in government spending

Reckonings; A Bad Week   September 23, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column assesses economic consequences of terrorist attacks on America; holds it up to government to ensure that America’s sorrow and nervousness do not turn into economic disaster; urges acceleration of flow of government spending into economy

Reckonings; Not a Fuels Errand   September 26, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column reports that as Sept 11 shock fades some old refrains are being heard, from left and right, about ‘war for oil’; explains that oil is part of background to terrorist attacks, via Osama bin Laden’s hatred of US forces in Saudi Arabia; says there is no way for now to escape awkward realitiy that Mideast oil reserves are crucial to world economy

Reckonings; The Hitchhiker Syndrome   September 30, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column on political phenomenon of the ‘hitchhikers,’ people who want to use patriotic bandwagon spurred by terrorist attacks as vehicle to promote their favorite economic and tax policy proposals; contends most vocal hitchhikers are conservative pundits; finds that Bush administration has been pretty good at rejecting hitchhiker strategy

Reckonings; The Public Interest   October 10, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column scorns conservative resistance to federalizing airport security to protect Americans from terrorists; observes that Bush administration, after flirting with moderation in weeks following Sept 11 attack, seems to have returned to its conviction that hard right, which is relentless and bears grudges, must be deferred to even in times of national crisis

Reckonings; Ban the Bonds   October 24, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column opposes creation of new class of war bonds to support nation’s war on terrorism as well as corporate tax cuts being pushed by House Republicans with blessing of Pres Bush

Reckonings; The One-Eyed Man   October 31, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column notes House-approved bill to repeal alternative minimum tax would give big refunds to medium-sized companies in energy and mining businesses that tend to be based in or near Texas; cites overlap between these companies and companies that would have gotten large subsidies under Vice Pres Dick Cheney’s energy plan; notes most made large, one-sided donations to Republican Party in last election; cites error in his Oct 24 column on war bonds

Reckonings; Making Windows Transparent   November 4, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column cites difficulty of finding good solutions to Microsoft Corp’s antitrust violations; holds proposed settlement with Justice Department might do some good

Reckonings; A Cross of Dollars   November 7, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column on Argentina’s looming economic catastrophe blames old-time economic religion, with narrow-minded insistence on monetary rectitude at expense of every other consideration; explains that since last spring conservative economists have urged Argentina to preserve its dollar peg and default on old debt instead, which is what is happening now; hopes Argentina will not sacrifice economy and credit rating on altar of discredited monetary theology

Reckonings; Another Useful Crisis   November 11, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column assesses Senate Republicans’ economic stimulus package, backed by Bush administration; holds bill offers little stimulus, and is mainly designed to lock in permament tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy

Reckonings; Other People’s Money   November 14, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says budgetary cost of war on terrorism, abroad and at home, is relatively small change, probably less than $200 billion; says much of projected $2.7 trillion Social Security surplus was gone before Sept 11, swallowed by Pres Bush’s tax cut last spring, and administration’s allies in Congress are now striving energetically to give away the rest in tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy individuals, thinking they can get away with it by blaming terrorism for future...

Reckonings; The 55-Cent Solution   November 21, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column scores Pres Bush for backing plan that would give New York only $11 billion of $20 billion in aid promised after Sept 11 terrorist attacks; questions why planned aid cut has gotten little attention; urges New Yorkers to express outrage

Reckonings; An Alternate Reality   November 25, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says television news always shows Americans behaving well in wake of terrorist attacks, but some Web sites and business sections of quality newspapers reveal a different picture: Congress voting billions in ‘lump-sum transfers’ to airlines but not a penny for laid-off airline workers, House ‘stimulus’ package that contains almost nothing for the unemployed but $25 billion in retroactive corporate tax cuts and Bush administration pressing for opening of public lands to ...

Hitting The Trifecta   December 7, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column likens Pres Bush’s tax and budget plans to Enron, company that used cooked numbers to justify big giveaways at top and then let ordinary workers pay the price; recalls how Bush used projections of vast budget surpluses to push through huge tax cut earlier in year, and now tells us, through budget director Mitch Daniels, that entire budget, not just portion outside Social Security, will be in deficit through 2004

Eleven And Counting   December 14, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed article says Federal Reserve has cut interest rates 11 times this year, and has yet to see results; says Fed chairman Alan Greenspan is partly to blame for this; says sudden return of federal deficits have had impact on long-term interest rates, and it was Greenspan who testified before Congress in January on behalf of large tax cuts; says Greenspan should concede that he gave Congress bad advice

A No-Win Outcome   December 21, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column on why economic stimulus package failed in Congress; compares original version of bill with later one to prove that Republicans did not ‘give a lot’ to get bill passed, as they claim; says question American people should ask is why Bush administration, given deadlock in Congress, did not push for minimalist package that would have been better than no deal at all; says such a package would not have lived up to hopes of administration strategists, who thought they could ...

The Scrooge Syndrome   December 25, 2001
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says United States has become Scrooge of Western world, least generous rich nation on planet; notes that Americans typically come up with 10 percent as appropriate amount of federal budget that should be devoted to foreign aid, about 20 times what US currently spends; says government should put its weight, and its dollars, behind World Health Organization proposal to provide basic services and medicines to world’s poor, plan that would save millions of lives each year ...

Could’ve Been Worse   December 28, 2001
Paul Krugman column reviewing economic policy in United States and abroad holds 2001 could have been worse; notes United States economy, while falling into recession, did not fall off cliff; hails farcial end to commission that was supposed to offer detailed plan to privatize Social Security

America The Polarized   January 4, 2002
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says economic polarization--the sharply widening inequality of income and wealth--is most likely source of political polarization, prompting Republicans, but not Democrats, to move to right; says response to rising inequality has been drive to reduce taxes on rich, thanks to campaign finance, lobbying, and general power of money to shape political debate; disagrees with commentators who expect that current partisanship is temporary aberration

The Quiet Man   January 8, 2002
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who gave Bush administration aid in its push for large tax cut year ago, is strangely silent now, as analysts agree that federal budget will be in deficit for at least next several years; says sudden plunge back into deficit undoes Greenspan’s own handiwork, but if Greenspan says anything now against tax cut he would have to admit, at least tacitly, that he was wrong last year; says if he worries about his reputation, he sh...

Our Wretched States   January 11, 2002
Op-Ed column by Paul Krugman says current condition of states is shape of national things to come; notes National Governors Assn reports its members face combined budget shortfall of at least $40 billion; attributes this to mostly Republican governors who used questionable budget forecasts to justify tax cuts for affluent; notes Bush administration used same strategy at national level in 2001; says selective tax cuts in states were cleared with forecasts that made no allowance for contingencies...

Crony Capitalism, U.S.A.   January 15, 2002
Paul Krugman Op-Ed column says Bush administration fears, and press suspects, that latest revelations in Enron affair will raise lid on crony capitalism, American style; says administration, with its sense of entitlement, seems unconcerned by even most blatant conflicts of interest; says real questions about Enron’s relationship with administration involve what happened before energy trader went bankrupt; says that is when Kenneth Lay, Enron’s chief executive, allegedly told head of Federal Ene...

Listed above is every editorial Krugman wrote in the first year of Bush’s presidency in which Bush (or Cheney) is mentioned. In every one Krugman opposes Bush. Note the main themes:

Tax cuts: Both the 2001 and later 2003 tax cuts helped the economy and boosted tax revenue a lot, yet Krugman adamantly opposed them. All you get is the incessant typical Marxist-socialist "Bush favors the rich at the expense of the poor" claptrap. Notice too how Krugman criticizes Bush for trying to rush the legislation through Congress without adequate discussion or consideration. Sound familiar?

Social Security: Eight years after Krugman based Bush for proposing reform, Social Security is still in serious danger of going bankrupt. Krugman adamantly opposed it.

9/11: Krugman blames the Bush administration for what they didn’t do to protect us from the terrorist attacks. Those who know the rest of story know Krugman then spent the next seven years bashing the administration for what they were doing to prevent future terrorist attacks.

Here are some more highlights: Notice the small post-9/11 stimulus package Bush approved in November, 2001. Guess what? Krugman opposed it! Then he accused Bush and the Republicans of concocting a fake crisis in order to get it passed. You can’t make up more hypocritcal stuff than this!

I find it interesting that in Krugman’s May 30, 2001 piece he claimed repealing the estate tax would "create great temptation to kill off one’s parents before Jan 1, 2011." This is the same guy who in 2009 mocks conservatives/Republicans for arguing ObamaCare will lead to death panels and pulling the plug on grandma.

So, just from the first year of the Bush presidency—before Iraq, when libs/Dems really had stuff to bash Bush about—you were hard-pressed to find one editorial in which Paul Krugman did not oppose George W. Bush, even at the detriment of the nation’s prosperity and security. 

If that’s not unprincipled, politically-motivated, spiteful opposition, I don’t know what is.

Paul Krugman, you’re a class-A hypocrite. A Democrat hack with a word processor. And your constantly rebuked Marxist-socialist approach to economics sucks.

Listen & Learn: El Rushbo Gets the Best Phone Call of His Career (9/30/09)

Listening to Rush’s show yesterday (September 30) was like a nightmare. With every infuriating story, I felt like a frog in slowly boiling water (with apologies to Glenn Beck). For two hours I listened just stunned at all the ways the Democrats nationwide were screwing this country up beyond recognition, throwing this Constitution of ours out the window, and stealing your freedom with every minute they meet.

The fascist Left is on the march, people. From state capitals to the U.S. Capitol and White House, the Democrat Party is in full-speed mode to steal your freedom in order to empower themselves and steal your money to enrich themselves.

Think I’m being hyperbolic? OK, for those of you who get your news from the miserably pathetic New York Times or one of the alphabet news channels, here’s what’s really been going on in this country:

First, Rush cites a WSJ report that the Bill Clinton library (and massage parlor) in Little Rock, Arkansas is getting $2.5 million in stimulus money. What the $&*#? This is not what stimulus money was supposed to be meant for! Clinton got who knows how many millions of dollars in donations, including from the Communist Chinese. What a waste of the American people’s tax dollars.

And if that’s not enough of a waste, consider this exclusive story from the Washington Times: The National Science Foundation, which has 1200 employees and gets $6 billion in tax-payer funding in 2008, is being investigated because its staff, including senior staff, have been spending their work hours surfing internet porn:

One foundation employee paid an unspecified sum last year after investigators found that during a three-week period in June 2008, the worker perused hundreds of pornographic Web sites during work hours. That employee received a 10-day suspension.

In an official notice of the decision, the foundation called the conduct “unprofessional and unacceptable,” but also noted the employee’s work history and lack of any previous disciplinary actions.

As for the unnamed “senior executive” who spent at least 331 days looking at pornography at work, investigators said his proclivity for pornography was common knowledge among several co-workers.

“At the same time, employees were generally reluctant to make any official report or complaint because the misconduct involved a senior staff member and employees feared that they would suffer in some form of complaining,” the investigators later wrote in a summary of the case.

Another employee in a different case was caught with hundreds of pictures, videos and even PowerPoint slide shows containing pornography. Asked by an investigator whether he had completed any government work on a day when a significant amount of pornography was downloaded, the employee responded, “Um, I can’t remember,” according to records.

The employee also said that friends sent him the pornographic files, that he never planned on viewing them and that he never got around to deleting the files, a claim one official later called “simply not believable.”

Suspended for 10 days, the employee unsuccessfully appealed the decision after arguing that it was too harsh. Other employees were terminated.

Another employee who stored nude images of herself on her computer told investigators she mistakenly had downloaded the pictures. She received counseling and was told to adhere to the foundation’s policies on computer use.

By the way, the NSF has gotten stimulus money too! And, being that one of its main jobs is to allocate college grant money, it has been reported that it gave an Oklahoma State University professor $1.1 million in stimulus money to “study Alaskan grandparents.”

But this is the government that keeps telling us they know how to spend your money better than you do.

Next, check out this blatant example of liberal/Democrat fascism run amok in Michigan:

RUSH: We’re all going to become slaves to the government in every aspect of our lives, and I want to give you an example. Irving Township, Michigan. The state of Michigan has told a Michigan mother that she’s running illegal day care by watching her neighbor’s kids before school. 

“Each day before the school bus comes to pick up the neighborhood’s children, Lisa Snyder did a favor for three of her fellow moms, welcoming their children into her home for about an hour before they left for school. Regulators who oversee child care, however, don’t see it as charity. 

Days after the start of the new school year, Snyder received a letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services warning her that if she continued, she’d be violating a law aimed at the operators of unlicensed day care centers.

“‘I was freaked out. I was blown away,’ she said. ‘I got on the phone immediately, called my husband, then I called all the girls’—that is, the mothers whose kids she watches—‘every one of them.’” 

What do you bet this woman voted for Obama? Wild guess here. What do you bet she voted for Obama? 

“Snyder’s predicament has led to a debate in Michigan about whether a law that says no one may care for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are licensed day-care providers needs to be changed. It also has irked parents who say they depend on such friendly offers to help them balance work and family.” 

How do these people in Michigan think this thing ever got done in the first place? I don’t know about you growing up, but my mom and dad would park me at the friend’s house for sometimes a day and a half while they had to go do something. And vice-versa. And there was no thought anywhere that somebody was violating the stupid law about day care centers.

Can you believe the chutzpah of these power-hungry busy-body liberal Democrat bureaucrats? (How do I know they’re liberal Democrats?Two easy ways: One, this is Michigan and two: no conservative Republican office-holder would pull something so completely authoritarian.) When I was in grade school, my mother left me and my brother at a friend’s house for hours, and paid her, every weekday afternoon until she left work. And there were other kids over at the house too. If these liberal fascists were around then, our family friend would’ve been threatened by the state too.

But it only gets better. Yet another of President Hope&Change’s czars has been caught with a very sordid past. In a past job, Kevin Jennings not only had failed to report a sexual relationship between a 15-year-old boy and an adult male, but he helped encourage the affair!

Where was the mainstream media during all this? As of Rush’s broadcast yesterday, they were hardly anywhere. This Washington Times editorial nails it perfectly:

Sex scandal double standard: What if Kevin Jennings were a Republican?

When Republican Rep. Mark Foley was caught chasing congressional pages, he got exactly what was coming to him. In a blizzard of coverage (1,400 stories, according to Google news), Mr. Foley’s creepy behavior was examined from every possible angle. Nobody wanted to hear that the congressman’s stupid and objectionable behavior was confined to e-mails and text messages. His immediate resignation didn’t quiet the furor. When two years of investigations found no crime, the results got barely a peep.

Whether the press feeding frenzy around Mr. Foley’s disgrace was justified or not, the explosion of coverage was certainly understandable, even predictable. That reality is what makes coverage of Kevin Jennings, President Obama’s “safe school czar” something of a mystery.

Mr. Jennings brings all the sleaze of Mr. Foley. Sex and the underaged? Check. An older man? Check. Potential misbehavior by a government official? Check.

And the Jennings case brings a lot more: A “safe schools czar” who failed to report a statutory rape? An education leader who encouraged a 15-year-old student to be comfortable with sexual abuse? A federal official who ignored a law requiring him to report even the possibility of a crime? […]

All those facts aside, from the media’s perspective, the stories aren’t even remotely similar. Mr. Jennings hasn’t been hit with 1,400 stories or 140 or even 14. With the exception of Fox News, which discovered new audio-taped evidence in the case, Mr. Jennings’ story has been ignored. […]

There’s more on Jennings I’ll bet you didn’t know about. He’s a radical homosexual (not that there’s anything wrong with that) activist who founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, which “makes schools safe for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.” Sounds reasonable, right? Sure, until you see what this description really entails. From World Net Daily:

According to the Americans for Truth website run by Peter LaBarbera, the incident involving the 15-year-old was just one among a series of egregious behaviors by Jennings.

Another incident was the “fistgate” scandal in which he led discussions at a seminar where “young teens were guided on how to perform dangerous homosexual perversions including ‘fisting,’“ the website said.

Yet another was Jennings’ address in a New York City church on March 20, 2000. He said:

“Twenty percent of people are hard-core fair-minded [pro-homosexual] people. Twenty percent are hard-core [anti-homosexual] bigots. We need to ignore the hard-core bigots, get more of the hard-core fair-minded people to speak up, and we’ll pull that 60 percent [of people in the middle] over to our side. That’s really what I think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious right. We also have to quit — I’m trying to find a way to say this. I’m trying not to say, ‘[F—] ‘em!’ which is what I want to say, because I don’t care what they think! [audience laughter] Drop dead!”

Seriously, where the heck does Barack Obama find these cretins???

Now for not one, but two pièces de resistence. First, during Rush’s broadcast, the Hill’s Briefing Room blog reported that:

Senate Finance Committee Democrats rejected a proposed a requirement that immigrants prove their identity with photo identification when signing up for federal healthcare programs.

Finance Committee ranking member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said that current law and the healthcare bill under consideration are too lax and leave the door open to illegal immigrants defrauding the government using false or stolen identities to obtain benefits.

Grassley’s amendment was beaten back 10-13 on a party-line vote.

The bill, authored by committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), would require applicants to verify their names, places of birth and Social Security numbers. In addition, legal immigrants would have to wait five years, as under current law, after obtaining citizenship or legal residency to access federal healthcare benefits such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program or receive tax credits or purchase insurance through the exchange created by the legislation.

But the would not require them to show a photo ID, such as a drivers license. Without that requirement, the bill “remains dearly lacking when it comes to identification,” Grassley said. “Frankly, I’m very perplexed as to why anyone would oppose this amendment,” he said.

In other words, Joe Wilson Was Right. There is absolutely no logical reason Democrats would have blocked this provision if they’re not planning for illegal aliens to sneak through the system and get government-run health care, paid for by us the taxpayers and benefiting the Democrat Party by buying illegal alien votes. (Illegal aliens can vote? Of course they can. What’s to stop them? Democrats have blocked photo I.D. requirements to vote also.)

Secondly, Rush cites a Human Events article spelling out how Democrats are going to sneak their fascist government-run health care on us by next week, namely, by sticking it in as an addendum to the also fascist bill H.R. 1586, which imposes taxes on people’s bonuses.

The following four-step scenario describes one way liberals plan to work the rules in their favor to get Obamacare through the Senate:

Step 1: The Senate Finance Committee must first approve the marked-up version of Sen. Max Baucus’ (D.-Mont.) conceptual framework. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) can say that two Senate Committees have passed a health care bill, which will allow him to take extraordinary steps to get the bill on the Senate floor.

During the mark-up last week, members had difficulty offering amendments and trying to make constructive changed because they lacked actual legislative text and Baucus made unilateral last minute changes. For example, the AP reported that “under pressure from fellow Democrats, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee decided to commit an additional $50 billion over a decade toward making insurance more affordable for working-class families.”

Step 2: Sen. Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which passed on a party-line vote in July.

Usually, a bill is voted out of committee, and then the Senate takes up the final product of the committee so that all 100 senators can have a hand in the process. With some help from the Obama administration, Reid will decide what aspects of the HELP and Finance Committee bills to keep.

Step 3: Now, Obamacare will be ready to hitch a ride on an unrelated bill from the House. Sen. Reid will move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. This bill was passed by the House in the wake of the AIG bonus controversy and is currently sitting on the Senate Legislative Calendar.

The move to proceed needs 60 votes to start debate. After the motion is approved, Sen. Reid will offer Obamacare as a complete substitute to the unrelated House-passed bill. This means that the entire healthcare reform effort will be included as an amendment to a TARP bill that has been collecting dust in the Senate for months.

Step 4: For this strategy to work, the proponents would need to hold together the liberal caucus of 58 Democrats (including Paul Kirk who was named last Thursday to replace Sen. Kennedy), and the two Independent senators (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont). These members will have to all hold hands and vote against any filibuster. Once the Senate takes up the bill, only a simple majority of members will be needed for passage. It’s possible one of the endangered moderate Democrats, such as Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), could vote to stop a filibuster then vote against Obamacare so as not to offend angry constituents.

Once the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the House, all the House would have to do is pass the bill without changes and President Obama will be presented with his health care reform measure. If this plan does not work, the Senate and House leadership may go back to considering using reconciliation to pass the legislation.

Adopting this secret plan will not strike most Americans as a transparent, bipartisan, effective way to change how millions of Americans get their health care.

After these two hours, I was boiling mad: Inexcusably misspent stimulus money, yet another Obama czar exposes as a radical leftist hell-bend on crushing traditional American values and traditions, moralistic busybody bureaucrats telling people what they can do in their own house, and megalomaniacal Congresspeople imposing draconian and unconstitutional laws on the American people against their will. Plus an Obama-worshiping mainstream media that ignores all of it. I could not bear listening to Rush’s next hour.

Then Twitter, Facebook, and Free Republic began to light up with news of a woman who had just called in to Rush’s show. It seems this woman—Susan from Glendale, California—was voicing the anger and frustration I and millions of listeners were experiencing. The result was one of the best phone calls Rush has ever received:

 

Rush2009-09-30_Part1

Rush2009-09-30_Part2

Thank you, Susan from Glendale. You are a ray of sunshine in the pitch-black abyss that is Obama-Reid-Pelosi’s America. 

Around the Web in 80 Minutes (10/1/09)

First, at National Review Online, Victor Davis Hanson gives it to us straight on the current lethal state of international affairs:

October 1, 2009
Three Dangerous Stooges

Last week, three dictators — from Iran, Libya, and Venezuela — delivered lunatic hate-speeches at the General Assembly of the United Nations. Why do these anti-Semitic dictators feel so free to damn America from downtown New York? Why do their abettors spurn our requests for help? And why do creepy regimes plot to get nukes, and fund terrorists? Easy. They do not fear, much less listen to, an indebted and energy-hungry America that either needs their cash or oil — or both.

Next, at American Thinker, Randall Hoven has all you need to know about ObamaCare, but were terrified to ask:

October 01, 2009
Nothing for Everyone

Just about all of us want some kind of health care reform. But different people want different things from that reform. One trouble with crafting legislation that would make some people happy is that it would make other people unhappy. But the proposals put forth so far by Democrats, and supported by President Obama, have the unique gift of satisfying virtually no one. ObamaCare, inasmuch as there is such a thing, is bound to disappoint you, no matter what you'd like to see in health care reform.

Next, David Horowitz at Front Page Mag castigates the mainstream media for being so busy fear-mongering about predicted right-wing violence that they’ve failed to report about all the actual left-wing violence that has been taking place:

Serious Fascists in America

There are serious fascists in America. But they’re on the political Left.

I wrote yesterday about Glenn Beck’s feature on the violent demonstration by leftists in Pittsburgh (which was covered up by the New York Times and the rest of the left-wing media.) He also reported on the bombing of a radio tower in the State of Washington by the Earth Liberation Front — a left-wing terrorist organization — which went equally unreported. Instead we are treated to a rash of hand-wringings by liberals like Tom Friedman who talk about incitements that could lead to the assassination of President Obama.

Pete Wehner has an excellent blog on this hypocrisy, recalling that a film was actually made by leftists portraying the assassination of President Bush among many other incitements against him by leftists with no — absolutely no — complaints by Friedman and the NY Times. In fact the whole Democratic Party leadership accused Bush of lying to get us into a war and killing young Americans in the process.

Also recommended: Peter Wehner’s Commentary post, which is cited in the above article.

Finally, the Weekly Standard has published the eulogy William Kristol delivered for his father last week:

Irving Kristol, 1920-2009
10/05/2009, Volume 015, Issue 03

In 1994, my father wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal titled "Life Without Father." It dealt with the subject of the family and poverty and welfare--with my father drawing for his argument, as he so often did, on a combination of social science, common sense, history, and personal experience. In the course of the article, my father briefly discussed his father, Joseph Kristol--who, he wrote, "was thought by all our relatives and his fellow workers to be wise, and fair, and good. I thought so too."

So have Liz and I always thought about our father. To us, he was wise, and fair, and good. I honestly don't think it ever occurred to us that we could have had a better father. So as we enter the rest of our life--a life without our father--we are overwhelmed not by a sense of loss or grief, though of course we feel both, but by a sense of gratitude: Having Irving Kristol as our dad was our great good fortune.

Have a blessed day!

Propaganda, Part 3: Enter the Great and Powerful Obamessiah of Oz

[Here is the third of a five-part series from new contributor benjaminTheDonkey. Let us know how you like it. -ETR]

(Previously—Part 2: Back to Old-School—How to Wow Like Mao)

So now that we’ve seen what has come before, let’s examine the tactics being used by Barack Obama. While old, pre-1950 poster images look hokey today, they were cutting edge in their day. Today’s imagery is more refined, and more in step with our current aesthetic sense. After all, strong communication must be in step with contemporary sensibilities, and engage a viewer by hooking into their “thinkspace” and aspirations. First off, the ubiquitous Shepard Fairey “Hope” poster paired with the even more iconic Obama logo mark.

Here, Shepard Fairey idealizes and iconifies his candidate of choice through the use of Soviet-style design and strong composition along with a pairing of a dramatic face with the concept of “hope”. Note the fact that our perspective as viewer is just slightly below Obama, so that we look up to his steely, heroic gaze. The stylization of the illustration also serves to powerfully iconify this image and gives Obama that “larger than life” quality. The sunrise logo was created by designer Sol Sender. Notice how the rising sun—our shorthand for “the dawning of a new day” again—is the distilled image used for Obama’s campaign logo. What’s even more interesting is how this symbol has become not just associated with Obama’s campaign for president, but synonymous with the man himself (taken from the BarackObama.com website):

Which then raises the question—why is Obama still in campaign mode? Why is he still pushing hard with his own personal brand? Why is the thing that is front-and-center him personally? Not America, not his policies, but the man. There is a mode of communication that happens during a campaign, where the candidate is put out front because people are trying to decide who to vote for. But now, he’s got the job. Why is he still pushing himself through likenesses, the sunrise logo, and a “full court press” of media saturation? He seems to be injecting himself into everything—he has given far more speeches, and made more appearances in his first months than any other president (263 speeches or remarks in 231 days in office according to Mark Knoller of CBS News)—even showing up in a TV ad for comedian George Lopez. (I’m not making this stuff up) Why is our focus continually being drawn back to the person of Obama, as if everything is all about him personally? Well, with 20th century totalitarian leaders, it was always imperative to create a cult of personality. To enshrine the leader as we have seen above. The idea was to consolidate power by raising up an idol for everyone to adore in order to secure loyalty. Is Obama doing this? Let’s continue to look at brand Obama and see. Keep in mind that we are only looking at a few images and videos—a small sampling from a large and sophisticated, well-funded poly-media effort.

Note the way he seems to stand above us so we have to look up at him. Note the ethereal glow, or glory corona (above image, and below). It’s also interesting how these portrayals are reminiscent of the New Testament descriptions of the glorified Christ who appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration—with shining face and clothing—(“his clothes became white as the light”—Matthew Chapter 17... “the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning.”—Luke Chapter 9) that radiated glory and connoted holiness. Note how the large bright highlight covering and washing out much of Obama’s face conveys the sense of him gazing upon something bright and glorious, as if he is in a higher realm than normal human experience.

This one is classic—towering larger than life before adoring masses—Obama and Mao.

Keeping in mind that the sunrise symbol is shorthand for the person of Obama, take a closer look at the Organizing for Healthcare branding image (from my.barackobama.com): Here is Obama’s iconic proxy with a visually striking double glory corona, and it is larger, in front, and the only thing in color (all conveying strong visual and semantic dominance)—standing titan-like before the thronging masses and the country itself—not even just the flag or other emblem here, but presiding over the giant landmass that makes up the lower 48 states.

This is basically the administration echoing the same sentiment expressed by Newsweek’s Evan Thomas on MSNBC:

So let me stop and ask the same question I did earlier. Why is Obama the central brand? Why is a US President, who is to be respected—yes, but is functionally a servant of the people—an elected official—why is he being positioned like a Caesar? (A leader, who, historically was literally considered a god) Why does a sitting president have a website called barackobama.com, with a paired community organizer recruiting wing at my.barackobama.com. Why does this site solicit not just volunteers, but monetary donations? Since when has an American president EVER been positioned in this manner? Ah, but our Chinese, Russian, German and Italian friends have seen it. It’s not new, just new to us.

Next Up... Part 4:The People’s Revolution—Join the Shiny Happy People

The Propaganda Series

1. What’s Good for the Goose-Step is Good Propaganda
2. Back to Old-School—How to Wow Like Mao
3. Enter the Great and Powerful Obamessiah of Oz
4. The People’s Revolution
5. Hope & Change in All Its Taxpayer-Funded Glory

ETR - This pic courtesy of a Free Republic reader:

And Now for Something Completely Different ...

I nearly peed my pants watching this! [h/t Blue Lori] How appropos Whoopi Goldberg is singing lead.

Liberal Media Bias: Newsweek Jumps on the Racism Bandwagon

Newsweek has evidently followed the path of intellectual titans like NY Times’ Maureen Dowd and played the race card against Obama critics. Some noname by the name of Raina Kelley, in an article inartfully titled “Play the Race Card,” writes [h/t Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters]:

Let me say this clearly so there are no misunderstandings: some of the protests against President Obama are howls of rage at the fact that we have an African-American head of state. I’m sick of all the code words used when this subject comes up, so be assured that I am saying exactly what I mean.

Ms. Whoeveryouare: Let me say this clearly so there are no misunderstandings: You are a mental midget. Your depth of thinking and reasoned analysis is so shallow that an ant can’t even drown in it. Your educational and professional background is of no consequence. You’re a mindless liberal robot who lives in a liberal bubble. You have been successfully programmed not to use an ounce of intellect to debate an issue, but simply to shout names like “racist” at your ideological opponents. Sorry, toots. That might work at your pathetic excuse for a magazine, but not in the real world where real ideas translate to real actions and result in real consequences.

You are a disgrace, and the magazine that hired you (no doubt to fill some affirmative action spot) is an even bigger disgrace. But keep writing. You are no doubt a hero on the left for writing something so baseless and unsubstantive.

So be assured that I am saying exactly what I mean.

Next week's issue: Is your average Newsweek reader a f**king idiot?

Liberal Media Bias: Ouch! New FNC Ad Takes Other Channels to Schoool--But Gets Schooled Itself

It's awn:

Now, in CNN’s defense, the Fox News ad is not entirely accurate. CNN anchor Rick Sanchez clarified today that his channel did cover the 9/12 Tea Party, citing FNC’s Bill O’Reilly as proof. Indeed, earlier this week O’Reilly mentioned a CNN reporter who was on the scene and was drowned out by the attendees behind her. Fair enough.

But then Sanchez guilts the lily himself, claiming [emphasis mine]:

SANCHEZ: Here’s the fact: we did cover the event. What we didn’t do is promote the event. Just like when thousands marched on Washington to protest the war in Iraq, we covered it as well, probably less than we covered this event. But we didn’t promote it. Bottom line is we do cover the news, and we did extensively cover this event. We didn’t promote the event; that’s not what real news organizations are supposed to do. We covered the event. I would invite you to look into that distinction between those two words—promote and cover. Cover is kind of like a fair and balanced way of doing things, you get it? You might want to look into that. It’s about letting Americans make up their own minds.

Not so fast, Mr. Sanchez. As Matthew Balan at NewsBusters explains:

Actually, in February 2003, during the lead-up to the Iraq war, CNN aired a two-hour special report, “Voices of Dissent,” which was devoted to an anti-war protest organized by International ANSWER, a radical left-wing organization. The following month on March 22, 2003 CNN broadcast 38 separate reports on another anti-Iraq war demonstration. On the other hand, CNN personalities recently labeled anti-Obama protesters ‘insane.’ There’s no way that Sanchez’s claim, that CNN “covered it as well, probably less than we covered” the Tea Party, can be accurate.

But the media leftocracy was not done. In today’s Washington Post Howard Kurtz went to bat for the other stations, citing examples of when each station covered the Tea Party. And true, Kurtz is right. Every other station did report on the 9-12 Tea Party at least once. But the reporting was at best shoddy and sparse. Most of the reports were dismissive and critical, and certainly not as extensive and celebratory as these channels treated the anti-war protests during the Bush years. There is ample evidence to support that claim.

OK, so the bottom line is this: Fox News wrongly used the word “missed” in their ad. They should have used a more accurate term. But CNN’s Sanchez is way wrong when he claims his channel (1) covered the Tea Party more than anti-Iraq war protests and (2) merely covered and did not promote those protests.

Liberal Media Bias: People Buy Time Magazine to Learn ... What?

On Sept. 12, a large crowd gathered in Washington to protest ... what?

That was the opening sentence of the cover story in the forthcoming issue of Time magazine. The article, by one David von Drehle, is titled "Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America?"

Gee, I wonder what Mr. von Drehle's conclusion is! 

The cover of this issue, incidentally, is simply a picture of Glenn Beck sticking his tongue out. (Considering what they've done to Ann Coulter and other conservatives, I guess Time could've done worse.)

What an embarrassing pathetic week it has been for the mainstream Obama-worshiping media. 

First, except for CNN, MSNBC, and of course Fox News, the mainstream media virtually ignored the resignation of President Hope&Change's ultra-leftist "green jobs" czar Van Jones. It was primarily Beck who did reveal Jones' radical background to the American people. This must be why he's "bad for America." 

Then, at ABC News soon-retiring Charles Gibson claimed ignorance about ACORN's many indescretions. In fact, the mainstream media was so complicit in ignoring the ACORN scandals that even lib comedian Jon Stewart asked, "Where the hell were you?" Which is why conservative commentators like Glenn Beck, who did inform the American people about ACORN, are "bad for America," presumably.

Just a few days ago, anti-abortion activist James Pouillon was shot dead specifically for his beliefs, yet if you follow the MSM that gave wall-to-wall coverage and commentary on the murdering of late-term abortionist George Tiller, you wouldn't even know the crime took place. 

The same MSM who yawned at—and even cheerled for—the hateful, vitriolic protests against Bush administration policies for eight years has either ignored or ridiculed the 9-12 Tea Party in Washington, D.C.

The same MSM who yawned at—and even cheerled for—the uncivil attacks against George W. Bush by Democrat politicians have become literally unhinged by the absolutely correct accusation of "You lie!" by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) to President Hope&Change. First prize for idiocy in this category goes to the New York Times' Maureen Dowd.

The same MSM who gave the pathetically unpopular liberal hate radio station Air America tons of free publicity reported nothing on Rush Limbaugh's booming August gains, even in deep blue enclaves like San Francisco and New York City.

The same MSM who gave free publicity to every author whose new book ripped George W. Bush to shreds has yet to give any coverage to Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny, even though it spent weeks at #1 on the bestseller lists and just this week reached 1 million copies sold.

But the question on Time magazine's mind is whether Glenn Beck is bad for America. Yeah, O.K.

Glenn Beck is just the next conservative who has the dubious honor of being in the crosshairs of a bitter, jealous, and vindictive liberal media. El Rushbo's been there. So's Ann Coulter. Time magazine's petty and unprofessional article will most likely increase Beck's ratings, not damage them. Good for him.

For those of you who read Time magazine, let me save you $3.95 (or however much it costs) and answer David von Drehle's question: No, Glenn Beck is not bad for America; he's quite beneficial. On the contrary, Glenn Beck is bad for the Democrat Party and for the morally and intellectually bankrupt ideology of liberalism. 

And that's what Time magazine the mainstream media is really worried about.

The real question is: Is the mainstream Obama-worshiping media, Time magazine included, bad for America.

You can guess what my answer is.