Alito ... Let the games begin!!!

First off ... the media accounts of the whole Miers affair ... they still do not get it. What will be fun to watch now is exactly how the media will respond to what I expect to be the incredibly powerful groundswell that shoves Alito down the throat of the radical lefties (i.e. the mainstream of the Democrat party). Even Lindsey Graham, one of the infamous "Gang of 14", has taken the first shot across the bow of the Democrats by indicating that Alito is NOT in the crosshairs of the "Fillibuster" ... a sure sign that if they try to pull that garbage, the "nuclear" option will be triggered.

Oh yeah!!!

The Misinformation has begun

A story that the leftie media will no doubt miss is just how fast the response has been to this nomination. It appears that the leftie groups, led by Harry Reid, are using "word processors" in their attack talking points (i.e. it does not matter who is nominated, you just plug in the name and the attacks are the same). "Radical", "turning back civil rights", etc. etc. etc.

Yawn! Is this another re-run, or will the Democrats EVER have something new?

One case they have dug up and are out-n-out lying about is this PA abortion law, where Alito issued the dissent. The problem area had to do with whether or not the law could require wives to talk to the their husbands before getting an abortion (I am not sure of the details). Basically, Alito argued that there is nothing in the Constitution that bans the state from making a law that says that a wife has to talk to her husband. The liberals are spinning this by saying he said the Constitution forced the wife to ask the husband's permission.

Huh? That is a pretty wild leap of logic, but of course there is nobody around to check their facts, right? WRONG!!!! We are here, so stay tuned.

Now, this is important ... because again the media is going to report all sorts of B.S. It is important that decent, upstanding people spread the word on what the TRUTH is. Word is that even Ted Kennedy has been woken from his drunken stupor to engage on this, so we had better be ready to engage in the war that we asked for.

This is not "Clinton"

I have been getting sick to my stomach about the comparisons between the current Washington scandal and the Clinton Blue Dress affair. Basically, the story goes like this ... this whole ordeal started out as a probe to see if somebody outed a CIA operative (the answer there is no), and in the process somebody is accused of lieing to the grand jury (literally committing a crime to coverup something that was not a crime in the first place); which Democrats would have you believe is the equivalent of the Whitewater scandal where Clinton ended up getting busted for sex (that had nothing to do with Whitewater).

No, children ... that second line is about as asinine as the Democrats that are spewing it out.

Whitewater and Paula Jones

First off, the two Clinton affairs were totally unconnected, and ONLY ended up connected because the Clintons wanted them connected. Truth be told, perhaps this was a masterstroke ... by tieing the two together they basically enabled themselves to do what they are doing today ... bury the whole Whitewater criminal affair under his little "exposure incident" with Paula Jones.

Whitewater was a scheme by Schlick's cronies to steal millions of dollars (the lions share being taxpayer money to cover the S&L failure), not the least of which ended up in the pockets/election funds of the Clintons. This crime was the original purpose for Kenneth Starr, and he jailed a whole boatload of the Clintons' best friends (this is a little fact that the newspapers like to keep quiet about). One of these friends mysteriously died while in the process of negotiating to cooperate with the independent counsel ... how convenient.

The Paula Jones affair (ahem) was a dreadful little aside to the serious stuff ... Clinton was being sued because he decided to use one of his best pickup moves on (what he perceived to be) a trailer park tramp, while he was governor of Arkansas. His move was to sit on a couch and expose "little Willie" to the woman after he had ordered a State Trooper summon her up to his hotel room.

Oh yeah ... that's presidential! Born leader ... well, at least to Democrats it is. By the way, am I the only one that gets a laugh out of the thought that this is how Schlick picks up woman, one of whom is Hillary???? (har har har) ... but I digress ...

It became clear that Clinton had perjured himself ... and suborned perjury by getting Monica to lie as well. By the way ... given how BRILLIANT everybody claims this guy is, does he not act an awful lot like an idiot?

For reasons that NOBODY will explain, Janet Reno, by far the worst attorney general ever, assigned the Whitewater prosecutor to look into the Paula Jones trial as well. That does not even pass the smell test, but like I said this was probably a Clinton masterstroke. Mr. Starr did as he was told, and scored yet another conviction, leading to the impeachment (but not removal) of the disgraced president.

By the way ... let me re-emphasize my long held position that the whole Paula Jones lawsuit was a huge mistake ... the courts (that ruled it was OK for the suit to proceed) were dead wrong, and history proves it. There was NO good reason that the civil proceedings could not have waited until Clinton was out of office. The American people got royally screwed out of the deal, having a President distracted from running the country; you can make a strong argument that because of these distractions, Americans died on 9-11. The blood of these Americans is on the hands of whomever it was that forced this issue. Shame on them.

Current scandal ... no crime

If the current situation holds, there is NO CRIME in the CIA case. None, nada, zip. The law that they were looking at was not violated. Note ... this is almost 2 years under investigation, and there was no violation of law to begin with ... think about that for a minute, because it is absolutely critical.

The law was written to keep agents from getting killed: Ex-CIA agents (now liberal heroes) and Democrat politicians were broadcasting the names of covert agents who were ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE FIELD, ON FOREIGN SOIL. As a result of the exposure, these agents (or their families) were getting rounded up by our enemies and murdered. So conservatives in Congress wrote a law to make exposing the name of an agent KNOWN TO BE COVERT illegal, but they wrote this law with extremely tight provisions to try to keep the law limited to this type of exposure without endangering the ability of the press to expose corruption, illegal activities, etc.

It is not like the special prosecutor could not have checked this out ...
call the CIA ... "Hey, when was the last time Valerie was out of the country? ... 5-10 years ago? ... OK, thanks." Sorry guys ... nothing there ... end of investigation.

Instead ... it seems like the prosecutor thought ... let's see if we can spin enough traps to make the suspects trip over themselves and make it look like they intended to reveal the name of a covert agent (even though she was really not), because we are worried about what they were thinking, not what actually happened, right?

Think about this ... say you were going down the street and a cop clocks you at 30 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. He pulls you over and questions you for 2 hours trying to figure out if you really thought you were going 35 (maybe you "thought" your speedometer read low ... so in your heart you wanted to be violating the law even if you were not REALLY violating the law). He questions you about whether or not you EVER thought about your speedometer being off a little. OOPS!!! You say "no" , but he calls your mechanic who has a note in your auto record that indicates you asked him to check the accuracy 3 years ago! BUSTED!!!! You don't get a speeding ticket, you get slapped with a "misleading authorities" charge and get to wear ankle bracelets with Martha Stewart!

What if they were lying?

Why would they? Even a hack lawyer could figure out that there was nothing to cover up. Nonetheless, if Scooter did lie, he is an idiot for doing so. However, if Bush even perceives that this is beginning to distract the Administration from doing their thing, he needs to cut this off. The American people cannot afford another 3 years of a distracted President ... not with Osama and pals trying to figure out a way to re-emerge from the ratholes of Afghanistan.

Will SOMEBODY please stand up?

First off, the Republicans need to start putting things into perspective, and stop with this "well, let's let the system work itself out" trash.

The Democrats sure don't play by that game ... they play to win, they play dirty, they lie through their teeth and cheat like hell, and they never, ever stop talking. They fill the air with unsubstantiated speculation ... report speculation as fact (I covered that in a previous argument) ... create the illusion that their "dream world" (where all Republicans get thrown in jail and we annoint Hillary Queen of America) is reality.

The other thing that the Democrats do is count on the Republicans to sit back and take their bull, which is exactly why they keep saying such incredibly outlandish stuff.

The Republicans keep staying on the "high" road ... and while I am proud of the fact that I don't have to be embarassed to be a conservative (the way liberals have to hide what they are) ... we can certainly turn the heat back on them. If you believe the polls, Bush's numbers are crumbling and dragging the Republicans down with him. This is NOT because people are buying the swill, it is because the Republicans are saying NOTHING.

We need a leader ... we need somebody to stand up and take the country back from these idiots. The first shot would be to end this whole CIA thing (again, assuming they don't tie anything to the original law) ... just issue a single pardon and get on national TV and tell us we are not going to let this political witchhunt distract the country from what is important.

The Herd in Wilson's Living Room

Given all the hullaballoo about the "outing of CIA agent" in Washington, I guess it is not too surprising that nobody is seeing the monstrous elephants rampaging all through livingrooms in the country. However, I guess my experiences working around the arena when the circus was in town has simply made me hyper-sensitive to pachyderms.

Joe's Big Adventure
This whole thing started when the CIA sent ex-ambassador Joe Wilson to Africa to check out some intelligence community information about Iraq's attempts to secure nuclear fuel.

Hello? Will somebody please push Dumbo aside?

Why would the CIA use an ex-State Department loser to check into nukes? I do not want to pretend to be clever here ... I actually first heard this question from Valerie's old supervisor (Valerie is Joe's wife ... the CIA "super-sleuth" desk-jockey that was "outed", ahem, by Rove/Libbey/Cheney) ... her supervisor was being questioned about whether or not Valerie was really "covert" as defined by the law in play here (the answer to that question was "of course she was not"). However, her former supervisor was beside himself as to how and why Wiley Wilson slimed his way into this trip to begin with ... so much so that HE brought it up, not the interviewer.

This was also the same question by the lawyer who helped author the law in question. When asked about whether or not the law that SHE WROTE was violated, she answered an emphatic "NO" but also immediately turned around to ask what the heck this guy was doing in a CIA operation?

Joe's Big Lie
Nobody really knows what Joe was up to when he cruised on into Africa, but one thing is for sure, he sure did not spend any time looking into what he was supposed to. When Joey got back to the US and reported his findings that there was no evidence of the Saddam's boyz being there, the CIA basically concluded that he was full of it. As a matter of fact, Wilson never even filed a written report.

Now, this is critical ... because of the stellar reputation of the CIA over the last few years, we cannot simply say that their dismissal of Wilson's story is conclusive. However, the bi-partisan Senate committee reviewing the intelligence on Iraq came to the same conclusion ... given the reports from just about EVERY other intelligence agency IN THE WORLD ... including France and Russia (not quite our biggest supporters, particularly in Iraq).

OUCH!!!! Get off of my foot, Pachy!

So let's just ignore for the moment that this (the fact that he lied or is totally incompetent) has been completely whitewashed by a left wing media that has had to make Wilson out to be some kind of martyr in order to make Bush look more evil. Wilson lied through his teeth in a NATIONAL SECURITY MATTER ... and CONTINUES TO LIE TO THIS DAY in his (Wilson's) attempts to undermine US policy and WAR EFFORTS! I have a word for a guy who lies through his teeth to cause his country to lose a war (a "John Kerry" class traitor), but I am not a lawyer so I would have to defer to the justice department to determine exactly what this crime is.

Joe's Big Mouth

Something that is incredibly important here is the fact THAT WE KNOW ABOUT THIS STORY AT ALL!!! Remember this is the CIA ... and their efforts are generally regarded as SECRET ... i.e. this guy would be in real deep do-do for untertaking an effort to publicize the results of this trip. Well, turns out that Joey boy seemed to have avoided the problem because he did not sign any confidentiality agreement.

No, No ... get up you big grey galoot ... you cannot lay down here ... stand up ... get out!

Joe Wilson was sent on a mission by the CIA and never held to any standard of secrecy or confidentiality. What the heck were they up to, and what exactly is Joey up to?

Joe's Big Aspirations

Well, it seems that almost as soon as Joey's little toesies hit the tarmack, he headed over to the John Kerry / Democrap campaign looking for work ... and we are talking cabinet position here. Joey was going to hand liberals the White House with his little fabrication ... and the Dems bought it hook, line and sinker. Well, turns out it was only for a little while. Wilson was made chief foreign something or other and sent running around the country "blowing the whistle" ... until of course he swallowed it (about the time the senate report came in discrediting Wilson) ... and he was quietly removed from sight ... and the campaign. That is another nice little aside to this debacle ... the leftie media has swallowed a story that even John Kerry choked on!

Valerie and Joey's big mouths

Regarding Valerie's "covert" status ... I do not believe that anybody, anywhere is arguing that she was close to being under any kind of cover. Neither were the Wilson's. Her name was all over the place, including on Democrat fundraiser donation lists, in Joey's bio for speeches he was giving, and all around the neighborhood/PTA (I am only joking about the last one). Seems like the only people that did NOT know that she worked for the CIA was the boys in the White House.

Dopf ... who spiked my vitamins??? I'm seeing Pink Pachyderms now! (oh, that's just a hot air balloon)

So exactly why was Valerie on the "covert" list? It is the CIA's responsibility to take people off of this list when they are no longer operatives. Again ... I picked this up in an interview, and I do not recall exactly who it was who brought it up ... but she was long since out of the field and should have no longer been considered "covert".

Elephants abound!

At the very least, does the CIA have to be called to account to explain why this partisan hack was chosen to carry out a critical operation?

Joey and Valerie obviously do not give a damn about US security given that they (or at least he) are willing to lie about a US security issue in order to advance a political end. Why is Valerie still working for the CIA?

Are any heads rolling at the CIA for allowing this entire scam to take place to begin with?

SURPRISE!!!

As a loyal member of the right-wing-conspiracy (I just wish they would tell me where the meetings are! ;-), I should be circling the wagons around Bush and drinking the kool-aid and all that, right? That's what the lefties would have you believe.

The truth is, I hold Bush, et al, responsible for not cleaning up the house on these idiots in the CIA who let this entire affair happen in the first place. Rank incompetence. Valerie should be out on her ass and possibly in jail for compromising national security by putting her party-hack husband into a position to hurt this country. Wilson should be tried as a criminal for lying about what Iraq was up to before the war. The CIA hierarchy involved in this situation should be at least terminated and possibly prosecuted ... the latter being the case if they cannot come up with a good excuse as to how this entire sloppy affair happened.

We cannot have our security agencies working this way. The message must be sent that intelligence IS serious, and playing political games will not be tolerated.

The Crime of avoiding the non-crime

In Washington politique, it is well known that far more of the "crimes" that are prosecuted involve the apparent cover-up of illegal activity, versus going after the illegal activity itself. This sort of "end-around" has probably been around forever, the earliest example I can think of off the top of my head is the Al Capone stuff (busting him for tax evasion). The theory is that at least the criminal ends up in jail, and from a larger viewpoint it often serves to dismantle an organization by targetting the top players who typically do not participate in the crime itself.

In the past, the situation generally involved real illegal activity ... and although in many cases the prosecution may have been as political as it was legal ... there were real crimes.

The CIA secret agent exposure situation is radically different. In this case, it seems that *everybody* agrees that the *original* act was not a crime. Of course ... the lefties will not let that message get out ... so perhaps the word "everybody" is not correct ... I should have said "everybody that is honest, or has half a brain". Most importantly, the lawmaker that WROTE THE LAW about exposing covert agents said that this situation was not what the law covers.

So, what is the 'crime'?

As we saw in the Martha Stewart case ... in the process of an investigation, you are not allowed to mislead investigators. You do not have to tell them anything, but if you do say something it cannot be misleading. In the grand jury, the stakes go up ... since you are under oath, misleading testimony is perjury.

The problem with many cases, including this one, is that a weasel prosecuter can bring you back to testify time and time again, and during the process cross you up so bad that your answers can seem to conflict with each other. Another ploy is for the prosecuter to ask about some obscure event in the distant past, and if you do not remember the intricate details of the event or even that the event actually happened, you have hung yourself.

Here is the problem with this system ... if you try to be honest and forthcoming, and not overly concerned with covering your butt ... you are more likely to hang yourself! Dishonest people like Hillary Clinton, who answered "I don't recall" some 400+ times in her testimony related to the Rose Law Firm case, skates away because even though they knew she was lying through her teeth, you have a hard time proving if somebody can remember something. If the rumours about this current case prove to be true, it appears that Rove failed to employ the CYA method and actually said he did not have a conversation if he could not remember having it.

So what is the point?

The point to this is that Rove did the right thing ... he tried to answer honestly and forgetting a quick phone call should not be allowed to be a club for beating him to death. Do we, as a nation, really want our leaders to be able to commit crimes with impunity, and then get away with "I don't recall"? If so, then we will end up with nothing but weasel worded scoundrels like the Clintons for all time.

More importantly, we need somebody to stand up and see the forest for the trees ... if there was no crime in the first place, then this investigation to see how many people this prosecutor can spin into a trap is a political exercise. That is what the Democrats want to turn this fight into, because they fight dirty as hell and cannot win any other way (especially at the ballot box). Good people, however, should not put up with it.

If anything does come down, and the prosecutor admits that there was no *original* crime, only a "cover-up" of a non-crime, then George W. Bush should step in and grant a pardon and put an end to this garbage. He should do so with a nationally televised conference ... pointing out how asinine it is to assume that anybody would try to cover up something that nobody believed was a crime in the first place.

If Bill Clinton can pardon *real* criminals for cash, I hardly think that GW should feel even one bit of question about whether he should be able to pardon somebody who did nothing wrong and tried to do the right thing.

"We support the troops ..."

It was sickening ... albeit not surprising. Paper after paper ... little to no coverage of what may turn out to be the most important constitutional moment in the world since the Founding Fathers of this nation wrote the US Constitution 200+ years ago.

In the Albuquerque Journal ... 2 inches of column on the Iraq referendum, 10 inches on how miserable the war has been to the families of the soldiers. I suppose this was their idea of "balance" ... I would guess that in the deranged minds of the liberal editors (redundant) of the Journal, they convinced themselves that this story on the misery of soldiers' families somehow innoculated themselves against the outrage of what they were doing by minimizing the constitutional event. Well, boys ... you are wrong, and you are dispicable and pitiable.

In the New York Times (no, I don't actually subscribe to it ... it was on the checkout counter at the grocery store) ... the front page lead was all about the lack of voting in one part of Ramadi, the one place in the entire country of Iraq where people were afraid to show up due to the threats from terrorists. I should give the NYSlimes some credit, at least they did report that in other parts of the same city (where there was greater security), the lines/waits were very long ... but of course this fact was buried several paragraphs into the story.

Anybody that wants to question why Bush's numbers are so low, and the support for this war is so bad ... need look no farther than the coverage of this momentuous day in history to figure it out.

Again, this is the obvious ... repulsive anti-Americanism is expected by the legacy media. So I am here to create a larger, more intelligent perspective on things.

Turning point in history?

Picture this in your mind ... 20, 30 or 40 years from now ... Iraq is a free country, a beacon of freedom in the Middle East, the whole area of which has become far more peaceful and prosperous as nation after nation has abandoned the brutal dictatorships for representative democracies with constitutions.

Your children or grandchildren walk up to you with their history notes ... "hey (daddy, mommy, grandpa, grandma) ... what was it like to live in those times, when the whole world was changing all around you? I mean, you know ... the ugly wars and people had been killing each other for years and you were there for the day the world changed?" And your answer ... well, you know ... nobody really paid any attention ... they didn't really cover it in the newspapers or anything.

We really didn't notice.

Think about that for a miute ... Saturday could have been the starting point of the biggest changes in world history and we pretty much slept through it, or at least that is what the media would have wanted you to do.

Am I saying this is exactly what will happen ... the world peace and singing Koom-ba-yah and all that? No, but this event could eventually work out to be the domino that hopefully brings down the entire nation base of terrorism. That is one potential future ... one we should all be able to hope for (but democrats can't ... they want Bush to fail no matter what ... and if the entire world suffers the consequences of terrorist death and destruction for years to come as a result, who cares? Just so long as Bush fails ... ).


Urinating on the graves of the fallen soldiers

Now, let us take this on another tact. You always hear lefties crying and screaming about their "patriotic" position of opposing US policies. Like most other things, in order to be a democrat you have to re-define words in the dictionary to change your anti-americanism into something palatable.

In this instance, however, it is hard not to conclude that minimizing this huge victory is nothing less than pissing on the graves of those who fought and died for this moment. For instance, one of the most viscious battles post-Saddam occured when the US forces decided to go and clean up the rathole of terrorists in Fallujah. What was the vote like there ... overwhelmingly peaceful and huge turnout ... and that is a huge justification for taking on that battle and 1000% payback for what was lost.

I have seen nothing, and I mean NOTHING ... to talk about how the sacrifices Americans AND IRAQIs made to clean up Fallujah has paid HUGE dividends. Liberals can NEVER give the US credit for what was won. The media's message is one ... Bush lied and all lives were wasted for a lie. Pointing out even something so important as this vote would not fit in with the message that this is all a lie ... so to hell with the troops, to hell with the idea of noble sacrifices.

But they support the troops!!!

Brainwashing ... the power of repetition

The recent debacle with William Bennett, along with reporting on the federal response to Katrina, are classic examples of a second type of liberal media (redundant) tactic. I am not sure exactly what to call it, perhaps repetitive training, but it goes something like this: the liberal lays the case for some atrocious accusation against a conservative for about 99% of a discusion/interview/article, but then in the last sentence they issue the disclaimer that the person is not guilty of the accusation.

For instance ... in the Bennett case, liberals discuss racist comments, racism, how conservatives are all racists, how conservative policies are basically racist, etc. etc. etc. They probably say the "racist" word, or some derivation of it, about 100 times. Then at the end, they say that William Bennett is not racist.

Same basic thing in the Katrina situation ... the media hammered the fact that ALL the people were black (damned silly, but that does not matter) and Bush knew this, that blacks could not get out (probably because of some kind of racism) and Bush could have helped, that blacks were suffering and George Bush did not care (after all, he was in Crawford) ... etc., etc., etc. Then at the end of this long-winded case of racism and constantly (carefully) dropping in the name of George W. Bush ... they mention in closing that George W. Bush is not racist.

Why do liberals do this? The charge of racism is so easily contradicted in both these cases ... the long established actions of Msrs. Bush and Bennett are living contradictions to such claims. So to get the point across without actually saying it (libel), liberals spend the majority of the time laying the case for the accusation, but then inoculate themselves from the counter-claims by saying "but we don't want to imply that THIS person is the racist" ... leaving the racist charge attached to the ubiquitous (albeit conservative) "them".

Net result, the person who is accused of the crime has no ability to defend themselves because, after all they are not *really* accused of it.

By the way ... I would highly recommend that you pick up the book "What you say when you talk to yourself" to understand why this is so effective. Basically what is being undertaken here is a form of "programming" ... and this can be used (or just plain happens by accident) for positive or negative training. The message is conveyed over and over and over again, until you are effectively "programmed" ... so that when you hear the counterclaim at the end, your brain automatically rejects that message.

"Oh my God ... R, are you saying we are being brainwashed?" Well, no ... and yes ... not the TV version, Zombie like brainwashed walking around in a trance; but the type of training that is basically the foundation of every learning mechanism known to man. How do you learn a song ... listen to it over and over and over again. How do you memorize anything ... repetition and practice. What happens when you play back the song you memorized and something is changed or left out ... your brain says "this is wrong". What happens when some fact that you memorized and internalized is contradicted ... your brain says "this is wrong".

This is precisely the tactic that the media / liberals (redundant) are doing ... push and push and push and push an idea, and then in the end they can cover themselves by adding a minor little one line disclaimer (which the brain rejects), and the message is complete.

Watch for this ... and then make sure you make others aware of what is going on.

Before and After: The Media Mechanism for Personal Destruction

As predicted, the Tom DeLay situation is in full meltdown, even taking a rather interesting twist in that DeLay is (finally, in the opinion of this writer) trying to shut down Earle's corrupt operation. Let us hope that Earle suffers at least as much as his victims have.

The key here, however, is that the damage that Earle and his Democrat handlers have hoped for has already been done. This is the result of a corrupt party and its willing accomplices, the major news media. Their goal was to knock out DeLay (relatively easy given the Republicans' high standards of conduct) and smear his name. Mission accomplished ... and it will turn out that none of it is true ... but trust me you will hear the chorus of "corrupt republicans" (unchallenged by the media) throughout 2006.

The illusion of speculation

As I have pointed out time and again, when going after Republicans the news media attacks in full force, and speculation runs wild. In the past this practice was generally limited and highly qualified ... reporters felt compelled to make it clear what was fact and what was speculation, even when quoting somebody else. However, in the media today only somebody well versed in "weasel-words" is capable of discerning what is provable and what is speculation on the part of the (liberal) reporter.

A critical aspect to this ... in modern news media, the liberals (redundant) get as much of their reporting (i.e. speculation) out there as they possibly can BEFORE the facts become clear ... that way they can paint as ugly (against conservatives) or as pretty (on behalf of liberals) a picture as is possible without being challenged by the facts. Later, when the facts come out and the truth is known ... they quietly report what *really* happened, if at all ... and generally it is nowhere near what was painted earlier.

Now, pay close attention here please: this is another place where the whole "we might be liberal, but that does not mean we cannot be objective" argument of the media falls apart. When challenged about bias, you hear this argument as much as you hear the outright denial that the media is biased. The pundits will argue that reporting of the facts as the facts effectively "balances" their 90-95% liberal biases ... and as long as nothing is held back, the facts are "unbiased". Let us ignore for the moment how repulsively stupid that claim is, as anybody that has ever engaged in the "points-of-view" exercise in high school English class knows. The fact is that the media now push out as much left-wing speculation as is possible before the facts are known (and mask it so that readers think they are reading facts), and in some cases prevent themselves from getting to the truth so that they can continue to speculate when it serves their purposes.

If you do not believe this, ask yourself how hard would it have been for a reporter standing in front of the Superdome to open the door and walk in and see all of the "bodies" that they were reporting about? Think about that for a minute ... they were standing right there ... why didn't they go in??? I promise you ... some (all?) of them did go inside ... and when they did not find all of the bodies they were "promised", they went back outside and reported on the rumours, but did not bother to tell you that they went inside but could not find any.

The filter of summation

In addition to speculation, another tactic for adding bias by the media is "summation". When reporting a political response, you will see or hear direct quotes from liberals, but receive media "summations" about Republican statements. Again, the liberal reporter will claim that they are accurately reporting what the person is saying ... and I will even grant them that one, IN THEIR MIND they are being accurate.

Think about that one for a minute ... and let us illustrate with an example. If you were in a capital murder case ... would you want the victim's family to "accurately" state your position on the matter, even if they "reported it" 100% accurately? And yet, in the eyes of the news media, it makes sense that THEY can do this. I would even argue that when a liberal reporter embellishes the "quotes" from Republicans, they believe that they are being accurate ... very few people are *really* Clintonesque in their souls (i.e. able to lie without any sense of wrong).

Note again that this works both ways ... the news media will also distort the radicalism of liberal heroes both by summation as well as exclusion. How many people have heard the most fanatical statements of the Sheehan woman? How many people know that this Farrakhan freak claims to be "taken up" to some kind of a mother ship? Has anybody reported on what this Soros guy believes is right for America? Trust me, if a conservative / Republican had said such bizarre things as these clowns say every day, and done so as a teenager 30 years ago, this would be re-emphasized from now and forever whenever that person is quoted (how many times have you heard about Cheney / Halliburton?).

So what can be done?

Actually, I am not sure what can be done at a high level. In some senses, the american public is already doing the damage by turning it off and no longer buying their products. In addition, the blogs are out there challenging a lot of this and setting the record straight. Also, to a large extent, the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys of the world are exposing the blatent bias and outright lies straight up.

At an individual grassroots level ... I believe the key is to get the truth out there. I know it is difficult ... the Democraps are masters of the 30-second sound bite lie. But you know what? I feel like people (all but the most radical kool-aid drinkers) hate being lied to. You make somebody realize how they have been lied to and generally speaking, they are pissed off at the person / party that is doing the lying.

I was in a discussion (har har, yeah right ... I thought the hotel workers were going to call the cops) with a Teacher's Union rep in the hotel lounge one time. This guy was harping on the "unfunded mandates" line about "No-Child left behind". I asked him if he knew who wrote the law? "Yeah but ..." Then I nailed him with the failure to meet qualifications ... how plenty of money was there but the schools were not achieving their targets so they were not getting the money (by the way, most americans agree with this ... they are sick of good money chasing bad by paying for things that do not work). "Er ... um ..." ... I buried him with the facts. Now, this guy is in the union ... so there's no way he was going to be a convert ... but a bunch of other people in the room came out from under their chairs after the guy left, and I basically ended up ahead about 5-1 ... and I promise you none were going back because they were annoyed. These people were now inoculated against the liberal spin ... they were not going to be infected by the left-wing disease coming at them from the media. Best part ... this was in Ohio!!!

Tom DeLay ... WOW!!!

Wow!!!! I mean, I have just got to say that ... WOW!!!

How else do you respond to what is going on? It turns out that the original indictment against Mr. Delay was a complete farce ... the law that he is accused of breaking was not even a law when (they claim) he is accused of breaking it!!!

This is just insane!!!

So, in desperation, the dirtball Earle scrambles over to conjure up another indictment ... this time "money laundering". Nevermind the fact that "money laundering" is only a valid charge when the money was obtained illegally, which is not the contention here. He struck out on the first grand jury, which told him to go take a hike. So then he begs this jury to pretend like he was not even there ... which they refused to do (i.e. they filed the appropriate paperwork to indicate that they did not find any evidence to support the charge). NOTE: I have no idea, but I have got to imagine that this request to not file paperwork was probably illegal.

So then he runs into another grand jury, one that had only existed for a few minutes, and he gets these guys to throw down the money laundering indictment in what is probably going to be the fastest grand jury in Texas history!!! After that, Earle is reported to have encouraged the jury members to go out in front of the press and talk extensively to the press about this! (A violation of their oath).

So one of these bozos apparently does ... and I am sure Earle is cringing after this (of course, as despicable as Earle is, perhaps I am assuming too much) ... and he admits to a radio interviewer that the indictment had nothing to do with anything presented, but instead was a shot at DeLay because the guy did not like a TV ad that he saw (some type of political ad)! WOW!!!

Man, this Earle guy is worse than the scum of the earth. Hmmm, typical Democrat, I guess. And the democrats talk about the "vast, right wing conspiracy"??? If it was not so clumsy, what exactly would this amount to?

Note ... and this is critical ... this can only work for democrats because they play by different rules (have much lower standards) than the Republicans do. Republicans leave positions of leadership under these situations ... the liberals realize that this is a defacto "admission of guilt" to the media and the general public, regardless of the outcome. They scored a huge victory in their eyes. Trust me, the news coverage of DeLay having to relinquish his leadership position will dwarf the coverage of the total farce that these charges were when it all falls apart.

And nobody, I mean NOBODY, in the mainstream press will bother to try to figure out at what level of the Democrap party this was orchestrated at. NOBODY.

Again, in Nixon, a meaningless little burglary is hounded by the press, destroys a presidency, and the news reporters become heros and are annointed as KINGS OF THE MEDIA. In this case, it will not even merit a sniff to see what might be up here.

You know what is really weird ... and I mean beyond bizarre? This is the same place in Texas that the whacko with the Dan Rather fake document originated. What is up with those freaks? What is in the water there? Man, put a wall around that place and disconnect the telephones, sheesh!

Anyway ... have you ever played a game, like a sporting event ... where the other team is SOOO awful that you begin to feel embarassed for them? That is roughly the level that this Earle guy is at. How remarkable is it that he has chosen to hire a film crew to make a movie of this great achievement in his life, ala John Kerry in Vietnam. Makes you want to puke, perhaps in this case from laughing too hard!!!