And This Is Surprising To Whom

Media Bias.  It is a given now, isn't it?  And it is a given that the media is slanted overwhelmingly to the Left.  It is a given in magnitude and in quantity. But I give this who think that bias is not there or that exists in equal parts for both directions.

Media coverage of President Barack Obama was largely positive in the final week of the presidential campaign, while coverage of Mitt Romney was mostly negative, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism. From October 29 to November 5, positive stories about Obama in mainstream media outlets outnumbered negative ones by 10 percentage points, with 29 percent positive, and 19 negative. On the other hand, negative stories about the GOP nominee Mitt Romney outweighed positive stories by 17 points, with 33 percent negative compared to 16 positive.

Of little surprise, MSNBC was arguably unethically super-biased.

MSNBC's coverage of Romney during the final week (68% negative with no positive stories in the sample), was far more negative than the overall press, and even more negative than it had been during October 1 to 28 when 5% was positive and 57% was negative. For Obama, meanwhile, the coverage improved in the last week. From October 1 to 28, 33% was positive and 13% negative. During the campaign's final week, fully 51% of MSNBC's stories were positive while there were no negative stories at all in the sample.

Media Bias.  It is a given now.  And it is a given that the media is slanted overwhelmingly to the Left.  It is a given in magnitude and in quantity.

Obama Still Collecting Illegal Contributions

It has been pointed a number of times recently that Obama's campaign has been taking illegal contributions. There is no grey area. All foreign contributions are illegal.

In spite of it being pointed out (and the mainstream media saying nothing, by the way) there have been no corrections to the problem.

Using a Pakistani Internet Protocol and proxy server, a disposable credit card and a fake address, “Osama bin Laden” has successfully donated twice to Barack Obama’s presidential re-election campaign.
...
The acceptance of foreign contributions is strictly illegal under U.S. campaign finance law.

One $15 donation was made at BarackObama.com using a confirmed Pakistani IP address. In other words, as far as the campaign website was concerned, the donation was openly identified electronically as coming from Pakistan.

Before people get their panties in a bunch these tests have also been done on Romney's site...and that campaign is interested in following the law above the drive to collect money to try to win. The apparently foreign-based contributions were conducted as a test after a flurry of media reports described the ability of foreigners to donate to the Obama campaign but not to Mitt Romney’s site, which has placed safeguards against such efforts. In other words there is a respect for the law on one side and not on the other side.

Since the “foreign” contribution was sent, “Bin Laden’s” email address has received several solicitations from Obama’s campaign asking for more donations.

What is interesting about the email solicitations is that they have been reported to request an amount that keeps the donor $5 below the aggregate amount that would require demographic collection, proof of identity and mandatory reporting of all of that.

Circumstantial, sure, but enough individual car on a track make a train. Enough circumstantial evidence in a row is intent.

Obama's campaign seems to know they are collecting illegal contributions and attemptin to not just keep the funds but leverage them for more illegal contributions.

How Ignorance Spreads

This is how ignorance spreads.  First one person makes a ridiculously exaggerated statement.

But you can't erase what you've already done, they've voted to extend tax cuts for the very wealthy, giving a $500 trillion dollar tax-cut to 120,000 families.

Then the hundred people are going to go home and repeat it as fact. And maybe 1% of the new second hand audience will catch the quote as being wrong. Maybe 4% will catch the quote as being ridiculous. But of the remaining 95% of the new second hand audience maybe as many as 45% will just dismiss it as coming from a partisan who is repeating partisan stuff and dismiss it.

But the remaining 50% will be blindly following enough to repeat the broken figure to people. And so on and so on.

Remember, kids, the national debt is a staggering $16 trillion and if there had been a proposal to cut taxes by more than 50 times the national debt the MSM would have been all over it. You would have heard about it without trying. That person would have been skewered by hacks like Whoopi Goldberg, Cooper Anderson and Steven Colbert. But that person would have my vote!

Not only does ignorance spread from ridiculous misinformation like this, but had this been a Republican that made such an obvious misquote (and with Biden misquotes come often) there would be a national story calling into question the speaker's intelligence as well. Enter the nightly talk show surrogates like Letterman who would reinforce that perception. And then that audience tells someone and ignorance again spreads.

New York Times: Arguement for Treason

Our "Rights" are our rights. The only limitation placed on our rights is when our "right" harms someone else. Freedom of religion, so long as you don't sacrifice someone to your God. The right to bear arms, so long as you don't kill peoples with them. And Freedom of Speech for example, so long as (once again) you don't harm anyone. You can't yell fire in a crowded room. You can't whisper to someone in an Airport that you think I’d be funny if someone was caught with a Bomb in their bag. And you can't cover up Treason, with the claim that its covered under "freedom of speech" or "freedom of the press."

This is what the New York times is doing, and what the Liberal Left, Star Tribune, and all the Hate-Bush-First crowd are defending.

The definition of Treason is about as clear as you can get, as it is the only law that’s laid out in the Constitution:

Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

So, lets look at this. Treason, after all, is a pretty big charge.

First of all:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Okay, what’s that word... levying? I gatta whip out my dictionary (note, I am using the American Heritage Dictionary definition... cause its... American.)

lev•y (lv) Pronunciation Key v. lev•ied, lev•y•ing, lev•ies
1. To impose or collect (a tax, for example).
2. To draft into military service.
3. To declare and wage (a war).

I'm pretty sure that "in levying War" they aren't talking about definitions 1 and 2. Levy is a synonym for wage in this case. Anyone doesn’t agree? I didn't think so... So treason would consist of a declaration of war against the United States... then there's the first "OR"

or in adhering to their Enemies

Adhering? adher?? What the nutz... where's that dictionary...

ad•here (d-h�r) Pronunciation Key v. ad•hered, ad•her•ing, ad•heres v. intr.
1. To stick fast by or as if by suction or glue.
2. To remain devoted to or be in support of something: adhered to her beliefs.
3. To carry out a plan, scheme, or operation without deviation: We will adhere to our plan.

v. tr.To cause to adhere; make stick.

Adhering to their enemies would be to Stick Fast to an enemy, like suction or glue? Kind of fits... Remain devoted or in support of an enemy? Carry out a plan, scheme, or operation with an enemy? I think 2 or 3 are a match here. If I were a lawyer, I would probably just pick 3... but what with my "progressive nature" I can be open minded. (i say that just to piss off liberals. te-he)

Okay. Treason would consist of a declaration of war against the United States, OR Remain devoted or in support of an enemy (carry out a plan, scheme, or operation with an enemy). Gett'in there. What about that last OR. that one has to mean something like "terrorists have rights" what with all the democratic banter... lets look at it.

giving them Aid and Comfort.

Woha, that’s nothing like "terrorists have rights." in fact, I don't think I even need my Dictionary for that one! I rule.

what about that second part?

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason,

Okay, easy enough. Any questions? Looks like know everything after that first part. Next:

but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood,

Damnit.

at•tain•der (-tndr) Pronunciation Key n.
1. In the ancient common law, the state of an offender who had been sentenced for a
capital offense.
2. Obsolete. Dishonor.

Obsolete, dishonor. That doesn't fit in there. In this case, the synonym of Attainder is Offender. So lets throw it in.

but no Offender of Treason shall work... Corruption of Blood?

What the F... Corruption of Blood. I bet that’s not even in the dictionary... No frick'in way, it IS in the dictionary!

According to Webster's (American Heritage Dictionary didn't have this entry):

Main Entry: corruption of blood: the effect of an attainder which bars a person from inheriting, retaining, or transmitting any estate, rank, or title

Holy cow... it even mentions the reason I'm looking it up. See how easy this is! So Corruption of Blood refers to, quite literally, the tainted blood that would follow a ancestor of the treason committer. More simply... the name of the traitor’s kids' would not be defunked because the traitor was a, well, traitor. Corruption of blood is an old English thing...

...or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

This means congress may take the property of a traitor, but once the traitor dies, the property must be inheritable. The property is only forfeit during the traitor’s life. Once the democrat traitor dies, their kids get their property.

All together now:

Treason would consist of a declaration of war against the United States, OR Remain devoted or in support of an enemy (carry out a plan, scheme, or operation with an enemy) OR giving them Aid and Comfort.

The second part I'll leave out, that has to do with punishment. We'll worry about the punishment when the New York Times is tried for treason. But the first part (remember, this is a law) is pretty clear.

Did the New York Times declare war against the United States of America? No, they did not. I won't even go that far.

Did the New York Times remain or devote support to an enemy? Um... No. Well... devote support to Terrorists? Did the New York Times support Terrorism? Perhaps. Let me ask my third question.

Did the New York Times give the enemy Aid or Comfort? Comfort, in this case, is a synonym of Assist? Did the NY Times assist or aid the enemy? Hell yea. I'll tell you how.

The moment you tell our enemy about our tactics against them, while we are at war against them, is the moment you willingly aid the enemy, as well as willingly harm the United States.

Did the New York Times tell our enemy about our tactics to fight terrorism while we were/are fighting terrorists? With our society, I would normally say, Ehhh, this happens all the time, but unfortunately classified information does not often get out, nor is it printed and published by the millions of copies. Classified information is classified for a reason. My argument for treason against the New York Times is because they released classified information that gave our enemy Aid or Comfort:

In May of 2004, the New York Times published leaked information about Data mining.

In December of 2005, the New York Times published leaked information about the Nsa spying.

In June of 2006 , the New York Times published leaked information about Financial transaction tracking.

Not once, not twice, but three times the New York times committed treason by releasing information that assisted our enemy. By the way, if anyone wants to argue the valadity of either of these programs, feel free to let me know.

And even worse, the New York Times, and all the liberal crazies are attempting to defend themselves under the blanket of "Freedom of the Press." Its amazing, isn't it, how the New York Times is defended when they commit treason, and in the same breath, they want to string up President Bush for going after terrorists. The New York Times has this to say about themselves:

We understand that honorable people may disagree with any of these choices — to publish or not to publish. But making those decisions is the responsibility that falls to editors, a corollary to the great gift of our independence. It is not a responsibility we take lightly. And it is not one we can surrender to the government.

The way I read this: It's the Government's responsibility to conduct war, and defend the nation... And its' the New York Times responsibility to stop them.

Path To 9/11 Receives Un-Due Criticism

Democrats Getting a Taste of Their Own Medicine .

A movie will be released on ABC this Sunday September 10th at 7 central called "The Path to 9/11." This movie, mind you, is not advertised as a documentary, like Michael Moore’s movie Ferment 9/11 or Al Gore’s piece (of crap) An Inconvenient Truth, this is advertised as a Dramatization, based around fact.

What is upsetting all the democrats is that this film talks about what leads to and has causation to the 9/11 attack. Which, for those who don’t know, have to do with Clinton’s presidency.

Yep. There it is. Its not enough for the political left to get angry whenever 9/11 is talked about, because, of coarse, whenever you talk about the events in history that led us to the path we are on, that’s called “pollitizing the events” and “lying” and “underhanded tricks to support the administration.” But whenever you show a film that is not supportive of the administration its called… where are those quotes:

"No documentary takes you through the range of emotions the way that Michael Moore's controversial film does"
Reel.com

"Fahrenheit 9/11 does make a convincing argument that Moore is the country's most celebrated and socially significant filmmaker."
Korea Times

"Michael Moore is a masterful filmmaker, because his films elicit intense emotional responses from all who view them."
Trades

Moore makes a persuasive and unrelenting case that there is another way to look at things beyond the version we've been given.
Los Angeles Times

Masterful? The Corvette Z06 is Masterful. Moore is hardly the Z06. He is more like… an old Honda Minivan. Rusty and full of trash.

Moore’s farce was claimed to be a documentary, when clearly it was one guy’s interpretation and splice of people’s views to fit his own.

Michael Moore: [referring to the Saudis] Do they give you any trouble?
Secret Service Agent: I'm not at liberty to answer that.
Michael Moore: Okay, I'll take that as a yes.

Anyway, I could talk for days about how much of a liar Moore is, but this isn’t about Moore, its about the Bias in the complaints behind “A Path to 9/11.”

MSNBC tells us how Clinton officials protest the miniseries. And of corse, with a statement like this, they show that they are just sitting on the fence:

A “terribly wrong” miniseries about events leading to the Sept. 11 attacks blame President Clinton’s policies, former Clinton administration officials said in letters demanding that ABC correct it or not air it.

I will have to watch it before forming an opinion (much like Moore or Gore’s flicks) but according to a MSNBC vote: 60% of people (as of 9:17am) voting thing that ABC is misleading the public through its dramatization, and they haven’t even watched it!

News and papers are all over this thing too, and not in a good way:

Accuracy aside, ABC's '9/11' deserves to bomb
-Chicago Sun-Times

Hindsight is heartbreaking and disturbing to watch, even in a made-for-television movie. But it’s even harder to take when those steps continue to contaminate the present.
-New York Times

Look, friends. Here is The Bottom Line:

• Liberals dish crap for years, and the moment something doesn’t support them, they cry bloody murder.
• Its too soon for anyone to judge because no one has watched it
• Face Facts, that President Clinton had more to do with the 9/11 attack the President Bush did.

**********Update 9/12/06 10:38pm**********

Many reviews are in about this thing.

CNN: Controversial '9/11' still powerful

Accuracy in Media: ABC's 'The Path to 9/11' Is Outstanding

MSNBC: ‘Path to 9/11’ tells a sad, riveting tale
This one is kind of interesting. In reading the review, you don't get a great sense of "love" for the movie, but then again, MSNBC I can site all over for showing their left-wing BIAS. This is as close as you'll get to hear MSNBC bash Clinton:

Whatever its flaws may or may not be, "The Path to 9/11" makes clear there's ample blame to go around.

Of the negative criticism, I think my favorite is this one:

Chicago Sun-Times: Accuracy aside, ABC's '9/11' deserves to bomb

I like that... Even if its accurate, it should bomb. Why? Because it doesn't make Clinton look like he farts roses.

But then again, what would you expect when they call Fahrenheit 9/11 a:

A compelling, persuasive film, at odds with the White House effort to present Bush as a strong leader. -Roger Ebert

In an e-mail conversation with a friend, a good question/statement was brought up:

Would the capture have Bin Laden accomplished anything? Someone else would have taken his place--possibly someone worse. Capturing one man would not have seriously damaged Al-Qaida, in my belief. They would have continued onward, probably even angrier than before. The root of the problem needs to be addressed.

I can't answer that, however, in "The Path to 9/11" they mentioned wanting to bomb or wipe out a terrorist training camp, then bomb/wipe it out when it got rebuilt or moved, and keep doing so because of a couple of terrorist attacks that have been committed against the US at that time span of the Docudrama.

Without capturing the bastard and having him honestly tell us how instrumental he was in the 9/11 attack, there is no way of knowing, but if we had been destroying terrorist/Muslim extremist training camps one after another since the mid 90s, I would be more willing to say it would have probably had an impact on the whole "Lets blow up the Infidels" game plan. (It should be noted, BTW, that we did capture the 'Mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as of March 1st, 2003)

This brought up the question:

What would you consider to be the root of the problem and what might be a way(s)
to address and correct it/them.

I think the problem (and mind you, I’m no expert) is Muslim extremists in a crappy part of the world, who have nothing better to live for, and who are bitter/jealous because there are places in the world who have it better then they do (probably because we haven't been fighting wars of religion non stop for several decades) is the root of the problem. not all Muslims are like that. Look at all those who voted in Iraq, after all.

1. If you can bring peace and freedom from dictators to the region (and by force, because bringing peace by way of peace hasn't worked), but as we have discovered with Iraq, bringing peace and democracy to the middle east is kind of difficult.
2. Terminate the opposition. None of this 'trial' crap. when the 'bad guy' stands in a court room and says "If i would have had enough money, I would have killed you all," there is nothing better you can do besides drop the f***er.

How do you forcibly bring peace and democracy to an area?

First, they have to want it. the fact that a greater percentage of Iraqis voted under fear of getting blown up then Americans did in the last election will tell you something about whether or not they want it. But once you bring one powerful country in the area up and running, others should follow... it may take some 'seed planting' or just plain gett'in dirty, but don't forget... Our nation was formed on the violent overthrow of another country's system. (This is why we have the second amendment). To say that you can do this with nothing but Peace, doves, and Koohm-by-yah is naive at best... Dangerous at worst.

It would be something different if we were never attacked. But we were. And we have to deal with that.

I don't have enough information to know whether or not capturing or killing OBL 10 years ago would have helped. But then let me ask:

If England could have killed George Washington and/or Benjamin Franklin during our rebellion back in the 1700s, do you think that would have hurt our country's formation?

The Star Fib: Unable to Call a Duck a Duck

Pete here again. Man, the Star Fib really chapps my chode. I swear they speak out of ignorance just to tick me off:

During a meeting last week with his economic advisers, President Bush took a break to pose for pictures and tell reporters, "things are good" for American workers and small businesses. We don't know if he was speaking from ignorance or a sheet of talking points, but it's clear he didn't have a sneak preview of the income and poverty report released by the U.S. Census Bureau on Tuesday.

Okay, they were off to a good start with the first sentence, then the just had to keep going. So many things are wrong with this editorial, where should I start? The top I guess.

The annual report, the most comprehensive snapshot of Americans' economic well-being, shows that for the great majority of Americans, this is the weakest economic expansion since World War II.

What? The weakest? Not according to... Oh... Just about everyone else:

Washington Times

Admittedly, the current expansion took some time to take hold. But once it finally gained strength during the second quarter of 2003, it established itself as arguably the most steady, non-volatile expansion in 60 years.

MSNBC mentions "Obvious week spots" including construction spending and a slowing housing market but says:

The latest snapshot, released by the Labor Department Friday, was a bit brighter than expected and should ease any fears that the expansion that began in late 2001 is in danger of fizzling out.

Perhaps the Star Fib should say something like this:

The snapshot released was a bit brighter then we would have liked. Dispute constant attempts to weaken America through our power of journalism, The Anti-ChristMohammad president we have is still performing well when it comes to the economy.

The International Herald Tribune:

The U.S. economy grew more quickly in the second quarter than the government initially estimated and inflation was slightly lower, the Commerce Department
reported Wednesday.

They continue to say:

In the second quarter, spending on housing fell more quickly than the government had earlier estimated - at an annual rate of 9.8 percent - but the drop was more than made up for by a 22 percent rise in construction spending.

So what... A 22% rise on construction spending (according to a statement by an earlier source) is a week spot?

Wage-and-salary income surged during the first half of the year, the report showed.

What was that? "Surged"? Isn't that like the opposite of... What was it that the Star Fib said?

Median household income in 2005 inched up to $46,326

Inched up? That doesn't sound as impressive as "surged" does it? I guess when the failure of the United States helps your political cause... It’s best not to "Dramatize" the positives, right? I mean, with all this "inching" along, people must be having a real crap time trying to pay for bills and what not, right?

That's not what the Heritage Foundation says:

The economy's performance since the 2003 tax cuts went into effect has been stunning. The unemployment rate has fallen to from 6.3 percent to 4.7 percent—well below the historical average. Companies and entrepreneurs have created 5.7 million new jobs, including another 128,000 in August. And the typical unemployed worker now needs three fewer weeks to find a job than in June 2003.

The 2003 tax cuts lowered taxes on savings and investment, making it easier for workers to save for the future and reducing the cost of investment. The consequences have been dramatic. Since June 2003, investment in the economy has surged by 28 percent in real terms and is higher now than during the late 1990s. The stock market has also recovered, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average up 2,500 points in since June of 2003. With tens of millions of American workers owning stocks through 401(k) plans, these gains have been broadly shared throughout the economy.

Time to Celebrate President Bush was right.
American workers do know better than the government how to spend their money. The economy has surged since the 2003 tax cuts took effect, and these gains continued in August, with unemployment continuing to fall as the economy adds more jobs. This Labor Day, American workers can relax while enjoying more of their hard-earned money and the freedom and opportunity that lower taxes allow.

The Bush tax cuts? Isn't that just a Conservative cover-up for Big Business something-or-other? I know it’s hard to believe, but the largest cut went to the lowest bracket (from 15% to 10%, which is a 33% cut).

Look it up if you doubt it. So with all this Conservative Propaganda Good News, what does DNC House Leader Nancy Pelosi have to say? Interestingly enough, she did have something to say, back on 8/4/06:

As bad economic news for middle-income families living paycheck to paycheck adds up, Republicans continue to play politics with the economic well-being of millions of families.

Huh. Apparently reporting good news is "Playing Politics." I'll have to remember that one.

In addition to the "current economic state"...

• Over 5 million new jobs being created can be blamed on President Bush.
• Unemployment at 4.7% can be blamed on President Bush.
• GDP along at 4% can be blamed on President Bush.
• Business spending up 25% can be blamed on President Bush.
• Per capita after tax income up double digests can be blamed on President Bush.
• Revenue flowing in more then 386 billion more then 3 years ago can also be blamed on President Bush

I went on the only vacation I could afford since my wife and I had our honeymoon 5 years ago! Do you know what I see? I see "Vast Prosperity." Just look around you, people. Does your current state of affairs tell you that the US Economy is going to crap? (If you are trying to sell a screenplay in California, don't answer that.)

Another question? Why does the left keep refering to information from only 4-5 years ago when it comes to the negatives of the Economy (like the poverty rate)?

I'll show you:

This chart is from the US Sensus Bureau. Notice the fact that the Poverity rate remains at an all time low? How could the number of people in Poverty go up or stay the same when the Poverty Rate doesn't change or goes down? I'll give you a hint: It has to do with Population Growth.

Remember: Bush isn't eating kittins. But the liberal media IS skewing the data. If you don't believe me, read that Star Fib report again, then look at my graph.

Operation: Learngasm Complete.

President Domestic Travel

Pete here again...

I bring this up because of the recient reporting by Pat Kessler at WCCO. Looking outside of WCCO, President Bill Clinton’s Travel is called excessive from CNN here.

USA Today is quick to nock Bush for his traveling, like WCCO:

USA today says:

An Associated Press tally of Bush's travels shows he has made at least 114 trips
in the 17 months since January 2003.
Clinton flew Air Force One on 123
domestic trips between January 1995 and mid-October 1996, a period of 22 months.
It was a record for re-election-related travel aboard the presidential aircraft,
according to the Center for Public Integrity.

Lets examine this statement:
1. They knew exactly how many trips President Clinton took, but for President Bush its "At least"????
2. President Clinton: "123 domestic trips" and President Bush: "114 trips.” Where is the word domestic when referring to President Bush’s trips?

Now let me rearrange some words in that USA Today Article:
"Are" "all of" "Bush" "trips" "domestic" "at least"?

They actually answer that: "Virtually all of Bush's trips on Air Force One have been within the continental United States."

So, what is the definition of "virtually all"? Does Seventy-Five percent or more count as “Virtually all”? Does this count President Bush's travels for Hurricane Katrina? Those are domestic, after all.
I would love to see a list of where each president has gone on the time they claim and for what. Because, I bet you a dollar, our ol' "man of integrity" of a president has President Bush beat by quite a bit when it comes to "domestic campaigning travel."

Lynch having baby...update on the other girl

Remember PoW Jessica Lynch? All the stories. All the hype.

And it continues. Guess what? She's pregnant.

THE American soldier who became a national icon after she was captured in Iraq revealed yesterday that she is expecting her first child.

Jessica Lynch once worried that the injuries she suffered were so severe they might stop her from having a baby.

Ms Lynch, 23, who has rarely spoken publicly since her return home to West Virginia, let the news slip in an e-mail to the television interviewer Diane Sawyer. “Learning to walk again and coping with the internal injuries that I still deal with pale in comparison to the tremendous joy of carrying this child,” she wrote. The father is her boyfriend, Wes Robinson, 25.

Now, does anyone remember the OTHER PoW, whose injuries in the same event were worse? She is black. Remember her yet? Doubt it, mostly because the media, for some reason (racism?) would not cover both women close to equally...and still don't.

The other PoW is Shoshana Johnson.

Shoshana Nyree Johnson (born 1971) was the first black female prisoner of war in the military history of the United States. She was held hostage in Iraq for 22 days after being captured with four other members of the U.S. Army 507th Maintenance Company, 5/52 ADA BN, 11th ADA Brigade. Johnson was a Specialist at the time and suffered bullet wounds to both of her ankles. She survived the ordeal as a result of a successful rescue mission conducted by U.S. Marines on April 13, 2003.

Aside from announcing that Johnson signed a book deal (years after Lynch signed one...and for less? Don't know, can't find details on the amount), and aside from a CNN Where are they Now type of deal (and a couple of similar interviews in the same 'you used to be known' vein) last year there has been nothing said about her.

Watch the releases and coverage over the next few weeks. Lynch is pregnant, Johnson gets a book deal. Somehow I have a feeling if you see one you will not see the other. I have a hunch that the one you will see on the news reports is Lynch, and maybe a quick sentence about Johnson, just to keep it fair.

So, while the media continues acting as if they have some kind of moral high ground over everyone, and that they are better than everyone else you can keep in mind that they are no better than the average person. Worse even, because to be racist is to be worse than the average person.

Worldwide News Sources...not a good source

While reading the news about the conflict in the Middle East, which I believe has the very real potential to become WWIII, keep in mind something that conservatives have known. You cannot trust worldwide "news" service.

Case #1
Reuters is forced to admit they were disseminating doctored photos to make the plight of Beirut as victim seem larger.

A Reuters photograph of smoke rising from buildings in Beirut has been withdrawn after coming under attack by American web logs. The blogs accused Reuters of distorting the photograph to include more smoke and damage.

The photograph showed two very heavy plumes of black smoke billowing from buildings in Beirut after an Air Force attack on the Lebanese capital. Reuters has since withdrawn the photograph from its website, along a message admitting that the image was distorted, and an apology to editors.
...
In the message, Reuters said that "photo editing software was improperly used on this image. A corrected version will immediately follow this advisory. We are sorry for any inconvience."

Reuters' head of PR Moira Whittle said in response: "Reuters has suspended a photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to a photograph showing smoke billowing from buildings following an air strike on Beirut. Reuters takes such matters extremely seriously as it is strictly against company editorial policy to alter pictures."

No big surprise, but it is evidence of Reuters lack of credibility.

Case #2
Have you noticed all of the stories about every single death on the Palestinian side of the war? And, by following the news stories, you would think that the Israelis are untouched in the conflict for the most part...especially the civilians. Well, you would be wrong if you believed the proportion of civilian casualties from the worldwide media.

Hours after mother and two daughters are killed in Hizbullah rocket attack, media outlets around world fail to report deaths; meanwhile, British press continues anti-Israel tirade

Media bias? Hours after 60-year-old Fadia Jumaa and her two daughters, Samira, 31, and Sultana, 33, were killed by a Hizbullah rocket attack on their home in the Israeli-Bedouin village of Arab al-Aramshe, the international media has so far largely ignored their deaths.

Reuters was alone among non-Israeli media outlets to report the deaths, according to a Google news search, a number of hours after the first reports of the attack surfaced.

The lack of coverage of the Israeli civilian war casualties stands in marked contrast to the swift response by many sections of the international media to reported Lebanese casualties.

Meanwhile, the British press, which has produced some of the most venomous anti-Israel coverage during the war, has continued its tirade against Israel.

No surprise there. The media, most of the EU and half of the United States are anti-Semitic. They don't have the "pair" on them to admit it, but they are. Look at how so many on the Left are rooting against Israel, condemning Israel and skewing sympathy towards the terrorist arms of Iran (aka Hezbollah, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine).

Case #3:
I have received death threats from "pacifists" while attending the University. I have received threats from "pro-peace" people. So it is of no surprise that pro-Israel websites are subject to death threats from the anti-Semitic wing of the Left. The interesting part is that it is from the so-called "objective" reporter clan.

Worker suspended after telling American blogger: 'I look forward to day when you pigs get your throats cut'

A Reuters employee has been suspended after sending a death threat to an American blogger.

The message, sent from a Reuters internet account, read: "I look forward to the day when you pigs get your throats cut."

It was sent to Charles Johnson, owner of the Little Green Footballs (LGF) weblog, a popular site which often backs Israel and highlights jihadist terrorist activities.

In the threat, the Reuters staff member, who has not been named, left his email address as "zionistpig" at hotmail.com.

Reporting the message to his readers, Johnson wrote on his website: "This particular death threat is a bit different from the run of the mill hate mail we get around here, because an IP lookup on the sender reveals that he/she/it was using an account at none other than Reuters News."

The examples grow and grow showing that (a) the EU and UN are anti-Semitic, (b) the media are anti-Semitic and (c) the Left condones and embraces the anti-Semites, their rhetoric, their tactics and their organizations. It is not unfair to conclude that these coupled with the Left's constant drive to protect the Muslim terrorists and their nations that the Left is strongly (1) anti-Semitic, (2) pro-Muslim terrorists, and (3) an enemy, in mind at minimum, of the United States and its allies.