Labels aside, 61% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in all or most circumstances

Though only 45% of Americans polled by Gallup labeled themselves as "Pro-Life," 22% said that abortion should be illegal in "all circumstances" and 39% said that abortion should be legal in "only a few circumstances."  (Link to story here.)

While I do find it sad that 39% of Americans support legal abortion in most or all circumstances, I'm choosing to be positive today and happy that a significant majority of people oppose most abortions, despite what we see in the media.  This is good news.

Keep talking.  Keep persuading.  The truth will win out and one day, some day, in some generation, with God's help, human beings will stop killing their children.

Definitions matter and the media is liberal

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."  - William J. Clinton

As our former president knew, definitions matter.  So does the presentation of the question.

Joshua Greenman of the New York Daily News writes this piece today concluding that "Democrats don't control the media."  And, to give Greenman some credit, I agree that Democrats don't control the media . . .  but only as he defines the terms and poses the question.

Let's start with the question itself.  Does anyone "control" all aspects of media?  Of course not.  It is not possible to "control" the dissemination of all viewpoints across all spectrums - to decide what is said, who says it, and how across every newspaper, radio station, television station, blog, and website in and out of the country.  So, of course, it is quite easy to point to examples of the non-existence of a clear impossibility.  And, Greenman does do that well.  But who couldn't?

And how does Greenman define "the media"?  Traditionally, I think, most folks would consider the "news" departments at newspapers, radio stations, and television channels to be a part of the media.  Not the editorials or op-ed columnists.  Not the disc jockeys or talk-show hosts.  And not the weatherman or the stars on the sit-coms.  You know, the media used to be all the folks who sometimes still claim unbiased neutrality and always used to claim it.  But Greenman makes sure to include all possible outlets of information including Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, neither of whom would fit into a traditional "media" definition, and neither of whom would ever claim to be neutral.

The truth is that liberals (if not Democrats) do dominate (if not control) almost every traditional media outlet (if not the entire media).

I'll give Greenman real credit for his column.  It is an interesting take on the success that conservatives have had in labeling some policies and getting a message out through a formerly-upstart cable news channel and other new "media" channels.  But the conclusion that these successes prove that liberal Democrats don't control the dominant ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and every other major newspaper in the country, is ludicrous.  And, for now, despite the rise of alternative news outlets on cable and the internet, those old-school media outlets still matter.

If you don't believe me, watch the news tonight, or read any newspaper you can find today.  Or, if you're looking for something objective, check the records of newspaper endorsements by party in recent elections.

Liberal bias exists in traditional media folks.  The traditional media just hates it when we notice.

Global Warming Study "seriously flawed"

Shockingly (sarcasm intended there), "a climate change study that projected a 2.4 degree Celsius increase in temperature and massive worldwide food shortages in the next decade was seriously flawed, scientists said Wednesday."  (Link to story here.)

Shockingly (no sarcasm here) these "climate scientists" have admitted that the flaw existed . . . and the media is reporting it.

But, of course, it was just "an honest and common mistake."

Sarah Palin responds to those blaming her for Tucson . . . and does it well

Sarah Palin: "America's Enduring Strength" from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.

The Blame Game

I spent some time in the car today, much of it listening to talk radio - everything from NPR to KMOX to 97.1.  The hot topic this morning was Jared Loughner's Saturday shooting spree.  That, of course, is a worthy topic.  Thankfully, it is still an unusual and newsworthy event when a man takes out a gun, starts shooting, and kills six random people while injuring fourteen more, including a member of Congress.  But folks across the dial weren't content to talk about the news - what happened and what we know.  No, the talking heads were aghast over climate of American political rhetoric which they seem to blame for making this Loughner-nut act like the nut he is.

The media's focus today seems to be on Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck - blaming them (as the sheriff in Tucson did) for Loughner's actions.  Those three, and other conservative voices, are vaguely blamed today and all to often for "divisiveness" or "hatred" or "vitriol" or "negativity".  What that really seems to mean, though, is that they disagree with the media, the Democrats, and the folks who currently hold power in Washington, D.C., and want to keep it and acquire more.

Conservative voices are often discussed by their opposition without any reference to specifics.  Take criticism spouted by Clarence Dupnik (quoted in the story linked above), the Pima County, Arizona, sheriff investigating the rampage:  "The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information.  . . . [Limbaugh] attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials and that kind of behavior in my opinion is not without consequences."

What, Sheriff Dupnik, did Rush Limbaugh say that caused this nut to go off and start shooting?  Did he suggest violence?  Have you ever listened to Rush's show?  Or have you just heard your friends second-hand criticism of what they think he said?  What did he say that was irresponsible?

Limbaugh, Dupnik said, "angers" people against government and elected officials.  But anger is not synonymous with violence.  Anger, often - usually even, does not result in violence.  What is wrong with anger in the context of political discourse?  Nothing, of course.

Anger channeled to violence is wrong.  But political rhetoric is not responsible for doing that particular wrong.  Certainly not in this case.

Jared Loughner is - to the best of my barely informed knowledge - nuts.  And Jared Loughner (or possibly his mental illness) is responsible for his actions.

President Fiat

It comes as no surprise that one American president, South American that is, has embraced the power to rule by decree.  That president is Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.  (Link to story here.)  But at least Hugo waited until his country's legislature officially gave him that power.

In North America, a president is ruling by executive decree and bureaucratic fiat as well.  Of course, that president is the United States' own Barack Obama.  Here are two recent examples . . .

#1:  Remember the brouhaha over "Death Panels" originally included in the monstrous bill that brought us (or is bringing us) Obamacare.  Without rehashing the details, suffice it to say that at the very least Obama and the majority of the Dems wanted end-of-life planning included in patients' government funded annual checkups.  Pro-Life conservatives opposed and won the battle.  The provision was removed before Obamacare passed.

But winning the battle is not winning the war.  The death panels are back.  The Obama administration has simply issued a new Medicare regulation enacting them.  (Link to story here.)  So much for the will of Congress.  So much for the will of the people expressed through their representatives in a representative democracy.

But one is not enough . . .

#2:  "Net neutrality."  The Obama-controlled Federal Communications Commission has decided to jump into the field of internet communications and regulate those communications as it does television and radio.  To date, standing alone, the reasons and the proposed regulations may even seem innocuous.  But the fact of the matter is, the government regulating the free flow of information on the only communication outlet not controlled by the political left wing in America should cause some pause.

Now, certainly in a representative democracy, the will of the people on this issue should matter, right?  Certainly our elected representatives in Congress would be the ones to determine whether or not a new field should be opened to government regulation, right?

Not in Barack Obama's America.  Nope.  Congress passed no law unleashing the hounds of the FCC on the internet.  And, according to this Rasmussen poll, just 21% of American voters want government regulation of anything on the internet.   A majority opposes such regulation in favor of a free market.

Welcome to America.  You and I are the great unwashed.  What you think doesn't matter - at least to President Fiat.  He knows best.  The great father looking out for us from the mountaintop.  So he thinks.

The upcoming regime change in 2012 (actually January 20, 2013) can't come fast enough.

stltoday.com covering for Robin Carnahan?

Here's a link to the story.  Note that the story covers a blunder by the Missouri Secretary of State and the headline correctly lambasts the "error."  But, just who is the blundering, error-prone Secretary of State?  Don't look to the story, the answer isn't in there.  It is Robin Carnahan . . . the Democrat's candidate for U.S. Senate.  stltoday.com and its parent, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, apparently don't want to call attention to that fact . . . but I will . . .

Robin Carnahan's office made "a counting error" and "nearly left a qualified independent candidate for State Senate off the November ballot."

Not-so-shockingly, Post-Dispatch editorial is way off base

I rarely read the local newspaper's editorial page.  Why bother?  I suspect that most St. Louisans could predict the Post-Dispatch's editorial position quite easily by reviewing the daily talking points from the Democratic National Committee and leaning a bit to the left.  However, for some reason, today's lead editorial, which was headlined "President Pariah" caught my eye.

This editorial criticises Robin Carnahan for keeping her distance from Barack Obama and his policy "achievements" and advocates embracing the president's policies.  No surprise there, and nothing really remarkable.  But the piece continues and argues that "Ms. Carnahan . . . should be hammering on the fact that today's economic woes, record deficits, and record income disparity between the rich and the rest of America are in large part a function of decisions made on the Republicans' watch over the last 10 years:  $2.1 trillion in tax cuts, a trillion dollars worth of wars conducted off the books and $373 billion in unfunded Medicare expansion."

This, of course, is right out of the old Democrat playbook . . . blame George W. Bush.  And, you know what, I agree.  President Bush and the Republicans spent too much when they were in power.  True.  No doubt about it.  But lets take a look at the approximately $3.5 trillion in spending that the Post chooses to cite - not to discuss the merits of tax cuts, or the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, or the expansion of Medicare (which it would surprise me if the Post didn't endorse at the time) - but in comparison with the levels of spending since the Democrats have captured the White House.

The facts are this, from the time that George W. Bush took office in 2001 until he left in January of 2010, the national debt increased by $4,899,100,310,609.  That's roughly $4.9 trillion.  That's bad, no doubt about it, but President Bush was in office for eight years.  Barack Obama has been in office for only 19 months.  In those 19 months, the national debt has already increased by another $2,736,401,236,918.  That's worse - and by a substantial margin.

During the Bush administration, the national debt increased at a rate of $1.68 billion per day.  But in the first 579 days of the Obama administration, the national debt has increased at a rate of $4.73 billion per day.  Almost $5 billion per day!

When it comes to government spending, the Democrats are Barry Bonds and the Republicans are Jack Clark.  It is disingenuous for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to criticize the spending record of George W. Bush and the Republican Party yet advocate embracing Obamaism.

I would give Robin Carnahan credit for running away from Obama if I believed that her run was anything more than a desperate and deceitful ploy in an election campaign.  But, alas, that's exactly what it is.

Why the left-leaning media hasn't said much about polls in Missouri's U.S. Senate race recently . . .

The above table from Real Clear Politics shows a pretty clear trend in Missouri voters from Democrat Robin Carnahan to Republican Roy Blunt.  Shouldn't that be newsworthy?  Where are the media reports?

Well, I suppose that goes without saying.

Hutaree

I find the arrest of nine members of a religious group(?) or cult(?) or extremist militia(?) or terrorist organization(?) or survivalist organization(?) known as Hutaree very interesting.  But facts about who they are and what they did to warrant arrest are hard to come by.  It's easier to find out the secrets of the Freemasons than to figure out what these folks did to deserve (or not deserve) arrest - just ask Dan Brown.

Don't take this the wrong way.  They may be extremist wackos who were ready to take innocent lives and, in fact, need to be behind bars.  Or they just may be extremist wackos.  Given the dearth of information, I just don't know.

Apparently, according to the opposing lawyers on the case, these folks are either law abiding citizens who are merely exercising their constitutional rights under the First Amendment and Second Amendment by "possessing weapons and voicing opposition to the government," or they are violent folks with "dark hearts and evil intent" who "broke the law by conspiring to oppose the U.S. government by using violence and weapons."  (Link to story here.)

What are the facts?  What is the truth?

The indictment says Hutaree planned to kill a police officer then ambush the funeral to kill more police officers.  But the charges include "seditious conspiracy, attempted use of weapons of mass destruction, and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence."

How did they attempt to use WMDs?  And what WMDs did they have when they attempted to use them?  As a friend put it today, were they the same ones we found in Iraq?  Is an improvised explosive device now considered a weapon of mass destruction or was there something else?

And what "crime of violence" did they carry out while possessing a firearm?  Is there a robbery - rape - murder involved?  And why are there no charges mentioned for that underlying crime?

Finally, how far did the conspiracy go?  Did they take any action or was it all talk?  Are they being prosecuted for meaningless talks about never-gonna-happen fantasies?

The government either deserves an "atta boy" or it has overstepped its bounds.  Is there a journalist out there to get to the bottom of this story?  My kingdom for a journalist.

Caller: Missouri forces fabricated reports on "stimulus" jobs

Minutes ago on KMOX, I was listening to the Rush Limbaugh Show in my car before stopping for lunch.  I caught a conversation between Limbaugh and a caller who chose to remain anonymous.  The caller identified himself as the superintendent of a Missouri school district that through the state's funding formula received money from the federal "stimulus" plan.  In the Fall of 2009, Missouri officials required this superintendent to complete a report stating the number of jobs created with or saved by the federal funds provided.  The district had not hired any additional personnel and had not planned to lay anyone off before receiving them money so, being an honest man, the superintendent reported to the state that no jobs had been created and no jobs had been saved.  A few days after submitting the accurate report, a state official contacted the superintendent and informed him that he was not allowed to report zeros.  Instead, he was ordered to submit a new report claiming that jobs were created or saved with "stimulus" money.  Not wanting to bite the hand that feeds his district, the superintendent complied and submitted a fabricated, false report.

As Rush commented, if it happened once, we can bet that it happened on many, many such reports.  (Is there an investigative journalist in the state?)

Do not believe any of the government figures on jobs created or saved.  They are fictional.

The truth is that the "stimulus" plan was an abject failure.  It failed to stimulate the economy and failed to hold down the unemployment rate, as the Democrats, including the president, claimed it would.  The only thing that it succeeded in doing is creating a massive political slush fund and driving up the national debt at a rate and to heights never seen before.

And unless they're stopped, the Democrats are ready to do it again.  Keep the pressure on and throw the bums out of office as soon as you get the chance.

The Pro-Life Protest you didn't hear . . . or hear about

Yesterday, I stumbled across a story about a national protest against abortion . . . the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity.  For the sixth straight year, "hundreds of thousands of students from thousands of schools around the world refused to speak [yesterday] to protest abortion.  (Link to post-protest story here.)  They took vows of silence to stand for one day "in silent solidarity" with the thousands of babies who, every day, "have their voices permanently silenced" and "never get the opportunity to speak."  To be seen, the protesters wrote the word "Life" on red duct tape and stuck it on their mouths or arms.  And to spread their message they passed out these fliers.

Kudos to the protesters.  Thank you all for standing up for the cause.

I'm sorry that until yesterday, I had not heard of this silent protest.  It deserves note.  And, it deserves coverage, but I couldn't find much of that on mainstream media sites via Google tonight.  It is as if the protest never happened.  But if five liberals show up to protest something it's front page news.  But I digress.

It seems like this protest effort is currently geared to student participation.  Could it be expanded?  What a statement would be made if everyone who believed in the Pro-Life cause stood together in silent protest one day?

It couldn't be ignored.

According to a banner on the protest organizer's web site, the Seventh Annual Pro-Life Day of Student Solidarity will be Tuesday, October 19, 2010.  (Link here.)  Can we all mark our calendars?

White House whining about Fox News' fair and balanced coverage

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn says, "Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party."  According to Dunn, the network provides "opinion journalism masquerading as news."  (Link to story here.)

If Fox News is an arm of the GOP, what is ABC?  CBS?  NBC?  CNN?  MSNBC?  CNBC?

Just wondering.

Don't trust ANYTHING you hear on CNN

CNN's Political Ticker is touting a "double-digit post-speech jump" in support for Obamacare.  (Link here.)  "Two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama's health care reform speech Wednesday night," the CNN report continues, "favor his health care plans - a 14-point gain among speech-watchers."

Wow.  That sure differs with the mood on the street here in St. Louis.  But CNN isn't bothering to tell you that it created the numbers, very nearly, from whole cloth.  What they actually did (and give them some credit for disclosing it, though at the bottom of the article) is poll a bunch of Democrats and almost no Republicans.  So, shocker, a bunch of Democrats think Obama's plan is just peachy.

This isn't news.  This isn't reporting.  This certainly isn't journalism.  No, as James Earl Jones would say, this is CNN. 

Palin addresses Obama "Death Panels"

During the 2008 campaign, the Democrats and the press (I know that's redundant) portrayed Sarah Palin as unintelligent.  They did the same thing to Ronald Reagan.  And both times, the portrayals were lies.  Here's the latest proof . . . Palin posted this piece on Facebook addressing President Obama's near-flippant response to the concerns that many Americans that his proposed healthcare system would limit care of the elderly and push them toward ending their own lives by refusing treatment.  It is well worth the read.  Maybe Obama should read it.

Liberals can't compete in the realm of ideas.  Everything said in support of this so-called healthcare reform is in sound bites and emotional appeal.  There is nothing rational, factual, or detailed.  We're back to a campaign for undefined "change."  But no liberal will admit what he or she wants to "change" our country into . . . because it is far to scary.

The more that Americans see from Obama these days, the less they approve of his policies.  His approval rating has dropped to 47% percent.  That (and other interesting tidbits) is found in today's Rasmussen Report.

The tide seems to be turning.  Let it wash away the liberal majorities in Congress in 2010.

And Sarah, keep up the pressure.  Keep telling the truth.

Liberal double standard justified by race

So says Philip Kennicott in today's Washington Post.  (Link to his column here.)

Philip Kennicott is an idiot.

The Washington Post also did double-duty on double standards today, pulling a satirical piece from its website that dared to call Hillary Clinton a "Mad B----."  (Link to that story here.)

Philip Kennicott had better teach his co-workers at the Post that speaking ill of a Democrat or painting one in a bad light is either racist, sexist, or certainly mean-spirited and dangerous.

The changing nature of mean-spiritedness

Why is it that liberals are now outraged at a depiction of Barack Obama as The Joker, calling it "mean-spirited and dangerous" . . .

when a similar depiction of George W. Bush was no big deal?

The end of independent media comes June 24

Rush Limbaugh has taken to calling the mainstream media in America "state-run" lately.  And, I must admit to finding the monicker amusing.

But, it turns out to be much more than a joke.  Check out what Matt Drudge is reporting here.

It seems that ABC News has thrown in the final towel on journalistic integrity.  Next Wednesday, they'll be broadcasting live, all evening, starting with the nightly "news"cast and continuing with a prime-time special on President Obama's healthcare plan, shutting out opposing views.

I wish I was surprised.

Obama makes things up . . . media covers up . . . just a typical day in the liberal neighborhood.

Not a day goes by without Barack Obama or someone from his administration touting the number of jobs that their programs have "saved or created."  And the media reports the claims with a smile and sometimes a bow.

But, trouble is, Obama's numbers are "pure fiction."  There is no way to calculate "jobs saved" so the administration is simply making things up.  And the vaunted Fourth Estate is doing nothing about it . . . save possibly this piece from the Wall Street Journal.

Why are newspapers in trouble?  Why is television news in trouble?  Because nobody reports anymore.  The media simply serves as a massive public relations arm for liberal causes.

Media has always leaned left but it seems more open and obvious since George W. Bush was first elected and has reached new highs (or lows) since the coronation of President Obama.

Enough is enough.

What will save the newspaper industry? The Post knows!

At a time when newspapers across the country are losing readership, scaling back, and running a serious risk of going belly-up, our town's St. Louis Post-Dispatch has gotten its act together.  The folks down at the Post know what will sell papers in St. Louis and, heck, this great idea might catch on nationally and save the entire industry.

Has the Post decided to do more hard news and less fluff?  No.

Has the Post decided to do more of its own original reporting rather than continue to rely on news services?  Nope.

Has the Post decided to give more space to sports?  Not that either.

Has the Post decided to report news instead of advocating its editors' liberal point of view?  Ha.

No, the Post decided to bring back "Our Own Oddities," a comic feature that ran from 1940-1990, when it was canceled because, frankly, it was stupid.  

How I missed this story of the resurrected saviour of the newspaper last month, I'll never know.  But, I'll make it up to you . . . here's a link to stltoday's photo gallery showing "Oddities" from the past.