* I recently complained about Fox News being singled out for bias and not presenting real (hard) news. Now, a new Pew Research Center report on the State of the Media notes that the big three cable news networks have all cut back on actual reporting since 2007. But which station is the worst offender? Far and away it's MSNBC. Per Pew, 85% of their air time is opinion. That leaves a mere 15% for news reporting. Fox? 55% opinion, but that leaves nearly 1/2 of the airtime for news. CNN wins at an even 50-50 split. But MSNBC stands alone with the overwhelming portion of its airtime opinion. I wish they would have studied which of the three has more balance on their opinion shows. I bet Fox would win that one. So, please, my liberal friends, drop the Fox is not a real news station mantra.
* Some more interesting stats. The Gallup Poll recently asked Americans this question: "On whom should the U.S. put more pressure to make compromises," with the choices being the Israelis or the Palestinians. No surprise to those of us who are conservatives: 64% of Republicans said the Palestinians, with only 15% saying the Israelis. Democrats? Only 34% said the Palestinians should get more pressure, whereas 38% thought the pressure should be on the Israelis. As my liberal, Jewish friends do not ever get this, let me state it another way: more Democrats think Israel is the problem than think Palestinians are the problem. Even Independents got it, with 48% saying the pressure needs to be on the Palestinians, and only 22% saying the Israelis. Will this affect the thinking or voting of even one liberal Jew? Sadly, no. In fact, more can be expected to adopt the overall position of their party, and come to believe that the Jews are the problem.
* The LA Times sees the Israeli/Palestinian problem quite clearly. After noting how over 300,000 Israelis (whom they call "settlers") live in the West Bank, they go on to state that the settlement issue is "an easy one." They do not tell us in their 3/19 editorial just what their solution is that makes it so easy. I am still waiting for just one mainstream paper to ask if Israel were to agree to the 1967 borders (but keeping Jerusalem, of course) would the new Palestinian state allow the over 300,000 Israelis in the West Bank to live there peaceably as citizens? Given that over 1,000,000 Arabs live within Israel, it would seem to be a fair question. Somehow, not a single reporter can think to ask Abbas or Obama about it. Good to know that they are so willing to challenge those in power.
* Yet another poor school decision. This time the story is out of Michigan where a teen was dying from a drug overdose of prescription drugs. His friends wanted to have a fundraiser at the school in order to help out the family. But the school officials refused, saying it might glorify drug use. Yes, look at how cool drug use is, here's a kid DYING! The other kids wanted to do the right thing, but the politically correct, unable to think for themselves MORONS at the school were unable to see it. Drugs are bad; therefore a fund raiser for a kid dying from drugs must be bad. Right?
* What? More media bias? NBC 4 News at 11pm, reported this about the sequester: "It's happening because a choice that Republicans in Congress have made - but people are gonna be hurt." I must have missed the part where Republicans got control of both Houses of Congress and could dictate whatever policy they wanted. Sorry NBC 4 - but the Dems and Obama were in on it too. You know what's worse than morons? LIARS!
The Media Research Center reported that 58 of 88 stories (66%) about the sequester on CBS, NBC and ABC for the period 2/14 through 3/1/13 were (as so aptly described by the I.B.D.) "dominated by panic nonsense, without a second of rebuttal of common sense." But, as the I.B.D. also notes, Obama can spend us into oblivion, with no panic from the mainstream media about it.
* The Congressional Progressive Caucus (made up almost entirely of Democrats) wants to see a 49% top income tax rate, with ever decreasing deductions. And they would like to see trillions more in spending. What happens when they have taken everyone's money and there's nothing more to take? Can you say Cyprus? Greece? Portugal? Spain? Italy?
* Cover up? According to Sen. Lindsey Graham, it is "pretty disappointing" that Congress may have to subpoena the many surviving witnesses to the Benghazi attack in order for the truth to come out. Remember how Obama and his Cabinet repeated the lies about the movie trailer? That was proven to be a falsehood. Now, some are claiming the Obama administration is trying to pressure the survivors from speaking publicly about what happened. Transparency?
* The left loves a dictator. Jimmy Carter talked about "the gains made for the poor and vulnerable." Sean Penn: "Poor people around the world have lost a champion." The New York Times said he empowered and energized millions. Democrat Congressman Jose Serrano: "His legacy in his nation, and in the hemisphere" will be "a better life for the poor and downtrodden." Said the LA Times: he "promised to use Venezuela's vast oil wealth to improve life for the country's poor, and by most accounts he did just that." Pretty nice reviews for the deceased dictator Hugo Chavez. And pretty weird. Even the LA Times acknowledged that Chavez used his power "to reinforce his own position, attack his critics and censor the media...extend his time in office...arbitrarily suspend television and radio stations...and stacked the courts with supporters." So, quite the guy. The LA Times went on to note that Venezuela's next leader would face "a bleak economic future, rising crime rates and a deeply polarized nation." Wait a minute. "Bleak" economic future? Didn't they just say he improved life for the poor? Who is most affected by a bleak/weak economy? The poor. See the Times logic? Neither do I.
* The I.B.D. had this to say about Chavez: "The ugly reality is, Chavez's Castro-inspired socialist model, far from helping the poor, left them worse off than ever even as Venezuela's neighbors in Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama and Chile have risen by embracing free markets." The I.B.D. went on: "Chavez's currency devaluation and capital controls made everything from toilet paper to tires expensive and scarce in Venezuela, harming the poor - who spend 80% of their income on necessities - most."
* Those sequester cuts were really nasty. So bad Obama had to cut the White House tours. After taking some flack for that he manned up...and blamed the Secret Service! The good news is that he could still afford a trip to go play golf with Tiger Woods. I mean, the taxpayers could still afford his trip. Not to mention the $102,000 salary for the assistant tasked with watching the First Family's dog! And did I mention the dinner for Mexico's President: $969,793! (As noted by the Washington Examiner, per the I.B.D.) That money could have fed a lot of hungry families. Has any President and First Family ever enjoyed "the good life" at taxpayers' expense more than this one? And all during horrific economic times for so many. Obama, a man of the people.
* Remember Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative? Having a missile defense system to protect the homeland. The idea that Sen. Ted Kennedy referred to as "Star Wars," with the media thereafter mockingly using that term to describe Reagan's idea. It was a fairly bold concept: "What if a free people could live secure in the knowledge that their security did not rest on the threat of instant US retaliation to deter a Soviet attack; that we could intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil or that of our allies." Turns out Kennedy was wrong - very wrong - and Reagan was right. Just ask the Israelis, who had phenomenal success with their Iron Dome system; claiming they shot down over 90% of incoming rockets from Gaza that were targeting Israeli cities. And now, with North Korea threatening to attack the US, we are deploying more missile defense systems in Alaska and California. Sorry Ted, just another thing (among many) about which you were so wrong.
* Of course, it's not the first time that the Dems and the media made fun of a Republican idea that proved to be correct. Remember Dan Quayle? As the first Bush's V.P. he suggested that TV character Murphy Brown was not the best role model, being a single woman and deciding to have a kid without getting married. "We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception." "Too many fathers are MIA, too many fathers are AWOL, missing from too many lives and too many homes." "...the foundations of our families are weaker because of it." Quotes from Dan Quayle? No, Barack Obama in 2008. "It turns out that with the father being involved, the kids are less likely to do drugs...girls are less likely to get pregnant. And so that message is something that we want to make sure gets out there." Quayle? No, Obama again.
* Conservative ideas: missile defense, a father in an intact home, controlling spending, supporting our true allies - such as Israel, calling a dictator a dictator, and having a media that speaks truth. For those on the opposite side of the political fence, you should try it. If you already live by these values, then now try voting for those who support those values.