More Media Bias Exposed
Jun 29, 2005 Political
Many Libs pretend that the Mainstream Media (MSM) doesn’t predominantly lean to the left. Last week, I posted an example of such bias as assessed by Fox News Channel’s (FNC’s) Neil Cavuto.
Yesterday, FNC’s Brit Hume reported on another instance of left-wing MSM bias. A Congressional delegation jetted down to the Guantanamo Bay containment facilities last weekend to review the situation for themselves. This bi-partisan delegation carried a large contingency of reporters in its wake. Remarkably, though, very little was every reported or published in the MSM. Why? Because by and large the Senators and Representatives thought the facility was in good shape, running smoothly and the detainees were being treated well.
In fact, some of the Democratic Party participants had good things to say about the facility. Hume discussed the visit and reactions:
Congressional Democrats who reported favorably on conditions at Guantanamo Bay after visiting over the weekend received almost no coverage in key mainstream media outlets. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden [Democrat] said, “I feel very good” about prisoner treatment at Guantanamo, Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee [Democrat] said, “We have made progress [there],” and California Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher (search) insisted, “The Gitmo we saw today is not the Gitmo that we heard about even a few years ago.”
Wyden’s quote made The New York Times today… on page 19; the other remarks were left out. The Washington Post, meanwhile, hasn’t reported any of it. — Brit Hume’s Political Grapevine,
FNC also had a journalist on board the jet with this delegation. Molly Henneberg reported on her experience over the weekend and again on Hume’s show yesterday. One of her clips included another Dem’s opinion:
REP. ELLEN TAUSCHER (D), CALIFORNIA: “The Guantanamo we saw today is not the Guantanamo that we heard about, even a few years ago. This is a facility that, I believe, is on par.” FNC report by Molly Henneberg
All this went largely unreported by the MSM — even though they were all on site with the delegation. There simply would be no excuse for the news blackout surrounding this trip other than . . . a bad case of media bias. Yes, they can shout from the rooftops under-sourced reports of Korans being flushed down the toilet and prisoner abuse. Given the chance to confront the truth — a truth which belies their bias — the MSM falls silent.
The delegation and press watched two interrogations. Both interrogators were women. Following one interrogation, the woman in charge told the group she was receiving low-level information concerning Al-Qaeda. Her detainee was getting along well with her. The second used a technique of reading a Harry Potter book to the detainee. He was considered one of the less cooperative detainees. She explained she used a detainee’s reaction to parts of the book to build a relationship and garner information. Yes, that’s some tough and inhumane interrogative techniques . . . if only our hostages had been treated as well as this by the terrorist.
The detainees have ping pong, board games and often play soccer in the yard. They have their Korans hung by a chain in each of their rooms in accordance with their religious beliefs. The more compliant detainees live together in a dorm-type setting and dine together.
The delegation and press were fed the same meal as the detainees. Hume questioned Henneberg about the food:
HENNEBERG: I did. I ate a detainee meal. Here you see them being passed out in those Styrofoam cartons. There you see Representative Sheila Jackson Lee about to eat a meal, as well. Chicken and orange sauce, rice and okra, and bread, this is exactly what the detainees were getting that day. There you see the chairmen of the House Armed Services.
HUME: And how it was?
HENNEBERG: I thought it was good. I mean, it was good. It was delicious. I ate my whole meal. Well, not all the rice, because there was a lot of rice, but… — FNC, Special Report with Brit Hume
Yes, the MSM willing reports on any negative story about the Iraq situation, the military or the Bush administration. They just can’t bring themselves to report anything positive . . . no matter how solidly sourced.
Tags: Political
I Hope It Is True
Jun 29, 2005 Political
I wrote a few days ago about the Supreme Court’s stupidity regarding private property. I opined that it would be great if they suffered the loss of their homes because of their decision. A friend of mine sent me this. I tried to verify it at Snopes but could find nothing. The link goes to a web site and it appears legitimate. If it is not I will post saying so. For now, I just hope it is true. I will even invest some money in the hotel:
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other mediaWeare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter’s land.
Justice Souter’s vote in the “Kelo vs. City of New London” decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter’s home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
The proposed development, called “The Lost Liberty Hotel” will feature the “Just Desserts Café” and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon’s Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”
Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.
“This is not a prank” said Clements, “The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development.”
Clements’ plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
# # #
Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLCPhone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com
The link is here.
Tags: Political
Supreme Court Not So Supreme
Jun 29, 2005 Political
It would appear that being a lawyer does not mean that one could be an effective Supreme Court justice. Every member of the SCOTUS is a lawyer but they can not get the laws right. They are continually interpreting the Constitution with little regard for the actual words or intent. I have discussed the issue of separation of church and state. That is not a requirement of the Constitution. The Constitution says that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion or prevent the free exercise thereof.
We have these recent cases of the SCOTUS deciding on the placement of the Ten Commandments in government buildings. The Supreme Court ruled that this was a violation of the separation clause. As I have stated, there is no such clause. In addition, the people in a state put up the Ten Commandments. Congress did not enact a law establishing a religion. Some people put them up. However, the Supreme Court has violated the part that says shall not prevent the free exercise thereof. The SC has decided that people in these states are not free to exercise their religious beliefs. The SC is in a tough spot because the doors to the SCOTUS have the Ten Commandments inscribed in them.
The same SC decided that a monument of the Ten Commandments in Texas could stay because it has been there for 40 or so years and no one complained. Plus there are other non-religious items around the monument. I wish the Supreme Court justices would take their heads out of their duffel bags and actually read the Constitution for a change. I think they must be getting senile. Of course, the liberal justices were once again the ones who decided the outcome. Leave it to them to do things that run counter to America (75% of people surveyed say they have no problem with the TC being displayed). Of course, it does not really matter what the people want. The fact is the display does not violate the Constitution.
I believe that the justices have opened Pandora’s box. What next? Will our money have “In God we trust” removed? Will they remove Christmas from the list of federal holidays? How about Thanksgiving, when we give thanks to GOD. Goodness knows we can not have the government sponsoring religious holidays. Will these idiots demand that Crosses and Stars of David that mark the graves of our service members in federally owned cemeteries be removed? They are, after all, on federal property.
The unfortunate truth is that Judeo-Christian beliefs have been under attack for some time. It is not just the Christians who are getting singled out. The Jews are also a part of this. The Ten Commandments were given to the Jews by God. Moses was a Jew and he was the one to whom God gave them. The Christians did not exist at that time and therefore could not yet be following God’s law.
Until we get control of the judiciary back and prevent these judges from becoming radicals we will live with these kinds of gaffs. The Christians and Jews of this country will be denied their rights while we ensure that the terrorists held in captivity get a praying rug, a Koran, and signs pointing them to Mecca.
Tags: Political
Party Of The Little Guy
Jun 28, 2005 Political
For God knows how long now we have been told by the democrats that they are the party of the people. They are the ones who will look out for your rights against all that is bad in this country. They will protect you from the republicans, from big bad companies that pollute, from the people who want to take away your government provided benefits and who will take away your Social Security money.
The reality of it is the democrats are a party of people who believe that people are unable to make their own decisions. They believe that people are not smart enough to know how to invest their own money. The democrats believe that as long as they make people dependant upon them there will always be voters willing to put them in office. This is the party of do as I say not as I do politicians. This would explain why we pay more in taxes (as a percentage) than they do and why they have retirement plans that allow them to invest but they will not allow us to do the same. Now the leftist judges in the Supreme Court have dealt a blow to the little guy.
It has long been a reality that if the State needed private property to build something that would benefit the public at large then they had the right under eminent domain. There have been recent instances where States have condemned private property under this principle for the purpose of allowing private development. The theory is that these entities will generate more tax revenue than the private owner. This country has a long history of property ownership and people have fought to keep what is rightfully theirs. The Supreme Court has ruled that the States have the right to condemn private property in this fashion. The greater good of the public is no longer a requirement for the government to forcefully take your property.
When the Supreme Court made this decision it was a 5-4 split. The 5 liberal leaning judges voted in favor and the 4 conservative leaning judges voted against. So here we have the party of the people voting against the people and the party that is supposed to favor big business voting in favor of the people. This should dispel the notion that liberals want to help out Joe six pack and are the party of the people. Their judges voted to screw the little guy. The conservatives voted to protect the little guy. This should end all this nonsense talk about keeping Bush’s conservative selections off the Bench. When he appoints a conservative Supreme Court Judge he will be appointing someone who looks out for the people. Opposition to the nominees takes protection from the people.
I have heard quite a bit about this on the talk shows but have heard little about it from the MSM. I don’t expect the administration to comment because George Bush benefited from eminent domain when he owned a baseball team. Owners lost their houses for a stadium. I would however, expect that more of the libs out there would be all over this. Of course, if it were the conservative judges that voted for it the donks would be going nuts. At the present, they are having time reconciling the obvious contradiction. Also, the donks can not oppose any scheme that gets more tax money for their entitlement programs.
I must admit that I am perplexed as to why the donks have not spoken out against this. After all, they are the group of people who are crying about using a couple thousand acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration. It is beyond me how a person can fight for a caribou to keep his home yet keep silent when people can be forced out of theirs.
Not so long ago in this country land owners stood up to the tyranny of government. The took up arms against anyone who tried to take their property. The time has again come for home owners to assert their power and take up against the tyrannical government and its out of control SCOTUS. I can only hope some developer decides to put shopping malls in where the 5 justices live. I hope that they lose their homes under the precedent they established. (of course then they would rush in to session and change things to suit themselves).
Tags: Political
Jackass Of The Month
Jun 26, 2005 Political
The Jackass of the Month photo album is up and running. It is a works in progress but should be a pretty good start.
The link is on the left column under the Dog doing his “bidniz”.
Tags: Political