Those wacky liberals have been at it again, and I'm not sure if it's a contest to see how many outright lies they can put into a story, or it's just a matter of them being so outright ignorant, mis-informed, or dare I say it, stupid.

This particular outbreak I'm talking about is their recent attack on Rush Limbaugh regarding a two word phrase "Phony Soldiers" that was aimed at, of all things, phony soldiers.  

But to hear Media Matters state it, Limbaugh is referring to all soldiers who are opposed to the war.  This is blatantly not true, and anyone who knows anything about Limbaugh knows that he is probably one of the biggest backers of our men in uniform, regardless of their personal feelings about the war.  It's ridiculous to hear some of the things that are being said about this.

One thing that I want to know is who watches these watchdog groups?  Who gives them the free right to misinform and twist the facts without consequence?  To anybody who hasn't visited the site, I suggest you go there and read their "Fact vs. Fiction" memo on the Limbaugh episode.  It's really a very amusing read.  And I especially like the comments that come after it.

If more people would seek out the truth in these matters, they'd be surprised to find out that what is being reported is, most of the time, filled with such a liberal bias that very little of the truth actually remains.

This episode with Limbaugh is one shining, glaring example of this fact.

The easiest way to find out what journalists actually do their homework and seek out the truth is to find the ones that are siding with Limbaugh.  This is not a matter of political preference, or political alignment, this one is about the pure and simple truth.

-Marc
Forever a Proud Conservative.

 

I love how liberals don't have any actual facts to support their claims, but instead only try to discount those who speak out against them. It's really rather amusing.

Have you seen the cover of the new Newsweek? It takes the argument that Al Gore made a week ago that all the anti-man-made global warming news and science is all paid for by "Big Energy". That's a laugh. But I was willing to let this information slide until tonight when I was watching the weather channel (which USED to not be political... Unfortunately, that's not the case anymore) and they were talking on their politically misleading series "Forecast Earth" about the latest Newsweek cover story.

Anyway, they actually had the editor for the magazine come on and flat out say that they find they can't present both sides of a story because that would (get this) confuse people! LOL!

So there you have it. So much for unbiased media. We can't have both sides of the story represented anymore because that would just confuse people, so let's only give our left-wing liberal views because that's all the "stupid American people" can handle. (That's basically what they're saying.)

Sorry, I tend to think that the American public (which is actually more conservative than liberal, believe it or not) is capable of making up their own mind when given the proper facts. Unfortunately, "Big Media" doesn't give them the unbiased facts because they think it would "confuse" them. Hmm... I don't know about you, but I'd be greatly offended at that.

The only thing I can say is what I've been saying all along: Do your own research. Don't believe what the media says. They're part of the Liberal Misinformation Machine. It has never been so blatantly obvious as it is now.

Remember: 91% of all media reporters and personalities vote democrat. Tell me that's not biased. (The 7% that vote Republican probably all work for News Corp. (Fox))

Anyway, that's enough for now. I just had to get this out of my system.

Thanks,

-Marc
Proud member of the vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

 This is not a topic that I typically write about, but I've finally read too many stories and watched too many news programs about these crimials with mile-long criminal records to stay silent.

What we need to have is a system of legal accountability in our courtrooms.  Too many judges are letting second, third, fourth, fifth, etc..-time offenders get by with sometimes not even a slap on the wrist.  There is something terribly wrong with this picture.

If someone commits a crime and gets off with a warning, or a slap on the wrist, that's fine.  Everyone deserves a second chance.  The next time that happens, however, the judge had better be strict.  If not, and the criminal commits another crime, then I think that the judge, or whoever let the criminal go free, should be sitting right along side the defendent.  Show some accountability for the actions of those who are supposed to be upholding our basic laws.

Too many sex offenders, child molesters, rapists, murderers get back on the street multiple times over.  It's time to put the people who put the criminal back on the street behind bars.  Charge them as an accessory to the crime that has been commited by the criminal and let them deal with the consequences of their actions.

 Even if you don’t agree with Fred Thompson’s stance on the issues, you have to admit that he has a commanding advantage over other candidates (should he eventually decide to run) in that he is a very identifiable figure. Even if people don’t agree eye to eye on the issues with him, they can still relate to him and identify with him.

This is probably why he scores so high in the polls even though he has made no formal announcement of his candidacy.

I thought David Brody, in his review of Fred’s speech last night, said it best: “He’s a conservative’s conservative with an ‘aw shucks’ charm who comes across as a regular guy. That will resonate with people across the country.” And it’s true. I think he’ll get a lot of votes for the conservative party that would otherwise go to the liberals should he decide not to run.

I find that people will settle on sincerity even if they don’t agree with a candidate politically. After all, there is no one that will mirror all our views on all the topics, so every candidate comes with compromises. It’s just a matter of who you can relate to and who you think you can trust, and I think Fred Thompson scores high marks in both of these regards.

My friends, these are sad times we live in.  We are brought up to respect the media.  We trust the media as a source of unbiased and impartial news.  We pick up the papers to find out all that has been happening in the world around us.  We run to the TV to get the latest updates on the latest breaking story.

Unfortunately we get this all through someone else's rose-tinted glasses.

The days of the news presenting both sides of a story are gone.  Perhaps they always have been and I've been to naieve to notice.  Everyone has an angle and an agenda--and most of the time it's hidden.  This has never been more blaringly true as it is today.  And we only need to look one place: Global Warming.

Look at everyone who is jumping on the global warming bandwagon.  Then look at all the actual evidence that suggests this is something more than a natural cycle.  You'll find a whole lot more of the former, than the latter.  And that's for one very good reason.  The media loves a good doom-and-gloom story. 

After all, what better story is there than the end of the world as we know it?  And why not?  There's a tremendous amount of money in it.  Who cares about the body of evidence that flatly contradicts the claims.  Or the lack of any substantial evidence to support it.   That doesn't matter.   Tell everone it's a "concensus."   Report the theory as fact.   Any other view is simply that of a denier and doesn't deserve the time or the ink.

And it's popping up in places that I never would have expected it, such as The Weather Channel.  Heidi Cullen, host of The Climate Code series, has even called for the decertification of those meteorologists who do not believe that global warming is a man-made problem.  It is truly a sad day when we can't even trust a weather channel to be unbiased in it's reports.

So where has the integrity gone?  Or was it ever there to begin with?  It calls into question so many stories that I have read throughout the years and taken at face value.  One example would be the dangers of second-hand smoke.  The EPA reported it (with shoddy research, at best -- just do the research) and the media took it and ran with it.  Like most of the public, I had bought into the media reporting.  But after doing the research myself and looking at the results of actual independent scientific studies, I can see now that it's just another example of one-sided journalism.  Laws have been passed, bans have been enacted, all over the media running wild with a story without having any basis in reality.

They say that abolute power corrupts, absolutely.  And if you have the power to control the media, you have the power to shape the minds of America.

Here's my advice: Use the media to know what the top stories are, but do your own research.  You'll get a far more accurate picture.