Media blames Trump for protests

Arizona protesters block road to Trump rally

The recent violence at Trump rallies is a quentisential example of why we need the conservative media. If you just pay attention to the mainstream media you'd think they were Trump's doing. They are not. Trump has organized rallies. And the protesters have developed strategies to disrupt these events.

So why is this going on? It's going on because progressives got their man in Obama. He is what they have been seeking for the past 100 years. He has helped them get their agenda pushed forth in Washington. He is helping them to fundamentally transform America from capitalism to socialism.

And they are not going to stand idly by and let whatever republican stand in the way. Since Trump is the likely nominee, he's who they're going after. And since the mainstream media is in bed with the transformation, they are going to do everything in their power to help the cause.

So the Conservative media is needed to set the record straight. They have let us know that the protesters who blocked traffic, the protesters who cause fights at Trump rallies, are not Trump supporters. They are in fact liberal, anarchist, socialist, democrats. They just try to make themselves look like Trump supporters so they can make Trump look bad. The media just plays along.

Okay, so you're saying: so why would they do this? Well, America is traditionally a conservative/ libertarian nation. Progressives have been trying for over 100 years to advance their agenda for the nation, and they have finally succeeded with the Presidency of Obama. They are succeeding in fundamentally transforming America from Capitalism to Socialism.  They know their agenda, their cause, would be devastated if any republican were to become President.

So that's the reason for the rallies. They fear Trump could win if he is the nominee. They cannot in any way take the chance of that happening, as it would be a major roadblock to their agenda, to what they have accomplished.

Look, think of it this way. Say these protesters were at Hillary Clinton rallies. They aren't because republicans have better things to do with their lives, like work. Still, if the same thing happened to Hillary, I would be defending her. She is not to blame for any protesters at her rallies

So these protesters protest under the guise they are peaceful protesters. The truth is they are not peaceful. They are global warming protesters, occupy Wall Street protesters, Black Lives Matter protesters. They are leftists. They are anarchists, like Leon Czolgosz. What they are doing is bordering on illegal. You are allowed to protest, but you cannot disrupt.

They are disrupting Trump rallies. When you disrupt events, you should be hauled off and jailed by police. But these people, because they pretend to be Trump supporters, are allowed to continue their protest No one is doing anything. And the media report that they are Trump supporters to make him look bad. They just play along. Again, this is why the Conservative media is so important, to tell the truth.

Look, recently they blocked a main highway to keep people from getting to a Trump rally, and that is illegal. Traffic was backed up for miles, a road that leads to the only hospital in the region, to prevent people from rallying for Trump. How many people were on their way to the hospital? You see, this type of thing is illegal. Police were not prepared. People were not prepared. Some people probably got hurt as a result of this illegal action. Yet the media brushes it off as Trump supporters to make Trump look bad.

Conservtives want to protect and defend the Constitution, to protect and defend the liberties our forefathers fought so hard for, and they want to change the Constitution -- claiming it is a living document that should change with the times -- in order to move their agenda forward, thus continuing the transformation from Capitalism to Socialism.

You see, if you listen to the mainstream media, you're going to hear how great these protesters are. You are going to have the media promoting leftist protesters. They are always going to categorize them as great heirs of the American tradition. They are going to promote them as great freedom fighters and free speech lovers, when what they really are is left wing thugs who have no respect for the rule of law.  Yet when they border on illegal they are Trump supporters.

For the first time someone is willing to call them out, and his name is Trump. if you read the media, you would think that Trump was the cause of all this. He is not. The enemy is not Trump. The enemy is leftists who cannot fathom having Trump as President. They cannot fathom having any republican to oppose their agenda.

We get our news from many sources

So I was discussing politics with a friend of mine recently, and he said, "All you do is listen to like minded people all day; people you agree with."  I did not respond to that, although I wanted to say, "You don't know me very well then."

It doesn't even matter what we were talking about.  Every one of my liberal friends get their views from the same places. I can honestly say that.  I'm pretty confident none of them watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh.  They have no idea what people they disagree with think, other than what the people on MSNBC say we think.  

Okay, I'll give one example.  I was debating Planned Parenthood with my cousin.  He said the attacks on Planned Parenthood are unfounded.  I said that even the founder of Planned Parenthood was opposed to abortion, and so she would be appalled that her organization is killing babies in order to sell their body parts."  

This was when my cousin said that I live in a bubble, and that all I do is listen to people I agree with.  I was actually accused of doing this by an atheist friend of mine a few months ago as well.  So it's not new that I'm accused of only reading to, and listening to, things that I agree with.  

My cousin had no clue what I was talking about.  He had never heard the story from that angle before. In the world he lives, with all the smart people he talks to, with all the media he watches and listens to, Planned Parenthood is a noble organization, the only one of its kind, that is capable of helping women. He wasn't even aware that the founder, Margaret Sanger, abhorred the idea of killing unborn babies. He was clueless to this.

Yet rather than look it up on Google, rather than find a book, rather than debating me with facts, he took the usual Saul Alinski route and attacked me.  He called me dogmatic. And I don't deny that I am dogmatic, but he was saying it to hurt me; to break my spirits.  He said that I only hang out with people that I agree with, something he had no evidence of and is not true.  Sal Alinski would be proud of him. 

Look, I don't care what my liberal friends think of me. I don't care how they decide to debate, or not debate, the issues.  I don't care if they think I'm stupid.  The fact of the matter is, they enjoy discussing politics and so do I.  So we will continue to do it.  But, just because I can do it here on this blog, I'm going to defend myself.  I'm going to do it just this one time and be done with it.  

In the world my cousin lives, in the world my liberal friends live, Hillary never lies, Obama is a great president, the economy is doing great, or at least better.  In the world they live a video was the sole reason for Benghazi.  In the world they live, they have no idea that most Americans see Planned Parenthood as a wicked organization for nonchalantly, without even a second thought, killing unborn babies and selling their body parts for science.  Or maybe they kill babies for the sole reason of selling their body parts.  My liberal cousin not see this. 

He doesn't because his own media doesn't report those things, and he doesn't read media that he's not familiar with, like I do. If I were into defending myself, I would have told him him I read leftist media, centrist media, moderate media, mush media, and whatever else media is out there.  I read it all because I want to know what everybody out there happens to be thinking and saying.

I want to know what conservatives are saying, but I also want to know what liberals are saying.  I want to know what conservative republicans are saying, and I want to know what the establishment republicans are thinking.  I want to know it all.  I want to know it all because I think that's important.  And from there I make an informed decision.  

You see, that's what the media should do.  That's what an un-biased media should do: read all the news; get it all from different angles. That's what schools should do: teach all the different angles of thought.  But instead they only teach one thought: the liberal thought. They do this because it's all they hear by the people they hang with and the media they listen to and read. 

There's truth the the notion that journalists and teachers should be open minded in their thought, and honest in fair in their reporting and teaching. This is not possible unless you get all your news from many sources, and not just the mainstream media, and not just CNN, and not just MSNBC, and not just CBS, and not just Rush Limbaugh, and not just Fox.   

Further reading:

• The Evils of Planned Parenthood
• Planned Parenthood: The heart of aborted fetus was still beating
• Planned Parenthood: The undeniable truth (a history)

Conservative media is good for free speech

I went to college at Ferris State University.  Most of my friends were from Detroit, and were hardcore liberal democrats. When we debated they would use the Detroit Free Press as evidence to support their ideas. They'd say, "See, right there!"  As a conservative, I didn't have this. That's why it was so great when Rush Limbaugh came along.

I grew up in the eighties under Reagan and became aware of the misinformation and lies that the liberal media was putting forth, particularly Reagan economics,, which logically made sense, but also the Soviet Union, Communism, and so forth. They said Reagan's tax cuts were not working, and that all his military spending did was add to the national debt, instead of giving people a reason not to mess with us.

A quote by Rush Limbaugh

You know, I always figured the purpose of building a strong military, a strong nuclear program, and stealth bombers, was so we didn't have to use them. You know, people know we have them so they won't mess with us.

I could never explain that to my friends.  They would just pick up the latest edition of the Free Press and point to their evidence. If I wanted to get evidence I had to go out of my way and go to the library and do some research, which was impossible given that I had all sorts of homework and studying that had to be done. Actually, they didn't need evidence. Sometimes they would just look at each other and laugh when I opposed them. I was backwoods.  I had these outdated, controversial ideas.

When I tried to explain to them that the Iraq War was good, they mocked me. When I tried to explain that Sam Donaldson, Peter Jennings, and Dan Rather were all in the tank for democrats and were trying to make Reagan and Bush look bad, my friends mocked me. "It's the news!" they'd say, laughing. "It's the facts as they happen.  How could you oppose facts?"

Well, I knew it wasn't the facts what I was hearing, but I just learned to keep my mouth shut.  The only vindication I got was that the opposing voices in the media, all their attempts at destroying Reagan and Bush, didn't work, as Reagan won in two landslide elections, and Bush also won in 1988.  So there were obviously many people who were thinking the same as me, only if you watched the media you wouldn't know it.

So I was so thankful when conservative media, beginning with Rush Limbaugh, came along to give me some credibility and not let me feel so isolated anymore.  I do not get most of my ideas from Rush, it's just that he sort of vindicates what I'm thinking as I read the news. Of course now theirs National Review, and even Fox News to some extend, although I think Fox is far from a conservative media outlet.  It does, however, seem to be fair to both sides, actually giving traditional Americans (conservatives) a platform.

Yet there are some who don't like all these voices being heard.  They don't like that the Internet, a.m. radio and books give voices to people with differing opinions on the facts to be heard.  They don't like Rush Limbaugh, and would prefer that he not have a voice.

A good example is yesterday when I read that Mitt Romney was saying that he thought American was a better place before conservative media came along.  He thought America was a better place before Rush Limbaugh came along, because all this did was create a partisan divide where people could just listen to people they agree with all day long, rather than everyone getting all the same facts from the same sources every day.

What makes this so naive is that it sort of feeds into what liberals and democrats have always said about Rush, that he hives people ideas and tells people how to think.  That's not how it is at all.  All he does is make free thinkers like myself feel less isolated in a world surrounded by liberal media.

You see, I didn't think I was getting the facts when I watched Dan Rather.  I didn't agree with the editorials in the Detroit Free Press that my college buddies were quoting from.  Conservative media made me realize that I was not alone in doubting the "facts" doled out by the media and my liberal buddies.

Granted, we did not have many political debates, as we were more interested in studying, doing homework, but mainly in having fun. Still, it's something I think about once in a while.  I simply don't understand why anyone would want to stop voices from being heard.  There's nothing better, in my mind, for free speech than a free Internet.  It allows people to get their news from all sorts of media outlets, both left, right, independent, and so forth. It's simply a great thing.

Further Reading:

• Rush Limbaugh: Debunking the mind numbed robot

Media wrong about 2016 GOP prospects

The media has no clue what republicans need to do to win in 2016. Take a recent article by Phil Rucker at the Washington Post, "Large GOP field has party leaders anxious about their chances in ’16," as an example. Consider the first paragraph:

To take back the White House after eight years in the political wilderness, Republicans think they must soften their image and expand their appeal in particular to women and Latino voters. As Jeb Bush, a leading presidential contender, puts it, “We’re going to win if we show our hearts.”

That might be what the party leaders think, but that's exactly the opposite of what we need to do. This paragraph is wrong on two accounts.

1. We don't need to soften our image.  This is essentially saying we need to give up on our core principles to win.  They basically want us to give up on our fight preserve traditional marriage, and against the welfare state, amnesty and abortion. If we caved on principles liberalism would win. 
2. We don't need to cater to women and Latinos.  I say this because what the republicans need to do is cater to all Americans, not groups of Americans. Liberalism tries to separate people into groups, as though America is a salad bowl.  They want to pit one group of Americans against another, such as the rich verses poor. Conservatives believe we are all together as a melting pot, and we should create an environment whereby everyone benefits, not just one or another group.  

Later, Rucker explains that the "large and diverse" republican field, along with the fact that Jeb Bush has failed to jump out ahead of the fray, may impact the amount of money that can be raised to win a general election.  He said:

This could cost presidential aspirants tens of millions of dollars; pull them far to the right ideologically, from hot-button social issues to foreign policy; and jeopardize their general-election chances. And in such a muddled lineup — officials are planning to squeeze 10 or more contenders onto the debate stage — candidates will be rewarded for finding creative ways to gain notice.

Sure, this sounds great if you want to turn the republican party into the democrat party.  This is fine if you want both parties to be the same.  This is fine if you want the republican party to return to being the liberal party it was when Teddy Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover were presidents.

But that's not the republican party the rest of us want.  We want the party to be the opposite of what the democrat party has become.  We want the republican party to be the party of the people.  We want the republican party to stand up for the principles that made this nation exceptional once, and what can make this nation exceptional again.

We do not want two parties running whereby the choice, as it was when Obama ran against McCain, is whether you want to spend $200 million on global warming or $200 billion on global warming.  We want one of the choices to represent something other than the liberal values the media and the current White Houses wants.

We do not want republicans to continue to negotiate with democrats in order to soften their image. Most republican voters are adamantly opposed to the rapid influx of immigration in the country, and believe amnesty would simply turn these immigrants into democrats.  Yet the republican leadership is trying to help Obama in order to soften its image and cater to Latinos.  This, in my view, is political suicide.

If Jeb Bush wants to give up on principles to win in 2016, he's going to be met with a lot of opposition within his own party.  So, in this way, the media is once again wrong.  This is another reason why the media cannot be trusted. 

Get your news from more than one source

One of the neatest things about the American Constitution is it protects our natural born right to free speech, at least as far as it comes to our government. This is great because every opinion, every fact, and every new idea can be communicated. This allows us an opportunity that many of our ancestors did not have, and many people in the world still don't have.

Through most of history commoners were not privy to any news, and if they received news it was full of bias and from the king or queen or government.  Even as recently as the 1980s most people received their news from the few media outlets based out of New York, and lead by the New York Times.  Copying their news were CBS, ABC and NBC.

Today we have so many news options thers's no way any idea can be shunned, and all voices are heard. Yet still you have people saying things like "Well, he's only a blogger."  

Yet every blogger is a voice, and a voice that should be heard.  Still, we continue to have many people who want to go back to the old days where voices not agreed with are shut up, or at the very least mocked and ridiculed. A good example of this is Al Gore saying that people who don't believe in man-made global warming should be punished. 

Personally, I think it's a great thing to have every voice heard. I also think it's good to listen to voices you don't agree with. You might even learn something. This is why I don't understand how some people can email me and tell me I shouldn't watch Fox News or listen to Rush Limbaugh or read the Wall Street Journal.

I think it should be just the opposite. I think a wise person would listen to all the voices and come to radical conclusions based on the facts.  I say this because there are many voices who form opinions based on feelings over facts.  You even see this in the news, and we see it in the form of bias. 

It's actually quite easy to get news from many sources today, and you can start at websites such as the Drudge Report.  Some say Drudge is conservative, but I don't care, because he takes me to nearly every news outlet in the world. 

I'm sure there are other sites similar to Drudge, and one example is pages Liked on Facebook.  You can also use Twitter for this.  Although I tend to stay away from social media sites and prefer good old Drudge.  

Everything is a crisis these days

This guy obviously needs the assistance of Big Mother Government

So a snowstorm, or blizzard, was expected to blow through the eastern states, and the media talked about it, even before it happened, as though it were the worst storm ever.  As it turned out, the extent of the storm was blown completely out of proportion.  Yet this comes as no surprise by those of us who already don't trust the media.

It was so overblown that both Connecticut and New Jersey banned road travel, and over 6,000 flights were cancelled. The government told people in many areas not to leave their homes.  It got so bad that in Bound Brook, New Jersey, police stopped teens who were snow shoveling work.  They were told by police that they had to stop.

One elderly person in the neighborhood reported the incident, saying, "Are you kidding me? Our generation does nothing but complain about his generation being lazy and not working for their money.  Here's a couple kids who take the time to print up flyers, walk door to door in the snow, and then shovel snow for some spending money. And someone calls the cops and they're told to stop?"

One of the officers later responded, claiming that that the kids weren't ticketed for soliciting work without a license, but were warned about being outdoors in dangerous weather conditions. He said, "We don't make the laws but we have to uphold them," he said Tuesday after reading some of the online comments about the incident. "This was a state of emergency. Nobody was supposed to be out on the road."

Look, snow is not a death sentence.  We're talking about people who have experienced 5,10,15,20,30, and probably even 40 inches of snow before.  These are not inexperienced dummies we're talking about.

These are people who have lived through short and long winters for their entire lives, generation after generation.  They know how to handle themselves in a snowstorm.  They known when to stay in and when to go out.  They know what is safe and unsafe.  

Yet here you have people in the media, in government agencies, who feel they have to create a panic. And I know the reason for it. It's because when people feel panicked they act panicked. They rush to the stores and buy all the items in them. That's why all the stores shelves in New York are empty today. It's because the media and the government created a panic.  

This is progressivism at full steam.  This is how they get their agendas through to the people: by creating panics and wars.  When the people feel panicked, they call to the government for help.  

And even when they don't, the government assumes the people are stupid and only they know what to do.  So they tell people to stay inside, to not do anything, to shop for food and other materials that aren't needed, and to hoard them for a storm than might not even be close to as bad as expected.  

And even if it is as bad as expected, it's nothing these people haven't experienced before.  They will survive.  A panic is not in order here. But everything to these people is worse than it is, and it's for a reason.  

To make matters worse, weather men and women think that they have to stand outside in the conditions that are supposed to be to cold and dangerous for us just to prove that it really is cold outside.  But all people have to do is look outside and they can see for themselves that it's cold out.

They think they have to tell us when it's safe and when it's not safe to go outside.  Yet any person who lives in cold regions of the U.S., places that get snow every winter, knows when it's too cold to go outside.  We don't need the media, and we don't need Uncle Sam telling us how what we can and cannot do.  We are not stupid.  

Get your news from more than one source

Sigh! 

Eyes Rolling!

These are both silent ways of saying, "You are an idiot!"

Imagine the moans and groans when Galileo confirmed to the papacy that Copernicus was correct about the world being round, and the planets evolving around it. It's not hard to imagine the signs and eyes that were rolling.  

Even in today's world, even with an Internet that allows all the facts available to all who yearn to find them, there are still those among us who sigh and groan when we hear truths and opposing viewpoints.

One of the neatest things about the American Constitution is it protects our natural born right to free speech, at least as far as it comes to the government. This is great because every opinion, every fact, and every new idea can be communicated. This allows us an opportunity that most of our ancestors did not have.

In the past most people received all their news from one or only a few sources, and it it was usually from the aristocracy or government.   Even as recent as the 1980s we had only three sources on television -- CBS,  ABC, NBC, and were based in New York, and all copied the front page headlines of the New York Times.

Today, partly thanks to the Internet, no opinion, and no fact, can be prevented from seeing the light of day. A recent example is when Romneycare and Obamacare architect Jonathon Gruber said: "This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes…Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass.”

This is a stunning admission as to the lies that were told to the American people hoping they were "too stupid" to catch on, and it wasn't even mentioned by American's top news outlets.  The problem with this is that most Americans get all their news from America's top news outlets.  

The media is an outlet created to hold those in power accountable, and they are not doing it in this case.  In this case, they are not reporting the the truth about Obamacare because they are in the bank for Obama, or so it seems by omitting this story from their news outlets.  

Despite all the advancements in today's world, there are still those who would like to prevent certain voices from being heard, and in this case it was the voice of a person who was honorable to reveal the truth of how democrats were able to get this bill passed.  

If anything, all media outlets should want to report all news stories, not just those that support a certain political viewpoint.  The fact that many in the mainstream media continue to have a bias is proof that there is still a long way to go before all Americans are told all that going on in the world, as opposed to just what the "elite" want them to know.  

This is a perfect example of how you should get your news from more than one source.  You should pay attention to the main media outlets, but you should also pay attention to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and other such voices.  

For those who continue to roll your eyes, and sigh, when you hear opposing viewpoints, shame on you!

Further reading:

• Jonathon Gruber speaks the truth about Obamacare
• Third video of Gruber speaking truth about Obamacare
• Media tries to cover up Obamacare architect

The media: the fourth estate

The founding fathers noted that under the British monarchy, people were not allowed to speak out against their government.  In fact, they were aware that this was how it was for about 99.9% of history for the entire world.  When they were creating the founding documents, they yearned to preserve the natural right to speak out against a government.  

The reason we have freedom of the press is because the media is supposed to hold politicians accountable.  In fact, they used to call themselves the fourth estate, as though they were one of the branches of government.  However, the key here is that they have to look at both sides of every story as unbiased shepherds of the news and be impartial, regardless of whatever opinions they hold.  

Results from polling data compiled by Media Research Center

Since about the mid 20th century this has all changed, considering most polling data on this subject shows that greater than 80 percent of journalists favor democratic candidates. Still, that doesn't prove media bias.

What does prove bias is how the news is reported. For example, polling data showing George Bush disapproval ratings made the front pages of newspapers nearly every day.  Yet since Obama has been president, such polling data has either een bunder reported or hidden deep within the paper.

Consider for a moment that there are a ton of people in the United States, including myself, who believe that Israel has been poorly treated since its inception.  But if you read newspaper accounts, Israel is the bad guy in nearly every war it fights.  If you were a person who simply read a few newspaper accounts regarding Israel, you'd think it was full of evil, wicked people.

Honorable, unbiased journalists should not be trying to shape the news with a political agenda.  But that's what they seem to do now-a-days, and that's why bloggers like myself feel the need to report the truth about Israel.

Truthfully, I'd much rather just read the news and spend my time writing the history of asthma.  Rather than just buy into the first account they hear or see, good journalists used to naturally take information with a grain of salt and do their own investigation.  Such a simple investigation might reveal to them a more revealing side to the Jewish story.

The media in this country has even tanked itself in the polls, as most Americans don't even trust the news they get from CNN, ABC, NBC, and the New York Times.  According to a 2014 Gallup poll, under 20% of Americans have confidence in the media.

This is not good.  The media is supposed to be our watchdog.  The media is supposed to report history.  The media is supposed to be reporting not just a fact, but all facts. The media is supposed to be digging up dirt on both republicans and democrats.  The media is supposed to be unbiased shepherds of the news.

It used to be taught that the powerful were corrupt.  Even when I was in journalism school back in 1988 I was taught to always be a skeptic of those in power.

As a young and naive reporter for the Ferris State University Torch, I was asked by my editor to investigate the 99% job placement number the school reported. Was it really true that 99% of students who graduated from that school were getting placed in jobs.

After an investigation I learned that it was true, although that 99% figure included jobs like McDonalds and Burger King.  So upon a simple investigation that took me only a few minutes to conduct, it was learned that this number was not accurate, and that it was only reported to make the school look good.  If we had reported that 99% figure The Torch wold have been acting as public relations consultants for the school.

But I hated journalism, I hated to snoop on people, so the job of snooping for the truth was left to other people.  Quite honestly, I was naive enough at this time to suspect that what they reported would be both sides of the story. Yet as the years crept by more and more evidence crept up showing to me that what I was reading did not match what I was observing with my own eyes.

Recent evidence of media bias came in June of 2014.  June economic numbers released by the White House showing a 6% unemployment rate and 275,000 jobs created.  The White House championed that the recession was over because Obamonomics had resulted in 200,000 plus new jobs each month in 2014.

Most media reports, but not all, reported these numbers without questioning them. I could understand this from the point of view of a small town newspaper where reporters are mainly interested in local news.  But larger conglomerate newspapers such as the New York Times should further investigate these numbers.  Large media outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News should not settle for numbers alone, lest they merely become public relations satellited of the democratic party.

If the media were still acting as the fourth estate, a simple investigation would have revealed that 523,000 full-time jobs were lost in June.  This is horrible economic news.

If the media still acting as the fourth estate, a simple investigation would have revealed that 699,000 low paying part time jobs were created in June.  This is horrible economic news, unless you're fine with a person working 2-3 part time jobs to support a family.

So by dissecting the the 275,000 jobs growth numbers reported by the White House we learn this is not an indicator of positive economic growth.

The net result was a net gain of 275,000 jobs in June, most of which were part time and not full time jobs.  The fourth estate, you see, would have reported not just the number released by the White House, but the dissected numbers as well.

In conclusion, we learn that on the surface the numbers reported by the White House look good.  But, after a simple yet thorough investigation we learn that the 275,000 jobs gained in June of 2014 are not so indicative to the robust economy the White House is champion.

You see, reporting what is released by the White House merely turns media outlets into satellites for the party in power, which in this case so happened to be the democratic party.  Such poor reporting does no justice to freedom and liberty and the quest for truth and accuracy in the news.

Truthfully, and in my humble opinion, Watergate would never happen today unless those involved so happened to be a republican.  A strong and robust economy is never strong and robust unless you are a democrat politician.  Tanking political numbers are never significant unless you are a democrat.  Body counts during wars are never counted unless you are a republican war president.

Media bias is the only thing that can explain why events leading up to the bombing of a U.S. embassy that killed four Americans was never reported. It's the only thing to explain why the fact that global temperatures have not increased since 1998 is rarely mentioned.

In my opinion, reporters and editors and producers and camera men and women who do not report both sides of the story are lazy and biased.  Based on an abundance of evidence, when democrats are in power they cover up scandals and bad news and report only news that benefits democrats.  When republicans are in power they act as the fourth estate.

All in all, this probably explains why most journalists, but not all, usually vote democrat and report from a democrat perspective.  When democrats are in power they become lazy, and when republicans are in power they work hard and investigate and think.

The founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves as they see a left leaning media expressing their privilege to criticize the government only when it's to the convenience of their political agenda. 

Obama tanking in polls, but no mention of it in media

An NBC poll released yesterday showed that Americans think very poorly of what President Obama is doing.  Despite this, Brian Williams on NBC Nightly News did not even mention his own poll.

When Obama was doing well in the polls they were on the front page of every newspaper across the country.  When George Bush was tanking in polls, this was front page news.  When Bush's numbers hit the 30s, Wolf Blizer of CNN had a cow.  But now you have Obama tanking in the polls, and you don't even get one mention of it, not even by the same network that did the poll.

Which brings us to the Rush Limbaugh Theorem as defined by Rush Limbaugh:

Limbaugh Theorem explains how it is that Obama escapes blame, how it is that Obama escapes accountability for anything happening as a result of his policies and his presidency. The way he does it is to act like he's not really governing. Somebody else is doing that. Somebody else is causing these problems. He's outside Washington!

So, instead of reporting on these poll numbers, Rush says that Obama is simply saying the polling is bad because people are tired of Washington, and tired because republicans don't want to pass any of his ideas.  It's not his fault because of republicans.

So despite tanking approval numbers in polls, the media -- of whom 80% note voting for liberal democrats -- ignores these polls even when they're their own polls.

So the polls show Obama has a 40% approval rating, and a record 76% believe their kid's lives will be better than their own.  They say that 71% believe our country is heading in the wrong direction.

But the Obama administration says these polling results are not because of anything he, because the unemployment rate dropped to 6.1% as a result of his policies, and 275,000 jobs were created last month.  He says about 200,000 jobs have been created each of the past several months, which, he says, is good.

The media barely touched on these polling results, if they touched on them at all. Yet if they did, the American people would know that Obama is no longer popular.  They would know Americans don't support Obama's policies.

Likewise, if they did, and they inspected the numbers Obama gave, they would learn that the number of people employed full-time actually declined by 523,000, and the number of part-time workers increased by 799,000 (which includes those who wanted part-time and those who wanted full-time but could only find part-time).  So the 275,000 number is misleading in itself.

What they fail to tell you is the 110,000 left the workforce, making the unemployment number artificially low. The U6 unemployment number, the one that includes these 110,000 workers, is 12.1%, twice the U3 number the media likes to report because it makes the president look better.

They don't tell you that teen unemployment rose for the third straight month, and is now at 21%.  This means that teenagers looking to get a job so they can afford a car, or cell phone service, are not finding work. Of course they'll probably try to spin this as good, considering the teenage unemployment rate was 27.3% in October of 2010.  In 2006, however, it was 14%.

They don't tell you that 700,000 immigrants are crossing the border each year, much more than the 193,000 who crossed during the Ellis Island years.  These people are taking jobs that teenagers could take.  Yet most of these people are not working because their simply enough jobs in Obama's economy to absorb this many people.  So, instead of contributing, most of these people absorb State and Federal dollars in the form of welfare, social security, and healthcare.

They don't tell you that Obama care has given businesses a dis-incentive to hire full time workers, and therefore the rise in part time workers -- 799,000 in June, 2014 --is the highest of any month since 1993.

They don't tell you that 275,000 new jobs created is not a significant number.  It's a positive good, but it's not indicative of a robust economy.  While they spin the fact that 200,000 plus jobs are being created a month under the Obama economy, this number is in no way indicative of a robust economy.

In fact, if Bush or any other republican were president, that 200,000 would be reported on accurately, and the economy would be made to look as bad as the media could make it.