Fake News, a.k.a. the mainstream media

There have been a lot of accusations about fake news in the media recently. You have Facebook deciding it's going to try to screen out fake news. You have Hillary Clinton calling for regulations to stop fake news. But how do they decide what is fake and what is not?

I think that the calls to screen out fake news are merely efforts by leftists and leftist groups to stop voices they don't want to hear; it's efforts to shut up opposing viewpoints. It's efforts to shut up people like Rush Limbaugh. Worse, it's efforts to shut out voices like Breitbart and Infowars.

The real fake news is the mainstream media. If they were accurate, credible, trustworthy and fair in their reporting, it would be easy to screen out fake news. Yet since the mainstream media is so poor at doing their job, people hold the New York Times on the same level as some guy reporting the news from his bedroom. I mean, that's how bad it's gotten.

Personally, in the run up to the 2016 election, I did not pay much attention to mainstream media polls, and instead relied on secondary media outlets. They actually gave me optimism and hope. And, as it turns out, they were more right than the mainstream media.

You see, according to the mainstream media...

• Donald Trump had no road to 270, as close to 90% of polls showed that Donald Trump had no way of becoming President and that Hillary Clinton had a 90% chance of winning. 
• The Russians Hacked the election and a majority of people in this country think this is a serious issue.
• Jill Stein called for a recount, and the media covered this as though it actually had a chance to work in order to delegitimatize Donald Trump. The truth is this entire story was a hoax and had no chance to work. 
• Putin says he would like to build up his nuclear weapons. Trump says he would invite another nuclear arms race. What he meant by this is he would like to build up our military in a strategy called "Peace through strength. You create weapons so you don't have to use them. It's called deterrence. But the media acts like Trump is going to get us into a nuclear war. However, they never worry about Iran or North Korea causing a nuclear war. That's because they believe we are the cause of the world's problems. They create this fake story to make it look like Trump wants to start a nuclear war to make him look bad. 
• Polls showed Donald Trump would lose Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconson, and it wouldn't even be close.
• The media said Texas was in play. The truth is that Trump won their handedly.
• Michael Brown had his hands up and said, "Don't Shoot!"  This was after he was shot by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Turns out "Hands up, don't shoot!" It never happened. His hands were not up. Michael Brown was not running away from the police officers. His hands were not up. Everyone was lying about it. And this lie became so bad that football players, news ancors, all made light of this by putting their hands up. And it was all based on a lie. And it's a lie that was never corrected by the same media that lied about it. 
• George Bush served dishonorably in the Air Force Reserve. This was according to Dan Rather in what became known as Rathergate.
• It's fair to publish republican Donald Trump's taxes without his approval, but it's unfair to publish emails leaked about Hillary Clinton by Wikileaks. The Times reported the taxes, but barely mentioned the leaked emails. 
• Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They never did their own research, and never criticized this until after the War in Iraq was ongoing. 
• They did not criticize comments about Obamacare by Obama such as "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor," and "Healthcare costs will go down once Obamacare is passed." Both turned out to be lies the media never even considered questioning because they all wanted it to pass so badly. 
• They gladly reported Hillary's lie that a video was responsible for Benghazi.
• Fox news is liberal. The problem here is they confuse editorial shows with news shows. Actually, it was Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama who started this fake news story; they came up with it. Then, without questioning it, the media just took off with it. The true story was reported elsewhere: that Benghazi was the result of a terrorist attack. Four men died. They asked for increased security prior to the attacks. Hillary Clinton failed to listen to them. They all died. Then this fake story came out. If it wasn't for the so called "fake news" on the right, the true story of what happened never would have gotten out. This is why the mainstream media has lost credibility. 
• George Zimmerman was guilty based on a tape unprofessionally edited by NBC News. 
• Allegations by various women accusing Trump of sexual crimes were accurate enough to report. It's funny that Trump is a billionaire who has been in the news since I was in college in 1988, and there was never one sex allegation. And then, coincidentally, a month prior to the election there are several, and the media just goes with them as though they were facts. That's fake news. 
• The New York Times is no longer objective. They reported this in a front piece article by Jim Rutenberg. They said they had to abandon principles of journalism because Donald Trump was too dangerous and had to be stopped. 
• The New York Times has been objective for a long, long time. They have not, but have portrayed themselves as objective. They have been so bias that their reporters don't know the difference between an editorial page and news. They are unable to keep their editorial opinions out of their news articles. I will give examples of this in a later post. Anyway, objectivity is what gave the New York Times credibility and it's gone. It's why the media is in the shape it is today, and why Fox News is now the leading news outlet, and what gave rise to conservative voices such as Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, Breitbart, and Infowars. 
• The economy is doing great right now. The White House reports a 4.5% unemployment rate and says the economy is good, and the media goes along with it rather than investigating the numbers. They do this in lieu of reporting that 94 million Americans are no longer in the workforce, and if these were added into the 4.5% the unemployment rate would be greater than 20%, which puts the number of unemployed at a rate similar to what was seen during the height of the great depression. But if you read the New York Times you wouldn't know. 
• Brian Williams of NBC Nightly News was part of the news he was reporting. He ended up being fired because it turned out that he was making it all up. 
• MSNBC host said Fox News held its Christmas party at one of Trump's hotels. The truth is that Fox News didn't even hold their Christmas party yet. 
• Hillary Clinton reported that the Russians hacked the DNC Committee computers and were responsible for leaked emails. The media just went with it as though the Russians really did this. The media went with it because the wanted Trump to lose so badly. 
• The democrats lost because the Russians Hacked the election. Hillary Clinton reported that she lost because the Russians hacked voting machines. The media went with this also in a last ditch effort to keep Donald Trump out of the White House. In order to maintain the integrity of voting, according to Greenhouse party candidate Jill Stein (who got less than 1% of the vote and has no chance of gaining enough votes to win). The recounts showed that Trump was the one who lost votes, not Stein or Clinton. Trump picked up votes in 2 of the 3 states. 
• Republicans are supporting the effort to look into Russian hacking of voting machines. This is not true. It was only two republican senators -- Lindsay Graham and John McCain -- and not republicans in general. It was not the republican party, it was two establishment republicans who hate Donald Trump and would do anything to keep him out of the White House. 

It used to be if the New York Times, CBS, ABC, and NBC said something, it was believed. That's not the case anymore. There is no news organization that is credible and believable, and that's why the so-called "fake news" has sprung up. 

Old media no longer holds truth to power

The role of the media is to be the watchdogs for the American people. Their job is to doubt everything that comes out of Washington until it's proven to be fact. They did this for many years, but no more. The media, most of it anyway, is now just an extension, a satellite, of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). If you want to find doubters, you have to check the new media, or what is often referred to as conservative media.

Today, the media is a part of the state, and by state I mean DNC party. They are liberals, and they are in bed with the Clinton's, and I say that figuratively. They are no longer suspicious or doubtful. They no longer hold truth to power.

I will give you an example. Obama released his latest unemployment numbers which show about a 5% unemployment rate. The New York Times, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc, all put this out as breaking news, claiming, "Economy doing great!

Now, a part of me thinks, "Yeah, this is good." But another part of me thinks, "How accurate is this unemployment number?" I mean, I shouldn't have to think this way, because what we are getting from the media is supposed to be facts. We are supposed to be getting both sides of the story. But, knowing what we now know about the modern media, we must now question the media the same as we question the government, because they are now one and the same.

So, as we check into our conservative news feeds, we learn that there are 94 working age people who have given up looking for work. These good folks are no longer counted on the unemployment roles. So, based on this figure, the unemployment rate has declined because people quit looking for work, not because they are working.

You see, the new media, so called the conservative media, is now doing what the old media, the mainstream media or traditional, used to do. The new media, a.k.a conservative media, holds truth to power. The new media is suspicious and doubtful of what comes out of Washington.

So, now armed with the news from two sources, we can see that the unemployment number is not 5%.  If you add the 5% unemployed and still looking for work with the 94 million who are unemployed and no longer looking, you get an unemployment number of about 23%.

You want to know something? The unemployment rate in 1933 was 25%. Back then there were people in soup lines, so you could see them. Today, they are watching TV on their laptops and talking to their friends on phones they received from Obama.

If you just watched CNN you wouldn't know that. If you just watched CNN, you'd think the economy was perfect. But, the American people aren't stupid. We see our friends out of work. We see ourselves not getting raises for five straight years. We see that our wages are at the bottom of the scale. We see that median wages are down from ten years ago.

We do not see this as acceptable. We do not see this as good. We do not become tolerant to it. We do not say, as they want us to, that this is just the new normal; that this is just the way it's is from now on; just the way it's going to be in the modern world. Such talk is defeatist talk. It's like saying, "We're cooked. This is the best it will ever be." I do not believe that. Most people don't believe that.

So, people in government are only watched and analyzed by the new media. That's the only place where this occurs anymore. The old media has failed us. The old media is nothing more than in bed with the government, and that should explain why you don't see anything good about Trump in the news, and Hillary Clinton is made out to be a saint.

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.

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 trying to use UN to force liberal agenda on world

As a former journalist who has kept up his skills in the blogosphere, I have for you a perfect example of journalism bias. It comes from Coral Davenport at the New York Times in her article "Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Leiu of Treaty."

First she states the facts:

The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

The ultimate goal here is to punish countries who do not conform to the law, if it is passed, or to shame them into complying.  In other words, either you conform to the progressive agenda or you will be shamed and ridiculed until you do.

But then she goes on to blame republicans as the reason Obama is forced into such action.  She said:

Lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.

For 30 years people have been claiming that mankind is causing global warming, and yet there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998.  Because global warming has been disproved by said facts, they have changed the name of their theory to "climate change."  It appears they have too much invested in the myth to just give up on it now.

There is politics behind the myth, because if democrats can convince the world that humans are causing "global cooling" or "global warming" or "climate change," then perhaps they can use this "fear" to push forth their political agenda, which mainly results in more regulations and taxes that take away personal liberties and make nations poorer.

It appears that the only force against Obama's charge to force nations to accept global warming are republicans and poor countries.  However, once progressives like Obama get their way, all countries will be poor, as the only way to create equality, the progressive goal, is to redistribute wealth, thus eliminating the upper class.

It appears republicans and poor countries are the only folks who know the facts in this case, or at least care to heed the facts.  Coral Davenport is yet another journalist who fails to study history, learn the facts, nor report the truth.  She is yet another journalist who fails to comply with rule #1 of journalism: "report the truth, keep your opinion out of your writing."

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.