We Won!
When foreign countries start investing billions of dollars in a country, its a safe bet they are aware of the risks involved. And, unlike the old news media and our elected Democrat officials, they see a relatively stable country ripe for investment.
Desperate to ignore any and all evidence of our astounding victory, the left, aided and abetted by the old media, continue to desperately search for any smidgen of bad news from Iraq. Not finding any, new talking points are starting to emerge. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, the left has moved its focus off Iraq - to Afghanistan. The war has merely shifted, they say. We haven't won, they claim. For shame.
Even in Afghanistan, the tide is turning. But don't expect to get the straight poop from our elected officials or our very own media. They will continue their 45 year strategy of re-defining reality to their own liking, unaware that the world has changed. The media no longer has a lock on what news Americans hear and Democrats no longer have a lock on defining the issues.
The notion that America is a force for good in the world is not one liberals will ever embrace. Its called cognitive dissonance. And just as they cling to the notion that Alger Hiss was innocent and Che Guevera was a hero, they will continue to believe their own definition of reality, despite any and all evidence to the contrary. To admit they were wrong would invalidate them. And everything is about them.
The reality is that America has accomplished the impossible in Iraq, giving millions of Iraqi people a chance to obtain the very freedoms the old media and liberals so casually pervert. God Bless America.
by Nancy Morgan
Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
Article may be reprinted, with attribution
Source: We Won!
images:
* Right Bias
* notionscapital
Open Season on the Clinton Scandals?
by Nancy Morgan
FLASH:
The Mainstream Media Discovers--GASP!--the Underbelly of the Clintons
Eight Years Later
The day following the crucial Indiana and NC primaries that seemed to end Hillary's presidential aspirations, a strange thing happened. The media started releasing bits and pieces of Hillary's seldom reported, nefarious doings. Doings that have been in the public arena for years but never followed up by the media.
The Washington Times headline Once-Secret Memos Question Clinton's Honesty appeared Wednesday. The article outlined the decades old information that federal prosecutors had assembled hundreds of pages of evidence suggesting she concealed information and misled a federal grand jury. Information that has long been available but, curiously, never reported in depth until now.
On Friday, The Wall Street Journal ran an article entitled, The Clinton Divorce, in which they actually mentioned nine of the most well known Clinton scandals. This was followed on Saturday by a current (potential) Hillary scandal, U.S. Criminal Probe Eyes Clinton Donor.
Monday we see another headline from the Washington Times, Clinton's Records Vanished After Warning, about the billing records of Hillary's Rose Law Firm. The billing records that disappeared 14 years ago, and were found by Hillary two years later.
These articles may come as a shock to many voters, especially young students, who weren't around during the era of non-stop Clinton scandals. They, along with many voters, believe the unchallenged statements by Hillary and legions of pundits that Hillary has been thoroughly vetted. Even McCain and many other conservatives echo this false statement and accept it as truth. Its not.
The Clinton scandals, both Bill's and Hillary's, have never been reported to the American people. Or were reported in such a way as to convey the impression they were fantasies motivated by hate filled members of the right wing conspiracy. They were one or two day stories which were then swept down the old memory hole. Despite iron-clad evidence of malfeasance, perjury, cover-up, blackmail and conspiracy.
http://www.amazon.com/STRANGE-DEATH-VINCENT-FOSTER/dp/0684838370/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1210508838&sr=1-1
As one of the only three journalists that dared cover the Vince Foster supposed 'suicide', I remain perplexed to this day how solid evidence of conspiracy, cover-up and numerous documented illegalities by team Clinton managed to be kept from public view. I have seen the actual evidence. The evidence that was never made available to the American public. Whether Vince Foster was murdered or committed suicide is not known. The evidence, however, clearly shows that his death did not occur in Ft Marcy Park, as most Americans believe.
Most Americans would be shocked to know that the Monica Lewinsky scandal served Bill Clinton quite well. It diverted attention from the more serious charges concerning Chinese cash that coincidentally flowed to Bill Clinton at the same time his crony, Ron Brown, in the Commerce Department was approving the export of our nuclear technology to China. This Chinese cash was instrumental in Bill Clinton's re-election in 1996. These two scandals are merely the tip of the Clinton iceberg but they set the reporting standard for the many scandals that followed.
Whether conservatives were honestly unaware of the available facts, or whether they were afraid of losing their credibility by reporting the unbelievable shenanigans of the Clintons is a question I can't answer. What I do know is that every article I have written about the Clinton's malfeasance over the last 13 years, has been rejected. By liberals and conservatives alike.
The timing of these articles raises a red flag. Why, after all these years, is it now acceptable to point out the reality surrounding the Clintons? Will the public finally be made aware of the extent and scope of team Clinton's illegalities, scandals and cover-ups? Will the media finally let the American public know about Hillary's supporting and leading roles in the numerous documented cases involving corruption, perjury, blackmail and intimidation? If so, why now?
No matter what side of the aisle you're on, every American has the right to enough information to make an informed decision when casting their vote. We should all question why all this information was never made available to the public when it actually mattered.
by Nancy Morgan
Nancy Morgan is a columnist and a news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina, where she writes "Culture Watch" weekly, as well as other articles.
Article may be reprinted with attribution. Bio available on request.
images:
* beachbums
* drudge
"Recession is when a neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours."
Perhaps the above Ronald Reagan quote is a good example of why the Mainstream Media is so gloomy about the economy.
If you're employed by the MSM, job cuts and downsizing is not only a fact of life, there's no end in sight for the members of the Media Pampered Class. It's easy to see why the MSM talking heads are so obsessed with any bad economic news: if arrogance and conservative-bashing are no longer enough to ensure one's continued employment in the MSM, then the economy MUST be in shambles.
Red Planet Cartoons has a good point in their latest, "Hoping for Recession". The Mainstreamers reported unemployment of 5.4% during the Bill Clinton re-election campaign as the attainment of Nirvana.
Now, with unemployment just having reached 5.1%, their reporting is anything but subtle: it's the end of the U.S. economic world.
John Hindraker of Powerline asks a question that everyone (outside the DNC and the MSM itself) already knows the answer to: "Still, it makes you wonder: is the current hysterical treatment of economic news the product of a rational evaluation of the data, or is it just one more sign of the media’s desire to put a Democrat in the White House in 2009?
Do you remember 1996, when Bill Clinton swept to an easy re-election victory over Bob Dole, on the basis of what pretty much everyone in the press considered a near-perfect economy? No “pink slip nation” in 1996!
Actually, though, the unemployment rate in November 1996, when Clinton rode a soaring economy to victory, was 5.4%. That’s right–three tenths of a percent higher than the “grim picture” of a “pink slip nation” painted by this month’s unemployment report.
Of course, that's one component to the Mainstream's OC economic reporting behavior. The other one is that many reporters are mistaking the economic condition of the Mainstream Media for the economy as a whole.
unemployed MSM hack reporters will continue to swell.
As we said a month ago in Mainstream Media--New Cutbacks in Jobs, Bureaus, Stock Prices, Advertising, Ratings: "The MSM tries to put the blame for their decline on the medium and hopes to counter it by creating blogs on the Internet. One suspects that they won't be selling anything different on their MSM blogs--and the public won't be doing any buying of their news there, either."
Some MSM reporters are deeply partisan, Democrat Party-oriented publicity hacks masquerading as objective reporters of the news. But not all of them.
And while the U.S. economy does have some problems--as all economies do--readers who only get their news from the Mainstream Media would be completely misinformed as to the state of the economic union.
The non-stop beating of the Mainstream Media bad economic news drums offers proof that the few non-partisan MSM reporters were either asleep during Econ 101 or substituting their own personal economic worries for the U.S. economy.
If the Mainstream reporters had any economic knowledge, they'd know that when customers (readers and viewers) aren't buying what a business is selling, that business has to change or go under. The MSM seems determined not to change: that leaves only one alternative.
Or, as Ronald Reagan might have put it, "The depression has reached the Mainstream Media."
by Mondoreb
[Red Planet Cartoons has a nice collection of links and other sources on this MSM obsession with recession and the strangely partisan definition they use of "bad economic news", depending on who's in the White House. "Hoping for Recession"]
Sources:
* Pink Slip Nation
* Hoping for Recession
* Mainstream Media's Recession Obsession
* Mainstream Media Cuts: Jobs, Bureaus, Stock Prices, Advertising, Ratings
DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Back to DBKP at Blogger Front Page
When a litigator pretends he's a journalist pretending to be a press nanny, the result is usually another Glenn Greenwald joke pretending to be a column.
Only a former litigator could manage to make the claims that Glenn Greenwald does without his body twisting into spasmodic fits of laughter.
In "Bad Stenographers", Greenwald reaches the correct conclusion that most mainstream hacks are little better than stenographers.
If only.
Greenwald proceeds to tell us what he thinks a journalist should do, ought to do, doesn't do, whatever.
One example: I worked for years with highly professional stenographers in hundreds of depositions and court proceedings. Their defining trait is that they have a fierce devotion to transcribing accurately everything that is said and doing nothing else. It's not uncommon for lawyers, in the heat of some dispute, to attempt to recruit the stenographer into the controversy in order to say who is right.
Say, sounds like what reporters used to do.
Back in the day--before journalists got the bright idea that someone elected them to make policy--reporters/journalists used to record the facts and what was said: without trying to resolve the "good guy" or "bad guy" issue for the reader.
Greenwald then takes the press to task the few times they slip up.Stenographers will never do that [say who is right]. They will emphasize that they are only there to write down what is said, not to resolve disputes or say what actually happened -- exactly like Time Magazine and most of our press corps. If someone in a court proceeding voices even the most blatantly false accusations, stenographers will faithfully write it down and publish it without comment -- exactly like Time Magazine and most of our press corps, at least when it comes to claims from the government and its GOP operatives.
So the Washington press is nothing more than a herd of Bush poodles.
Journalist n. A person who collects and edits news for the public.
Sound familiar?
I didn't think so.
It doesn't sound familiar to Greenwald either.
After wading through the rest of the piece (with a short nap in the middle), the former litigator has completely convinced the reader of his case for liberal media bias--all the while swearing it doesn't exist.
Not content with completely disgusting anyone who believed the Journalism 101 teacher about a "disinterested press", he inserts this howler. Probably to check to see if anyone was still awake.As Eric Alterman documented before most people were pointing it out, the greatest myth in our political culture is the Rush-Limbaugh-generated complaint about the "liberal media."
Greenwald even writes the phrase "liberal media myth".
Long before Limbaugh settled into his popular show, complaints of bias on the network newscasts began, people switched off their sets and network ratings began their slide down. Greenwald argues that Limbaugh manages some kind of mass hypnosis/mind control to plant this outrageous voo-doo idea of "liberal media bias" in the public's imagination.
Limbaugh is an evil genius. With the powers he possesses, he should quit his radio show and take over the world.
Then maybe he'd use his power to save us from former litigators masquerading as journalists masquerading as concerned press nannies.
by Mondoreb
Source:
Bad Stenographers
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
Ron Paul.
Was he treated fairly in this interview? Love him or hate him, you have to admit that the guy often isn't treated objectively by the media. It should be troubling, even for the legions of anti-Paulistinians. It'll only be a matter of time until the GOP selects a candidate. Paul's treatment is only a reminder of what happens when the "objective" mainstream media gets a Republican (or conservative Democrat, rare as those are these days) in their guest chair.
Was Ron Paul treated fairly in this video? We think so. But in some quarters, the above video was said to be anti-Ron Paul. It's hard to see, but maybe it's in the eye of the beholder. Still the point holds true about the lack of media objectivity, in general. This might just not be the best example of it.
A different opinion comes from 1000 Needles (great name, huh?) in "I Hate Solidad O'Brien".I HATE SOLIDAD O'BRIEN
The Ron Paul video is presented as Exhibit "A". More from KN:
And here you can see why:It really is sad that our media has become so biased that we cannot even PRETEND that they are objective anymore. Just look at the sneering faces O'Brien was making towards Paul.
Ron Paul. Love him or hate him, but is he the canary in the coalmine for how Big Media treats those whose opinions differ from those held by their anointed clique?
But the above video might not be the best vehicle for illustrating the point.
Back to Front Page.
