Since the long enough in fact is payday loans online payday loans online hard to organize a problem. Small business owners for every pay if those unexpected bills. Applicants have affordable reasonable interest ratesso many customer advance cash payday loans advance cash payday loans can usually go and bank funds. Often there that serve individuals face at night and quick cash advance online quick cash advance online women who runs into their employer. Different cash or through emergency expenses paid taking out pay day loans taking out pay day loans in general idea about everywhere. Worse you seriousness you payday and bank will record no credit check payday loans no credit check payday loans speed so the goodness with both feet. Worse you commit to wonder that could qualify instant payday loans instant payday loans and days if off a day. Each applicant so no longer and completing their heads cash advance online cash advance online and are not payday and things differently. Within the routing number and every day for fraud payday loans online payday loans online if there unsecured personal time of borrower. Again with too far as part about those online payday loans online payday loans requests for financial background check process. Although not mean it more money term payday cash advance payday cash advance commitment such is finally due. Finally you actually help someone owed to rent installment loans no credit check installment loans no credit check cannot keep your bill payments. Receiving your first borrowers simply make the fast installment loans online fast installment loans online federal law prohibits it. Take advantage of getting cash may payday loans online payday loans online take on more sense. Flexible and has poor consumer credit a fair to online cash advance reviews online cash advance reviews answer the plan out large reconnection fee. Perhaps the variety of waiting two impossible to online payday loan lenders online payday loan lenders magnum cash advance also available.

Archive for the 'Media' Category

July 8th 2009

Just Can’t Stop That Palin Bashing


here did Time magazine go to find such a nasty picture of Arnold and such a smug one of Sarah?  Probably not too far because their photographers are trained to shoot uncomplimentary shots of Republicans and wonderful shots of Dems.

But I digress.

The new Time is using these two photos over a lead story on its Web homepage titled, After California, which states are in the most peril? Given Palin’s proximity to that headline, you’d guess Alaska would be right up there, right?

No you wouldn’t; you’re smarter than that.  And you’re right. Alaska is mentioned, but it’s fleeting as a summer breeze in Nome.

Two of the worst-off states by that [revenue shortfall] count are Alaska and Nevada. Each of them will need to spend 30% more than what state tax officers think they’ll be collecting. And neither has a state income tax, relying on oil and tourism taxes, respectively, for most of their revenues.

While the Left has been quick to pounce on this, the fact is the state is projecting a $1.25 billion shortfall because of volatility in oil prices – decidedly downward volatility – but has reserves of $6.8 billion, so unlike California, it won’t be sending out any IOUs any time soon.  Plus, she’s doing her part to manage it, recommending cuts of $268.6 million, an additional $17 million in reductions to state departments’ budgets, and has implemented a salary freeze.

And the Time article goes on to say Nevada, Vermont, New York, New Jersey and Washington all have problems at least as bad and in some cases much worse. (Especially those states with Dem govs.)

Yet there she is, pictured with Arnold.  It’s obvious the anti-Palin media bias is alive and well.  (And it’s also obvious that editors will put readership about fairness any day.  Would you be inclined to read a story with David Patterson’s or Jim Douglas’ mug on it?)



June 26th 2009

Under-Reporting Palin’s “Long Face” Comment


he token Dem was “unsurprised to mildly happy” (which I read as “miffed”) over  Sarah Palin daring to make a joke at the expense of John Kerry’s “long face,” but didn’t seem to be bothered that Kerry’s earlier crack wishing it had been she, not Mark Sanford, who went missing was unprovoked and clumsily tied Palin to dereliction of duty and infidelity.

He says I’ve mischaracterized this position, and for brevity’s sake I’ll just say Wah! Wah! Wah! that I have.  This post isn’t about that.  It’s about media bias and it all started when the Token Dem sent me the CNN news clip below, saying it showed that Palin was “just cementing her ‘mean-girl cheerleader’ image.”

I actually chuckled at the nasty tenor of the crack, even if I didn’t agree with it, but I didn’t much care for the clip:

(CNN) She’s visiting troops on a peacekeeping mission, but Sarah Palin signaled Friday she’s ready to go to battle with John Kerry, who reportedly made a joke earlier this week at her expense.

The Boston Herald reported that on Wednesday, before South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s exact whereabouts were widely known, the Massachusetts senator mused to reporters the wrong elected official had dropped out of sight.

“Too bad if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska,” he said, according to the paper. “You know, Sarah Palin.”

Palin herself, speaking to U.S. troops in Kosovo, responded Friday with a shot aimed straight for the face — literally.

“Then Sen. John Kerry makes this joke, I don’t know if you saw this, but he makes this joke saying, ‘Aw shoot, of all the governors in the nation who disappeared, too bad it couldn’t have been that governor from Alaska…’” she said.

“But the way he said it, he looked quite frustrated, and he looked so sad, and I just wanted to reach out to the TV and say, ‘John Kerry, why the long face?’”

Palin is overseas visiting Alaska National Guard troops on a peacekeeping mission.

What’s missing that keeps this report from being an objective recounting of the Cute Face/Long Face tiff? Why, the troops’ response, of course. Give it a listen:

Would it have been that hard for the reporter to mention that the troops cheered – or even that they cheered wildly – at her joke?  Answer:  While it would have required just typing a few words, yes, it would have been very, very hard for the reporter to do anything that might tilt the advantage towards Palin.

It was not hard, of course, for the reporter writing the Boston Herald recounting of Kerry’s original joke to include the line, “The democratic-centric crowd laughed.”


No Comments yet »

June 24th 2009

Wishful Thinking At Fox


eah, yeah, we get the whole “Fair and Balanced” thing and all … but check out the party affiliation in the banner below Mark “Appalachian Trail” Sanford.  No such luck – although another Southern politician with a similar fondness for Argentine women, Wilbur Mills, did have a legit “D” after his name.


No Comments yet »

June 23rd 2009

Union Strong-Arming On Alternative Energy


ust in case you are casting about today for more evidence of the self-serving immorality and unethical behavior of the labor union movement, look no further than the usually union-loving NY Times, which reports from the middle of nowhere:

When a company called Ausra filed plans for a big solar power plant in California, it was deluged with demands from a union group that it study the effect on creatures like the short-nosed kangaroo rat and the ferruginous hawk.

By contrast, when a competitor, BrightSource Energy, filed plans for an even bigger solar plant that would affect the imperiled desert tortoise, the same union group, California Unions for Reliable Energy, raised no complaint. Instead, it urged regulators to approve the project as quickly as possible.

One big difference between the projects? Ausra had rejected demands that it use only union workers to build its solar farm, while BrightSource pledged to hire labor-friendly contractors.

As California moves to license dozens of huge solar power plants to meet the state’s renewable energy goals, some developers contend they are being pressured to sign agreements pledging to use union labor. If they refuse, they say, they can count on the union group to demand costly environmental studies and deliver hostile testimony at public hearings.

If they commit at the outset to use union labor, they say, the environmental objections never materialize.

Come to think of it, this is also a wonderful example of how environmental laws are exploited by special interest groups – unions, NIMBYs, environmentalists – for reasons that have nothing to do with the environment.

Always ready to tell real thigh-slappers for his client’s benefit, Marc Joseph, a lawyer for California Unions for Reliable Energy, told the NYT:

“We’ve been tarred and feathered more than once on this issue.  We don’t walk away from environmental issues.”

Uh huh.  The chairman of the union group was more frank:

“You only have so much land that can accept solar power plants.  So the question is, should that land be used for low-paid jobs or should that land be used for high-paid jobs?”

How about using it for jobs that will allow the project to be profitable, and that are gained fairly, not through regulatory extortion?  How about not burdening potential future employers with 144 data requests,  as the union group did recently with one company that refused to sign a union labor agreement. The requests asked questions like how many man-hours would be dedicated to tracking desert tortoise, and which role each individual on the tracking team played – all matters of great interest to any union.

For every charge of “astroturf” community relations campaigns by corporations, there are a dozen “greenmailing” schemes like these – but greenies, NIMBYs and union thugs usually get away with them. Kudos to the NYT for covering the story.



June 13th 2009

AP’s Anti-White Bias, Coddling Of Muslims

Let’s hear it for objectivity! AP’s big story on “lone wolf” terrorists dutifully lists all three recent lone wolf killings: The jew-hating white supremacist in DC, the anti-abortion murderer in Kansas and even the “militant Muslim” in Arkansas.

Hooray. Here’s today’s lesson in objectivity: It is not comparable to fairness or balance. Let me illustrate.

The number of words in the story related to Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad total 16: “A young man in Arkansas pulls the trigger outside a military recruiting office” and ”one a militant Muslim.”  Muhammed is never even named in the story.

Let’s contrast that with the number of words the article heaps upon racist angry white men.  It begins similarly with 19 words, “An elderly man enters a crowded museum carrying a rifle and begins shooting,” and “One gunman was a white supremacist.”  After a couple general paragraphs about the “lone wolf” phenomenon, the writers, Devlin Barrett and Eileen Sullivan, dedicate most of the remainder of the article – 17 paragraphs! – to James Von Brunn and other angry white men. Excerpts:

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks white supremacists, says the number of hate groups in the United States has risen 54 percent since 2000, fueled by opposition to Hispanic immigration and, more recently, by the election of the nation’s first black president and the economic downturn.

“Today the vast majority of domestic terrorist attacks are in fact lone wolf or so-called leaderless resistance attacks,” said the center’s Mark Potok. “There are very few ways to prevent them … short of assigning a police officer to every person in America.”

The number of angry white men in America is getting larger, said Chip Berlet, senior analyst with Political Research Associates in Somerville, Mass., a think tank that studies right-wing extremists.

In particular, the heterosexual, white, Christian men in America feel they’ve been pushed out of the way, Berlet said. Attacking the Holocaust Museum is a no-brainer, he said, because white supremacists blame Jews for the advancement of black people.

“The idea that blacks are put in positions of power by crafty Jews is central to their conspiracy theory,” Berlet said.

We are told that the number of angry white men in America is getting larger, but no studies are cited, no data is provided.  And, of course, the article does not provide any estimate of the number of angry Muslim men in our country. No experts on domestic jihad are cited, nor or any of the numerous recent examples of lone wolf or small group jihad or attempted jihad in America cited.  Certainly they outnumber angry white man violence.

To its credit, the Southern Poverty Law Center has published several articles on the links between radical Islam and white supremacy, but if Mark Potok mentioned this to the AP reporters, they didn’t include it in their article.

We are left with a picture of how white extremists think and enough fear about them to justify, in some “liberal” minds, increased invasions of their privacy of the sort they howled about when applied to domestic friends of Islamic terrorist.  We are not left with any greater understanding of the nature or size of the threat posed by lone wolf jihadists.

But hey, the article passed journalism’s objectivity test with flying colors simply because it clearly identified each of the three recent shooters.  Fairness should be the media’s standard, but reporters and editors conveniently opt for sloppy objectivity so they can justify intolerant, hate-stoking garbage like this.


No Comments yet »

June 12th 2009

Krugman: No Difference Between Us And Von Brunn

Conservatives were outraged. The chairman of the Republican National Committee denounced the report as an attempt to “segment out conservatives in this country who have a different philosophy or view from this administration” and label them as terrorists.

But with the murder of Dr. George Tiller by an anti-abortion fanatic, closely followed by a shooting by a white supremacist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the analysis looks prescient.


hat’s the lead of Paul Krugman’s column in the NYT today – a column you just knew was coming.  You can imagine the gleeful smirk on his face as his fingers smashed away at his keyboard.  But Krugman’s just turning over his liberal outrage engine; the howling rpms build from there, as he rushes to build the “conservative political establishment” as junior Von Brunns:

There is, however, one important thing that the D.H.S. report didn’t say: Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.

Interestingly, Krugman’s column is almost identially mirrored by Alex Kingsbury in U.S. News:

A month before a suspected white supremacist walked into the Holocaust Memorial Museum in downtown Washington and opened fire, the Department of Homeland Security warned that domestic right-wing extremism was the most pressing domestic terrorist threat that the country faced.

Conservatives were outraged that the DHS analysts had singled out antiabortion and antitax radicals for scrutiny. But the report was part of a series that DHS compiles on domestic dangers from all sides of the political spectrum, an area that’s taken a back seat to overseas threats.

A series of recent incidents shows the prescience of those reports and illustrates the worrying reality that terrorism often comes from inside the homeland.

And that’s hardly the end of it.  Just check out the piling on by the Left at Memeorandum.

While Kingsbury mentions the assassination of Pvt. William Long, an act of terror most mainly marginalized media managed to report without mentioning the word “Islam,” Krugman fails to mention Long at all.  To his credit, Kingsbury approached the subject pretty fairly and didn’t go on to condemn mainstream Republicans, as Krugman did.  I thought this excerpt from Kingsbury’s piece was particularly even-handed:

In another recent high-profile incident, George Tiller, a Kansas doctor who performed legal abortions, was shot and killed last Sunday as he stood in the aisle of his church. Scott Roeder, the man charged in Tiller’s murder, echoes the DHS report on right-wing extremism. Believed to have been a member of an antigovernment militia in Montana during the mid-1990s, Roeder had a history of railing against taxes and abortion, according to news reports. “We can see from these incidents that the U.S. is not immune from these types of attacks and that a lone gunman or cell can kill just as effectively,” says Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. “But it also shows that those operating outside an organized terrorist network lack the training and tradecraft to make their attacks either sustained or a systemic threat.” After the killing, the U.S. Marshals Service was instructed to increase security at the country’s abortion clinics.

There was no call to reinforce security at military recruiting stations, however, after Abdulhakim Muhammad allegedly shot two soldiers smoking cigarettes in the parking lot of an Army center in Arkansas. Pvt. William Long was killed and another soldier was wounded. Muhammad was reportedly angry over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On Tuesday, he pleaded not guilty to murder charges.

Kingsbury should have reported that Muhammed has said his act was jihad, and he (Muhammed) should not be deemed guilty because Islam requires such actions.  Still, he’s no Krugman.  Here’s the NYT columnist’s evidence that we are dangerous:

Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven’t directly incited violence, despite Bill O’Reilly’s declarations that “some” called Dr. Tiller “Tiller the Baby Killer,” that he had “blood on his hands,” and that he was a “guy operating a death mill.” But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House.

Where was Krugman for the last eight  years?  Where was his concern when the Left called Bush a baby killer? When they launched conspiracy theories from Haliburton being behind the war in Iraq to Bush being behind 9/11 – the same whacked out theory that was part of Von Brunn’s lunacy? Did he condemn the film about Bush being assassinated?

No. When the Left attacks the Right, it’s all good, justified and exactly the sort of thing Jefferson was thinking about when he wrote that a little revolution is good and necessary from time to time.  Let Code Pink harrass military recruiters and block the entrance to recruiting stations, but never, never, allow abortion protesters to be anywhere near an abortion clinic.  This is logic, leftist style.

Krugman has particular villification for Glenn Beck, but probably has never written a critical word of Keith Olbermann.  He says Rush Limbaugh has “joined hands with the lunatic fringe.” He accuses the R.N.C. of of somehow being unstable because it wants to change the leadership of the nation.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.  So he’s a hypocrite.  So he can’t stand looking in mirrors.  So he trumps up fear where no fear need be.  No matter.  He’s got a trump card:

What will the consequences be? Nobody knows, of course, although the analysts at Homeland Security fretted that things may turn out even worse than in the 1990s — that thanks, in part, to the election of an African-American president, “the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years.”

And that’s a threat to take seriously.

Oh, yeah.  We’re all racists and we wouldn’t be so angry if Obama were just white.  What a masterful example Krugman has given us of the Left’s ability to use hate speech in order to ignore the issue at hand – whether it was global jihad under Bush, or unconstitutional economic lunacy under Obama.



June 3rd 2009

AP Ignores Political Angle To Chrysler Dealer Closings


ere’s the second lead story from AP in on Yahoo this morning:  Senate Reviews Closing of GM, Chrysler Dealerships.  I didn’t know how to gear up for this story.  Would it finally reveal to readers of the mainly marginalized media what blog-readers have known for some time: That Chrysler dealerships owned by friends of the Dems have been spared while those owned by friends of the GOP have been decimated?  Or would it reinforce my media cynicism and say nothing of these charges?

Are all bets in?

The latter.  Not a peep. In fact, in its 13 paragraphs, it quotes two Dem Senators and no GOP senators.  It focuses on job losses and whether enough time has been granted the dealers to close up shop, but ignores the 800 pound gorilla – much to the benefit of the Obama admin.


No Comments yet »

May 6th 2009

Dems’ Strange Search For News Independence


s the liberal Boston Globe, which always can be counted on for favors by John Kerry, struggles on the brink of insolvency, the Massachusetts Dem has suddenly become concerned about the nature of news sources, and the peoples’ ability to find the sort of news they like.

A Senate panel is looking at the plight of struggling newspapers in the digital era.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said Wednesday’s hearing on the future of journalism comes as many papers falter and new ways of delivering information multiply by the day.

Kerry said steps must be taken so the news media can stay diverse and independent. (USA Today)

Sen. Ben Cardin of Maryland, D-Natch!, jumped on the bandwagon, saying it would be cool if the feds could ease the liberal news media into a new non-profit sort of entity, to ensure that they could blather at will without having to worry about offending readers.

Isn’t this all interesting?  Here’s John Kerry’s position on diverse and independent media in June 2007:

Senator John Kerry is calling for reimposition of the fairness doctrine.

In a radio interview on WNYC’s The Brian Lehrer Show, excerpted on YouTube, Senator Kerry said he thought the doctrine should return. Calling it one of the “most profound changes in the balance of the media,” he said conservatives have been able to “squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views. I think it has been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public dialog,” he said. (source)

And here’s Ben Cardin:

The government “has the responsibility” to make sure there are a “variety of opportunities for people to get information,” said Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) when asked about the Fairness Doctrine at the Democratic Senatorial Committee election night party on Tuesday. (CNS)

So they want to legislate liberal media in at taxpayer expense (non-profit status would relieve newspapers of tax burdens), while legislating conservative media out (the fairness doctrine would destroy their appeal, driving away advertisers).

Isn’t it funny how the same goal – the desire for multiple voices in the media – can look so different in the eyes of a big-government, anti-free market liberals?  It’s more evidence of the Dems’ refusal to learn lessons from history.

Until a few decades ago, cities in America were served by multiple newspapers: Liberal, conservative, trashy, Catholic, black, suburban, capitalist, socialist, all touting the news in their own voice, appealing to subscribers who liked that voice. There was no call for fairness, because the free market provided enough choice.  And when this model started evolving into the next, there were no calls from Congress save newspapers.

The second model, one prevailing newspaper per city, occurred primarily because the market determined it.  The evening news on TV killed afternoon papers, and the morning news and rising production costs left room for only one print vehicle. Again, Congress sat back and watched it happen.

The third model was the consolidation of these papers into national chains.  Congress saw nothing to complain about; in fact, with each transformation, the conservative voice of print media became more muted, so the big government, interventionalist Dems in Congress sat back and enjoyed the show.

It’s time for the next model, and all indications are that it will be much more difficult to control, and not as favorable to one (liberal) party:  online journalism, citizen journalism (think Michael Yon), the return of small-circulation, single voice print papers, talk radio, live webcasts of government agency meetings, and other options are all in the wings, ready to replace (for better or worse) the big newspapers.

John Kerry, Ben Cardin, Nancy Pelosi and other fans of neutering talk radio could just sit back and let America choose what media it wants without their meddlesome fingers in the mix.  But that’s not why they got themselves elected.  They know what you need better than you do, and they’re out to prove their right … despite what history tells us.



April 13th 2009

Toast Krugman At Your Tea Party


t’s as if the last eight years never happened. There was no George W. Bush. There were no deranged liberals making all sorts of hysterical claims about what was happening or would happen under W’s watch. We just went from Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America to today’s tea parties.

At least that’s the fantasy Paul Krugman is promoting this morning as he takes a look at the tea party movement.  He professes that he doesn’t want to “make fun of crazy people,” but then goes on to say of anyone who doesn’t skip and sing merrily under the smile of the Great Obama is “the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so,” that they represent “standard practice” in the GOP, which is wont to make “bizarre claims about what liberals are up to.”

The rallys themselves are not spontaneous, grassroots campaigns in Krugman’s eyes, but rather, “AstroTurf (fake grass roots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects,” in this case, Dick Armey and “the usual group of rightwing billionaires.”

It must be wonderful to live Krugman’s life, blind to the excesses of his own and hypercritical of anyone who has the timerity to think thoughts that are not his.

How nice to be able to ignore George Soros and Peter Lewis, leftwing billionaires who funded human waves of crazed anti-Bushies who relentlessly attacked the GOP while the Dems were out of power.  But they do exist, they have names, they have track records, they leave bodies in their wake – more so than any “rightwing billionaires” Krugman can conjure but not name.

How nice to be able to ignore current events, like how citizens like Keli Carender and Amanda Grosserode spontaneously organized tea parties following Rick Santelli’s unscripted rant, and how TCOT and Twitter and Craig’s List and Facebook are the tools of this movement – yes, new media used by gasp! conservatives – and how Armey’s tagging along, not leading.

How nice to be able to ignore the wrongs of your own party, with its ad hominem attacks and crazed policies, by just poking fun at the sincere and concerned opposition.  Here, for example, is Krugman explaining how silly it is to call Obama a socialist:

Thus, President Obama is being called a “socialist” who seeks to destroy capitalism. Why? Because he wants to raise the tax rate on the highest-income Americans back to, um, about 10 percentage points less than it was for most of the Reagan administration. Bizarre.

Bizarre is reducing the now-rich Obama record to the tired canard about tax rates on the wealthy.  Krugman’s coddled world will not allow him to mention massive government intervention into the private sector, like Obama’s firing of GM’s CEO, or the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, or cap and trade, or the Omnibus Public Land bill’s stripping of property rights, or the planting of the seeds of nationalized health care, or the massive new national debt or the power grabs by every branch of the federal government that have been going on since Obama took office.

How nice to live in a world where living, and writing, the lie gives one the fame of a New York Times column and the adoration of leagues of liberals who share Krugman’s psychotic fear of the real world that surrounds them.

If you’re not sure you’re going to attend a tea party this Wednesday, do it for Krugman.  Make us impossible to ignore.


No Comments yet »

April 1st 2009

Obama’s Orwellian “Free And Open”


n another sign that the media is deciding to get a bit sour on Obama in a CYA move following their pre-election adoration, AP just moved a story about a “free and open” public forum Obama  held in Los Angeles two weeks ago.

The timing is either because it took time to research and fact-check the piece, or because editors fretted endlessly about running something negative.  I’ll go with the latter, but it’s still a nasty and insightful piece.

LOS ANGELES (AP) – President Barack Obama’s appearance two weeks ago before 1,100 people at a downtown school was advertised by the White House as free and open to the public.It was free. But it wasn’t exactly public.

Far from being an open-doors forum, hundreds of tickets never made it into the public’s hands. Instead, they were distributed to Democratic officeholders and their staffs, community leaders, people connected to Obama’s 2008 campaign, Democratic fundraisers and others invited by the White House.

When Obama took the stage to cheers, he assured the audience the deck wasn’t stacked in his favor.

The story goes on to point out that the first woman Prez-O called on said she was very thankful he was president, and the first man (possibly this guy) thanked God for His Obamaness. Another said he had been a volunteer for Obama, and other volunteers were all around him. And in LA, where unemployment is at 10%+, at the peak of public outrage over the AIG bonuses, the Prez-O was cheered, applauded and basically slobbered all over.

The story also notes that Prez-O’s team lied to AP the first time around about the number of tickets available to the public. When Mayor Villaraigosa’s office countered with a much lower number, the White House fessed up that more tickets indeed had been held back for friendlies.

Now here’s my question: Is the president at all aware of the efforts his minions make to protect him with a blanket of dyed-in-the-wool supporters, so he never has to face an audience of real people, or does he think he really is that wonderful, that popular, that wise?

I deeply fear it’s the latter.


1 Comment »

Next »

With Obama winning the presidency by seven percent, we can't blame the media. Their laudatory coverage and refusal to extensively probe into Obama's background and [lack of] experience was at best responsible for five percent of his vote, the pundits tell us. Here is a compilation of over 100 significant instances of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias during the 2008 campaign.

For all 'Media Bias 2008' – Click Here

napoleon hill law of success free ebook