The Media Is Not Biased For Obama

I've been hearing a lot of complaints this week that the networks and major newspapers are biased in favor of Barack Obama over his opponent John McCain. Cited as particular evidence of this bias is the fact that all three network news anchors went along on Barack Obama's international travels.

Some network apologists have said this is not evidence of bias at all. They do admit, though, that it is unprecedented coverage for a presidential candidate. They say Obama's trip is being covered in a manner more like a presidential trip.

These statements are wrong. The networks and the major newspapers are not giving Obama's trip "presidential trip coverage." Presidential trips don't get this kind of coverage. The three network anchors didn't go on trips with any of our presidents. At most, they sent senior reporters.

But the fact that Charles Gibson, Brian Williams, and Katie Couric all went with Barack Obama on his photo op tour doesn't mean they're biased. They're not biased — they're part of Obama's campaign staff.

Obama vs. the Generals

President George Bush has taken a huge amount of heat for “not listening to the generals.” So how come presidential wanna-be Barack Obama is getting a pass when he says what General Petraeus and others say doesn't matter, and that he's going to pursue his withdrawal strategy regardless of what the military experts say? And he says, knowing that the surge has worked, he'd still vote against it.

Separately, a “senior Obama advisor” speaking on background (so he wouldn't be named and publicly embarrassed) said of Obama's upcoming Berlin speech “It is not going to be a political speech.” He went on to say “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.” It was left to a reporter to point out “But he is not president of the United States.” (Let me guess — that reporter was not from the New York Times or any of the three major networks.)

I think both of these incidents speak volumes about the arrogance and assumptions of the Obama campaign. As I heard this afternoon, perhaps President Obama's advisors should check in with the people advising President Dewey. They might get some good pointers.

Pelosi: One of FARC's Friends

The Colombian government and armed forces tricked the Communist guerillas of FARC into giving up their highest value hostages, including a former Colombian presidential candidate and three Americans, to a fictitious human rights organization. Apparently the easiest part of the plan was getting the FARC terrorists to believe a human rights organization would cooperate with them. As noted,

There are a couple of other interesting things that have turned up in the information about this rescue, and about the information culled from the computers captured in the March raid that killed FARC leader Raúl Reyes. One is that Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez is actively supporting FARC's efforts to take over the government of the neighboring country (Colombia), giving large amounts of money to the terror group and assisting them in obtaining weapons which are shipped through his (Chavez') ports, all the while pretending to be trying to mediate the conflict between the FARC and Colombia.

Another interesting thing is who is helping Hugo Chavez undermine Colombia. Three names stand out. One is Colombian Senator Piedad Cordoba, currently under investigation for her ties to FARC. And working with Cordoba and Chavez in the mediation scheme were the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and her designated representative Congressman Jim McGovern.

So the question is this: Is Nancy Pelosi knowingly and deliberately cooperating with Communist insurgent groups and dictators, or is her judgment "more than a little misguided"? And is this related to her intransigence on the Colombian Free Trade Agreement?

And the more general follow-up questions: Why the support for the Communist insurgents and dictators against democratic countries and governments? Again. Is this the kind of leadership we, as a country, want to support?

Playground Bullies

Robert Reich gave an interview to New York Times Magazine. At the end of the published interview is this exchange:

Reich: I was bullied a lot when I was a kid. I was actually beat up because I was little. People frequently tell me in interviews that they were bullied as children. But no one ever steps forward and says, “I was the bully.” They don’t want to admit to being a bully.

Interviewer: What do you think playground bullies grow up to be?

Reich: Right-wing Republicans.

With all due respect, Reich can see in his own Berkeley back yard that the bullies are consistently the left-wing Democrats — and not just the ones from Code Pink. And it's not just in Berkeley, either. It's the left that demands special treatment, that shouts down those they don't agree with, that damage property and attack police — and then pretend to be the victims.

My primary reaction to Reich's claim is to ask, in the best "church lady" voice, "Can you say projection?"

Obama and His Generals

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said military experience is a vital qualification for the presidency. Having absolutely no such experience, Barack Obama has recruited senior retired military as campaign advisors. But what sort of advisors has he been able to recruit?

One key advisor and surrogate denigrates the service of a man who has faced challenges that advisor cannot even conceive of:

"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."     — General (Ret.) Wesley Clark, military advisor to Barack Obama

Another key advisor has called John McCain weak on national security. He has also commented on the courage and commitment of the American fighting man:

"I never made a plan that relied on the courage of my own troops. You hope that -- and they generally will -- fight bravely. Your plan ought to be predicated on more realistic assumptions."     — General (Ret.) Merrill "Tony" McPeak, co-chairman of the Obama campaign

These statements — particularly Clark's — have produced responses. One I like is

Barack H. Obama and his pony-pal, Weasley Clark: With fiends like these, who needs enemas?

But my favorite is from Confederate Yankee, who says

The saddest thing about Barack Obama's available military expertise is that though he has Wes Clark in his corner, the only person he knows with the experience of getting a bomb on target is Bill Ayers.

Hillary Proves She Can Fake It

Why does Tammy Wynette's Stand By Your Man keep running through my head?

Environmental Extremists

NASA's Dr James Hansen called today for the thought police to arrest and punish those CEOs of energy corporations that don't hew to his global warming orthodoxy. He said the heads of fossil fuel companies who "spread disinformation" (i.e., disagree with him) about global warming should be "tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."

This evening I saw a spokesman for the National Resources Defense Council being interviewed about Hansen's testimony and statements. She did say three things that were true:

• Dr Hansen testified before Congress today.
• He has been in the government for more than 20 years.
• He was the first "major scientist" to warn of the dangers of global warming and assert the need for a massive and immediate response to save the earth.

Everything else she said in the prepared speeches she used, as answers to the questions she was asked, was false. And most of it was slanderous, like her explicit claim that all the scientists and researchers who don't accept Hansen's orthodoxy are bought and paid for by the oil companies.

No wonder she had no response to the question of why we should listen to politicians (several were named) who are beholden to environmental extremists.

My only question is whether these people are being deliberately dishonest — that is, are they lying only to us or are they lying to themselves as well?

Terror Attack in Jaipur, India

A significant terror attack occurred on May 13^th in Jaipur, India. It was the first terror attack in that city. The attack involved at least ten bombs — reports indicate there were nine coordinated detonations and at least one additional bomb was found and defused. Depending on the report you read, there were something like 63 or 80 people killed (most reports say 80), and at least a couple hundred injured. Initial suspicion fell on Pakistan-based terror organizations, who have been responsible for a number of prior attacks, but it now appears the attack was the work of Bangladeshi illegal aliens with an intent to "demolish the faith (Hinduism)" of the "infidels of India".

It appears this terror attack has been totally ignored by the primary media and news organizations in the United States. It was covered in the Indian media, of course, and in parts of the Arab media, where it was noted that Indian Muslims are joining with other Indians calling for measures to deal with Islamist terror. It was also covered in at least two British newspapers. In this country, however, it's apparently only been reported in places like the Infidel Blogger Alliance and Wikipedia.

These extremists are not attacking only the US and its interests, or just the West and its interests — these extremists are attacking anyone and anything that is not Islamist, in their extremist version. The American press needs to recognize this, and report on these terrorist atrocities. And we all need to pay attention because, when these extremists have the ability, they will attack us, too.

Osama bin Laden is Dead

Osama bin Laden is dead — and has been for some time — according to an article in the Pakistan Daily (cited in an entry at Jihad Watch).

A top Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud has rejected reports that al-Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden, and other leaders are hiding in his region.

"The al-Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden is dead, and the Afghan Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, are not in our territory," he said in an interview broadcast by a satellite television network.

Good to hear, but I'll feel better with a confirmation by DNA.

One Courageous Lady

Not everyone knuckles under to Hezbollah. A courageous woman at Lebanon's Future TV spoke out in early May against actions by Hezbollah and their protectors in the Lebanese Army. The video can be seen (with English subtitles) on Gateway Pundit; the transcript is there and on MEMRI. Here are some extracts:

I am asking who represents my own voice, after I represented your voices? My voice, the voices of the people of Beirut, the voices of the people who fled their homes, the voices of the people who said "There is no god but Allah," when you were wearing ski masks on the streets of Beirut. What for? People who are proud of their actions do not wear ski masks.

...

I was objective, but I'm sad to say, you have made me regret my objectivity. I felt I was a victim of my objectivity, when I was defending you for a year and a half. Is there a conscience out there to defend us?

You are silencing our voice – the voice Allah made untouchable. Have you asked yourselves why? You are defying the will of Allah. Allah made only two things in the human body untouchable – the soul and the voice. This is the wisdom of Allah. Did you really think about what you are doing? You did not just break the law, but you also broke with the hearts of the people. You broke with hearts that truly loved you, even when your political leaders kept telling me that we hated you. No! Today, you abandoned people like me, and there are many like me in the Mustaqbal movement. This is the voice whose offices you came to destroy. We prepared food for you with love during the July 2006 aggression, yet you threw it on the ground.

Read/watch it all! The world needs more like this lady!

Memorial Day

This is Memorial Day Weekend. It's another three-day holiday weekend. But it's also more.

This is a time set aside to remember those who made our freedom possible, including those who lost their lives in that effort.

We need to remember what these men and women have done for us — and are doing for us now. Here is something extra to help us remember.

We all should be grateful for what the U.S. military has done, especially throughout the last century. And we should express that to our fighting men, past and present.

It's Memorial Day. Thank a serviceman. Thank a veteran.

Armed Forces Day

Today, Saturday, May 17, is Armed Forces Day. It's a good day to thank a veteran:

A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, National Guard, or Reservist....is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a check payable to "The United States of America" for an amount of "up to and including my life".

That is an honor, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it.

— Author Unknown courtesy of BlackFive

And don't let anyone pretend our soldiers are barbarians, Nazis, or whatever else. Look at what our soldiers have actually done.

Then there was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?'

A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: 'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships. We have gone there to help people. What has France done?

As this suggests, America's performance in the last hundred years or so has been due to a combination of the American fighting man and American government policy. Here's a good summary of how the two have played out (courtesy of Mullings):

In February [of 2003] Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared on MTV to discuss the US position with regard to our becoming an imperial power. A viewer in Norway asked why Europeans consider the US to be the "Satan of contemporary politics." Here's a portion of what the Secretary said:

Far from being the Great Satan, I would say that we are the Great Protector. We have sent men and women from the armed forces of the United States to other parts of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression. We defeated Fascism. We defeated Communism. We saved Europe in World War I and World War II.

And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, "Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us"? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul.

And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead.

And that is the kind of nation we are.

We all should be grateful for what the U.S. military has done, especially throughout the last century. And we should express that to our fighting men, past and present.

It's Armed Forces Day. Thank a veteran.

Can Someone Explain This To Me?

Perhaps someone can explain this to me: Why is it

• racist that the voters of one candidate's race prefer that candidate by a 3:2 margin, but

• not racist that the voters of another candidate's race prefer that candidate by a 10:1 (or 17:1) margin

It seems to me this comparison is the reflection of clear partisanship and/or racism on the part of the reporters, editors, and publishers pushing it.

Voter ID Requirements Are Constitutional

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is not unconstitutional to require voters to show they are the persons in whose names they wish to vote, before being allowed to do so.

This decision should affect the current appeal of the New Mexico federal judge's ruling that Albuquerque's voter ID ordinance was unconstitutional. It may also, with a lot of public pressure, get the New Mexico legislature to pass a legitimate voter ID law in place of the pretense they passed last year.

I have said before, and say again here — anyone who opposes voter ID requirements is actively supporting vote fraud.

Lesbians Sue Lesbians Over "Lesbians"

People from the Greek island of Lesbos have filed suit against the Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece. It wants to force the Community not to use the islanders' name in their organizational name.

"My sister can't say she is a Lesbian," said Dimitris Lambrou. "Our geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with Lesbos," he said.

"The Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece could not be reached for comment."

I still don't understand why these women insist on not using "gay" to identify themselves, and insist on using a different word.

Tomorrow's Primary Election

Two Democrats are on tomorrow's Pennsylvania primary election ballot:

• A rich, arrogant, elitist, socialist extremist "buppie", and
• A very rich, arrogant, elitist, socialist extremist "yuppie".

Maybe the superdelegates can save the party and give the nomination to someone at least a little more rational, like maybe Al Gore.

I said before that neither of these two is worth even considering throwing a vote away for. It's still true. I'd really like to see both lose.

Stark Contrast

James Taranto again.

A Clear Difference
• “Bush Embraces Pope Benedict XVI”--headline, ABCNews.com, April 15
• “Carter Embraces Hamas Official”--headline, Associated Press, April 16

No comment is necessary, but the stark contrast between human beings and Jimmy Carter cries out for notice.

New Mexico Travel Alert

James Taranto cites an AP headline (with his own headline above it) and links to the story:

Stay Away From Santa Fe
“US Issues New Mexico Travel Alert” --headline, Associated Press, April 14

Ironic.

San Francisco Democrat COWARDS

I know — I'm being redundant. But there have been two outstanding examples in the last couple of days.

Two days ago, the city government of San Francisco decided (like most cowards) that they couldn't stand to allow free speech to anyone who doesn't agree with their approved view. So they staged an “Olympic-sized fake-out”, changing the relay route to avoid the human rights protestors so they could have the pretense (though not the reality) of a legitimate Olympic torch relay. Pretense without reality — reminds me of a show trial. Even the ACLU objected: “Gavin Newsom runs San Francisco the way the premier of China runs his country - secrecy, lies, misinformation, lack of transparency and manipulating the populace. He did it so China can report they had a great torch run.” They even skipped the closing ceremony, and quickly shipped the torch off to Argentina. (Zombie got pictures and described the scene for us.)

Meanwhile, San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi demonstrates abject cowardice and incredible dishonesty in single-handedly killing the free trade agreement with Colombia — even after it was renegotiated to accommodate the Democrats' demands. “Democrats say it would have failed anyway”, but that’s utter BS. If it were true, there would be a vote and the protectionist Democrats would kill the agreement. Instead, the Democrats' leadership uses an underhanded trick, and break their own word, to prevent the agreement's ratification. To get this done, and pay off those who have bribed supported her, Pelosi has had to to trash her own Ways and Means Committee chairman, Charlie Rangel, “a free-trader who has been trying to strike a deal with the Administration but keeps getting rolled by Ms. Pelosi.”

These people make me ashamed to be a Democrat.

UPDATE ON PELOSI: The Washington Times quotes Pelosi as saying “We believe it is possible to bring the Colombia free-trade agreement to the floor under the proper circumstance. But first, we need to address the worsening economy in our country.” This is disingenuous, at best. Pelosi in her statement “reiterated that she is blocking the Colombia trade vote to obtain ‘leverage’ in negotiations”. But she and her friends have also claimed the blockage was because of attacks on trade unionists — so, naturally, they’re taking action against the government that has reduced those attacks by 80%! These present a choice between extortion and fraud.

The reality may be a little different. In place of (or in addition to) one or both of those reasons are likely to be one or more of the following:

1. The Democrats’ leadership is (a) adamantly opposed to free trade or (b) bought and paid for. The extent of this is captured by the Wall Street Journal in talking about Pelosi’s Bad Faith:

The Democratic Party's protectionist make-over was completed yesterday, when Nancy Pelosi decided to kill the Colombia free trade agreement. Her objections had nothing to do with the evidence and everything to do with politics, but this was an act of particular bad faith. It will damage the economic and security interests of the U.S. while trashing our best ally in Latin America.

The Colombia trade pact was signed in 2006 and renegotiated last year to accommodate Democratic demands for tougher labor and environmental standards. Even after more than 250 consultations with Democrats, and further concessions, including promises to spend more on domestic unemployment insurance, the deal remained stalled in Congress. Apparently the problem was that Democrats kept getting their way.

So on Monday, President Bush submitted the bill to Congress over liberal protests, which, under a bargain between Congress and the White House for trade promotion authority, mandated an up-or-down vote within 90 days.

2. Pelosi is doing Hugo Chavez’ bidding. The Latin American media have picked up on this aspect strongly, calling her historic move to block the free trade agreement the “Hugo Chavez Rule” and painting Pelosi herself as a Hugo Chavez lackey.

3. Pelosi is so fixated on damaging the Bush Administration for the Democrats’ political advantage that she is, at best, uncaring about damage to the United States. Indeed, the point man on Colombia for Pelosi and the Democrats was recently caught dealing with the Colombian FARC Marxist/Communist terrorists. That’s the guerilla group being funded by Venezuela’s dictator Hugo Chavez. And that may not be all.

Pelosi’s actions are extremely damaging. They have implications far broader than this specific agreement:

For good measure, the double-cross dismantles the only process that allows any Administration to conduct good-faith negotiations with foreign nations. No one is going to take the U.S. at its word if Congress is going to change the rules when it has second thoughts and renege.

Albright's Admissions

Madeline Albright made a couple of stunning admissions in a speech at the University of Florida late last month. She claims the Iraq war is a bigger mistake than Viet Nam. But she also makes a pair of stunning admissions. She says

"The American forces are both the solution and the problem," she said. "They are like fly paper that attracts everybody who hates us."

This is an admission that "fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" is a valid strategy. She also said

"I think one might say that Iran has actually won the war in Iraq."

This is one of the few admissions I can recall from the left side of the aisle that our principal adversary in Iraq for the last five years has been Iran. (You know — the one who has been providing the weapons and money and direction to the insurgents to kill our soldiers there.)

I think Madeline Albright is about to disappear. She has committed a cardinal sin — she has accidentally told the truth.