Saturday, July 26, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
From candidate William Russell, Republican:
"I am a Conservative. I believe in the sovereignty and security of this one nation, under God. I believe the primary role of government is to provide for the common defense and a legal framework to protect families and individual liberty. … I believe that no one owes me anything just because I live and breathe."
Maybe there's hope for Republican politicians after all.
Learn more about William Russell's campaign at http://www.russellbrigade.com/
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
1) Regarding Obama's sightseeing trip to the Middle East -- his first -- NBC News substitute anchor Lester Holt referred to the trip as Obama's "tour of duty." That pretty much makes his trip the equivalent of McCain's years as a POW in Vietnam, right?
2) The New York Times rejected an Op-Ed piece from John McCain a week after publishing one by Barack Obama. The Times public response said that McCain (in his article) would have to go into detail about his plans for Iraq before they would accept it. Apparently McCain's real sin was when he pointed out that Obama declared in early 2007 that the troop surge in Iraq would not work -- which turned out to be completely wrong. (McCain supported the surge, which he pointed out in his article.)
Once again, the biggest sin to Liberals is when you criticize Obama by telling the truth. (Detour: A very nice column about what makes Obama angry in this article by Guy Benson.)
Monday, July 21, 2008
Since Liberal radio has proven to be unprofitable -- apparently almost no one wants to listen to it -- radio stations would be forced to either accept lower profits or do away with political talk radio. This would, in effect, silence Conservative talk radio.
The mainstream media, on the other hand, which is overwhelmingly Liberal, would not have to provide "balance," because they are supposedly objectively reporting the "news." What they refuse to acknowledge is that their bias is evident in the choice of what stories they choose to cover and the emphasis given to different stories. The preposterousness of their claim is evident as seen in this article discussing Obama's first trips to Afghanistan and Iraq. (These trips will show that he has foreign policy experience, you see.)
The anchors of the three main networks are traveling to the Middle East to interview Obama in that context. By giving such emphasis to their coverage they are amplifying the importance of Obama's trip. It takes on much more weight than it really has. Viewers will come away with the message and the image of Obama as an expert in foreign policy because of a single short visit to the Middle East.
McCain, on the other hand, has made numerous trips to the Middle East, Afghanistan and Iraq, without the fanfare or press coverage. His foreign policy credentials are solidified by his obligation over a number of years. Yet in the minds of television viewers, with a single short trip Obama will have equaled McCain's experience and expertise.
The article also says that Obama has benefited from a huge gap in the amount of media coverage he has received compared to McCain. The media spokesmen shrug it off. "We're just trying to do our jobs," said the president of NBC News.
Meanwhile the Democrats are wating until a Democrat is in the White House to reintroduce the Fairness Doctrine. They will legislate away Conservative voices while benefitting from the Liberal media machine's one-sided campaign.
All in the name of "fairness."
Saturday, July 19, 2008
The Compleat Gentleman, by Brad Miner. The subtitle -- The Modern Man's Guide to Chivalry -- pretty much says it all. How to translate the lessons from all the stories about great men into our own lives..
Friday, July 18, 2008
In the book Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, the authors discuss polls and racism. When white citizens are asked their opinions about a black candidate, they will often lie to pollsters, saying they will vote for the black candidate, so that they will appear "color-blind" to the pollsters. In the privacy of the voting booth however, where no one can see their vote, they will then cast their ballot for the other (supposedly white) candidate.
In other words, either conscious or unconscious racism prevents many whites from voting for a black candidate, even though they claimed that race didn't matter in their choice.
With apparent race-based prejudice from both blacks and whites against Obama, is it possible that the polls as we see them now are inflated for Obama? Could it be that this fall's Presidential election will be much different than we have been led to expect by the polls and the media? Could a whole lot of people who claim to support Obama now secretly vote against him in November? (In addition to all of those voters who are against Obama for purely political, philosophical or issue-related reasons.)
Something to think about.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Would someone please tell Congress? (Al Gore already knows.)
The APS is also sponsoring public depate on the whole charade. One paper published by a member of the APS concluded that the United Nations IPCC report and its claims have been "grossly overstated by IPCC modeling."
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called the paper an "exposé of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors."
I guess fifty thousand skeptical scientists are all "deniers" also. Is it too late to stop global warming legislation?
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
I'm sure none of this "classified evidence" will ever find its way to our enemies via attorneys when the cases go to an American court. Right?
Read the entire article here.