Fox News: The Most Trusted!!
By Ted Baiamonte Comments: bje1000@aol.com (05/23/06)
It seems absolutely incredible to liberals that the BBC and Reuters just did a survey of 10,000 people and found that Fox News is now the most trusted news source in America. This is a shocking sea change in the political landscape of America. It absolutely confounds liberals who can imagine few things more horrific, but it is actually very easy to explain. If you look at Fox's two big prime time shows "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity and Colmes" you find that they are fair and balanced and one hour long, while the MSLM (main stream liberal media) makes no pretense of fairness and covers mostly soft news for 1/2 hour.
So what on earth does fair and balanced mean? In the case of O'Reilly it means that his most common line spoken to liberals is "where am I going wrong." He always has expert liberal guests on who disagree with him, and then they debate. The saintly O'Reilly seems to understand that democracy is a debate, and that people will trust you if are willing to acknowledge that there are two sides to every issue, you are willing to present the two sides, and then step up and debate the expert liberals on the particular subject in question. You can't be more fair and balanced than that. Additionally, he is unafraid. The liberal perverts, for example, have bullied the country into to believing only they can compassionately understand pedophilia, and know how to handle it (usually with treatment and sometimes a short stay in jail) while O'Reilly will have none of it. He wants to protect kids from rapist by throwing recidivist rapists in jail. The liberals always seem to come off as, well, dumb perverts and O'Reilly seems to come off as a passionate human being who cares about kids; not rapists.
The other Fox prime time show is "Hannity and Colmes." Hannity is the Republican and Colmes is the Democrat who gets exactly equal time. Nothing more need to be said, except to the liberals who hate such fairness because the know in their hearts it exposes their silly feelings as inadequate.
The Democrats lament the supposed consolidation of the media very loudly when what they really resent is that traditional Jeffersonian Republican views are no longer being treasonously hidden from them by the MSLM. Democrats prefer the days when CBS's super liberal Walter Cronkite was the most trusted and the most listened to newsman in the world. He supported the Communists in Vietnam and was stone cold silent to the Pol Pot genocide that quickly followed the retreat he supported so self-assuredly. The liberals loved it when he used his trust to assure the then brainwashed American electorate that Barry Goldwater was not the preferred candidate. At CBS (the so called tiffany network) their idea of fair and balanced was to let liberals speak. The Cronkite legacy was handed over to Dan Rather who was quickly fired for trying to use forged documents, on election eve no less, to bring down a Republican President
The liberals loved it when the NY Times and Washington Post with their staffs of overwhelmingly liberal reporters set the entire nation's news agenda with their version of objective reporting. Their reporting was complimented by their editorial pages (always about 80% liberal) which told us how to interpret their already biased news stories. If ever their was an example of speaking truth to power it is Fox news. They have heroically exposed the MSLM for its complete lack of trustworthiness, if not outright treason. The saddest part of it is that you can't say the hijacking of truth and, effectively, democracy, was done out of conscious malice when it was actually done simply because liberals are not bright enough to understand the traditional Jeffersonian views on which America was framed and grew to greatness.
From Republic to Mob Rule Compliments of:
We have just witnessed elections in England in which the Brits manifested their frustration with Tony Blair. They were feeling Blair fatigue because of his long time in office, his willingness to fight Saddam Hussein, and the growing scandals in his administration. But oddly their fatigue affected their brains. For the pleasure of getting even with the liberal Blair they elected conservatives when few of them are conservatives? If the trend continues through 2 more election cycles conservatives will run Britain; not because of a preferred ideology but because of personal animus toward Blair. Is that any way to run a country? It is not but it is the same phenomenon we will see here if we are to believe the polls.
Republicans will be turned out for much the same reason Blair will be turned out, and again, few of those reason will have to do with ideology while most will have to do with silly emotions. If Bush is arrogant, incompetent, and secretive does this mean we must get even by voting for Democrats who have an anti American ideology that is independent of their humility, competence, and openness? It really does because the two party system gives voters little choice. Incumbents are automatically nominated by their parties to run again; so voters must vote for a different ideology to express their frustration at a personality. It is a sad way to manage a county that our Constitution and the British Constitution fail to prevent.
Our Constitution failed to provide for political parties largely in the belief that none were needed because the Constitution was to be an ideology. In fact it was to be a complete ideology in order to protect us from what our framers saw as the extreme dangers from party factions. Had our framers realized the Constitution was not the complete ideology they thought it was, it might have provided for the election of an ideology and then the election of people to implement that ideology.
The current system frustrates those who understand that government is an idea. They must convince others of their idea but firstly that they must convince others that ideology exists, and, more importantly, that it matters above all. Then they must find a glamorous figure to represent that ideology to an electorate most of whom can understand little beyond glamour. The whole process is made dramatically worse by Democrats who, since Jackson, have effectively favored and succeeded at implementing a mob rule style of democracy over the intelligent republic our framers envisioned.
Global Warming And Democrats
The sensitive and caring Democrats are such responsible tree hugging stewards of the land aren't they? You have to wonder sometimes though why it is that they can find so much energy and passion to save sacred and majestic redwood trees but none to save millions or even a couple of hundred thousand victims from genocide in Darfur?
As Darfur must frustrate Democrats so must global warming. For some twisted psychological reason beyond anyone's understanding they are intensely passionate about global warming at the very time everyone here is driving giant SUV's and India and China, at current growth rates, with 6 times the population of the U. S., can easily make up for 10 times any carbon savings we might manage with more fuel efficient vehicles.
Sadly for the Democrats too, scientists don't agree on global warming, and all the oil on earth will be burned up. For the world's poor it will always be the cheapest source of desperately needed energy because it already exists underground just like water, and, potentially, at the same price of water. If the industrialized world were to miraculously change to hydrogen or solar power the price of oil would fall accordingly until every poor person on earth could afford it or until there was no oil left to pump out of the ground. So, while one hippie Democrat can limit his very pious "carbon footprint," the planet really cannot, but it is a great way for the Democrats to go nuts, or perhaps to establish a state of fear that will result in the all powerful liberal government they want so badly, or in the imposition by government of their value judgment about the decreasing returns to our standard of living from conspicuous, frivolous, capitalist consumption.
If it did turn out that the 1 degree rise in temperature that is forecast over the next century did finally begin to raise sea levels in a destructive fashion there would be many options, despite the Democrats who want to make you believe their are none except to become a tree hugging carbon free hippie today. We might enjoy the warmer temperatures. People do seem to move to warmer climates anyway. We might enjoy the longer growing seasons, increased farmlands, and cheaper food prices that would result. There would be less expensive clothing, less expensive construction, cars, and heating costs, and less expensive lifestyles in general. All this would mean a substantial increase in the standard of living for much of the world's population many of whom live on the brink of starvation and can ill afford the cost of pollution control technology and devices. Moreover, impoverishing the planet now with expensive pollution control devices may not be wiser than to let the world develop economically so as to be in a position to cope with the effects of global warming should they materialize as per the wild predictions of slightly crazed liberals such as Al Gore. Or, if they need to be so pious wouldn't it be more efficient to simply save the million or so people who die every year from malaria for lack of 15 cents worth of medicine? In theory, in the 100 years it will take for the planet to warm one degree, 100 million people could easily be saved from needless deaths. And, 100 million dead people might seem a trivial number of dead people as compared to what might happen if at some point in the next 100 years the liberals were put in charge of our defense against genocidal Islamofacsism. So why the messianic fuss about global warming??
Perhaps the weather is getting worse as Democrats love to say, but so far the evidence is that current hurricane activity, to pick the liberal's best example, is no different from the hurricane pattern we saw in the 1940s, at least according to the US Government Weather Service.
Moreover, while carbon is the one enemy worth fighting on earth to Democrats, in reality it might be our friend too. On 9/11 all jet planes were grounded. The temperatures shot up dramatically in three days because the chemtrails from the planes no longer shielded the planet from the sun. And guess what? Jet traffic is only going to grow and shield us more from the warming sun. It might be far cheaper and far more efficient to schedule more jet flights at high noon than to switch the whole world to a carbonless economy. This is just one accidental solution that might be maximized 1000 times if it was ever studied and implemented. A few years ago an accidental release of a tiny piece of algae from the Jacque Cousteau Institute on the shores of the Mediterranean triggered a huge growth that now covers much of the Mediterranean, and, coincidentally, acts as a huge carbon sink absorbing huge amounts of the carbon dioxide liberals love to hate. The list can go on and on.
In short, scientists don't agree about warming, the effects of global warming are unknown; possibly acceptable, we can't stop carbon production, and the potential solutions are many, if needed and they are possibly extant. We should, then, resist the Democratic state of panic which the liberals are using once again to centralize our psyche's and our gov't in the pursuit of silly collectivist goals, while always ignoring infinitely more deadly and direct threats from people like Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the deadly mosquitoes.
The Axis Of Evil, Darfur, And Democratic Cowards
The Democrats are furious and oh so angry that Bush "lied them in war" over WMD in Iraq. If only they can win some elections they will finally have the power to impeach him, they feel. Never mind that virtually all of the world's intelligence services concluded that Iraq had WMD and that common sense indicated to everyone else that he had them. And never mind that there were several reasons besides WMD to take out Saddam, not the least of which was that we had just failed to take out a far less threatening country (Afghanistan) and had suffered the worst surprise attack in our history on 9/11 as a result.
But let's say that Democrats are not cowards, and that they just don't think major foreign policy decisions should have been made on the basis of what they love to think of as, Bush's lies. Does this mean that if the truth had been that Saddam actually had WMD the Democrats would have given up their cowardly ways and been willing to go to war? Iran answers that question nicely. We know what the truth is about Iran and we also know the Democrats have no intention of fighting them or anyone else, ever.
And then there is Darfur. Are the Democrats clamoring to get involved in that civil war just to stop a little genocide? Of course not. Bush didn't lie there, there is not even an opposing military to speak of. It is the first genocide of a new century; yet the sweet, caring and ever so principled Democrats are still dead silent, or should we say, dead cowardly, just as they were when their hasty retreat from Vietnam precipitated the massive genocide in Cambodia.
Bush has done little about Iran just as Ford did little about Cambodia, but this, one can logically assume, is because the Democrats have successfully give cowardliness a good name in America. Tragically, Bush's poll numbers demonstrate that the Democrat's expiatory moment is not coming soon.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Ted Baiamonte Comments: bje1000@aol.com
