The DNA of Dishonesty

Another great example of the Left’s Orwellian love affair with doublespeak occurred yesterday on America Live on Fox.

The Topic same sex/gay marriage. Our little cherub of Orwell said that 80% of Americas were for “marriage” so he didn’t see the problem.

When pressed he said same sex/gay/straight, it’s all marriage so he didn’t see any distinction and neither should you.

Much like “migrant” for illegal aliens the language is dishonest and manipulative.

Did you know that the “improving” jobs figures the Media touts are dishonest at best?

Simple, really, you announce the figures have gone down on Thursday when they come out. Then before the next Thursday when the figures are revised UPWARDS you just don’t mention that and when they go down again on the next Thursday you have “growth” and “improvement”.

The fact that it has been revised UPWARDS the last 47 weeks  (59/60 weeks total) straight is totally unimportant to you if you’re liberal or Obama.

And the love fest on the Mainstream Media can continue.

Sen. Patrick Leahy: I trust that he will be Chief Justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the judicial branch. It is the Supreme Court of the United States, not the Supreme Court of the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, not the Supreme Court of liberals or conservatives. It’s the Supreme Court of the United States and the Chief Justice is the Chief Justice of the United States, all 320 million of us.

Leahy suggesting that a justice voting based on their personal beliefs, against Obamacare, would be committing conservative judicial activism (aka voting against ObamaCare is “activism”).

“The conservative activism of recent years has not been good for the Court.”-Sen Leahy.

Mind you this is the same guy who after the Citizens United case decision didn’t go the Unions way:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), speaking on the Senate floor Thursday, ripped the Supreme Court’s decision to allow corporations to buy political ads attacking candidates, calling it the “most partisan decision since Bush v. Gore.”(politico).

And we all know THAT was partisan decision and the Liberals obsess about to this day. It’s an open would that the Democrats are constantly pouring salt in.

The constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act is the current instance in which narrow ideology and partisanship are pressuring the Supreme Court to intervene where it should not, to override the law and constitutional legal understandings that have been settled since the Great Depression, and to overturn the actions of the people’s elected representatives in the Congress.  I was struck by how little respect some of the Justices showed to Congress, and of how dismissive they were of the months of work in hearings and Committee actions and debate of amendments and motions and points of order on the Senate and House floors before the measure was enacted. (Leahy’s own website)

You mean the partisan “summits”, the legal maneuvering,The bribes and horse trading, the distortions, the “pass the bill to find out what’s in it”, the exclusion of opposition and the most partisan vote in US History???

Oh that’s right, when Liberals do it it’s “fair”. 🙂

  They are supposed to begin their inquiry by respecting the will of the people…

You mean the 60% that has been against Obamacare since it was born?

No, he doesn’t.

According a recent poll, half of all Americans expect the justices to decide the challenge to the Affordable Care Act mainly based on their “partisan political views,” while only 40 percent expect them to decide the case “on the basis of the law.” (also from his website)

This, of course comes from the Washington Post, a very “fair” and “unbiased” member of the “journalist” community.

The actual Poll: Notice the difference in the Democrats (political) – of which their are two categories and the Republicans (law)- 1 category and then you average them together and you skew the poll in your favor and proclaim it as if you weren’t manipulating people dishonestly.

The health care case: Politics and the Supreme Court

That is until Obama gets the chance to appoint more leftists to the court and tip the balance in their favor, then it will be “fair” when they can just run over the conservatives like a steam roller… 🙂

But that wouldn’t be activism though… 🙂

SPENDING

Ann Coulter: It’s been breaking news all over MSNBC, liberal blogs, newspapers and even The Wall Street Journal: “Federal spending under Obama at historic lows … It’s clear that Obama has been the most fiscally moderate president we’ve had in 60 years.”

To be Precise- “I’m running to pay down our debt in a way that’s balanced and responsible. After inheriting a $1 trillion deficit, I signed $2 trillion of spending cuts into law,” he told a crowd of donors at the Hyatt Regency. “My opponent won’t admit it, but it’s starting to appear in places, like real liberal outlets, like the Wall Street Journal: Since I’ve been president, federal spending has risen at the lowest pace in nearly 60 years. Think about that.”–Obama in Denver (gatewaypundit)

Obama: I’ve “Cleaned Up” GOP’s “Wild Debts”–My Spending Is Lowest In 60 Years.

There’s even a chart!  (See Below) I’ll pause here to give you a moment to mop up the coffee on your keyboard. Good? OK, moving on … This shocker led to around-the-clock smirk fests on MSNBC.

As with all bogus social science from the left, liberals hide the numbers and proclaim: It’s “science”! This is black and white, inarguable, and why do Republicans refuse to believe facts?

Ed Schultz claimed the chart exposed “the big myth” about Obama’s spending: “This chart — the truth — very clearly shows the truth undoubtedly.” And the truth was, the “growth in spending under President Obama is the slowest out of the last five presidents.”

Note that Schultz also said that the “part of the chart representing President Obama’s term includes a stimulus package, too.”

As we shall see, that is a big, fat lie. Schultz’s guest, Reuters columnist David Cay Johnston confirmed: “And clearly, Obama has been incredibly tight-fisted as a president.”

Everybody’s keyboard OK?

On her show, Rachel Maddow proclaimed: “Factually speaking, spending has leveled off under President Obama. Spending is not skyrocketing under President Obama. Spending is flattening out under President Obama.”

In response, three writers from “The Daily Show” said, “We’ll never top that line,” and quit.

Inasmuch as this is obviously preposterous, I checked with John Lott, one of the nation’s premier economists and author of the magnificent new book with Grover Norquist: “Debacle: Obama’s War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future.”

It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama’s entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.That’s not a joke.

That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in … Bush’s column. (And if we attribute all of Bush’s spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and No Child Left Behind to William Howard Taft, Bush didn’t spend much either.)

Nutting’s “analysis” is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it. He includes only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obama’s spending.

And he’s testy about that, grudgingly admitting that Obama “is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill.”
Nutting acts as if it’s the height of magnanimity to “attribute that $140 billion in stimulus to Obama and not to Bush …” On what possible theory would that be Bush’s spending?

Hey — we just found out that ObamaCare’s going to cost triple the estimate. Let’s blame it on Calvin Coolidge!

Nutting’s “and not to Bush” line is just sleight of hand. He’s hoping you won’t notice that he said “$140 billion” and not “$825 billion,” and will be fooled into thinking that he’s counting the entire stimulus bill as Obama’s spending. (He fooled Ed Schultz!)

The theory is that a new president is stuck with the budget of his predecessor, so the entire 2009 fiscal year should be attributed to Bush.

But Obama didn’t come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush.

This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009.

Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch’s Nutting says that’s Bush’s spending.

Obama also spent the second half of the Troubled Asset Relief Fund (TARP). These were discretionary funds meant to prevent a market meltdown after Lehman Bros. collapsed.

By the end of 2008, it was clear the panic had passed, and Bush announced that he wouldn’t need to spend the second half of the TARP money.

But on Jan. 12, 2009, Obama asked Bush to release the remaining TARP funds for Obama to spend as soon as he took office. By Oct. 1, Obama had spent another $200 billion in TARP money.

That, too, gets credited to Bush, according to the creative accounting of Rex Nutting.

There are other spending bills that Obama signed in the first quarter of his presidency, bills that would be considered massive under any other president — such as the $40 billion child health care bill, which extended coverage to immigrants as well as millions of additional Americans. This, too, is called Bush’s spending.

Frustrated that he can’t shift all of Obama’s spending to Bush, Nutting also lowballs the spending estimates during the later Obama years. For example, although he claims to be using the White House’s numbers, the White House’s estimate for 2012 spending is $3.795 trillion. Nutting helpfully knocks that down to $3.63 trillion.

But all those errors pale in comparison to Nutting’s counting Obama’s nine-month spending binge as Bush’s spending.

If liberals will attribute Obama’s trillion-dollar stimulus bill to Bush, what won’t they do?

American Enterprise Institute: Until Barack Obama took office in 2009, the United States had never spent more than 23.5% of GDP, with the exception of the World War II years of 1942-1946. Here’s the Obama spending record:

– 25.2% of GDP in 2009

– 24.1% of GDP in 2010

– 24.1% of GDP in 2011

– 24.3% (estimates by the White House ) in 2012

What’s more, if Obama wins another term, spending—according to his own budget—would never drop below 22.3% of GDP. If that forecast is right, spending during Obama’s eight years in office would average 23.6% of GDP. That’s higher than any single previous non-war year.

So what you do is raise the baseline AFTER you’ve spend the money, blame it on your predecessor, then proclaim how little you’ve spent since then with a straight face.

Now that’s “honest” and “transparent” isn’t it.

So the fact that the Debt was 10 trillion in 2009 when you took over and now it’s approaching rapidly 16 trillion isn’t his fault because he’s been more fiscally responsible than the Republicans have! 🙂

Mr Nutting: Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

And here’s the chart summarizing Nutting’s argument:

As the chart indicates, Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009—when spending surged nearly 20%—to George W. Bush: “The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.”

Let me complete the metaphor for Nutting: “Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.”

Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline, something Republican budget hawks like Paul Ryan feared would happen, does Obama come off looking like a tightwad. Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Great Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and beyond. (AEI)

<<Barf bag overload>>

So we end today’s listen in Liberal dishonesty with a bit of comedy:

Chris Matthews (MSNBC) on CSPAN:

“Is the thrill still there?” asked Scully.

Matthews wasn’t thrilled with the question.

“I hope that you feel satisfied that you’ve used the most obvious question that is raised by every horse’s ass right-winger I ever bump into,” Matthews responded, after defending the comment.

“Perhaps I shouldn’t have said so because I’ve given a lot of jackasses the chance to talk about it,” Matthews continued.

“And usually they say ‘tingle’ which says something about their orientation, but that’s alright,” he added. Later he interjected, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course. I have to throw that in.”

Yeah he wouldn’t want to be “homophobic” or “bigoted” now would he! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Advertisements

Global Warming Update 2011

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen , Norway .  Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.  Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.  Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable………….

Oh God! We have to do something now or we’re all doomed!

The Sky is Falling!

The Sky is Falling!

Someone call the UN. We Need Draconian Laws now or else we’re all going to die!!!

Oops!  Never mind.  This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the Associated Press and published in the Washington Post – 89 years ago! 🙂

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

Liberals never change their spots.

Then there’s this classic from Newsweek  November 1975:

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. 🙂 Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report.

But just like now they jumped to hysterical conclusions. Only now, they also falsify data, suppress data and openly admit to lying through there collectivist teeth. But we’re still supposed to take their doom and gloom seriously.

“Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

So they’ve been at this “sky is falling” schtick for  at 90 years. Just like “universal” health care. Gee, I wonder… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

 

The Vast Left Wing Disparity

Just in case you had any hope for the Mainstream Media not being totally in the tank for the Leftists and Liberals in this country:

The New York Times and the Washington Post issued open calls on Thursday asking their readers to help them “investigate” emails from Sarah Palin’s tenure as governor of Alaska. There was no indication of what this investigation was supposed to uncover.

Dirt, any dirt. Even if they have to stretch it or fabricate it. They want dirt!!
They have to feed their Palin Derangement Syndrome.
The New York Times said: “We’re asking readers to help us identify interesting and newsworthy emails, people and events that we may want to highlight.”
Mind you, they got bored very quickly by Obama and his domestic terrorist connections and radical ideas on Socialism, Social Justice, Keynesian Economics, and Black Liberation Theology.
Imagine a newspaper in 2008 asking readers’ help in perusing Barack Obama’s emails as U.S. senator and Illinois state senator. Or for that matter, help in unearthing his college records. The howls from “mainstream” journalists and Democratic politicians would have been deafening.
You couldn’t discuss most anything about The One without being labeled a racist.
Now it’s 2011:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is bored and uninterested in Anthony Weiner, but was all over Mark Foley in 2006 like mud on a pig!
In the first 2 weeks of Mark Foley who resigned Immediately
ABC,CBS,NBC ran 55 stories.
With Weiner who still Refuses to Resign the first 2 weeks
were 10 stories.
The networks piled on 152 stories about Rep. Mark Foley in the story’s first 12 days in the fall of 2006, but they weren’t the only ones with a vast left-wing disparity. Time and Newsweek each devoted cover stories and multiple pages to the Foley scandal. Time put an elephant’s rear end on the cover with the words “What a Mess…Why a tawdry Washington sex scandal may spell the end of the Republican revolution”. Newsweek had a huge picture of Foley (with a small President Bush in front of his face) with the huge headline “Off Message” and the subhead “Foley’s Secret Life: How a Predator’s E-mail Sex Scandal Could Cost Bush Congress.”
Time also paid for a poll asking “Do you think Republican leaders in Congress handled the Foley situation properly or do you think they tried to cover it up?” It was 16 to 64 for a coverup. (NB)
Weiner:  Newsweek was too busy making fun of Mormons to even mention it. And Time, well hows 1 sentence & 13 words on page 83 for you!
Oh, and how about their obsession with bathroom stall “toe toucher” Larry Craig??.
When it’s a Liberal, Liberals don’t care and downplay it so much they don’t want you to care or better yet to even know.
They have no morals or standards for themselves because that allows them to do any damn thing they want, when they want, because they want.
They only get “outraged” over Non-Liberals for the political gain they perceive.
That’s it.
And the Liberal Media is no different.
Appearing on Tuesday’s NBC Today, advertising executive Donny Deutsch  (and MSNBC regular) and psychotherapist Robi Ludwig both agreed that the American people should not stop being “shocked” by political sex scandals. Deutsch declared: “…we have to stop being shocked and amazed….when men who are conquerors by nature also chase women….we as a society have got to become a little more anesthetized to this.”
As long as it’s a Liberal, that is.
Remember the “it was nothing” poo-poo of President Clinton having oral sex in the Oval office?
The Liberal media doesn’t.
They went after the people who leaked it. Just like they went after Andrew Breitbart this time.
The Liberal Media is totally biased and totally a propaganda arm of the Liberal Democrats.
Period.
There was an 8-to-1 story bias after Jared Loughner shot Congressman Giffords, about how Conservative Hate Speech had obviously pushed this guy over the edge.
It wasn’t true. But the liberal media didn’t care.
It was an opportunity to score some hate points.
Then they came out with their “civility” guidelines, which as it turned out were only meant to muzzle non-liberals not their hate speech and vile political bile.
And that’s why they are crowdsourcing the Palin Emails. They want dirt! Any dirt!
And if they don’t get it they’ll make it up!
It’s not like they care if they are lying.
It’s not as if you’re supposed to care that they are lying.
Why would that matter?
Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:

“Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them, had you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.”

“But the plans were on display …”

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

“Ah, well the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

“But look, you found the notice didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’.”

And Leopards in the Liberal Media are not going to change their spots. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

The Devil You May Not Know

(ARLINGTON, Va.) – A draft executive order that would force government contractors to disclose all political contributions would make it too easy for political appointees to punish contractors for their political views or to coerce contributions from firms, officials with the Associated General Contractors of America warned today in testimony submitted to Congress.

“The process outlined in the draft executive order would make it much easier for government officials to use the political activities of government contractors as a factor when awarding contracts,” Stephen E. Sandherr, the association’s chief executive officer noted in testimony submitted today to a hearing held jointly between the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Small Business. “This order actually introduces, instead of excludes, politics from government contracting.”

So you have if you give your political contributions to the wrong source (aka Republican or Tea Party) then you might not get that big fat government contract.

Be a toadie and and an apparatchik or else. Even if you hate me (a Liberal Democrat), give me money or else!!

Now that’s good for business…

“This rule makes it look like the Administration is more interested in punishing political opponents and propping up political allies than protecting public taxpayers.”–Stephen E. Sandherr, CEO Associated General Contractors of America.

It does indeed. Now ask them if they (the liberal progressives) care? 😦

My bet, Not even a little bit.

Oh, and the journalists covering the stories, well, they just might not be very impartial either.

Gov. Mike Huckabee (2010): I’m sad to report today a death of a good friend to all of us…..Journalism, the once esteemed 4th estate of our nation and the protector of our freedoms and a watchdog of our rights has passed away after a long struggle with a crippling and debilitating disease of acute dishonesty aggravated by advanced laziness and the loss of brain function.

When liberal investor George Soros gave $1.8 million to National Public Radio , it became part of the firestorm of controversy that jeopardized NPR’s federal funding. But that gift only hints at the widespread influence the controversial billionaire has on the mainstream media. Soros, who spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush in 2004 (and millions getting Obama elected), has ties to more than 30 mainstream news outlets – including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press (see later story), NBC and ABC.

Prominent journalists like ABC’s Christiane Amanpour and former Washington Post editor and now Vice President Len Downie serve on boards of operations that take Soros cash. This despite the Society of Professional Journalists’ ethical code stating: “avoid all conflicts real or perceived.”

The investigative reporting start-up ProPublica is a prime example. ProPublica, which recently won its second Pulitzer Prize, initially was given millions of dollars from the Sandler Foundation to “strengthen the progressive infrastructure” – “progressive” being the code word for very liberal. In 2010, it also received a two-year contribution of $125,000 each year from the Open Society Foundations. In case you wonder where that money comes from, the OSF website is http://www.soros.org. It is a network of more than 30 international foundations, mostly funded by Soros, who has contributed more than $8 billion to those efforts.

The ProPublica stories are thoroughly researched by top-notch staffers who used to work at some of the biggest news outlets in the nation. But the topics are almost laughably left-wing. The site’s proud list of  “Our Investigations” includes attacks on oil companies, gas companies, the health care industry, for-profit schools and more. More than 100 stories on the latest lefty cause: opposition to drilling for natural gas by hydraulic fracking. Another 100 on the evils of the foreclosure industry.

Throw in a couple investigations making the military look bad and another about prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and you have almost the perfect journalism fantasy – a huge budget, lots of major media partners and a liberal agenda unconstrained by advertising.

One more thing: a 14-person Journalism Advisory Board, stacked with CNN’s David Gergen and representatives from top newspapers, a former publisher of The Wall Street Journal and the editor-in-chief of Simon & Schuster. Several are working journalists, including:

• Jill Abramson, a managing editor of The New York Times;

• Kerry Smith, the senior vice president for editorial quality of ABC News;

• Cynthia A. Tucker, the editor of the editorial page of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

ProPublica is far from the only Soros-funded organization that is stacked with members of the supposedly neutral press. 

The Center for Public Integrity is another great example. Its board of directors is filled with working journalists like Amanpour from ABC, right along side blatant liberal media types like Arianna Huffington, of the Huffington Post and now AOL.

Like ProPublica, the CPI board is a veritable Who’s Who of journalism and top media organizations, including:

• Christiane Amanpour – Anchor of ABC’s Sunday morning political affairs program, “This Week with Christiane Amanpour.” A reliable lefty, she has called tax cuts “giveaways,” the Tea Party “extreme,” and Obama “very Reaganesque.” 

• Paula Madison – Executive vice president and chief diversity officer for NBC Universal, who leads NBC Universal’s corporate diversity initiatives, spanning all broadcast television, cable, digital, and film properties.

• Matt Thompson – Editorial product manager at National Public Radio and an adjunct faculty member at the prominent Poynter Institute.

The group’s advisory board features: 

• Ben Sherwood, ABC News president and former “Good Morning America” executive producer

Once again, like ProPublica, the Center for Public Integrity’s investigations are mostly liberal – attacks on the coal industry, payday loans and conservatives like Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. The Center for Public Integrity is also more open about its politics, including a detailed investigation into conservative funders David and Charles Koch and their “web of influence.”According to the center’s own 990 tax forms, the Open Society Institute gave it $651,650 in 2009 alone.

The well-known Center for Investigative Reporting follows the same template – important journalists on the board and a liberal editorial agenda. Both the board of directors and the advisory board contain journalists from major news outlets. The board features:

• Phil Bronstein (President), San Francisco Chronicle;

• David Boardman, The Seattle Times;

• Len Downie, former Executive Editor of the Washington Post, now VP;

• George Osterkamp, CBS News producer.

Readers of the site are greeted with numerous stories on climate change, illegal immigration and the evils of big companies. It counts among its media partners The Washington Post, Salon, CNN and ABC News. CIR received close to $1 million from Open Society from 2003 to 2008.

Why does it all matter? Journalists, we are constantly told, are neutral in their reporting. In almost the same breath, many bemoan the influence of money in politics. It is a maxim of both the left and many in the media that conservatives are bought and paid for by business interests. Yet where are the concerns about where their money comes from?

Fred Brown, who recently revised the book “Journalism Ethics: A Casebook of Professional Conduct for News Media,” argues journalists need to be “transparent” about their connections and “be up front about your relationship” with those who fund you.

Unfortunately, that rarely happens. While the nonprofits list who sits on their boards, the news outlets they work for make little or no effort to connect those dots. Amanpour’s biography page, for instance, talks about her lengthy career, her time at CNN and her many awards. It makes no mention of her affiliation with the Center for Public Integrity.

If journalists were more up front, they would have to admit numerous uncomfortable connections with groups that push a liberal agenda, many of them funded by the stridently liberal George Soros. So don’t expect that transparency any time soon.

Oh and that polling data showing how Obama is now Mohammad Ali and is staging a miraculous comeback and people love him after he gave the order to Kill bin Laden like something out of a Video Game…

Well… IT JUST MIGHT BE RIGGED!!

Wow! The AP poll has Obama’s approval rating hitting 60 percent! And 53 percent say he deserves to be reelected!

And on the economy, 52 percent approve of the way Obama’s handling it, and only 47 percent disapprove! He’s up 54–46 on approval of how he’s handling health care! On unemployment, 52 percent approval, 47 percent disapproval! 57 percent approval on handling Libya! Even on the deficit, he’s at 47 percent approval, 52 percent disapproval!

It is a poll of adults, which isn’t surprising; as I mentioned yesterday, you don’t have to be a registered or likely voter to have an opinion on the president.

But then you get to the party ID: 46 percent identify as Democrat or leaning Democrat, 29 percent identify as Republican or leaning Republican, 4 percent identify as purely independent leaning towards neither party, and 20 percent answered, “I don’t know.”

With a poll sample that has a 17-percentage-point margin in favor of the Democrats, is anyone surprised that these results look like a David Axelrod dream?

(Interestingly, George W. Bush is at 50 percent approval, 49 percent disapproval, even in this sample wildly weighted in favor of the Democrats.)

AP response: Some conservatives criticized the AP-GfK poll as heavy with responses from Democrats that skewed the results. AP-GfK polls use a consistent methodology that draws a random sample of the population independent of party identification.

But the question isn’t really whether the sample changed too much from their poll in April; the question is whether the sample accurately reflects the American public at large, and whether we indeed have 1.63 Democrats in this country for every 1 Republican. If their sample had an unrealistic proportion of Democrats one month, it’s entirely possible they can get a similar unrealistic proportion the following month. (NRO)

Ya Think? 🙂

Naw, Liberals would never do that…

Lying, cheating, and stealing…Naw, never happen.

Dishonesty, disingenuous and pure self-interest…never happens… 🙂

So Caveat Emptor. Buyer Beware!

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel