All the MSM wants you to know about Sotomayor:she's a non-white male from brooklyn.

the media is full of highly unorginal people. Especially liberals, they all just repeat the same meme and never more than on Sotomayor.

The main meme on her goes as follows:

"it's going to be really hard for the republicans to challendge the Sotomayor nomination. They really don't have much to oppose her on."

and every time i hear this i clench my fists (this is also why i try never to listen to NPR) and for the following reasons i do:

YOU SHOULD NOTICE 2 THINGS ABOUT THIS STATEMENT:

one: SUCH a statement almost always comes from a liberal who in talking about Sotomoayor will not even see fit to mention a word of her manifestly intresting, consquential and revealing Ricci vs. Deangelo ruling in anything but the vaguest and most brief terms. It's no accident that they don't ever tell people what that case is about, cause her descion in it (and there positions on it) is outragous to the overwhelming majority of people.

two: Anyways you will always notice too that said people will usually not exsplain why the GOP has little to go against her on or if they do give reason(s) why she will be hard to oppose they will say because "she a latino women from the bronxs".


Her race and her gender is about all the MSM and liberals will say about her.

Not in one-one!-media NPR or TV report on Sotomayor have i heard mention of her any ruling she's made!

Aparently liberals really only think the important thing that people should know about Sotomayor is her race, gender and hometown. For most of the rest of us we would rather know about what kind of judge she is. But i guess this is the fundmental difference between those who are for putting race ahead of merit and those who find that dishonorable. I guess they believe we should select our firefighters and supreme court justice on race too!

Schwartz's rule-the newest poltical rule

Schwartz's Rule

It seems that long ago a memo was sent out through the corridors of all of the kingdome of the Mainstream Media (aka the liberal media) that informed the satelliates of news organization that make of the MSM-NPR, ABC, CNN, etc-that the only Republicans allowed a place in the mainstream media had to be leftwing pro-life Republicans who has broken ranks with conservtives in some very public way and whom a large portion of the GOP despises.

David Frum (who i like but feel is sometimes misguided and too PC), seems to be the token conservtive 3 places at once everyday. Isn't it odd that he became so suddenly ubiqtous after he rightly called Sara Palin out as a joke who needs to go back to Alaska. He's the new conservtive David that the liberals love.

The other conservtives allowed to particpate in the Mainstream Media (though of only to perform the role of pussyfooting PC republican bunchbags) are Ross Douthat (the new ny times columnist, Katherine Parker (WaPo colmunist and a truthteller on Palin, who wrote a great book called "Save the Males" last year), and ofcourse David Brooks (who it isn't clear,is not currently a democrat i should add).

something new to be outraged about

as CNN does segments on how to get your arms like the first ladys and Obama going grey and Anderson Cooper talks to food exsperts" about how oranges can keep cancer away, that the dismally small number of patriotic informed americans that read the corner, are always hour by hour hearing about the real news of the day, news since inaguration day, has come to be known simply as the news only readers of conservtive magazines hear about.

One such news story that has not been covered at all, is quite shocking and outragous:

Next time your at a Marriotte Hotel or using a computer at anyother such hotel or if you happen to have NetNanny or anyother brand of Net Filter, try and see if you can visit NRO.com. The national review online, the most popular conservtive website on the web and one of the most prestigous and popular of all poltical websites. Or try to mained your way over to Steynonline.com, the website of the brillant author of the essential milestone book "america alone" (the best book on islamic radicalism and the demographic decline of west minus america bar none) and NRO colmunist, Mark Steyn. A website which pretty much stores his articles that have been published in the most respected and popular publications in europe, australia, canada and america such as Macleans, National Review, the CHicago Sun times and many other Us papers, the Ireland Times, and many other publications who don't publish articles deemed "racist" or "hate mongering" repeadtldy at that.

Noone serious figure on the left and right would charcterize NRO.com or steynonline.com as racist, hate monegering websites that minors nor anyone else needs be protected from. The notion is absurd.

Well, if you try to visit either nro.com or steynonline.com and probably many more such sites, at many hotels and high schools and colleges, or on computers using Netnanny or SiteCoach or other similiar programs, you will find that national review and mark steyn is just to hateful and racist and profane for you to have access to.

However, you'd be amazed at what other sites were not blocked at the same time, you can geuss

heres the post from nro.com's "the corner:

Marriott, Me, and More [Mark Steyn]

Lots of mail re the blocking of websites. It's not just my own, but NRO, too. A reader writes:

A year or so ago, I purchased Net Nanny for my home PC. It blocked NRO's "The Corner", due to "some hate content". So, for fun, I went to Al Jazeera dot com, and of course it was NOT blocked. I emailed support, pointing out the execution videos pass their filter, but not NRO. They very explained that they didn't support blocking of Arabic language sites, which didn't really answer my question, of course. When pressed, they refused to identify which content on NRO was "hate". In the end, they refunded my money rather than answer my question.

So a jihadist snuff video is perfectly safe for your kids. But Jonah's objections to the New Deal? Whoa, can't let them get anywhere near that. That pretty much confirms my suspicion that "Net Nanny" and the like are not child-friendly filtering services but just the twilight west's usual self-loathing limp-wristed politically-correct illiterate nitwits.

Whoops, I seem to have just upped the "hate content."

journalism in the US?

has anyone heard anyone in the media ask if the last stimulus worked?

Apalling liberal bias vol. 1

It's hard to listen to NPR (which i once religous did) and the rest of the Mainstream (Liberal) Media once you know about the news such media organizations including even FOX news refuse to cover for purely poltical reasons. This gets to why liberals-although most acknowledge that there is a left wing bias- have difficulty grasping the full scope of liberal media bias because liberals don't read National Review or any of the other conservtive websites,blogs and magazines that actually cover the storys the MSM shame-facedly ignore.

One of the easiest ways to sort out reasonable liberals from unreasonable ones is to ask if they think the media has a left wing tilt. It's one of those oddities -like why kansas city is actually in missouri -that the big media watchdog entinties are run not by conservtives but by liberals so nuts that they claim to cover and expose a media with a ergegious right wing bias! These include Mediamatters.com (which seems to be operated by the producers and interns of MSNBC), Eric Alterman who wrote a book and writes a regular column in The Nation magazine entitled "What Liberal Media?", and Crooksandliars.com run by John Amato (who is for the record a part time member of Duran Duran's back up band). These people must have the hardest jobs around: trying to convince the world, like raving homeless people, that the media has a right wing tilt. Why don't they try something easier like becoming priests, joining the flat earth scociety or try becoming door to door scientology missionaries.

I have pity also for the figureheads of the liberal media, Keith Oblerman, Rachel Maddow, NPR and the whole rest of the gang. They used to be journalists when we had Bush in the oval office. Back then they actually reported inconvient news. They actually asked tuff questions rather than ask the chief executive about his dog. Now Oblerman and Maddow and the rest of the crew are a cross between being Obama staffers and pure RADIO FREE EUROPE style propgandists. They too have a seemingly hard job for they will spend the next 4 years ignoring news inconvient to "the One", calling republicans racists, and covering how great obama is.

Its far too infurating and time consuming to be a watchdog myself. Also I am a real person and not yet a member of the media bubble. i try to avoid the propgandists but sometimes like yesterday i turn on NPR.

So from time to time when i can't help but be scandalized by the bias i'll try to keep a tab of the bilge on this blog.

Instance 1.

i will provide about a 100 of these but heres just one of many

this is news the liberal media refuses to cover. and if you can find it reported on NPR or ABC or NBC or even FOX i will pay you good money

Obama's housing bill which will have taxpayers pay for other people's mortage in order to save them from impending foreclosures will include illegals!

In other words, tax payers who have done the hard work and saved to pay their own mortages and avoid foreclousre will not only be paying for the irresponiciblity of fellow citizens but now also reckless and irresponciblee illegals.

So now american tax payers pay for illegals to get free health care, free welfare checks and food stamps, free loans for college tuition.

and yet no one covers it! you will never hear this story on NPR for example because that would be too intolerant and mean of course. Such news that everyone would be intrested in learning about doesn't past the taste test of the ivy league liberals who decide what news gets reported for such people are the same shameful americans that march arm and arm with illegals brandishing signs that read "la reconquestdora!" at May Day immgration rallys. Liberals like Obama who did just that in CHicago in 2006 and likes to boast of doing so to latino audiences after he demans that those against giving 20 million illegals free helath care and citzenship and welfare and driving licences to stop practising "the poltics of hatred and intolerance".

Instances 2.
i turn on NPR yesterday, what are they reporting on? Obama's stimulus.good but what about it?

maybe they'd like to tell americans something that don't know that they'd like to know like how in Obama's stimulus there is 3 billion dollars for tatatto removal programs.

maybe they could report that Obama has been woefully failing to uphold his promise to cut wasteful spending and programs by stuffing his stimulus full of outragous pet projects that have nothing to do remotely with the econmy let alone stimulating it such as the above.

but instead they don't even mention any of that which people would like to know about and talk about how great the stimulus is, reporting on how it will help build new roads.

education, immgration?

why was immgration and education not brought up in the debate questions!?

a scandal.