http://dailypaul.com...

A warning: it contains facts the news media -- especially Allen Wastler -- does not want you to know. And stuff I didn't know -- I had no idea the Daily Paul beats "major" campaigns' websites on Alexa ratings...
JMR

Epitaph: I see we have now achieved a funny, "tail between the legs" retreat from Mr. Wastler. :)

Well, sports fans, the conservative hit parade continued last week, for having first accused Fox News's Bill O'Reilly of being a racist, and Rush Limbaugh of being anti-military, the whackos on the left have now branded Ann Coulter an anti-Semite.

Expectedly, Hillary Clinton's Media Matters for America was once again right in the middle of the controversy.

Fortunately, much like Limbaugh and O'Reilly before her, Coulter wasn't taking the attacks lying down, and, instead, explained what was meant by her statements - which was clearly lost on the secular media - to Steve Malzberg of WOR Radio Thursday (audio available here):

Anyone contrarian enough to tune into CNBC in prime time certainly doesn’t tune into The Big Idea with Donnie Deutsch thinking it’s going to be an hour on theology -- Dogma and Kerygma with Donnie Deutsch. The host can hardly claim he booked Ann Coulter with the idea that they were going to discuss the Christology in Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians, or they were simply going to discuss how conservative women could franchise McCoulter’s formula. He booked her looking for snap,crackle, and pop, for ratings and headlines, a chance to get his multi-millionaire mug on the Today cameras.

(Or was there an underlying political gambit: Hmm, isn’t that John Edwards donations Donny Deutsch just made?)

On Wednesday (10/10/07), Tim Rutten, media columnist for the Los Angeles Times, gave a glowing review to the latest book from anti-Catholic "Catholic" Garry Wills. Wills' new book is Head and Heart: American Christianities. In the book Wills addresses the issue of abortion. Rutten allies with Wills to spread an egregious falsehood about the Catholic Church. Rutten:

Once again, Wills' deep mastery of the primary sources and his respect for them as a believer himself lend his argument a compelling authority. He points out that Catholic opposition to abortion is a recent development.

"Catholic opposition to abortion is a recent development"?? No way. In fact, had either Wills or Rutten taken the 15 seconds to look inside a copy the Catechism (that's if either of them even own one), they would have seen (emphasis mine), "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable" (2271).

It will be interesting to see the New York Times try to wiggle an excuse to get out of the consequences of this, if they even have the decency to try. It will be interesting to watch the backlash and the apologists. It is interesting, but sadly not shocking.

This doesn’t need much added to it:

Every major daily paper in New York took note of President Bush’s decision to bestow the first Medal of Honor of Operation Enduring Freedom on Navy SEAL Lt. Michael Murphy - a Long Islander who gave his life for his country and his fellow SEALs.

Every paper but one, that is.

And it shouldn’t be particularly hard to guess which one.

In reality, there were a lot of disgraceful moments during Friday's "Real Time" on HBO, like "The View's" Joy Behar saying "the Republican [presidential] candidates are a bunch of pussies," and calling Michelle Malkin "a selfish bitch."

Despite such lowlights, the most deplorable moment of the evening -- and maybe the most despicable thing Bill Maher has done his entire entertainment career -- was to invite former Mexican president Vicente Fox on his program to bash George W. Bush.

After all, it's one thing to have actors, musicians, comedians, and pundits on your show debasing the most powerful man on the planet who also happens to be a fellow citizen. But to invite a former president of one of America's closest allies and neighbors to participate in insulting your own president is about as low as a member of the media can go.

For those with a strong stomach, Maher began the interview with the following shameful question (video available here courtesy my dear friend Ms Underestimated):

Saturday’s Good Morning America kept up the applause for Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize award, featuring a completely one-sided report from correspondent Bill Blakemore -- who said that scientists were “joyous” over the award to Gore because “scientists have been far more worried than anyone about global warming, finding it's far more dangerous, coming much quicker, than they expected” -- followed by an equally slanted interview with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who lectured an admiring Bill Weir that the media have failed to suppress any disagreement with his liberal views “because of a massive propaganda campaign by the Exxon corporation.”

Kennedy claimed: “In the scientific community, there was literally zero dissent. But at the same time, in the United States press, over 60% of the newspaper stories and, particularly, the television stories published, expressed some doubt about this issue. Why is that? The reason is because of a massive propaganda campaign by the Exxon corporation and by others -- but largely funded by Exxon -- that has been very, very successful at persuading the media not to cover this issue seriously and reporters simply don't go read the science.”

My Firefox automatic spell check doesn't work in NB. Can anyone tell me how to correct this?

In the midst of a Wall Street Journal editorial today about proponents' misrepresentations relating to the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) coverage, cost, and financing (characterized as "fiscal fraudulence"), the Journal took shots at blogs that have questioned the SCHIP eligibiliy of Graeme Frost, the 12-year-old boy the Democrats used to deliver a two-minute rebuttal to President Bush's veto of legislation that would vastly expand the program.

The Journal's criticisms of SCHIP expansion and the Democrats' overheated rhetoric after the veto are, on substance, very solid:

After President Bush vetoed Congress's major expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, Nancy Pelosi declared: "President Bush used his cruel veto pen to say, 'I forbid 10 million children from getting the health benefits they deserve.'" As far as political self-parody goes, that one ought to enter the record books.

It's wrong on the facts, for one, which Speaker Pelosi knows. ..... The Schip bill was not some all-or-nothing proposition: A continuing resolution fully funds the program through mid-November, so none of the 6.6 million recipients will lose coverage.

Ignoring the Donkey in the Room

Appearing on Wednesday's "Good Morning America," media critic Howard Kurtz and co-host Chris Cuomo marveled at the media's ability to turn Americans against the war in Iraq. Kurtz, who has a new book on the subject, claimed that the top three network anchors kept "framing the story in such a way" that the bad news finally had an impact. While Cuomo and Kurtz discussed the declining ratings of the network newscasts, somehow, media bias never came up as a reason. Over on FNC's "O'Reilly Factor," however, anchor Bill O'Reilly did broach the subject with Kurtz. Asked to name a conservative at either CBS or NBC, the media critic came up with the name of that well known right-winger, Brian Williams.

Which of You is the Least Bad?

Who would be the best candidate to help conservative Republican primary voters pick their nominee? That answer is, of course, obvious: Chris Matthews. The liberal anchor presided over a Republican debate this week and asked such insightful questions as whether the U.S. would "have gone to war in Iraq if we weren't so dependent on Middle East oil?" Chris, why not just chant, "No blood for oil"?

I've debated whether or not this should be posted.

However, as I've been a fan of Dennis Miller's since his "Weekend Update" days, and the discussion was rather timely, I hope you'll forgive the seemingly shameless self-promotion.

On Friday, I was Dennis's guest on his radio program, and we mostly discussed the extremely delicious hypocrisy inherent in Al Gore receiving a Nobel Peace Prize on the same week a British judge cited nine scientific errors in the Global Warmingist-in-Chief's award-winning schlockumentary (audio available here).

For discussions involving the day in sports. Here are some of today's games that bear watching, and could produce surprises:

LSU at Kentucky. The Tigers squeaked by the Gators last week, and could be ripe for a letdown after such an emotional win.

Oregon State at Cal. I've been told that Cal QB Nate Longshore's injury is much more serious than being reported.

Missouri at Oklahoma. I think the Sooners are overrated, and the Tigers are serious. Even without injured RB Tony Temple, Mizzu can win this game.

Wisconsin at Penn State. Wisconsin has not looked good recently, and the Lions play well at home.

Auburn at Arkansas. Razorbacks are looking to right their disappointing season at home. This could be one of the more entertaining games of the day.

*****Update: Kentucky beats LSU; Penn State beats Wisconsin. Who ever's doing this open thread is looking pretty good...again!!! :-)

Your turn to discuss all things political, economical, social, etc. To accommodate those that aren't interested in college football, a separate open thread will follow for that. Have fun.

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law -- U.S. Supreme Court, Coffin v. United States [1895].

Was [there] enough evidence to find that they were not guilty? -- ABC News, Matter of Martin Lee Anderson [2007].

Forget that musty old 19th-century Supreme Court stuff. According to ABC, there's a new legal standard in criminal cases; at least those in which the MSM is rooting for a conviction. Henceforth, the presumption of innocence is abolished. There shall be a presumption of guilt, and the burden will be on the accused to produce enough evidence to acquit himself.

View video here.

From Pat Buchanan, a look at "LOST"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20071012/cm_uc_crpbux/op_334084;_ylt=AjlJjUjtdjYyHgytW5nXnzf9wxIF

For anyone that is concerned about this, rest assured that Unsane will be along shortly to let you know that this could never happen. He'll point out that history has shown that we cannot get along with the creatures of the sea and they will never allow it to happen.

Yahoo! users found a Democratic gaffe at the top of the page on Saturday: "Fans are angry after a congressman instructs aides to get inoculated before a trip to a NASCAR race." Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, advised aides to get their shots against several communicable diseases — including hepatitis, diphtheria, tetanus and influenza -- before visiting race tracks in North Carolina and Alabama. (Fox News has the story, and MSNBC’s Mike Viqueira offers some defensive skepticism at the First Read blog). Yahoo featured sports columnist Jerry Bonkowski, who was definitely offended:

NASCAR fans have been criticized for a number of things over the years, ranging from perpetuating a redneck stereotype to still showing pride in the Rebel Flag.

Sure, Michael Vick has admitted involvement in dogfighting. But did you see how sharp he looked in that suit on the way to the courthouse? And yes, Mark McGwire bombed at those congressional hearings with his "I don't want to talk about the past" skate on steroids, but he's the epitome of what a XXXL Abercrombie & Fitch guy can be.

Inane as those comments are, they at least have the merit of being made by me in jest. But what is Robin Givhan's excuse for her similarly silly glorification of the fashion sense of another disgraced athlete, Marion Jones? For that's exactly what the Washington Post's style maven does in her column of this morning, "Marion Jones, a Success On the Glamour Track, Too".

I am deeply concerned, my friends. The world already jealously hates us with blind rage as the worst country in the whole history of mankind - just ask any college student!

Of course there is our absolute historical dominance in the modern Olympics. Then there's the unrivaled US mil. And all of our money. The parties. The culture. The sports. About the only thing we can't win is soccer - and who the hell cares about that loser sport anyway?

And on top of all this now yet another American has hogged the Nobel Peace Prize. Before this it was Jimmy Carter, and Henry Kissinger, and Martin Luther King, Jr. - and now it's yet another American - our beloved and esteemed former VP Al Gore - and this is just the peace prize!

We hog all of the other prizes, too. The US has way more than anyone else - the closest to us is Britian at about 30 some percent of our total count, I believe...

So do we rock, yet again or what? Thanks so much, Norwegian parliment and Al Gore, for once more proving what we pompous Americans have already been insufferably bragging about for over 200 but-kickin years now:

Is Associated Press economics writer Martin Crutsinger quietly converting to supply-side economics?

This is noteworthy, because Crutsinger has usually been the go-to reporter for uncalled-for gloom and doom about the economy for at least the past few years (a few examples are here, here, here, and here).

Here are the specifics about Crutsinger's possible epiphany. In May, covering the record US Treasury receipts in April, the AP reporter told readers the following about why the Uncle Sam's budget was running at a deficit (though there is no byline at the MSNBC link, Crutsinger is indeed the author; the now-expired Yahoo! story I linked to in May at this post did have his byline; bold is mine):

The federal budget was in surplus for four years from 1998 through 2001 as the long economic expansion helped push revenues higher. But the 2001 recession, the cost of fighting a global war on terror and the loss of revenue from President Bush’s tax cuts sent the budget back into the red starting in 2002.

But Thursday, in writing about the full fiscal year ended September 30 deficit of $162.8 billion just reported by the US Treasury -- over 34% lower than it was in fiscal 2006, and $249 billion lower than in fiscal 2004 -- Crutsinger had quite a different take (bold is mine):