The Next Time Liberals Tell You Conservatives Control the Media...

Just point them to the past week of coverage, when a lunatic kills six people and shoots a Congresswoman in the head, and Sarah Palin and talk radio are blamed immediately.

Words fail me to describe the unmittigated gaul of the leftwing fringe--hell, everyone to the left of Sean Hannity--to lecture the public on the ills of conservative opinion. WTF is wrong with these people?

Eric Boehlert Needs Some Cheese With His Whine

Media Matters' resident jerk Eric Boehlert is complaining because journalists don't call Senate Republicans "obstructionists" at every reference. I have to say, given journalists' usual penchant for demeaning R's, it is a little surprising that one doesn't see this term in every news story, but I chalk that up to nuance.

Boehlert's complaint goes to the heart of the liberal view of the MSM. It isn't there to report what happens. Reporters are there to shape what you think of the news. So, if Democrats, say, run across the border to stop redistricting in Texas, that's not labelled "obstructionist," but Senate Republicans exercising their right to shape the legislative agenda is.

What makes Boehlert's complaint so silly is that the problem isn't Senate Republicans; it's Harry Reid, who didn't have to bring up other legislation to challenge Republicans. And if anyone thinks Democrats in a similar situation wouldn't use the filibuster to block particularly noxious legislation, they're delusional. The difference is that the country is closer to Republican ideas than the poisonous, disasterous legislation Democrats have tried to cram through Congress. Besides, Democrats poisoned this well with the Obamacare votes--particularly on Christmas Eve--and it's a little late to complain about civility now.

Media Matters: It's Only Slanting the News When We Don't Like It

Media Matters is a joke.

Ok, now that I've stated the obvious, here is the latest example.

At the height of the health care reform debate last fall, Bill Sammon, Fox News' controversial Washington managing editor, sent a memo directing his network's journalists not to use the phrase "public option."

Instead, Sammon wrote, Fox's reporters should use "government option" and similar phrases -- wording that a top Republican pollster had recommended in order to turn public opinion against the Democrats' reform efforts.

Of course, the government-controlled health care option Democrats loved was, in fact, a "government option." The fact that "government option" didn't poll well didn't change the truth. And it isn't like "public option" was the only way Democrats referred to government-run health care. Even Nancy Pelosi called government health care something other than a "public option", and I doubt Media Matters would argue that she was "slanting" anything.

Media Matters doesn't mind journalists slanting the news, provided they slant it in a liberal direction. You never see pro-lifers called "pro-life supporters" on the news. They're always called "anti-abortion activists." Even Slate's Jack Shafer notes, "If using the phrase government option is spinning the news, so is using public option."

Since the earliest days of marketing, people have tried to spin their product (whether it's dish soap or legislation) in the most positive light possible. That's what calling government-run health care the "public option" is. Calling that bullshit isn't slanting the news. It's telling the truth.

Why the MSM Are Obsessed with Sarah Palin

Newsbusters notes that Charles Krauthammer castigated the host of PBS's Inside Washington for its regular Sarah Palin segment.

As Krauthammer points out, the media obsession with Palin's every move (and non-move, for that matter) exaggerates her importance within the Republican party. But why would that be?

I have a couple of theories. The first is that their obsession is equal to their hatred of her and their determination to highlight every misstep, every gaffe by Palin and show that as the face of the Republican Party. Palin isn't the GOP. She holds no elected post within the Republican Party and doesn't speak for anyone but herself.

The second reason for the Palin obsession is seedier: she sells. They mention her because it boosts ratings and that is more important than anything else.

Keith Olbermann Suspended Indefinitely?

It seems to me that there's got to be more to this story than meets the eye.

MSNBC star Keith Olbermann donated money to several candidates, a news bomb dropped by Politico. In response, the president of MSNBC, Phil Griffin is shocked! Shocked! That there's gamblingpolitical donations going on in this establishment.

Come on, Phil. Really?

I'm not arguing that employees don't sign away all sorts of rights when they join any company. Nor am I saying that Olbermann wasn't aware of the policy (he obviously had to be). But I have to agree with Bill Kristol that suspending Olbermann for donating to candidates is squirrelly.

First, he donated money to candidates he liked. He didn’t take money, or favors, in a way that influenced his reporting.

Second, he’s not a reporter. It’s an opinion show. If Olbermann wants to put his money where his mouth is, more power to him.

Third, GE, the corporate parent of MSNBC, gives money to political organizations. GE executives and, I’m sure, NBC executives give money. Why can’t Olbermann?

Liberals scream about Fox Corporation's $1 million donation to the GOP and now Republicans are comparing Olbermann's misstep with it. But the truth is that there's nothing wrong with either donation; individuals and corporations should be free to donate to the candidate of their choice. Unless Politico can show a clear connection between Olbermann's donations and coverage of these candidates, the suspension is bogus.

The Tone-Deaf Liberal Media

Dear liberals, journalists (same thing) and nutjobs,
Despite your attempts to distract from the real story of the Journolist scandal (see Amanda Marcotte's piece, Writing Future Scandals So the Right Doesn't Have To, most people actually get what the problem is with having a listserv where you strategize how to cover news. Keep telling yourselves that speaking at a convention where, assumably, anyone can pay to attend, is exactly like being in a group that (a) no one gets to know about and (b) only people on the left are allowed to join. Yeah, those are exactly the same!

Fortunately, some liberals get the problem with Journolist:

Chuck Todd, political director and chief White House correspondent for NBC News, who was not part of Journolist, told me this:


“I am sure Ezra had good intentions when he created it, but I am offended the right is using this as a sledgehammer against those of us who don’t practice activist journalism.


“Journolist was pretty offensive. Those of us who are mainstream journalists got mixed in with journalists with an agenda. Those folks who thought they were improving journalism are destroying the credibility of journalism.


“This has kept me up nights. I try to be fair. It’s very depressing.”

Emphasis mine.

I've always told friends and family that sure, journalists are liberals, but most of them actually try to keep their biases in check and function as reporters and editors. It's possible to do this if you remain mindful of your own opinions and remain faithful to the idea that objectively presenting information is more persuasive than distorting the facts. But Journolist has turned that argument on its head; it has given the Rush Limbaugh's of the world the best evidence that there is indeed a liberal cabal planning news coverage and spinning events to favor certain (Democrat, liberal) candidates and disfavor (Republican, conservative) others. And worse for journalists is that no one remains untarred by this broad brush.

I'm sure Ezra Klein thought it would be really cool to allow liberal journalists to vent in private about the people and events they write about publicly, but doing so in this way is simply unethical. Journalists sitting around a bar talking about the events of the day is one thing, but I never met a reporter who talked with his buddies about how to prevent damage to one candidate from inconvenient information. That's not journalism. That's public relations.

JournoList: The Vast Leftwing Conspiracy

The JournoList story is an inside baseball tale, but what's fascinating about it is that it proves what conservatives have argued for 30 years: there really is a vast leftwing conspiracy.

I think JournoList is—or was—fundamentally different, and not simply because one of its members proposed to make palpably false accusations. As best I can tell, those involved in JournoList considered themselves part of a team. And their goal was to make sure the team won. In 2008, this was Mr. Obama's team. More recently, the goal seems to have been to defeat the conservative team.

Ezra Klein and others have argued that it was mainly opinion people and columnists saying the outrageous things about Rush Limbaugh, Fred Barnes and Karl Rove. But while people who aren't beat reporters might have been commenting on JournoList, there were 400 subscribers and more than a few of them were mostly reporters and editors, the regular kind who talk about professional ethics and objectivity. How many of them read the JournoList posts without making their own comments but who absorbed the ideas written there? Until the list of subscribers is revealed, we won't know.

UPDATE: More at Townhall.com, where the 3 theories of media bias are discussed well.

Some Nice Blogosphere Navel Gazing

It's been a while since we've had some good spitting matches between journalists, blogers, conservatives and liberals, but for some reason, there's a couple of them today.

First, there's the David Frum's whining cuz he can't play with the big kids dust-up at Right Wing News. Apparently, Frum has his knickers in a twist because John Hawkins doesn't consider him a conservative and won't add him to the Blogads conservative hive. I can understand why Frum is upset; unless he's recognized as a conservative by conservatives, his credibility as such is shot. Of course, he did that to himself some time ago when he bashed Republicans for actually supporting Americans' right to not choke on Obamacare. Now, Frum has taken to complaining that it's only "the fringe" who dislike him. This is patent nonsense. I like to read Frum but only to find out what left-leaning Republicans think. As Hawkins points out, liberals love Frum, which is enough reason for any conservative to be skeptical.

The second dustup is between sock puppet Glenn Greenwald and conservative Jeffrey Goldberg. I'm less engaged on this one, mostly because I consider Mr. Sockpuppet to be too boring to read. His sycophants have invaded poor Joe Klein's space, so if you want to hear what the sockpuppet has to say, read the comments (have I used the word "sockpuppet" enough in one post?).

Today's "Duh" Moment: Liberal vs. Conservaitve Judicial Picks

Media Routinely Used 'Conservative' Label on Bush Nominees to Supreme Court; Obama Picks Always 'Centrist'

Is there really any doubt left about the MSM's real masters?

The Dave Weigel Flap and Why You Watch What You Write to Complete Strangers

The scandal du jour in the press concerning Dave Weigel has journalists--who claim superhuman strength to separate their personal biases from reporting--up in arms.

The bareboned facts of the story are this: Weigel was (past tense) a reporter supposedly covering the Republican Party. Weigel's contempt for the GOP was palpable, and some intemperate comments on the leftwing list serv Journolist prove it.

Now we're being told that e-mails to that list were and should be considered private, and that it is unfair that Weigel's nasty remarks have cost him his job. Unfortunately, I can't really have any sympathy for a guy who makes his living as a writer, specifically a writer on the internet. How anyone can correspond on computers and think it's like calling your buddy late at night is beyond me. There's nothing secret that you say in internet forums, period. And that includes wishing people dead for disagreeing with the president. Weigel likes to use the term "ratfucking" when discussing Republicans. Seems to me he's the ratfucker that's been ratfucked.

UPDATE: After reading that asshole TBogg, I have even less sympathy for David Weigel. After all, according to nutbag TBogg, an important part of journalism is digging dirt on whoever you're covering. Sadly, that dirt seems to only hit Republicans (a coincidence, I know), and Weigel's donkey pom-pons prove it. Even some on the right argue that Weigel separated his ideology from his writing, but I'm a big consistency buff, and I doubt conservative reporters who ranted about their whacko subjects (and stratagized about spinning events for the GOP) would be given the same leniency. We've seen it before, after all.

UPDATE: I suppose the real lesson here is that "off the record" is meaningless, for generals and for journalists.

The Liberal Spin Machine in Overdrive

Liberals are in ecstasy that Democrats held onto a seat that's been a Democrat seat for a generation. Woo hoo! Democrats held a seat! Not that they won anything they hadn't already held. It's just the principle of the matter, see.

Forget that Democrats pretty much own Pennsylvania, even though John McCain narrowly won it in 2008. This is a place that re-elected John Murtha even after his scuzzy connection to Abscam and his pork barrel politicking. Why wouldn't they vote for another Democrat?

How exactly is it a level playing field when the Democrats have a statewide U.S. Senate primary happening at the same time? There was no comparative factor getting Republicans motivated to interrupt their busy lives to vote. That's not soreloserdom blogging, it's just attention to reality. The Democrats were more motivated in this race. This ain't the end of a trend. It's just another special election, in a Democratic district, and on a big Democratic primary day. And a Democrat won. Disappointing. But not paradigm-smashing shocking. And not devastating.

It's not like they won in a Republican stronghold or something. Democrats dodged a bullet, but they're still stuck trying to justify the crappy economy and their profligate spending. It's almost worth it watching Democrats suddenly discover their conservative roots against the nutroot leadership they have. Almost, but not quite.

Many pundits are arguing that Republicans need to be re-thinking any attempt to nationalize the election. I see nothing wrong with noting Democrats' pathetic Obama bootlicking, but after all, all politics is local. Pick 'em off (ooh, a gun metaphor) where possible. You knew they weren't going to give Republicans any credit anyway, right?

Obama Signs Press Freedom Act Then Won't Take Questions

You can't make this stuff up.

There was some rich irony at the White House today -- President Obama signed the Press Freedom Act, and then promptly refused to take any questions.


The new law expands the State Department's annual human rights reports to include a description of press freedoms in each country. It seemed a good opportunity to showcase press freedom in this country.

Taking quesitons would require Teh One having to speak on the fly without blaming somebody else for everything that goes wrong with his administration. Can't have that.

I know it's getting stale, but can you imagine what would have happened had George W. Bush done this? Obama has ducked the press for months. He has mishandled the oil spill in the Gulf and the press has hardly whimpered. How much longer will they be willing to cover for him?

Taxes Lower in 2009?

USA Today has a story about how Tax bills in 2009 at lowest level since 1950

Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.
Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes — consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

Gosh, I wonder what else happened in 2009? You gotta go to Newsbusters to find out.

The newspaper downplayed the pain caused by the recession and the fact that the downturn lowered both incomes and consumption...

But USA Today also buried important reasons for the drop in tax payments. One reason was that the recession cut incomes, but they didn't mention that until the ninth paragraph. Lower income means taxpayers paid at a lower rate because of the progressive income tax structure. In addition, unemployment in 2009 reached levels not seen for roughly 25 years. The recession also caused "sharp" cuts in consumer spending, resulting in much lower sales tax payments.

USA Today gave credit to the massive stimulus bill for "tax cuts," specifically the "Making Work Pay" credit. But the paper waited until the last paragraph to admit that the lower tax burden may only last through the end of 2010 because "virtually all the stimulus tax cuts expire at the end of the year."

Meanwhile, 15.3 million people were out of work last month, and they probably didn't spend very much because of it. The idea that less taxes because fewer people are working is a good thing is disgusting and USA Today should be ashamed to spin the news this way.

Obama the Bully

I'd feel sorrier for the press in the end if their love affair with Barack Obama had they not spent the last two years licking his boots and calling all critics "racists."

But it is good to see the MSM finally coming to the conclusion the rest of us came to a long time ago: Barack Obama is a bully who can't govern and is a thin-skinned (that's not racist), pouty-faced egoist who can't act statesmanlike to save his life.

Can you remember any other modern President, wagging a finger from on high, so directly and bitterly criticizing a new law passed by any state?

This is hubris at best and ignorance of the Constitution at worst. The U.S. was founded in part on the precept of states’ rights as an important counterweight to a rapacious federal government. Thus a President must step softly here, questioning gently but avoiding rancor and browbeating.

The law in question is Arizona's new immigration law, designed to deal with a state issue that the feds refuse to. God knows, expecting everybody to carry ID with them--like a driver's license--is clearly racist, right? Especially when you have to show it to check into a hotel, buy Sudafed, use your credit card, get money from your bank account, etc., etc.

President Obama is a big whiny baby and his immature attitude towards the presidency is rankling more than just Republicans these days.

Hmm, now that I think about it, nor can I recall any other modern President who has spent so much effort lambasting his immediate predecessor. Reagan didn’t do it to Carter. Clinton didn’t do it to the first George Bush.

And the worst part is, we’re barely calling out Obama the Bully on this behavior at all. We are becoming entirely too accustomed to it, failing to see it for what it really is: a striking lack of civility, and an overflow of divisiveness, from a President who had promised to give us precisely the opposite.

I'm waiting for Democrats to call the press racists.

IOKIYAL

It's OK if you're a liberal.

Imagine a group of angry demonstrators toting swastika-festooned protest signs calling politicians Nazis, shouting obscenities and racial remarks and throwing rocks and bottles at police officers sent to keep order. No, these are not Tea Partiers. They are the mob that turned out last week to protest Arizona's new immigration-enforcement law. This group of liberal rowdies has been dubbed the Tequila Party.

For the most part, liberal media coverage overlooked all the leftist violence. Typical headlines described the protest as "mostly peaceful," with media outlets avoiding details about why they had to use the qualifier "mostly." Reporting a near-riot by the opponents of the Arizona law doesn't fit the dominant media storyline.

Some of the editorial bias is blatant. An Associated Press story about the Arizona immigration law quoted a 13-year-old Hispanic boy saying, "We can't be in the streets anymore without the pigs thinking we're illegal immigrants." The Washington Post sanitized the boy's views towards law enforcement by replacing the word "pigs" with "[police]." If a Tea Partier used a slur of any kind, it's doubtful it would be given the square-bracket treatment. It would probably be a banner headline.

I'm still trying to figure out why showing ID is racist. I have to show my ID to get Sudafed from CVS, for crying out loud.

Media Bias: How Newsweek Embraces the "Coffee Party Movement"

You gotta love when the media objectively covers a movement. In this case, the objective coverage is of the astroturf known as the Coffee Party movement, which brings in 250 protesters to its events. Yeah, that's much better than the tiny number of Tea Party protesters.

The Coffee Party Heats Up
Tired of all the Tea Party talk, Annabel Park decided to throw a Coffee Party — and 200,000 people showed up.

Emphasis mine.

So, where were these 200,000 Coffee Partiers? In Washington, D.C.? Nope. New York City? Nope. Los Angeles? Nope. Austin, Texas perhaps? Nope.

It's on Facebook.

Within days, thousands of people signed up on Facebook...the group now has more than 200,000 members.

Get it? It doesn't matter that a tiny number of actual people show up in person to "protest." Just get some people on Facebook to friend you and that counts just like hauling your spouse and kids halfway across the country!

Well, I hate to report this to the Coffee Party lovin' folks at Newsweek, but the just one Tea Party page on Facebook has more than 185,000 fans, and there are many different Tea Party pages. Somehow, I don't think having Facebook friends counts as a protest...if the group is critical of Teh One.

Marc Ambinder Is Today's Concern Troll Example

He's sooooo worried that conservatives have gone....mad!

Can anyone deny that the most trenchant and effective criticism of President Obama today comes not from the right but from the left? Rachel Maddow's grilling of administration economic officials. Keith Olbermann's hectoring of Democratic leaders on the public option. Glenn Greenwald's criticisms of Elena Kagan. Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn's keepin'-them-honest perspectives on health care. The civil libertarian left on detainees and Gitmo. The Huffington Post on derivatives.

Who is this "anyone" who thinks Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are serious thinkers? Only a lunatic would that pair are anything but shrieking nincompoops on a third-rate television show with 3 viewers between them.

It is absolutely a condition of the age of the triumph of conservative personality politics, where entertainers shouting slogans are taken seriously as political actors, and where the incentive structures exist to stomp on dissent and nuance, causing experimental voices to retrench and allowing a lot of people to pretend that the world around them is not changing. The obsession with ACORN, Climategate, death panels, the militarization of rhetoric, Saul Alinsky, Chicago-style politics, that TAXPAYERS will fund the bailout of banks -- these aren't meaningful or interesting or even relevant things to focus on. (The banks will fund their own bailouts.)

No, idiot, consumers will fund the bailouts because banks will pass on any costs to them. Even if you flunked economics, there have been enough of those talking heads you despise informing you that this is the way life works. Or, as William Jacobson so eloquently puts it:

Ambinder lives is a fantasy world where left-wing commentators (including Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow) are serious policy wonks, while all conservative commentators are "entertainers shouting slogans;" where hyperbole is the exclusive refuge of the right-wing; where the vile language and defamation hurled at George Bush for eight years never existed; where the equally vile attempts by Democratic leaders to equate health care protesters to terrorists never happened.

Every day Democratic politicians and left-wing bloggers hurl epithets like "teabagger" and "racist" and "extremist" at political opponents, yet none of that exists in Ambinder's precious little world.

Ambinder cannot seem to understand that being mad is not the same thing as madness. The true madness is the direction in which the Obama administration is taking this country.

Maybe if Ambinder actually watched and listened to voices on the right, he might discover that there are plenty of "reasonable" people there with "reasonable" concerns about what the hell this government is doing. But I guess if you are dumb enough to think Keith Olbermann is some sort of senior statesman, then concern about the direction Democrats are forcing us seems "unreasonable."

The Only Bias Comes From Fox News...

A friend of mine got really excited when Jon Stewart told Fox News to go f*ck themselves, in a monologue that supposedly showed the most popular cable news network's hypocrisy when it comes to generalizing.

The video he sent me came about when I called out the hypocrisy of many of my lefty friends who are scared of the "racism and hatred" they think characterizes all TEA Partiers. I asked one person, who claimed to have witnessed this first hand at a 9/12 protest locally, to explain how he concluded that the smattering of bad behavior he'd seen was a reflection of the protests en toto. His response was that he was "driving by" one and saw two or three signs, such as the infamous Obama witchdoctor poster (which I denounced here,) and therefore concluded that there was so much vile racism around that we should mock and deride everyone protesting the expansion of government. Once I pointed out the obvious stupidity of this smear, the friend didn't want to talk about it anymore.

The Jon Stewart piece begins well enough, poking fun at lefties generalizing about TEA Partiers, but then goes off the rails cherry-picking individual sentences from various programs to point out the supposed hypocrisy of anyone who dislikes the generalizations made by the left about TEA Party supporters.

I love a good generalization, particularly when it stirs up the ire of the left, and so generalizing in general wasn't the point of the argument. Indeed, from my own archives, I can pull out some great and true generalizations about liberals, complete with factual support, but there's a big difference between arguing that conservatives think liberals are misinformed while liberals think conservatives are evil and liberals arguing that TEA Partiers are racists and dangerous.

More to the specific accusation from Jon Stewart, a big lefty in his own right, there are more than a few examples of generalizations made against conservatives with little or no rebuttal than anything said on Fox News. And I don't even have to grab a single sentence to make the point.

When Is Political Involvement Hate Speech?

Why, when you oppose Democrats, of course.

When the healthcare reform bill passed the U.S. House last week by a vote of 220 to 211, it wasn’t hard to find things in it to oppose. This indeed is not a miracle cure. It won’t stop insurance companies from jacking up rates, for instance, but maybe folks like my 85-year-old mother will at least get a break on the cost of her prescription drugs.
But the most heinous thing that happened that day had nothing to do with the legislation itself. It was the vile display of bigotry by protesters at the foot of the Capitol steps. Someone, hiding in the crowd on that Saturday, spat on U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri. Several somebodies shouted the n-word, including to Rep. John Lewis, who was severely beaten during a 1965 civil rights march. And among the signs protesters held was one that said, referring to a senator and to a brand of gun, “If Brown can’t stop it, Browning can.”

No one could positively identify the culprits. The rest of the Tea Party revelers heard no evil, saw no evil, and spoke no evil. But they were doing evil.

Opposition to any piece of legislation is fine. But the brazen display of hateful name-calling and spitting on legislators that has occurred in connection with the bill has no place in our democratic process.

Apologists are quick to disavow these hate-mongers and marginalize them as fringe members of the Tea Party movement, which professes to have legitimate grievances against the federal government. But the heart and soul of the movement is rooted in hate for President Barack Obama — and not because he is a Democrat.

If you read the rest of that piece, you will discover that the only reason anyone opposed Obamacare was because Barack Obama is a half-black man and we're all a bunch of racists. This is nonsense, of course, as is the notion that the Tea Party movement is the new KKK. Plenty of people are unhappy with the direction that Obama and the Democrats are taking us (after all, 46% of Americans didn't vote for Teh One), including a percentage of people who did vote for BO. To call everyone who opposes huge deficits and government control of 1/6 of the economy racists is not just offensive, it's stupid.

Mark Davis notes that the "Tea Partiers are racists" meme is widespread and pervasive, but also illogical:

Their argument is: (A) This movement is filled with vocal people displeased with the way things are going; (B) I can find examples in history of people whose vocal displeasure was fueled by racism. Hence, (C) these people must be fueled by racism.

OK, boys, let's see how you like it: (A) You are fans of ObamaCare; (B) Castro is a fan of ObamaCare, so, (C) you are communists.

And while there may be more than a few communists among Obamacare supporters, it's unlikely that the vast majority of liberals think communism is anything but a discredited evil (well, unless you are Thomas Friedman).

Yet somewhere, sometime, it became unpatriotic to protest or say nasty things about the POTUS? When was that? Evan Coyne Maloney puts the date at January 20, 2009:



Will dissent become patriotic again once a Republican is president?

UPDATE: Victor Davis Hansen has more examples of "patriotic" dissent.

A Tale of Two Protests

Pajamas Media has the tale of two protests held just 250 miles and one week apart. The one in Los Angeles was left-leaning and the one in Searchlight, Nevada was right-leaning. But that's about where the similarities end.

We've been told by the MSM how racist, homophobic and violent the Tea Party movement is, yet I can guarantee you that it is leftwing nutjobs who have set off more bombs and tried harder to overthrown the government.