Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1

An analysis of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans .

Two-hundred thirty-five journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

Searches for other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

And while the money totals pale in comparison to the $9-million-plus that just one union's PACs have spent to get Obama elected, they are more substantial than the amount that Obama has criticized John McCain for receiving from lobbyists: 96 lobbyists have contributed $95,850 to McCain, while Obama — who says he won't take money from PACs or federal lobbyists — has received $16,223 from 29 lobbyists.

A few journalists list their employer as an organization like MSNBC, MSNBC.com or ABC News, or report that they're freelancers for the New York Times, or are journalists for Al Jazeera, CNN Turkey, Deutsche Welle Radio or La Republica of Rome (all contributions to Obama). Most report no employer. They're mainly freelancers. That's because most major news organization have policies that forbid newsroom employees from making political donations.

As if to warn their colleagues in the media, MSNBC last summer ran a story on journalists' contributions to political candidates that drew a similar conclusion:

"Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left."

Butbutbutbut there is no bias in the media!

Howard Stern:‘I Will Never Vote For a Democrat Again’

Stern described a phone conversation he had with his agent, who he described as a “liberal Democrat kind of guy.”

“I go, ‘That’s it!’” Stern said. “[I] go, ‘You know what Don, I’ve voted Republican and I’ve voted Democrat. I have vowed I will never vote for a Democrat again. I don’t give a [expletive] – no matter who they are. I don’t care if God becomes a Democrat.’ I said, ‘I backed Hillary Clinton, I backed Al Gore, I backed John Kerry. I am done with them.’”

Stern took it a step even further and called Democrats on the FCC “communists” and referred to their tactics as “gangsterism.”

“The fact that these Democrats on the FCC are communists,” Stern said. “They’re for communism. They don’t want to see companies – this is gangsterism. I said, ‘This is crazy.’”

Econ 101: What does 'Recession' Mean?

The business community often refers to a recession as a period of two consecutive quarters of decline in real GDP. This will generally follow the identification scheme of the Business-Cycle Dating Committee, but may not always. The Committee also considers the depth of the decline, and uses more indicators than just real GDP. However, a period of six months of declining real GDP will generally be classified as a recession.

There are a few things to notice about the definition of a recession. First, it is not a slowing of growth of GDP. The Committee puts it this way: “It’s more accurate to say that a recession – the way we use the word – is a period of diminishing economic activity rather than diminished activity.”

IF you know anyone who is saying that we are in a recession - show them this article and point out that it is impossible since we are experiencing GROWTH!

Ending Our Oil Addiction: Reality Check

Somethings to think about regarding biofuels . . . .

To replace the US oil consumption for a year with corn ethenol, you would need a farm more than 4 times bigger than the entire united states.

To replace the US oil consumption for one year with sugar cane based biofuels imported from Brazil, you'd have to slash and burn 730,000 square miles of virginal Amazon Rainforest.

Biodiesel? A one months supply would take a farm the size of Texas and California combined.

Switchgrass? A farm the size of Alaska.

Green Algae? A farm the size of Arizona flooded three feet deep with water.

What about electric cars? Just because they do not directly give off "greenhouse gas" emissions does not make them zero emission vehicles. The electric plants give off emissions remember.

SO - DO we want to reduce our food supply and give over large swaths of our country to producing "gas" or do we want to get over this idiocy and drill?

Be sure to read the linked article for an indepth examination of the IDIOCY of biofuels.

NAFTA and politicians - a different take on job loss

MUST READS ON JOBS AND THE ECONOMY

A Good Job Is Not So Hard to Find

Minimum-Wage Hike Would Hurt Low-Wage Workers

Justice Anthony Kennedy and Our Schizophrenic Supreme Court

Is Environmentalism a Bigger Threat than Global Warming?



read'em and pass'em on!

Trying to Put Lipstick on a Pig

Not only do I love the title of this article - but it was a great read as well.

In its early years Planned Parenthood was directed by Margaret Sanger who advocated for a "right" for women to choose to kill their unborn children. She also promoted a Congressional plan which would, in part, "apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."

Sanger wanted to use reproductive controls to halt the "vicious cycle" of poverty and ignorance. She argued, "There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them. Herein lies the key of civilization."

Sanger advocated "choice" as a tool for eugenics. "Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment." Yet she did not believe that this exalted idea of choice should apply to "the undeniably feeble-minded." In other words, Sanger thought the mentally handicapped should be sterilized by force, people should be sterilized to remove unwanted traits from the populace, and the country should seek racial perfection.

Planned Parenthood's modern advocacy of "choice" is rooted in Sanger's lack of regard for the rights of the unborn. Sanger saw "choice" as a means of perfecting America through the destruction of millions of unborn children. Planned Parenthood perpetuates Sanger's legacy by presenting "choice" as a means of improving the lives of individuals and communities by eliminating unwanted, "inconvenient" children. Its clinics dispose of over 200,000 such children per year. The number of abortions provided by Planned Parenthood hit an all-time high in the 2005-2006 fiscal year.

Few people realize the connection that exists between Planned Parenthood and the "science" of Eugenics. Fewer still know that Eugenics is the same justification Hitler used in his search for ubermensch and elimination of undesirable bloodlines such as homosexuals, gypsies, and Jews.

This is an article to pass along. :)

Ethanol: The Fuel to Nowhere

Not only is the concept of using food to power machines horribly STUPID on every level, but the government pushing it and subsidizing is brings new levels to IDIOCY. First off - it's terrible as a fuel. The energy output vs energy input is abysmal and it does absolutely nothing to reduce "greenhouse" emissions. It's all about buying votes and convincing the STUPID that the government cares and is doing something about "the problem."

Advocates of the ethanol program claim that rising corn costs have only contributed modestly to overall food prices. They're not being entirely honest, as they're only counting the direct costs of ethanol. They don't count, for example, increases in soybean prices resulting from farmers switching to the more lucrative corn crop. Soybean crops dropped by 11 million acres last year - much of it used to produce corn.4

The corn growers and Big Ag, flush with new-found cash, have generously increased their campaign contributions, making everyone happy - everyone, that is, but consumers and taxpayers.

Taxpayers are shelling out billions of dollars while getting nothing in return, making ethanol truly a fuel to nowhere.

Worse, the ethanol program is not reducing greenhouse gas emissions as promised, but increasing them. That's according to two new, independent, scientific studies published in the journal Science.

One study, by the University of Minnesota and the Nature Conservancy, concluded that further converting the rainforests, grasslands and savannahs of Southeast Asia and South America to crops for bio-fuels will increase greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps for centuries, while destroying important habitat.

A second study, by researchers at Princeton University, came to a similar conclusion, finding that corn-based ethanol would produce twice the greenhouse gas emissions as conventional gasoline over the next 30 years.

The recently-passed energy bill is expected to create even greater demand for ethanol, since it requires the U.S. to ramp up biofuel production to 36 billion gallons by 2022 from 7.5 billion gallons today.

Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty

* Britain's Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor Will Defy Law Forcing Homosexual Adoption
* Northern Ireland MP Investigated for "Homophobic" Remarks
* Belgian Bishop Cleared of Charges for Church Teaching on Homosexuality
* Alberta Pastor Fined $7000 and Ordered to Publicly Apologize and Remain Silent on Homosexuality
* Canadian Catholic Priest Accused of Hate Crime


Well? How much longer before we have similar laws and criminal charges being leveled here in America?