Investigative journalist James O' Keefe

Investigative journalist James O'Keefe strikes again: The methods and motives of the media elite - in their own words!

(Posted by Bryana Joy on October 27,2011)

James O'Keefe, the investigative journalist who is known for his undercover video stings showing ACORN employees offering advice and assistance to actors posing as child sex traffickers, has been criticized by both conservatives and liberals. The ethics of his tactics and hidden camera techniques are questioned. A smear campaign paints him as a juvenile trouble-maker looking for attention. In short, he's taken a lot of flack.

But, say what you will about O'Keefe himself, the videos don't lie. And he's come out with a phenomenal new series that shows the truth of those things we all know about the mainstream media but don't know how to prove.

Do the truth a favor and tweet/share/re-post this!


The Population Research Institute challenges the overpopulation myth and we hear from Lord Christopher Monckton on truth, science and climate change

(Posted by Bryana Joy on October 23, 2011)

Paul Harris of The Guardian wrote a scare piece yesterday on the possibility of the world’s population reaching 15 billion by 2100.

The United Nations,” he says, “will warn this week that the world's population could more than double to 15 billion by the end of this century, putting a catastrophic strain on the planet's resources unless urgent action is taken to curb growth rates.

At another place in the article he quotes Population Matters chairman Roger Martin,

"Our planet is approaching a perfect storm of population growth, climate change and peak oil. The planet is not actually sustaining 7 billion people."

On their website, Population Matters has more on why baby no. # 7 billion isn’t welcome:

This increase in population puts huge pressure on the environment and makes attempts to address issues such as biodiversity loss and climate change even more difficult.

That’s all very well, but there’s precious little on the site that gets beyond this level of sophisticated language and sentimentalism. There are links to contraception factsheets and charts and graphs showing dead animals and statistics on urban development and world hunger. It is implied that each of these “resources” strengthens the case for population control in some way. But most of what is presented as evidence is merely emotional drivel and I could find no satisfactory answers to my question, how?  How is all of this relevant to population growth and how can you prove it? The entire project is reminiscent of Al Gore’s remarks upon receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007,

“We face a true planetary emergency. The climate crisis is not a political issue - it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is the most dangerous challenge we've ever faced, but it is also the greatest opportunity we have had to make changes."

A certain Adolf Hitler explained haughtily in his infamous manifesto Mein Kampf,

“We must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be extended in this direction….The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses.”

When we hear a statement repeated multiple times it is our tendency as humans to ascribe credibility to the position being put forward.  The more widely broadcasted the story, the easier it is for us to believe it. The fancier and more hip the website, the more likely we are to consider its organization legitimate. We don’t want to do too much work, too much research. We don’t want to go digging through any archives. We just want to be told what to do. We are the masses Hitler referred to with such smug self-satisfaction. And we are being deceived.

Let me introduce you to a staunch defender of truth, a man who has done incredible work to advance the cause of real science, a brilliant speaker who is entertaining as well as informative, a climate change skeptic whom Al Gore refuses to debate. My friends, I present to you Lord Christopher Monckton, speaking in St. Paul, Minnesota just two years ago. “Science is not a belief system,” he says, “It’s a rigorous process of inquiry…The truth is the truth whether you or I or anyone believes it or not…The truth alone is worthy of our entire devotion”:

If you don’t have a spare hour-and-a-half right now, bookmark this video and come back. If you’re truly interested in educating yourself not only on climate change issues but on scientific practices and media coverage in general, this is one of the best uses of an hour-and-a-half that I can think of. You will laugh, you will be enlightened, and, chances are, you will come away just a bit shocked.

While Population Matters may not be very excited about baby no. # 7 billion’s first birthday, the Population Research Institute is asking everybody to please calm down and welcome the newest addition with a little more enthusiasm. Things aren’t as bad as they seem, the PRI crew contends. Or rather, the danger we’re facing isn’t overpopulation but underpopulation. No, really. Check it out:

And think about it.

Thomas Sowell
81-year-old columnist and economist Thomas Sowell offers some wise comments on the entitlement mentality of the occupy crowd and the fallacy of long-term government "help"

(Posted by Bryana Joy on October 17, 2011)

This is a man whom I greatly respect and admire. I've enjoyed reading his books and you'll find some of them listed on our booklist. He brings sanity and consistent ideology to the chaotic fields of economics and sociology.

If you're interested in my stance on the Occupy Movement, check out yesterday's post.

Occupy Wall Street protestors

thoughts on the Occupy Wall Street movement and a call for heightened and enthusiastic action by conservatives

(Posted by Bryana Joy on October 16, 2011)

If you follow The High Tide Journal on twitter, you probably already know that I’m uber skeptical of the Occupiers and more than ready to poke fun at the inconsistencies and outrageous behaviors that have embarrassed the movement. As I haven’t attended any of the rallies, I don’t have any firsthand experience of what exactly is going on, but I’ve seen the pictures and videos presented by both sides of the political divide.  

While the Daily Mail showcases a gallery of photos that depict the Occupiers as orderly citizens cleaning up after themselves, abused by the police, and willingly enduring hardships in order to effectively protest corporate greed and government corruption, Breitbart shares video footage of Occupy activists who are apparently confused about the purpose of the movement, activists who are well-known anti-Semites, and activists who call themselves Marxist communists and socialists. Todd Kinsey shares photos of far greater embarrassments. Most recently, this hysterical clip of a superlatively agitated Occupy protestor has been triumphantly broadcasted by conservative bloggers as an example of the general Occupy attitude -- although I imagine that even some some liberals got a laugh out of it.

I want people to protest. I want people to line the streets, and make noise and throng in numbers and say “NO,” to the bloodsucking government system, the evil and corrupt corporate partnerships, the crony capitalism. Unfortunately, now that the nation is beginning to rise up on a wide scale and make the headlines, many of those in the spotlight are irresponsible and greedy individuals who are not motivated by sound principles but simply driven by jealousy. Many are socialists who don’t respect liberty but, in fact, want more government involvement. Many don’t respect free markets and aren’t just protesting crony capitalism but capitalism in general. Some are Nazis. What to do with this motley and confused crowd?

I’m afraid that some of my friends on the right are missing out on an excellent opportunity. Rather than demonizing the protests by choosing to zoom in on only the discrepancies, the Nazis, the unions, the entitlement mentality, the hippies and the punks, could we not agree with the Occupy crowd that resistance is in order and host protests of our own that center around the same general premise: opposition to the greed and corruption of the 1%?  Could we not try to leverage out the overtly leftist demands by making demands of our own – demands that intentionally respect liberty but still come against the evil in Washington and on Wall Street? Do we not want conservative voices joining in the uproar against all of this madness? Or is the Occupy movement so irredeemable that we prefer to stand on the side of the establishment?

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t ask us to join hands and sing Kum-Ba-Yah with Nazis, with Lisa Fithian, with flag-desecraters, or with Marxists. In fact, that’s the last thing I want. Rather, I ask of those who truly love America: Don’t you find it frightening that the USA seethes with so many who are confused about freedom and the purpose of government? Do you want these to be the only ones standing up and saying, “ENOUGH”?

I’m eager to hear others’ thoughts and opinions on this, so please share. Am I wrong? Let me know!

Susan G. Komen Foundation's Logo

Questions about the Susan G. Komen Foundation's donations to abortion provider Planned Parenthood, the controversy of the abortion-breast cancer link, and more lousy Wikipedia coverage

(Posted by Bryana Joy on October 11, 2011)

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and the Susan G. Komen Foundation is busy plastering pink ribbons on grocery items and billboards all over the country. The foundation raises millions of dollars annually through donations from others who share their stated vision of a “world without breast cancer,”  but some have recently raised questions about the appropriateness of Komen giving big bucks to the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

In the 2009/2010 fiscal year, the Susan G. Komen foundation donated over 600,000 dollars to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. What does Planned Parenthood have to do with breast cancer? Well, you know, mammograms. Planned Parenthood provides mammograms for low-income women, right?

Wrong. Here’s the response that a Live Action actor got when she called 30 Planned Parenthood clinics in 27 different states to ask about mammograms:

Physicians for Life explains:

                        Why? Because they can’t. Planned Parenthood is a level one breast service provider.                                      What does that mean?  It simply means that Planned Parenthood clinics are ONLY                                         allowed to provide manual breast exams. You know, the kind you do in the shower. The                             kind you can get from any nurse or physician in any clinic. 

                        [PP] cannot provide any sort of diagnostic services…no biopsies, no breast ultrasounds,                           AND no mammograms.  That is the truth.  That is a FACT.

So no, it’s not mammograms. Nevertheless, Planned Parenthood does have a connection to breast cancer. What is it? Well, it’s abortion.  Did you know that many scientists believe abortion raises a woman’s chance of contracting breast cancer by 30%? It’s a fact that abortion providers like the Planned Parenthood Federation of America don’t want you to know.

Kathy Ostrowski wrote an excellent and compelling scientific piece on the controversial issue of the Abortion-Breast Cancer link over at Lifenews.com yesterday. She breaks down the issue into simple terms so that the most uninformed layman
can understand the connection. I consider this article a must-read for anyone who is truly interested in being intellectually honest about the issue of breast cancer.

“At my mammogram last week, I was asked a series of questions as part of the exam…”

says Kathy,

"I was asked:

                                1.       at what age did my period begin and menopause begin;
                                2.       how many pregnancies did I have;
                                3.       how many children were living;
                                4.       had I ever used oral contraceptives or post-menopausal hormones.

That is because any honest expert understands that breast cancer is largely an ‘estrogen’ story, and the questions all reflect that.

She then goes on to explain, in concise and accessible terminology, the medical reasons behind the theory of the abortion-breast cancer link.

Estrogen surges at puberty, decreases at menopause, and rises 2000% above monthly peaks during each pregnancy except during nearly all pregnancies that naturally miscarry in the first trimester. Estrogen is also affected by birth-control and menopausal hormonal regimens.

Estrogen multiplies breast cells and breast cells are vulnerable to cancer-causing agents until they mature by having become milk-producing cells.  This is why the World Health Organization has taught for over 50 years that the first, full-term birth gives the mother the strongest life-long protection from breast cancer.

The carefully-posed question #3 about living children is supposed to deduce the number of miscarriages and induced abortions. They are not the same biological events.

Miscarriages in the first trimester are predominantly due to a lack of estrogen, and thus do not increase breast cells. Later -term natural miscarriages and induced abortions (in all stages) end the pregnancy, but they leave the mother with MORE un-matured (cancer-vulnerable) breast cells than she had before pregnancy.

Although lowering one’s statistical risk of breast cancer is not a reason to become pregnant, it sure is information pertinent to remaining pregnant. In fact, breast surgeon Dr. Angela LanFranchi writes,

               'It amounts to child abuse to take a teenager in a crisis pregnancy for an abortion. At best, it                     will give her a 30% risk of breast cancer in her lifetime. At worst, if she also has a family                         history of breast cancer, it will nearly guarantee this. As a mother, I need to be informed of                    this to protect my daughter.' "

Sadly for women and young girls at risk, this issue is so emotionally charged for so many that objective research seems to have been neglected. Many big-time information sources refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a link between abortion and breast cancer. Wikipedia states,
            The Susan G. Komen organization allows its affiliates to award grants to Planned                                             Parenthood and other clinics. This partnership has garnered criticism from some pro-life                     advocates because Planned Parenthood also provides abortion and birth control services.                         More recent studies reported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes for                 Heath show that there are no links between breast cancer and abortion. Komen says its                            affiliates provide funds for screening, education and treatment programs in dozens of                                 communities in which Planned Parenthood is the only place that poor, uninsured or under-                insured women can receive these services.

While the author of this encyclopedia piece attempts to come across as objective, they neglect to add that the issue is hardly cut and dried and that there is debate within the established scientific community concerning the abortion-breast cancer link. The Association of American Physicians

and Surgeons states that,              

              While there is a difference of medical opinion concerning the abortion breast cancer link,                       there is a considerable volume of evidence supporting this link, which is, moreover, highly                    plausible. We believe that a reasonable person would want to be informed of the existence                    of this evidence before making her decision.

An article entitled, "The Abortion-Breast Cancer Link: How Politics Trumped Science and Informed Consent," was published by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

Many other medical organizations, including the National Physicians Center for Family Resources 
, the Polycarp Research Institute, the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, and the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, also recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer.

The Komen Foundation, doubtless realizing that many potential donors were being scared away by the fact that the foundation funds an abortion provider, issued a statement explaining their relationship with Planned Parenthood. Among other things, they said:

                Under no circumstances are Komen funds used to fund abortions or other non-breast                                 services…

The fact that anyone would actually swallow this story leaves me truly despondent, but the American Life League
has already debunked this popular misconception so eloquently that I’ll allow them to take the stage for a moment:

To conclude, there is one really big reason to think twice about donating to the Susan G. Komen foundation – even if you’re pro-choice: it just doesn’t seem appropriate for a fundraising group dedicated to eradicating breast cancer to give money to an organization performing surgeries that may be linked to breast cancer.

Especially since that organization doesn’t even provide mammograms in the first place.

For Further Reading:

Check out the research compiled by the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer

National Cancer Institute Researcher Admits Abortion Breast Cancer Link

Helpful links and articles on the Abortion-Breast Cancer Link and Pink Money foundations like Komen for the Cure

Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., writes about The Reasons Hormonal Contraceptives and Induced Abortion Increase Breast-Cancer Risk

School shooting suspect, Bruco Eastwood

Jurors find school shooter "not guilty by reason of insanity" - are we quickly forgetting the lessons we should have learned from Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris at Columbine High School?

(Posted by Bryana Joy on October 08, 2011)

“It’s complicated,” says Andrea Lopez of CBS News with regards to the case of school shooting suspect Bruco Eastwood. The Colorado man open fired on students of Deer Creek Middle School in February of 2010, wounding two 8th graders before he was tackled by math teacher David Benke. He was charged with 15 crimes.

Eastwood has a history of mental illness and run-ins with the law. His peculiar behaviors were noted by his father and others who knew him, and his rambling journals refer to “mutants and transformers” who were “taking over his body.” The prosecution, however, has argued that he was fully aware of what he was doing and intended the attack deliberately. It has been speculated that Eastwood, who attended the Deer Creek Middle School in the 1990s and was bullied by classmates, planned the assault as an act of revenge. Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Jensen said that during two hours of videotaped questioning with investigators, Eastwood repeatedly said he that knew what he did was wrong, and that he had hatred and anger.

“It’s complicated because what jurors are going to have to decide is whether Eastwood knew the difference between right and wrong at the time of the shooting,” Lopez said on Wednesday as she covered the story live in front of the Jefferson County Justice Center.

But I’m not so sure that it is all that complicated.

Call me crazy, but it seems to me that whether or not the suspect knew right from wrong is largely irrelevant. Eastwood clearly meant to commit a crime and, were it not for the brave intervention of the mathematics teacher who tackled him, would probably have ended up murdering children. Did he “know” that his object was criminal and wrong? How can that matter at all?

Let us suppose, for the purpose of making the case clearer, that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris didn’t “know” that their killing spree at Columbine High School in 1999 was criminal and wrong, but had persuaded themselves that what they were planning to do was just and justifiable. What does that change for the dead victims and their bereaved families?

Bruco Eastwood’s case is a happy one because in the same county where Klebold and Harris massacred 13 people 12 years ago, he was spared, through no act of his own, from bringing the blood of his would-be victims down upon his misguided head. However, this lucky outcome in no way mitigates the seriousness of his intentions.

According to the Huffington Post, Jurors on Wednesday found Eastwood not guilty by reason of insanity on all but one charge: possession of a weapon on school grounds. District Attorney Scott Storey said he will remain at the state hospital for an indeterminate time until he is deemed legally sane and released. His case will be reviewed every six months. Storey added that the average stay in the state hospital for homicide cases is 7 1/2 years and that, in Eastwood's case, it could be less.

Two things to mull over (that have me confused!):

-Why on earth should insanity render a person suddenly “not guilty” of something they indisputably did?

-Who thinks it a good idea for this guy to be back out on the street in seven years or less?

Canadian National Post apologized for running this ad

A detailed look at the Toronto District School Board's K-12 curriculum, Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism, 
including a link to the full program -- parents not allowed to opt kids out of these classes!

(Posted by Bryana Joy on October 06, 2011)

When the Toronto District School Board revealed their new “anti-homophobia curriculum” (Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism: A K-12 Curriculum), many people were understandably disturbed. Naturally, things only got worse when the news came out in June that parents would not be able to opt their kids out of the program – not even their kindergarteners.  

According to the The Toronto District School Board's website:

The Toronto District School Board has approved an Equity Policy Statement which requires that ideals related to anti-homophobia and sexual orientation equity be reflected in all aspects of organizational structures, policies, guidelines, procedures, classroom practices, day-to-day operations, and communication practices

I highly recommend that you check out the curriculum resource guide, which is available online here.
In fact, I can’t recommend it highly enough. I hope you won’t leave this page until you have at least skimmed through this guide and read as much as you can stomach without becoming nauseated.

It includes statements and explanations like the following:

Can Schools/Teachers Choose Not To Address Controversial Issues For Fear Of Negative Parent Response?

No. Teachers are obligated to address all equity issues (issues regarding historically disadvantaged groups). Any omissions that maintain a non-inclusive curriculum and pedagogy are considered to foster a poisoned environment under Section 4.2 of the TDSB Human Rights Policy.

Should Schools Send Notes Or Permission Slips Home Before Starting Any Classroom Work About Curricular Issues That May Involve Discussions About Discrimination and Harassment?

No. The TDSB Equity Foundation Statement and Commitments to Equity Policy Implementation states that each school has a responsibly [sic] to education that reflects the diversity of its students and their life experiences. Singling out one group or topic area as too controversial, and depending upon parent/guardian/caregiver discretion, shifts this responsibility from the school to the parents/ guardians/caregivers and fosters a poisoned environment contrary to the TDSB Human Rights Policy.

Should Schools Send Notes Or Permission Slips Home Before Starting any Classroom Work On LGBTQ Issues?

No. If a school treats the topic of sexual orientation or anti-homophobia work differently from the range of other curriculum topics, this could be construed as discriminatory practice. Anti-homophobia education is mandated in all our schools through the Equity Foundation Statement and Commitments to Equity Policy Implementation, the Human Rights Policy, and the Gender-Based Violence Prevention Policy.

Can A Parent Have Their Child Accommodated Out Of Human Rights Education Based On Religious Grounds?

No. "Religious accommodation" in the TDSB is carried out in the larger context of the secular education system. While the TDSB works to create a school system free from religious discrimination, this freedom is not absolute. The TDSB will limit practices or conduct in its schools that may put public safety, health, or the human rights and freedoms of others at risk.

As well, the TDSB will limit practices or conducts in its schools that are in violation of its other policies. For example, if a parent asks for his or her child to be exempted for any discussions of LGBTQ family issues as a religious accommodation, this request cannot be made because it violates the Human Rights Policy. Furthermore, this is consistent with the ideal that human rights education is an essential strategy for preventing human rights abuses.

Can Teachers Seek Accommodation From Teaching Materials That May Contradict Their Religious Beliefs?

No. The TDSB is part of the secular public education system. Teachers are equally responsible for delivering curriculum created by the provincial Ministry of Education and to supporting the TDSB policies, which more accurately reflect the educational needs of our student population.

The delivery of curriculum related to human rights issues must be consistent with the Ontario Human Rights Code, the TDSB Human Rights Policy, and the Equity Foundation Statement and Commitments to Equity Policy Implementation.

Failure to do so is contrary to the obligations outlined for teachers on page 4 of the TDSB Human Rights Policy. Teachers refusing to create an inclusive classroom that is safe and supportive for all students would create a poisoned learning environment.

Needless to say, the curriculum is loaded with propaganda and indoctrination. In 3rd grade, it is recommended that students read the book Gloria Goes To Gay Pride.  Students are encouraged to have their own “Pride Parade” in their school.

In one place teachers are told to:

Encourage girls and boys to role-play opposite roles, or to role-play animals or objects, or even parts of nature. Also, caution students to avoid portraying stereotypical images or behaviours in their tableaux. At times boys may play girls and rely on sexist stereotypical behaviour with which they are familiar.

The program tells students:

You can’t choose to be gay or straight but you can choose to ‘come out’.

Here's one story that the curriculum uses to introduce kids to “unfairness”:

Edith’s Situation
It’s December and Edith’s teacher has the students singing Christmas songs that are not religious, like O Christmas Tree, Deck the Halls, Santa Claus is Coming to Town. Almost everyone in the class likes the songs and knows the words. Edith is Jewish and does not celebrate Christmas. In fact, she celebrates Hanukkah but no one in the class even knows what that is.

• Why was Edith left out?

• How do you think it made Edith feel?

• How was Edith treated unfairly?

If you’re a parent, or hope to be a parent one day, how does it make you feel that this resource guide encourages teachers to trample on your rights to oversee your child’s education?  Do you feel left out when your child's curriculum warns teachers that your parental discretion fosters a "poisoned learning environment"?
Do you feel like you’re being treated unfairly when teachers are told not to inform you that your child is about to go through a controversial program? Do you think your child is being treated fairly?

If you’re a teacher, how does it make you feel that Toronto teachers aren’t allowed to choose not to teach this curriculum? If you are a Christian and opposed to the homosexual lifestyle, do you feel left out? Do you feel like you’re being treated unfairly?

The Institute for Canadian Values doesn’t feel that this is fair at all. They paid for an advertisement to be run by the Canadian National Post. The ad features a little girl’s face with the words:

I’m a girl. Please! Don’t confuse me. Don’t teach me to question if I’m a boy, transsexual, transgendered, intersexed, or two-spirited. 

At the bottom of the ad, there is information about the new curriculum.

This week the National Post pulled the ad and wrote an apology for running it. They announced that they were donating the proceeds from the ad to a homosexual rights group.

How does that make you feel?

It makes me feel like crying.

If you’d like to contact The National Post and express your concerns over their stance, you can find names, phones, mailing addresses, and e-mails here.

If you’d like to contact political officials, the Toronto District School Board, the Minister of Education, or other parties involved in this issue, here is relevant information:

Political campaign offices:

Dalton McGuinty
Phone: (800) 268-7250
Fax: (416) 323-9425
Email: info@ontarioliberal.ca

Tim Hudak
Phone: 416-861-0020
Toll-free: 1-800-903-6453
Fax: 416-861-9593
Email: comments@ontariopc.net

Andrea Horwarth
Phone: 416-591-8637
Toll free: 1-866-390-6637 (ONDP)
Fax: 416-599-4820
Email: douellette@on.ndp.ca

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky, Minister of Education
Mowat Block, 22nd Flr, 900 Bay St
Toronto, ON M7A 1L2
Tel: 1-800-387-5514 (TTY 1-800-263-2892)
Fax: 416-325-6348
Email: ldombrowsky.mpp@liberal.ola.org

Elizabeth Witmer, Education Critic
Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario
Rm 422, Main Legislative Building
Toronto ON M7A 1A8
Tel: 416-325-1306
Fax: 416-325-1329
E-mail: Use this form (http://elizabethwitmermpp.ca/contact/)

Chris Spence, Director of Education
Toronto District School Board
5050 Yonge Street - 5th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M2N5N8
Email:  chris.spence@tdsb.on.ca

Chris Bolton
Chair of the TDSB Board
Ph: 416-397-3100
Email: chris@chrisbolton.ca

Click here to sign a petition asking officials to commit to permanently removing this curriculum.

2012 Presidential Candidate Herman Cain

Herman Cain's recent TeaCon straw poll win and some questions about whether major media networks are picking up on who the conservative voters really want for 2012

(Posted by Bryana Joy on October 04, 2011)

After watching the September 22nd Orlando GOP debate on Fox News, I hung around the site for a bit and listened to various commentators discuss what had transpired on the stage. I was surprised at what I heard, to say the least. No, to state it plainly, I was shocked.

While I felt that Herman Cain, Ron Paul, and even the oddly out of place and pro-choice Gary Johnson were connecting with the people more effectively and collecting more audience enthusiasm than either Romney or Perry, this was apparently not so. On the contrary, Romney and Perry were still “the two front-runners,” and pretty much all of the post-debate discussion by the Fox News commentators concerned them.

The live comment stream flooding the page, however, told a different story. As I watched the viewers’ comments pour in for about five minutes, I found more support for Herman Cain and Ron Paul than even I was expecting. “Now watch the mainstream media try to shove Perry and Romney down our throats,” wrote several indignant commenters.

Of course, now we all know that Herman Cain won the Florida GOP straw poll on the 24th. Did that change anything? Hardly.

On Sunday evening, Kasie Hunt of the Associated Press wrote:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's entry into the 2012 presidential race could dramatically reshape what has become a two-man race between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry.

Wait, what?

Ironically, the poll results of the first ever TeaCon straw poll came out at about the time I read this AP article, with Herman Cain getting a whopping 77% of the vote! No candidate in this campaign has yet captured even close to 77% of any straw poll vote. And was the closest runner-up Mitt Romney, or Rick Perry? Well, my friends, as it turns out, the closest runner-up was Michele Bachmann.

Now, what two-man race was that again?

Jon Stewart picked up on some of the selective reporting in this morbidly amusing expose of Fox News’ attitude about libertarian candidate Ron Paul:


Breitbart: Shock new photos --  Candidate Obama appeared and marched with the New Black Panther Party in 2007. And who is the "other" Malik Shabazz in the White House guest logbook?

(Posted by Bryana Joy on October 03, 2011)

Breitbart has done it again: pulled out a new story that actually matters.

Read all about it in this collection of articles from BigGovernment:

The "shock new photos."

Who is the New Black Panther Party?


Which Malik Shabazz visited the White House in 2009?

But OH, whatever you do, don't miss Mark Levin's delightful and hysterical five minutes of commentary here. He phrases it in such a way that the truth becomes a laugh waiting to happen.

President Obama

President Obama talks to the LGBT community at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, clearly doesn't realize that his statement is riddled with errors

(Posted by Bryana Joy on October 03, 2011)

Well, well, well. New fun fact about the President: he doesn't read Ann Coulter. If he did, Mr. Obama would know that the argument he's presenting here to the LGBT community at the Human Rights Campaign's annual dinner has already been thoroughly debunked.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...