The BBC commissioned a report to determine whether it was truly biased. The result? It is truly biased.
The BBC has failed to promote proper debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff, a report commissioned by the corporation has concluded.
No word yet on when American MSM will be ready to confess as well. (UPDATE: Maybe it’s happening)
A staff impartiality seminar held last year is also documented in the report, at which executives admitted they would broadcast images of the Bible being thrown away but not the Koran, in case Muslims were offended.
Probably because Christians don’t respond with exploding vests and sharp knives across the throat…
Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser says he sees nothing wrong with accepting the free use of a car from a local Honda dealership, but some ethics experts say the deal — while legal — is troubling.
So why is the elected official taking the gift from a corporation?
Funkhouser said he cannot afford a new car.
Really?
The dealership will still own the car and replace it as often as annually. Taxpayers will continue to pay a $600-a-month car allowance to the mayor.
So what does the Democrat have to say about this improper gift?
“It is a nice new car,” he said. “The new mayor is not mentally challenged. Somebody offers you a brand new car you take it.”
Of course you do… even if you’re an elected public official and it might affect public confidence in your office.
Then again, being a Democrat, maybe there wasn’t any confidence to begin with…
Looks like the crisis in Darfur is just another catastrophe engineered by SUVs and incandescent lightbulbs.
THE slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizon, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says in an article published today.
Whatever you do, don’t blame it on the religion of peace, whose members have launched attacks on civilians and driven them into makeshift villages in the Saharan desert.
Can you believe how intolerant and insensitive Republicans can be towards the homeless population? They’ve even gone so far as to pass an initiative criminalizing homelessness:
The Public Commons for Everyone Initiative passed 9-0 after months of debate among the council, homeless advocates, merchants and residents. The council instructed City Manager Phil Kamlarz to develop details of the implementation, which he will bring back to the council for further approval.
“This is a tolerant and caring community, but we do have our boundaries,'’ said Mayor Tom Bates, the legislation’s sponsor. “As a small city, we can never solve the drug and alcohol problems that play out on our streets, but this is one thing we can do.”
The initiative cracks down on a wide range of behavior that some say make Berkeley’s streets inhospitable to residents and visitors alike. Among the activities that will be banned are smoking near buildings in commercial areas, lying on the sidewalk, public urination and defecation, drinking in public, possessing a shopping cart and shouting in public.
What a joke. Tolerance has limits? Who knew? It’s as if they don’t care about those without homes, who are forced to sleep in the streets, eat from dumpsters and become addicted to drugs and alcohol. It’s like they don’t want to help them, they just want to move them out of eyesight and ignore their plight. What happened to culture? Diversity? Caring for the less fortunate?
Those heartless Republi…. wait, what? It’s the city council of Berkeley, California… the liberal bastion of the world?
Oh, then nevermind… that makes it the acceptable kind of intolerance then. Nothing to see here.
The big debate between liberals and conservatives isn’t whether there are folks in need or if we should try and help them… the question is whether the federal government is the best mechanism for confiscating money from some and redistributing to others.
Here’s just another example of why the answer is clearly no.
Some of America’s rich and famous are padding their bank accounts with government money meant for working farmers. A watchdog group in Washington unveiled an internet database that pinpoints where the government is giving away farm subsidies on Tuesday.
You may be surprised to see who’s getting money and where.
[…] NBA superstar Scottie Pippen got $289,000. Late Night host David Letterman got $8,000, but gave it to charity. Even the estate of the legendary penny pinching comedian Jack Benny got a bigger piece of the government pie than sheep farmer Leo Tammi.
Tammi gets just $500 a year.
I sure hope the Democrats get a chance to pass their tax increase so I can feel better knowing our retired, multimillionaire athletes are being properly cared for.
“it was an Iraq-based group that masterminded the assassination attempt against Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom”
“the terrorists who masterminded the attack on the Achille-Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer, fled with Iraqi assistance“
“the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came directly from Baghdad with suitcase bombs”
“[Saddam Hussein] was not only promoting terrorism, but was also pursuing a nuclear weapons program“
“Iraqi aircraft intentionally attacked the USS Stark in May of 1987 killing 37 sailors”
“Bush deserves heavy blame for intentionally concealing from the American people the clear nature of Saddam Hussein and his regime and for convincing himself that friendly relations with such a monster would be possible, and for persisting in this effort far, far beyond the point of folly”
“Saddam used poison gas on the Kurdish town of Halabja, brutally murdering some 5,000 innocent men, women, and children”
And Gore reminds us about the tough stand he took regarding Iraq:
“I, myself, went to the Senate floor twice demanding tough action”
It’s clear why a tough stance would be needed against Iraq, afterall…
“…the CIA reported to Secretary of State Baker and other top Bush administration officials that Iraq was clandestinely procuring nuclear weapons technology through a global network of front companies. Did all of this make any impression at all on President Bush? Did his judgment on foreign policy come into play when he was told that this nation, with a record of terrorism continuing, was making a sustained, concerted effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, and biological? Well, evidently not, because in the midst of this flood of highly alarming information from the CIA, the Defense Department, the Energy Department, the Commerce Department, the Justice Department, the State Department, other agencies throughout the government, on October 2nd, 1989, President Bush signed a document known as NSD 26, which established the policy toward Iraq under his administration.
…and the money quote of the day:
Saddam had every reason to assume that Bush would look the other way no matter what he did. He had already launched poison gas attacks repeatedly, and Bush looked the other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush had looked the other way. He was already deeply involved in the effort to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, and Bush knew it, but he looked the other way. Well, in my view, the Bush administration was acting in a manner directly opposite to what you would expect with all of the evidence that it had available to it at the time. Saddam Hussein’s nature and intentions were perfectly visible.
Ok, so it was 1992 and Gore was blasting the first President Bush…
So for those of you keeping score at home:
The first President Bush deserves blame for not taking action against Iraq despite mountains of evidence of its ties to terrorism and involvement in WMD programs while the second President Bush not only deserves blame for taking action, but is also now accused of making up the evidence, much of which existed a decade before he became President.
Just more proof that Democrats don’t really stand for anything and will always campaign on the “whatever the Republican did is bad” strategy.
By the way, if President George H.W. Bush deserves blame for not taking action against Saddam Hussein, how much blame shall we unload on the Clinton-Gore administration that had 8 years after this speech to do it… yet failed to.
Afterall, “Saddam Hussein’s nature and intentions were perfectly visible”, right Al?
The words “natural family,” “marriage” and “union of a man and a woman” can be punished as “hate speech” in government workplaces, according to a lawsuit that is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
[…]
A U.S. District Court for Northern California ruling said the words “natural family” and “marriage” had “anti-homosexual import.”
However, Miss Rederford was told she could announce the group’s presence on the city’s e-mail system if she removed “verbiage that could be offensive to gay people.”
On a positive note, if offensive verbiage were banned, we’d be hearing a lot less from liberals.
Hillary Clinton has named Alcee Hastings as one of her national Campaign Co-Chairs.
The Clinton Campaign today announced that Florida Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Congressman Alcee Hastings have been named national Campaign Co-Chairs.
In 1981 Judge Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He was acquitted by a jury after his alleged co-conspirator, William Borders, refused to testify in court (resulting in a jail sentence for Borders).
In 1988, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. Voters to impeach included Democratic Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and Charles Rangel. He was then convicted in 1989 by the United States Senate, becoming the sixth federal judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate.
I guess it’s only fitting that someone who’s been impeached would head up a Clinton campaign.
