Thursday, August 11, 2005

I think it was Barbara Walters who unwittingly gave away the leftist media's secret the other night while supposedly heaping high praise on the newly dead Peter Jennings. Between gushes of admiration and sighs of sorrow not seen since the apostles lost their Lord, Walters waxed poetic about this Canadian-born socialist whose mother had raised him to hate America. On and on she went until, near the end, she offered the highest praise a leftist could fathom: "What made Peter great was that he knew there was no such thing as the truth."

If there is no such thing as the truth then what was Jennings using as the basis for his reporting? Republicans know. He made it up. Or better yet, he, like the rest of the Old Media simply cherry-picked, spun and invented whatever was necessary to prove the truth -- which is that there is no truth.

The agenda of the Modern Liberal is to provide whatever misinformation and disinformation is required to disabuse the dolts and bigots who think truth exists. You think America is good? Well we'll show you it isn't by rerunning stories of Abu Gharaib for months at a time. You think democracy is good? We'll ignore the horrors of the Arab world and paint a democratic Israel that is the villain. You think God is good? We'll paint every religious figure as a fanatic (unless it's an Islamists then we'll just ignore the horrors coming out of their mouths on a daily basis).

To get Jennings -- to get the compliment that Walters thought she was giving her just fallen idol -- is to get why Nancy Pelosi gives standing ovations to lie-filled, anti-American propaganda films. It is to get why Dick Durbin ignores atrocities committed against Americans but calls our troops "Nazis." It is to get why Ted Kennedy screams the most vicious slanders about America at every opportunity. It is to get why the Democrats have become the party of liars.

After all, when there is no truth then what is a lie, anyway? Besides, they're lying for a bigger truth (which is that there is no truth) so therefore they're telling the truth by lying. The mission of the Modern Liberal -- from Ward Churchill to Dick Durbin to Dan Rather to Howell Raines to Nancy Pelosi to Ted Kennedy to Michael Moore to Peter Jennings is to convey "the truth" (that there is no truth) no matter how many lies it takes.

26 comments:

Pancho said...

Very ably and succinctly put! I still know some of the liberal persuasion who are thoughtful open minded good citizens, but the Democratic leadership, I fear, have lost their minds. Or perhaps their principles..or both.

Evan Sayet said...

Pancho

The Democratic Party is dominated by what I call "Modern Liberals." The best way to understand them is that they subscribe to the "multiculturalist" ideal that all people, cultures and forms of government are equally good and equally right.

Since all things are equally good and equally right the only reason some things succeed is because they cheated. The only possible reason for failure is that they were victimized.

So the Democrat -- out of a sense of justice -- will side ALWAYS with that which is wrong, evil and/or failed and attack ALWAYS that which is good, right and/or successful.

Since America is good, right AND successful America is the Democrats' biggest target.

MiamiMiami said...

Here is a GREAT article on Peter Jennings. It's a little lengthy but it is what he was with regards to being a reporter. For the record outside of his job of being a reported I wish him nothing but peace. I don't wish anything bad on the dead but it is important to report what he was when he reported the news...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Peter Jennings' Unfortunate Legacy
By Debbie Schlussel
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 11, 2005


It's sad when anyone dies of cancer, but we cant' let the human side of the Peter Jennings story obscure his real "achievements."

While the rest of the world is blindly singing Jennings' praises, here's a reality check: Peter Jennings did more for the cause of Islamic terrorism than any media figure today. And that's nothing to celebrate, honor, or even memorialize.

It is no coincidence that al-Jazeera's chief Washington correspondent praised ABC -- and Jennings, in particular -- for their "objectivity." Before there was al-Jazeera, there was Peter Jennings.

From the beginning of Jennings' career until his death, his biased coverage went beyond the pale, bending over backward in "understanding" the terrorists who hate us -- from seeing "their side" when he covered the seige and then murder of innocent Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics to honoring an al-Qaeda operative with a prized "commentator" spot during Jennings coverage of the 9/11 attacks.

Throughout Jennings' coverage of the attacks, he frequently featured a man named Tariq Hamdi (whose commentary urged understanding for the radical Muslim world), identifying Hamdi only as "journalist" on the chyron.

But, in fact, Jennings' friend Hamdi was no journalist at all. As I've written, Hamdi was an accused Bin Laden associate and employed by Sami al-Arian, the head of Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the United States.

According to prosecutors and documents in the 1998 trial of the Osama bin Laden bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa (the 7th anniversary of which was yesterday), Hamdi provided Bin Laden a satellite battery instrumental in those bombings. He's also an unindicted co-conspirator with Islamic Jihad financial head Sami al-Arian, who employed him at his Islamic "charity" fronts at the University of South Florida. Hamdi was also an employee of a Saudi-funded charity raided by Customs agents for allegedly laundering billions to al-Qaeda through the Isle of Man.

Jennings mentioned absolutely nothing about Hamdi's disturbing activities, but did note that Hamdi was his friend and repeatedly featured Hamdi in post-9/11 ABC News broadcasts. This is the type of "journalist" and "commentator" Jennings frequently employed in his so-called newscast of which he was an all-controlling editor.

Now the Washington Post repeats what I've said about Hamdi, but adds more. Days ago, Hamdi was indicted for immigration and mortgage-loan fraud. While failing to mention Jennings, the Post also adds, "ABC did not respond to a request for more information about its relationship with Hamdi." The recently unsealed indictment also mentions that Hamdi was the U.S. representative for the Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights in Saudi Arabia, "a London-based organization that has embraced many of bin Laden's views," according to the Post.

That's a "journalist" in what was "The World According to Peter Jennings."

(Hamdi has now fled the U.S. Don't count on him coming back to face justice. Question for ICE press flack, Dean Boyd: Why was Tariq Hamdi allowed to leave the U.S.?)

I always say, pillow talk is the most effective form of political speech. And it apparently had its effect on Jennings early on. When developing and heading up ABC's Beirut headquarters, Jennings "dated" Palestinian Hanan Ashrawi. And it colored his insidious, anti-American, anti-Israel coverage ever since.

Then there were the sneers, the sneers of a Canadian high school drop-out for anything conservative, anything mainstream, anything pro-Western, pro-America, pro-Israel, etc. Jennings' sneers and snide comments were always evident for those who did not meet his very left-of-center point of view. A great example was his sneering during the 2000 vote recount, and after, when Bush was declared President. Another was his sneering just after the 9/11 attacks when Bush delivered his speech to a joint session of Congress. Then there was his sneering reaction and say-it-ain't-so comments when conservative revolutionaries led Republicans to capture the House of Representatives in 1994. And who can forget Jennings' sneering ABC News Special in which he decried America's bombing of Heroshima and Nagasaki, which saved American lives.

Jennings' elitist sneers will NOT be missed.

During ABC's Gulf War coverage, when ABC military expert Tony Cordesman attributed much of the success of our military forces to Israeli improvements to our weapons systems and as command and control advised by the Israelis, Jennings became enraged and argued with him.

While Jenning's death is a human tragedy, it is sad that his despicable brand of advocacy journalism -- parading as "news" -- wasn't laid to rest along with him.

Unfortunately, that will not happen. His version has spawned a thousand clones. Sadly, the female, more personable, non-toupeed version of Jennings -- Elizabeth Vargas -- is set to step into Jennings' shoes. She got off to a great Jennings-esque start in her first hosting duties at ABC's "20/20," last fall. She delivered a very sympathetic profile and interview of Hamas operative and fundraiser Cat Stevens. Expect more of this to come.

It's sad when anyone dies of cancer. I won't dance on Jennings' grave, even though he managed to justify the early graves of young, innocent athletes slaughtered at the Munich Olympics -- the way he blasphemed their murders with his shallow, understand-the-Islamic-terrorists coverage. Unlike the murdered Munich athletes he dishonored, Jennings died in peace and without pain. He got to say good-bye to his loved ones. They did not.

I will remember Peter Jennings for the less than honorable person he was -- not the emperor with no clothing that is now being memorialized.

Jennings used to end his newscasts with, "And that's a look at our world." No, it wasn't a look at our world, at all. It was Peter Jennings' slanted world, and every day he acted as if he was doing us a favor giving us his warped look at it.

Jennings' legacy is helping advance the cause of Islamic terrorists on broadcast television, parading it as news. He wrote his own epitaph with it. Unfortunately, it came with a lot more tombstones and epitaphs than just Jennings' -- and most of those buried beneath are a whole lot more innocent.

They are the victims of Islamic terrorism -- the brand Peter Jennings helped build into a network news product. That cancer, unfortunately, is still here. And it has metasticized.

MiamiMiami said...

Another great article showing clear examples of Jenning's bias..


The ABC's of Media Bias
By HonestReporting.com
HonestReporting.com | February 10, 2003
Peter Jennings has been widely accused of anti-Israel bias for many years. Below, we present a chronicle highlighting Jennings' bias.

HonestReporting members are encouraged to file complaints with ABC World News Tonight. Stick with the facts, and beware that Jennings arrogantly brushes off criticism, as he did in this appearance on the Larry King Show:

KING: "How do you react, by the way, before taking the next call, to some of the controversy that surround you? And I know Brent Bozell, a columnist, has criticized you as being kind of pro-Arab, and I've heard this for years."

JENNINGS: "Well, I think it's a bit silly."


* * *

World News Tonight online comments page:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/WorldNewsTonight/WNT_newemail_form.html

Paul Slavin, World News Tonight Producer
Phone: 212-456-4040

Chuck Lustig, World News Tonight Foreign Desk
Phone: 212-456-2800

FAX: 212-456-4292

MAIL: ABC News, 77 West 66th Street, New York NY 10023

Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias.

HonestReporting.com

====== "PETER JENNINGS: THE ABCS OF BIAS" ======

On Sept. 11, 2001, Jennings coverage hit the nadir of gross pro-Palestinian bias. Regarding the video of Palestinians celebrating the World Trade Center attack, Jennings said:

"It's an unfair comment on Islam in some respects, but it is certainly a motivating factor that the hatred of the United States, and the hatred of the United States as a patron of Israel, whether you're from Afghanistan, or whether you're from Iran, Iraq, or inside the Palestinian territories is so intense at some levels, and has become more intense in recent months, that nobody will be, very many people will not be surprised at this attack today though like everybody else will be amazed at the magnitude and success of it."

In response, television critic Tom Shales wrote in the Washington Post (Sept. 17, 2001):

"[Jennings] hosted what looked like a little intercontinental tea party for alleged experts on the Middle East, one of whom was professional Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi, whom Jennings hailed as 'widely known in the United States.' Also widely disliked. Jennings and Ashrawi greeted each other like old pals, with broad smiles and warm greetings.

"Jennings wanted to know, he said, how anyone could hate America so much that they would launch this kind of vicious, calamitous attack. Ashrawi blamed U.S. foreign policy (for having 'fought Arab nationalism') and, predictably for her, Israel. Ashrawi complained that 'Israel is given preferential treatment, treated as a country above the law, as part of her condemnation. Jennings deferred to Ashrawi, as usual, and let her filibuster. It was a nauseating display...."

In a critique of the same Jennings broadcast, TVspy.com reports (Sept. 20, 2001):

"It's no surprise that ABC News anchor Peter Jennings allowed Palestinian proselytizer Hanan Ashrawi to peddle propaganda on his program -- she used to be his girlfriend. U.S. News & World Report noted in 1991: 'In the early 1970s, when he was single and head of the ABC bureau in Beirut, Jennings dated Ashrawi, who at the time was also single and a graduate student in literature at the American University in the Lebanese capital. Jennings was introduced to Ashrawi's parents and sisters and became part of her circle of friends.

"In 1995, Denver Rocky Mountain News international editor Holger Jensen... [wrote] about staying at the Commodore Hotel in Beirut while covering events in war-torn Lebanon. Jensen recalled that Jennings stayed there as well, 'courting a long succession of Palestinian lovelies including Hanan Ashrawi."

Perhaps most telling of all is what the Arab media activists said. Ali Abunimah, vice-president of the Arab-American Action Network, wrote of Jennings' Sept. 11 coverage:

"Peter Jennings on ABC News was more careful in his analysis, pointing out that while some Palestinians in the occupied territories may have felt that way, his experience in the Middle East suggests that many, many more people all over the Arab world will be feeling sadness and shock, 'because of their deep attachments to the United States.' He said, for example that more people from the 'deeply troubled' Palestinian city of Ramallah live in the United States than in Ramallah itself."

* * *

Jennings established his record of pro-Palestinian coverage early in his career. In 1972, as a reporter covering the Palestinian murder of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, Jennings would not refer to the murderers as "terrorists." Instead he called them "guerrillas" and "commandos."

Martin Peretz, publisher of The New Republic, wrote (Sept. 13, 2001):

"I first saw Jennings on ABC when, as a young TV journalist, he reported from the Munich Olympics. And I was filled with disgust that his subsequent career has only deepened. At Munich -- I still remember it, 30 years later -- Jennings tried to explain away the abductions and massacre of the young Israeli athletes. His theme: The Palestinians were helpless and desperate. Ipso facto, they were driven to murder. That's life..."

In Sept. 2002, when ABC News aired a retrospective on the Olympic Massacre, Jennings unabashedly said that Israel should stop regarding the Palestinians as terrorists as a result of the Olympic Massacre of three decades ago. Jennings dismissed the continual barrage of thousands of Palestinian terror attacks against Israelis, not only before, but also since the '72 Olympics.

* * *

The Media Research Center provides recent evidence of Jennings's bias in Middle East reporting:

April 20, 2002 - ABC covered a pro-Palestinian rally in Washington, D.C., but Jennings ignored a pro-Israel rally in Washington held just six days earlier.

March 28, 2002 - Jennings on Hizbullah: "The Bush administration says Hizbullah is a terrorist organization. 'Hizbullah was proud to resist the Israeli occupation,' [Nasrallah] says. 'We gave our lives. We are not terrorists,'" Jennings translated.

December 4, 2001 - When the Bush administration froze the assets of the Arab terrorist group Hamas, both NBC News and CBS News correctly labeled Hamas as a terrorist organization, but Jennings refused to do so. In the same newscast, Jennings blamed Israel for an "explosion of violence in the Middle East."

See more examples of Jennings bias at:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/mrcspotlight/jennings/welcome.asp

* * *

We conclude with the revealing words of the pro-Palestinian activist group, American Muslims for Jerusalem (June 12, 2001):

"American Muslims and other people of conscience are requested to contact Peter Jennings at World News Tonight and thank him for his honest and fair coverage of events in the Middle East. Peter Jennings has recently come under attack for his 'anti-Israel' bias in his news stories on the recent violence in the Middle East. Critics accuse Jennings of excusing Palestinian violence by reporting on the number of Israelis, as well as the number of Palestinians, killed...

"In addition, critics are outraged that Jennings covered the Netanya bombing and the Israeli F-16 fighter attack with the 'suggestion of the precise moral equivalence between the actions. Fortunately, Jennings reports on the suffering and loss of both sides, and refuses to give Israeli lives more value than Palestinian lives, as the critics demand. 'Honest, even-handed coverage of the Palestinians is difficult to find in American media,' said American Muslims for Jerusalem executive director Khalid Turaani, 'and it is important to affirm unbiased journalism when we see it.'

"Action Requested: Contact Peter Jennings at World News Tonight and thank him for his unbiased reporting . . . Jennings' coverage of the tragedies of both parties, particularly the Palestinians, who so often receive inadequate media attention, contributes to a more accurate understanding by Americans of the conflict in the Middle East. Encourage Jennings to continue his fair coverage, regardless of pressure from biased organizations."

MiamiMiami said...

And yet more evidence of Jenning's bias...


Peter Jennings:
A Review of the ABC Anchor's Iraq Coverage



Special Sections:

Media War Watch
Celebrities on Politics and War

ABC’s Obsessed with Blaming U.S. for Museum Looting
Peter Jennings and ABC News are still upset about the looting of the Baghdad Museum. “The U.S. did not act in accordance with international law to prevent it,” Jennings claimed. World News Tonight has three stories on the museum, Nightline one and Good Morning America another.
(CyberAlert, April 21)

Peter’s Sympathy for Hollywood Hypocrites
ABC painted a scary picture of Hollywood actors’ right to express themselves “under attack,” but left out any mention of Hollywood actors using boycotts and blacklists of their own.
(Media Reality Check, April 17)

ABC’s New McCarthyism
ABC News has ignored the vicious anti-war rants of left-wing celebrities. But when actor Tim Robbins complained about being "punished" for his unpopular views, Peter Jennings and company dedicated an entire segment to it and even compared a few “disinvites” to McCarthy-era “blacklists.”
(CyberAlert, April 17)

Jennings Worried About Efforts to Silence Celebrities
Seriously. He closed his April 15 show fretting over the “aggressive” efforts aimed at celebrities who have spoken out against the war. Meanwhile, Tim Robbins, an anti-war celebrity, appeared on NBC’s Today and spoke at the National Press Club on back-to-back days.
(CyberAlert, April 16)

Jennings Showcases African Anti-War Protesters
A pro-troops rally of 15,000 in New York City doesn’t get Peter Jennings attention but an anti-war picture from Africa that read “KILL Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld and Powell, NOT INNOCENT IRAQI CIVILIANS” did.
(CyberAlert, April 12)

Jennings Refuses to Cover NYC Pro-Troops Rally
No anti-war protest has been too small for Jennings and ABC to cover but a pro-troops rally that drew 15,000 in New York City didn’t get a mention. NBC and CBS, as well as the three cable networks, did short pieces on the event.
(CyberAlert, April 11)

Jennings Has Tough Time with “Liberators”
Despite the joyous scenes on the streets of Baghdad, ABC’s Peter Jennings just couldn’t bring himself to call American forces “liberator” unless it was couched in terms such as “many say” or “others think.”
(CyberAlert, April 10)

Jennings: Was Saddam Sensitive?
ABC’s Peter Jennings wondered if the murdering tyrant ever understood “what people thought about him?”
(CyberAlert, April 10)

Jennings: Hussein Sculptor Out of Work
Seriously. Hussein is, or was, a vain man, Peter Jennings mused, but he had sculptures made of himself in every conceivable costume and in some he’s fat and in others he’s lean. There was one sculptor busy making a new one of Hussein but the war put an end to that.
(CyberAlert, April 10)

Jennings Repeats Himself
ABC anchor Peter Jennings used an al-Jazeera report about an American bombing that killed 18 civilians on two successive nights.
(CyberAlert, April 5)

Jennings Still Predicting Long War
When ABC’s John McWethy reported it could be “a long war” Jennings answered that many people had anticipated just that. Meanwhile on CBS, Pentagon reporter David Martin was reporting that most of Saddam’s divisions had been destroyed.
(CyberAlert, April 5)

Engel-Jennings Tag Team Strikes Again
ABC’s Richard Engel reported from Baghdad that a woman became terrified by bombing and went into labor. Anchor Peter Jennings, meanwhile, recited a handful of uncorroborated numbers to illustrate the pain the coalition has inflicted.
(CyberAlert, April 4)

Jennings Lauds Coalition Success
What! Even ABC’s Peter Jennings was proclaiming coalition success and mocking Iraqi claims of victory after the 3rd Infantry Division and 1st Marine Division chewed up Republican Guard units outside Baghdad.
(CyberAlert, April 3)

Pessimistic Peter
ABC News anchor Peter Jennings continues to emphasize the negative, relaying a report that one American unit had moved into an area where Iraqis no longer waved at passing troops. A few minutes later, however, ABC's Pentagon correspondent John McWethy contradicted Jennings' negativity, reporting that Iraqi civilians were starting to help coalition forces find weapons and Hussein loyalists.
(CyberAlert, April 2)

Jennings and Stahl Raise Vietnam Quagmire
Jennings claimed “one Marine” told an ABC reporter that Iraq “sometimes feels like Vietnam.” Over on CBS, Lesley Stahl asked former Navy Secretary James Webb if he was getting a feeling of “déjà vu.”
(CyberAlert, March 27)

War of Contrasts
ABC and CBS provided contrasting views of the war in three different stories. As expected, Peter Jennings and ABC continued with their negative spin, relaying Iraqi propaganda and claims that the war has hurt Iraqi civilians.
(CyberAlert, March 26)

Happy to See Us or Looking For Food?
Couldn't it be both? That thought apparently never occurred to ABC's Bob Woodruff, who wondered if waving Iraqis were friendly or just looking for food. Elsewhere, correspondent John Donvan focused on a “humanitarian disaster” in Basra.
(CyberAlert, March 25)

Network Openings Provide Insights
Jennings stressed hesitation and doubt, Rather delivered an upbeat assessment of the Iraq situation and Tom Brokaw emphasized the negative, describing a wrong turn that led to the capture of some soldiers as one of the “high profile Allied blunders.”
(CyberAlert, March 25)

Celebrating Iraqis A Ruse?
Iraqis tore down Saddam Hussein's picture and celebrated when coalition forces came through the town of Safwan but ABC News was skeptical. Peter Jennings suggested the actions were done "for the cameras." Correspondent John Donvan went there unescorted and said he "didn't see anything like that."
(CyberAlert, March 23)

Jennings Highlights Foreign Journalists Questions About "Big Lie"
Peter Jennings highlighted only one question from Gen. Tommy Franks press conference on Sunday. The question asked if the weapons of mass destruction claim was "a big lie."
(CyberAlert, March 22)

Jennings versus Brokaw
Peter Jennings emphasis on dissent was clearly illustrated when his opening statements were compared to those of NBC's Tom Brokaw.
(CyberAlert, March 23)

Jennings: Administration Ignores Protesters
ABC's Peter Jennings suggested that to journalist David Gergen that the administration has a "tendency" to "pretend" anti-war protests aren't happening. Gergen agreed and worried that the U.S. would appear to be "a bully."
(CyberAlert, March 22)

“A Little Out of Context”
That was ABC's Peter Jennings comment about video of an injured Iraqi child, although the remark could apply to much of his network's coverage. Jennings also admitted that "we cannot tell you what these pictures represent." Then why did ABC show them?
(CyberAlert, March 21)

Jennings: U.S. Will Be Welcomed, But We Kept Saddam in Power
Jennings interviewed an anti-American former assistant UN Secretary General and made a pro-American point. Sort of. Iraqis will welcome Americans, Jennings said, because they want “to get out from under the yoke of Saddam Hussein, in part because the U.S. supported him staying in power for a long time and kept sanctions.”
(CyberAlert, March 21)

Moran Claims U.S. Has Left the United Nations
ABC White House reporter Terry Moran went so far that Peter Jennings, of all people, had to rein him in. When Moran suggested that the U.S. had left the United Nations, Jennings had to correct him.
(CyberAlert, March 21)

ABC Highlights Protesters
ABC and Jennings displayed a special zeal for the protesters’ cause. Reporter Chris Cuomo marveled at how New York City protesters came from two directions “squeezing the police in the middle.”
(CyberAlert, March 21)

Whoops…War Catches ABC By Surprise
War was the talk of the nation but the outbreak of hostilities caught ABC News by surprise. While Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw hit the airwaves at about 9:32 p.m., ABC didn't cut into programming until 10 minutes later and correspondent Chris Wallace had to man the anchor desk for almost 20 minutes.
(CyberAlert, March 20)

Jennings’ Last Shots Before War
Peter Jennings said he wasn’t sure Iraqis would know what “coalition” meant, highlighted a rise in Caesarian sections in Iraq and told the story of a suicidal man who read an anti-war letter before he jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge.
(CyberAlert, March 20)

ABC Highlights Vatican Opposition
The Vatican is against the war so ABC’s Peter Jennings suddenly decided it is imparting wise counsel, noting that it “had issued a very strong statement today about President Bush’s intention to go to war.”
(CyberAlert, March 19)

Peter’s Peace Platoon
An MRC study of 234 stories on ABC’s World News Tonight from January 1 to March 7 found that ABC News harshly criticized the Bush administration and its policies, but failed to extend that same tough critical standard to congressional Democrats, UN bureaucrats, skeptical allies like France and even to the dictatorship in Iraq.
(MRC Special Report, March 18)

Jennings: Hamas is “Accused” of Terrorism
Peter Jennings didn’t label Hamas as a terrorist group, it’s just a group that the Israelis “accuse of sponsoring terrorism.”
(CyberAlert, March 18)

The Summit of the Convinced
ABC's World News Tonight continued its anti-war spin. Peter Jennings, reporting on the Azores summit, noted that "some people" said the time would have been better spent trying to convince skeptics. Later, correspondent Dan Harris found continued cooperation in Baghdad while reporter Barbara Pinto insisted a small Indiana town is uncertain about President Bush's Iraq policy.
(CyberAlert, March 17)

Peter Jennings: Tank Commander?
ABC's Peter Jennings donned a helmet and climbed aboard an armored vehicle to promote his interview with Gen. Tommy Franks in Qatar. During the interview, Jennings asked Franks if he wanted more time to prepare and if the U.S. would declare military targets located next to mosques and hospitals off-limits.
(CyberAlert, March 14)

ABC News Poll Finds Significant Support for Military Action
Peter Jennings reported that a new ABC News poll found 61 percent don’t believe the U.S. needs the support of the U.N. to take action against Iraq. ABC News web site reported that the number jumps to 71 percent if allies participate in the action.
(CyberAlert, March 12)

Jennings Press Powell From the Left
Peter Jennings used an interview with Secretary of State Colin Powell on World News Tonight to argue that “most people” believe the U.N. inspections are doing a “reasonably effective job.”
(CyberAlert, March 10)

Jennings Expresses Disillusionment with Bush
ABC’s Peter Jennings took advantage of the time after President Bush’s press conference to complain that the President is not listening to UN inspectors or allies.
(CyberAlert, March 7)

Jennings: College Anti-War Crowd Well-Rounded Bunch
The college anti-war protesters on ABC’s World News Tonight are well-rounded and reasonable, according to anchor Peter Jennings. The students support homeland security and think the government should be “focusing on jobs, security and health care.”
(CyberAlert, March 6)

Iraqis “Continue to Comply With U.N.”
A quiz. As Iraq brought to a mere ten the number of missiles it would dismantle out of over 100, who said the following on Tuesday, the Iraq regime's Tariq Aziz or ABC's Peter Jennings: “The Iraqis continue to comply with the UN weapons inspectors.”
(CyberAlert, March 5)

Worried If U.S. is Torturing Al Qaeda Mastermind
Three days after the capture of top al-Qaeda terrorist Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the murder of thousands of Americans, what was the chief concern of Peter Jennings? Have we tortured him?
(CyberAlert, March 5)

Upset by the Lack of Congressional Dissent
Not enough dissent on the war to satisfy ABC or NBC. Trumpeting an anti-war speech by Senator Ted Kennedy, Peter Jennings on Tuesday night rued how “there has been very little opposition in the U.S. Congress to war with Iraq.” Over on NBC, anchor Tom Brokaw dedicated a story to how “Congress has practically gone mute on the war plans after authorizing the President to proceed in House and Senate resolutions last year. The debate on Capitol Hill has been spotty and, with just a few exceptions, it has been timid.”
(CyberAlert, March 5)

Balancing Blix Statements With Iraqi Statements
ABC’s Peter Jennings gave the same weight to U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix statement that Iraq’s cooperation has been “very limited” as he did to the Iraq’s agreement “in principle” to destroy Al-Samoud missiles.
(CyberAlert, February 28)

Jennings Hypes “Virtual Protest”
ABC’s Peter Jennings hyped a so-called “virtual protest” conducted by anti-war activists. “Many congressional phone lines were jammed for several hours and one Senator reported 18 times more e-mail than usual,” Peter Jennings asserted in passing along an unsourced anecdote.
(CyberAlert, February 27)

Worried By Bush Saying He Would Assassinate Saddam
Peter Jennings and ABC were worried about a comment, attributed to President Bush, that the President would have Saddam assassinated if he had the chance. CBS and NBC didn’t even bother to report it.
(CyberAlert, February 26)

Calls Al-Arian Arrest Controversial
Peter Jennings treated a man arrested on terrorism charges as the victim of an over-aggressive Justice Department.
(CyberAlert, February 21)

Bush Jeopardizing Relations with “Oldest and Best Friends”
According to ABC, it’s not France and Germany that are threatening old alliances; it’s the Bush administration. ABC White House reporter Terry Moran even claimed the Bush administration “presented what amounted to an ultimatum” to the U.N. Security Council.
(CyberAlert, February 20)

Jennings Trumpets “Enormous Anti-War Demonstrations”
ABC’s Peter Jennings rued the fact that the anti-war demonstrations had done little to change President Bush’s mind. The anchor did note that the marches had give opponents “some sense that they have momentum.”
(CyberAlert, February 19)

Touts Iraqi Concession, Claims French Reflects European Opinion
Saddam Hussein banned nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in Iraq and ABC’s Peter Jennings treated it as real news. Jennings also suggested that the French government reflects the feeling of the European public who believe “Mr. Bush is in too much of a hurry to go to war.”
(CyberAlert, February 15)

U.S. Threatens Allied Solidarity
French recalcitrance doesn’t mean a thing, according to the ABC anchor. It’s America’s insistence on having its own way that’s threatening to rupture NATO.
(CyberAlert, February 15)

Fleischer: Is ABC Admitting There Are Weapons of Mass Destruction?
ABC correspondent Terry Moran asked White House Press Secretary about Saddam Hussein’s “arsenal of germs and chemicals” getting to terrorists. Fleischer was surprised. Was the skeptical ABC News Division admitting Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?
(CyberAlert, February 13)

Finding Detractors Among Immigrant Iraqis
ABC’s Peter Jennings was in Phoenix, highlighting the views of war opponents and Iraqis who have moved to the United States.
(CyberAlert, February 13)

Complaining About a Post-Saddam Iraq
ABC News could not find a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq but did find dissatisfaction with how the U.S. plans to do things in a post-Hussein Iraq.
(CyberAlert, February 12)

Uhh…Never Mind That Thing With Those Scientists
ABC’s Peter Jennings was beside himself when Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz asserted that Iraq had threatened scientists who cooperated with the UN, calling it “a very inflammatory charge.” Three weeks later, ABC News independently verified the claim.
(CyberAlert, February 11)

Two-Thirds Back the President…But There’s No Consensus
Jennings was at it again, claiming there was “no consensus about war.” A “town meeting” Jennings hosted at the Portland, Ore. ABC affiliate was proof.
(CyberAlert, February 11)

Anti-War Debate “Timid” in America
ABC’s Peter Jennings claimed the Iraqis “appear to making concessions” and the “U.S. thinks it has growing support for war.” Jennings also promised to seek out dissent in the country.
(CyberAlert, February 10)

Americans Believe Powell, But What About Other Countries
Jennings noted that most Americans were convinced by Secretary of State Colin Powell’s U.N. speech, so he highlighted how people in many Arab countries that are supporting the U.S. on Iraq are upset. “Many Arabs, even if they dislike Saddam Hussein, wonder about America’s long-term intentions,” he said.
(CyberAlert, February 7)

Dems Impressed But Jennings Skeptical
Peter Jennings injected his personal skepticism into reports about Secretary of State Colin Powell’s case for war with Iraq. The anchor first used the skeptical approach on George Stephanopoulos and then tried it out on defense reporter John McWethy.
(CyberAlert, February 6)

Left Wing to CBS, Famous to Jennings
British politician Tony Benn interviewed Saddam Hussein and the three broadcast networks all showed tape of it. CBS labeled Benn “a lifelong left-wing activist,” NBC called him “anti-war” while Peter Jennings didn’t bother with an ideological label and claimed he was one of Britain’s most famous politicians.
(CyberAlert, February 5)

Jennings Versus Reality
Despite polls indicating a substantial jump for the President’s Iraq policy after the State of the Union, Peter Jennings claimed “we found that people had not changed their minds in significant numbers.”
(CyberAlert, January 30)

Jennings Stresses "More Time", Brokaw and Rather Don't
Peter Jennings led his newscast with "the inspectors want more time to do their job." Both CBS and NBC led their programs with the fact that Iraq has failed to comply with the United Nations resolution.
(CyberAlert, January 28)

U.S. Too Aggressive
Peter Jennings, on the road in Amman, Jordan, said there “are a lot of people who think the Bush administration is being too aggressive about Iraq.” Jennings then added that the King of Jordan thinks the Iraqi people fear Saddam Hussein more than Bush.
(CyberAlert, January 24)

Jennings Delivers Saddam Spin From Baghdad
Peter Jennings noted that artists and writers were thanking Saddam Hussein for their latest monthly stipend. Jennings also thought the dictator would be encouraged by violence against Americans in Kuwait.
(CyberAlert, January 22)

More Saddam Spin: He’s a Sound Sleeper
Jennings dutifully relayed Iraqi propaganda. Saddam Hussein claimed he goes out the second his head hits the pillow.
(CyberAlert, January 22)

World News Tonight Showcases Anti-Bush Daisy Ad
An anti-Gore Daisy ad was fretted over when it briefly ran in the 2000 campaign. An anti-Bush Daisy ad from an anti-war group, however, has caused ABC to marvel at how protesters have "gone from the streets to the information highway."
(CyberAlert, January 17)

ABC & CBS Cite Drop in Polls; Fox Says It's Holding Steady
Polls, polls and more polls. Polls show a large majority of Americans favor using military force to remove Saddam Hussein but ABC and CBS claimed their polls indicated a drop in support for Bush's Iraq policy while a Fox News poll showed support holding even.
(CyberAlert, January 17)

OK, How About Some "Other" Voices?
The January 12 World News Tonight showcased war protesters again, including a Columbia University professor who claimed "mainstream America" believes the war doesn't make sense. The story came three months after Peter Jennings promised to highlight "other voices" on the Iraq issue. That day's segment featured nine war opponents and not a single supporter of military action against Saddam Hussein.
(CyberAlert, January 15)

Jennings Says Inspections Going Well; Rather & Brokaw Say They're Not
Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw both reported that UN weapons inspectors are having problems in Iraq. Over on ABC, though, Peter Jennings said the inspections were going "quite well" and wondered why President Bush disagreed.
(CyberAlert, December 3)

Jennings: Is the Administration "Goading" Iraq?
Peter Jennings asked a question from the Bush critics' handbook, suggesting that U.S. enforcement of the no-fly zone in Iraq was little more than a taunt. The ABC anchor also claimed there were "rising anti-American sentiments in Saudi Arabia" and other Arab countries over Iraq.
(CyberAlert, November 21)

ABC Highlights Anti-Islamic Comments
Peter Jennings and ABC News showcased a poll indicating Americans felt Islam encouraged violence and was disrespectful of other religions. Correspondent Dan Harris then did a story on the anti-Muslim comments of evangelical leaders and quoted critics who said the Bush administration didn't condemn the statements because they didn't want to isolate a key constituency before the elections.
(CyberAlert, November 19)

ABC Promotes Only Anti-War Opinions
Peter Jennings promised viewers that ABC would "take 'A Closer Look' tonight at the mood in the country as the President’s determination to wage war against Iraq becomes more defined." But Bill Redeker's story only showcased those hostile to the President's Iraq policies.
(CyberAlert, October 15)

ABC’s War Against Bush’s Anti-Iraq Policy
ABC’s World News Tonight has been uniquely biased against President Bush’s Iraq policies. An MRC study found ABC reporters were nearly four times more likely to voice doubts about the truthfulness of statements by U.S. officials than about Iraqi claims, and the newscast gave more airtime to anti-war viewpoints.
(Media Reality Check, October 3)

Fretting About Too “Powerful” Bush
To Peter Jennings, President Bush asking Congress to approve of using force against Iraq and saying, “very forcefully,” that if the UN doesn’t go along the U.S. will act on its own means, smacks of bullying. On World News Tonight, Jennings rued that “what we appear to have here is an administration powerful enough to have its own way.”
(CyberAlert, September 20)

Bush’s “War Drums” and Iraq “Preoccupation”
Just before President Bush addressed the United Nations about Iraq, ABC’s Peter Jennings referred to how “the sound of war drums being beaten in Washington has become unmistakable” and described the administration’s concern about Saddam Hussein’s weapons as a “preoccupation,” as if there were something misplaced about the worry.
(CyberAlert, September 13)

ABC’s Anti-American Anchor
It already appears that the United States will go to war without support from many in the American media, those who just don’t like to take sides against Middle Eastern despots preparing weapons of mass destruction. Taking a leading role is ABC, and the perpetually pompous Peter Jennings.
(Bozell's News Column, September 10)

Is ABC’s “Road to War?” Really Anti-War?
World News Tonight’s in-depth reporting on the prospect of a U.S. war with Iraq has ignored the danger and duplicity of Saddam Hussein, and instead pushed the arguments of those opposed to using force.
(Media Reality Check, September 3)

MiamiMiami said...

Sorry but here is the link for the article I just posted

http://www.mediaresearch.org/mrcspotlight/jennings/welcome.asp

Evan Sayet said...

Because I had long ago sworn off the lies and hate of Peter Jennings and the corruption of ABC News (whose president sent out an official memo during the recent campaign ordering his reporters to distort their coverage against President Bush) I was not all that aware of the things I'm reading in this section.

Peter Jennings was just another "hate-America-always" leftist and not much different (only "more so") than the forged document users at CBS and the spinmeisters who slandered 254 American heroes to protect their far-leftist liar in John Kerry.

Alva Goldbook said...

GOP: The Party Of Death.
Years ago George Orwell wrote of a future nightmarish world in his novel 1984. In it Orwell wrote of a society that was kept in control via overwhelming government control, and of a people controlled by the use of language that he called “double-speak”. And more and more we see America turning into Orwell’s dreary vision of “thought crimes”, “big brother”, and perpetual war.

Orwell noted that “war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength”. And today we have a president who has said, “when we’re talking about war, what we’re really talking about is peace.” Iraq has been enslaved by an occupying US force, and it has been declared that those very same forces have “freed 25 million people”. And most of all, we have George W. Bush, who has repeatedly been depicted as “a strong moral leader”, despite that he has perhaps made some of the most ignorant and embarrassing remarks in the history of the US politics (such as “However they delineate; quotas, I think vulcanize society.” -Jan. 21, 2000)

In an even more grotesque turn of events, the GOP has told the American public that it is “the party of life”, and that it values nothing higher than “the sanctity of human life”. George W. Bush has convinced a great number of conservatives that he is a moral and Christian man, who acts on the “will of God”. Despite that Jesus taught us in The Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-15) to “forgive our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”, as governor of Texas, George W. Bush did not heed the lesson. As governor, George W. Bush executed 152 people, in a state with no public defender system. Among those killed is Karla Faye Tucker, the first female to be executed in the state of Texas in over 100 years. When speaking to conservative pundit Tucker Carlson about what Karla Faye Tucker’s last words might have been, he mocked her saying “Please, don’t kill me”.

“‘Please,’ Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, ‘Don’t kill me.’”



But The Party of Death was just warming up in Texas. It had to go national before the bodies could really pile up. In 1999, George W. Bush told his original ghost writer for “A Charge To Keep”, that if he had the chance to invade Iraq he wasn’t going to withdraw early, but would instead stay so he would have the “political capital” to get his agenda passed. Similarly, the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century had their own plans for Iraq. On January 26, 1998 PNAC sent a letter to President Clinton, telling him “That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.” Those who signed the letter would see themselves in high positions thanks to the Bush administration. Among them are Elliott Abrams, who became a senior Director on the National Security Council, and who was also a key figure in the Iran-Contra scandal. Richard L. Armitage, who went on to be the Deputy Secretary of State. Zalmay Khalilzad, who Bush appointed as special envoy to Afghanistan. Richard Perle, who went on to chair the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee. John Bolton, who Bush just appointed as US ambassador to the United Nations. Paul Wolfowitz, currently the President of the World Bank. And Donald Rumsfeld, the current Secretary of Defense. PNAC made it very clear that their goal was to dramatically increase Defense spending so that the United States could military dominate the world. In their publication “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, published a year before 9/11, the group said that this military transformation “would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies”, and that “the process of transformation” would “likely be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.” (pgs. 50-51)

With 9/11 The Party of Death got that catastrophic event, and they milked it for all it was worth. Using it as a pretext for a larger “War on Terror”, the Bush administration lied to the American People and to Congress (a violation of the 9th Commandment, that forbids one to bear false witness), saying that Saddam’s regime had weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence for Bush’s claims were fixed, not by the CIA, which would normally review such things, but by the Office of Special Plans, set up by and answerable to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

For the first time in it’s history, the United States waged a pre-emptive war (an act of terrorism in it’s own right, as defined by US Code), entirely orchestrated by The Party of Death, which has resulted in at least 100,000 Iraqi deaths.

Those things dangling off of her used to be her feet.

We live in a day when the GOP has taught us that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. But most of all, the Republicans have taught us that their “pro-life” party is the Party of Death.

MiamiMiami said...

My, my my where to start....

GOP: The Party Of Death.
====>This from the a Democrat, the party of abortions? Yikes. Must havebeen a typo I am sure.


Years ago George Orwell wrote of a future nightmarish world in his novel 1984. In it Orwell wrote of a society that was kept in control via overwhelming government control, and of a people controlled by the use of language that he called “double-speak”. And more and more we see America turning into Orwell’s dreary vision of “thought crimes”, “big brother”, and perpetual war.

=====>This novel also spoke of the dangers of governemnt becoming too big. Something liberal Democrats are so fond of. What thought crimes have been prosecuted. Specifically. I mean if this were true than why are there so many folks like you that clearly hate America are able to spew this moronic view? Specifically what thought crimes have been prosecuted by this government? And where is this perpetual war that you speak of? You call 3 years of war perpetual? If that is so that what does that make the Civil War or WWII?



Orwell noted that “war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength”. And today we have a president who has said, “when we’re talking about war, what we’re really talking about is peace.” Iraq has been enslaved by an occupying US force, and it has been declared that those very same forces have “freed 25 million people”.
===>Enslaved? Are you for real? I don't see slavery at all in Iraq. People are working, going to school, rebuilding, starting up businesses. They are writing a constitution. Truth be told they are moving faster with their Democracy than we did in this country. Do you realize that in their last election they had a turn-out of over 80%? We couldn't do that today if we wanted to. Yet you refer to them as slaves. I guess they were better off with Saddam who got 100% of the vote 100% of the time? The fact that they canprotest wand argue about politics is a freedom they never had.

And most of all, we have George W. Bush, who has repeatedly been depicted as “a strong moral leader”, despite that he has perhaps made some of the most ignorant and embarrassing remarks in the history of the US politics (such as “However they delineate; quotas, I think vulcanize society.” -Jan. 21, 2000)

=====>So how does poor diction or public speaking skills detract from a strong moral base? Are you that affected by the outside appearance of people? That might explain your love of Clinton, polished on the outside, crud on the inside. On the surface you have the appearance of a well-spoken and verbally proficient person but it doesn't help you with your lackof objectivity.

In an even more grotesque turn of events, the GOP has told the American public that it is “the party of life”, and that it values nothing higher than “the sanctity of human life”.
===>As compared to the Democrats who are for abortion rights.

George W. Bush has convinced a great number of conservatives that he is a moral and Christian man, who acts on the “will of God”. Despite that Jesus taught us in The Lord’s Prayer (Matthew 6:9-15) to “forgive our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”, as governor of Texas, George W. Bush did not heed the lesson. As governor, George W. Bush executed 152 people, in a state with no public defender system. Among those killed is Karla Faye Tucker, the first female to be executed in the state of Texas in over 100 years. When speaking to conservative pundit Tucker Carlson about what Karla Faye Tucker’s last words might have been, he mocked her saying “Please, don’t kill me”.
====>For those of you reading that don't have the benefit of knowing about this case, Karla Faye Tucker was convicted for hacking someone to death in her home in Texas. And the reason that she was eventually executed (and rightfully so) was that the Texas board of clemency needed to give the Governer permission to pardon here. Then Governer Bush could not do so without that permission. But then again why are facts so important? They only get in the way of a senseless hate-Bush rant don't they?



“‘Please,’ Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, ‘Don’t kill me.’”

====>I guess if someone hacked up someone you cared about you would just give them a hug and forgive them wouldn't you? Right? right...


But The Party of Death was just warming up in Texas. It had to go national before the bodies could really pile up. In 1999, George W. Bush told his original ghost writer for “A Charge To Keep”, that if he had the chance to invade Iraq he wasn’t going to withdraw early, but would instead stay so he would have the “political capital” to get his agenda passed.
===>I know this would be a wrench on your Bush-hate rant but could you actually provide something in the way of proof? Or would that make me a neo-con too?

Similarly, the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century had their own plans for Iraq. On January 26, 1998 PNAC sent a letter to President Clinton, telling him “That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.” Those who signed the letter would see themselves in high positions thanks to the Bush administration. Among them are Elliott Abrams, who became a senior Director on the National Security Council, and who was also a key figure in the Iran-Contra scandal. Richard L. Armitage, who went on to be the Deputy Secretary of State. Zalmay Khalilzad, who Bush appointed as special envoy to Afghanistan. Richard Perle, who went on to chair the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee. John Bolton, who Bush just appointed as US ambassador to the United Nations. Paul Wolfowitz, currently the President of the World Bank. And Donald Rumsfeld, the current Secretary of Defense. PNAC made it very clear that their goal was to dramatically increase Defense spending so that the United States could military dominate the world. In their publication “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, published a year before 9/11, the group said that this military transformation “would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies”, and that “the process of transformation” would “likely be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.” (pgs. 50-51)

With 9/11 The Party of Death got that catastrophic event, and they milked it for all it was worth. Using it as a pretext for a larger “War on Terror”, the Bush administration lied to the American People and to Congress (a violation of the 9th Commandment, that forbids one to bear false witness), saying that Saddam’s regime had weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence for Bush’s claims were fixed, not by the CIA, which would normally review such things, but by the Office of Special Plans, set up by and answerable to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

For the first time in it’s history, the United States waged a pre-emptive war (an act of terrorism in it’s own right, as defined by US Code), entirely orchestrated by The Party of Death, which has resulted in at least 100,000 Iraqi deaths.

Those things dangling off of her used to be her feet.

We live in a day when the GOP has taught us that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength. But most of all, the Republicans have taught us that their “pro-life” party is the Party of Death.

Alva Goldbook said...

More and more we see that conservatives simply have no morality whatsoever. If a man dies he deserves not to be remembered for his hard work and dedication, or anything remotely positive unless he gave the cons their daily propaganda.

I rarely agreed with Jennings. Yet his hard work and dedication to his job was unbelievable. After 9/11, Jennings stayed in the office, working the anchor desk nearly non-stop for four entire days.

What Barbara Walters was referring to was a philosophy of Jennings. As Jennings would say, we live in a world where the news media constantly wishes to show us the world in black and white terms, when Jennings, as a proper newsman should do, preferred to show us all the gray. Conservatives have been so propagandized that they are incapable of seeing that gray, which is why they cannot fathom why a group of Arabs would wish to see us all dead. After the shock of 9/11, they without questioning it one moment, followed the bouncing ball, and attributed it to the religion of Islam, instead of 50 years of American foreign policy that has turned a region that once was the scientific and mathematical beacon of the world into a land of utter poverty and ignorance.

As citizens in a representative democracy, we have the power to stop this kind of destruction, if you make the effort. Until you conservatives can look yourselves in the mirror and acknowledge the blood on your hands, and then act within your upon your own decent natural impulses to stop it, then the US will continue to see ourselves the victim of terrorism.

“Violence begets violence”.

Alva Goldbook said...

Miami,
The Democratic party is the party of abortions? Or is it the party that doesn’t wish the government to have it’s hands in every American woman’s uterus? Under George Bush abortion rates have dramatically increased. The reason? Poverty has dramatically increased.

The dangers of a big government is clear. And more and more Big Brother is watching us. The PATRIOT Act is a great example. You might also notice that in the last 25 years, the government has DRAMATICALLY grown, under the leadership of “conservatives” such as Reagan, and both Bushes. Under Clinton, the rate of government growth was slowed. Since Bush has taken office he has DOUBLED the size of government in just one term, including the creation of two entirely new federal agencies.

There is a close association between “thought crimes” and sending average Muslims to Guantanomo Bay. The “War on Terror” has been described as a war that may be fought for the duration of the rest of our lives. We have spent more time fight the “War on Terror” then it took us to win World War II, when the US was ACTUALLY threatened and attacked by a foreign state.

The Iraqi people indeed have been enslaved. Labor unions are outlawed. They don’t see running water or electricity. Children are “wasting”, dying of malnutrition. Women have been forced to put the berkas back on. 100,000 Iraqis have been shot dead or blown to bits. Entire cities have been demolished. And if they stand up and protest, half the time US forces will fire upon them. I suppose you call that “freedom”. Saddam was a sick and horrible man who did much harm to his people, but under him in comparison to today, the Iraqi people were much better off.

I think you’re confusing “poor diction skills” with complete ignorance. He apparently does not even know what his job duties are. (“The legislature’s job is to write law. It’s the executive branch’s job to interpret law.” Nov. 22, 2000) You’re also making quite a leap of assumption in saying that I have a “love” of Clinton. This is a man who I never voted for, who I criticized at every time he blew up a innocent civilian in Haiti, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan, and who sold America down to toilet to multinational corporate hegemony. The best thing you could say about Clinton is that he was the best REPUBLICAN president we’ve had since Eisenhower.

As compared to Democrats who want to lower abortion rates by making the American middle class less desperate.

Bush had the option to delay the execution for 30 days, in order to get the board to review her plea for clemency. He did not do so, and instead MOCKED her. What “left-wing nuts” were fighting to keep Tucker from being executed? Pat Robertson for one, as well as much of the conservative Christian community. Even radical conservative Gary Bauer weighed in saying, “I think it is nothing short of unbelievable that the governor of a major state running for president thought it was acceptable to mock a woman he decided to put to death”. Charley Davidson, who was a prosecutor of Karla's accomplice, Garrett, stated publicly, “The Karla Tucker who killed Jerry Dean and Debra Thornton cannot be executed by the State of Texas because that person no longer exists. The Karla Tucker who remains on death row is a completely different person who, in my opinion, is not capable of those atrocities. I am comfortable enough with this belief that, if possible, I would welcome Karla into my house to meet my family.”

Evan Sayet said...

Alva,

Not only are the Democrats the party of abortion -- not choice, abortion -- but they are the party of death.

These are folks who hold rallies called "Fuck Abstinence" and where Planned Parenthood was selling T-Shirts celebrating abortions like its a night to remember akin to a Green Day concert.

Leftists love death just as the their sister in communism -- the most murderous of all regimes -- and support murderers from the Palestinian terrorists to the communists themselves (so beloved they called the most murderous human being in history, Joe Stalin, "Uncle Joe."

You talk of "Big Brother" but where is it but on the college campuses where they tried to outlaw free speech by creating the Orwellian named "free speech zones" (tiny slivers of campus off the beaten track where people could "enjoy" free speech. Everywhere else only leftist talk was allowed as everything else was dubbed "offensive" or "hate speech.")

Your claims about Iraq are typically ludicrous and typically anti-Americans. No troops have opened fire on protesters yet you claim it as fact. Why? Because facts mean nothing to Democrats they simply support any and all evil regimes.

It's not a coincidence that during the Jimmy Carter years Communism spread to Afghanistan and into Central America while Islamic fascism got its first nation with the help of J.C.

Just a few years later communism -- the most murderous mentality in human history and not dissimilar to Modern Liberalism -- was nerely defunct thanks to the Republicans.

Under Bill Clinton Islamic fascism, mass murder and terrorism grew with the Taliban at its peak and a few years later, under the Republicans, freedom is spreading through the Middle East.

As for the growth of government being cut under Bill Clinton that's just foolish. He tried to expand the welfare state and turn America's biggest industries communist under his wife's medical plan that was so anti-American that Clinton never recovered. Just two years later the people took his power away by giving the House and the Senate to the Republicans and from that moment on America has never looked back.

Alva Goldbook said...

Evan,
Or was Planned Parenthood trying to bring the topic of abortion out in the open, instead of being something that no one talks about because women have been again trained by right wingers to be shameful of their bodies? Everyday the religious right in this country is more closely resembling the Talliban.

To say that the Soviet Union under Stalin was pure communism is like saying that the United States under Truman was pure capitalism. In reality, Uncle Joe (as AMERICANS called him) was a military dictator, and there is NOTHING in communist ideology and theory that suggests that the only way to implement communism is by military dictatorship. In FACT, for anyone who randomly GLANCES at Das Kapital, they will know that a genuine communist government cannot have a military dictatorship, much less a military at all.

The only “free speech zones” I’ve heard about in the last 5 years have been inside cages outside of the RNC convention. Those “free speech zones” have been used by the BUSH administration to smash dissent among the masses. As the leftist mantra goes, the UNITED STATES is a “free speech zone”. To suggest that conservatives cannot freely speak on college campuses is a lie so big as it would make Stalin himself cringe.

Facts mean nothing to Democrats? And yet YOU Evan know that NO troops have fired on Iraqi protesters? I guess FOX News makes FACTS up too, huh? How else could you explain this story, from FOX, entitled…drum roll please…U.S. Troops Fire Back at Iraqi Protesters; Up to 13 Killed. Or maybe this Associated Press story, U.S. Troops Kill Two Iraqi Protesters. Yes, us lefties just make shit up as we go along, right?

Incorrect, Islamist fundamentalism was CREATED by the SHAH who radicalized the people of Iran, by brutally slaughtering his people…with our help. Meanwhile, you pull the tired out crap out of the bag, accusing Carter for the hostages, when Iran-Contra proved that Reagan was the one who was giving ARMS to terrorists.

If you had been paying attention Evan, you would know that the CIA had been predicting a Soviet decline since the 1960’s. Reagan had ZIP to do with it. Furthermore, find me a single “modern liberal”, much less a Democrat who has suggested that private property be eliminated. Can’t do it? Then they are not following communist ideology. But since you bring it up, how the hell does “modern liberalism” (a term you have yet to define) have ANYTHING to do with communism?

And the Talliban still controls much of Afghanistan, but not enough to keep the heroin supply cut off. Yippy. Yet Uzbekistan still has a Talliban-style government, in which they literally boil people alive who happen to disagree with them. Bush’s response is to give them more US aid to boil more people alive. Yes, freedom sure is spreading throughout that region of the world, I know I’ll finally be free when I get to be boiled alive. Better yet, we might be even freer when 100,000 Americans get blown to bits, and our women are forced to cover their faces. Utopia, here we come.

Read again….slowly. The rate of government growth under Clinton was SLOWED. In fact it was slowed down so that it would not be exceeding our GDP growth rate. In realty, Clinton drastically cut the welfare rolls (that’s PUBLIC welfare…meanwhile CORPORATE welfare increased). The primary reason for the GOP success in 1994 was 1) the restriction on assault weapons, and more importantly 2) because Clinton followed a centrist platform. As John Zogby noted in 1994, the Democrats that stood their ground and stayed to the left of Clinton KEPT their seats. It has nothing to do with a universal health care plan (that the VAST majority of Americans want), so much as if you’re given a choice between an imitation of a Republican (like Clinton) and the real thing, you will always choose the latter.

And speaking of which, as the US now stands alone as the only industrialized nation on earth without a universal health care plan, it puts enormous strains on US domestic industry. So much so, that General Motors is knee high in shit because of it.

MiamiMiami said...

Oh well, it's not like I haven't done this already...watch out I am going in!


Miami,
The Democratic party is the party of abortions? Or is it the party that doesn’t wish the government to have it’s hands in every American woman’s uterus? Under George Bush abortion rates have dramatically increased. The reason? Poverty has dramatically increased.

=====>Really? Abortions have increased? Wow it's not like you Alva to take only part of a statistic and leave out the whole truth! I mean that would only expose you obvious bias. But for those of you that actually like the whole story here is the link to factcheck.org's expose of this very distorted fact sprung by noneother than Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. (Suprise suprise...no one say THAT coming.)

Here is the artice....Alva you can thank me later for keeping you "fair and balanced"....again.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Biography of a Bad Statistic
Abortions rising under Bush? Not true. How that false claim came to be -and lives on.

May 25, 2005
Modified: May 26, 2005
eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Summary


Politicians from Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Howard Dean have recently contended that abortions have increased since George W. Bush took office in 2001.

This claim is false. It's based on an an opinion piece that used data from only 16 states. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of 43 states found that abortions have actually decreased. Update, May 26: The author of the original claim now concedes that the Guttmacher study is "significantly better" than his own.

Analysis


A number of politicians and organizations have been circulating an interesting and surprising idea: that abortions have gone up under George W. Bush’s watch. The claim is repeated by supporters of abortion rights as evidence that Bush's anti-abortion policies have backfired, or at least been ineffective.

But the claim is untrue. In fact, according to the respected Alan Guttmacher Institute, a 20-year decline in abortion rates continued after Bush took office, as shown in this graph



Source: Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Trends in Abortion in the United States "



Here's the story of how a false idea took hold.

The Birth of a Bad Statistic

The claim that abortions are rising again can be traced back to an opinion piece by Glen Harold Stassen, an ethics professor at Fuller Theological Seminary. His article originally appeared in a web and e-mail publication of Sojourners, a Christian magazine, in October 2004. Several other outlets, including the Houston Chronicle, also ran a similar piece co-authored by Stassen and journalist Gary Krane. The articles generated a good deal of discussion on a number of both liberal and conservative blogs.

Describing himself as “consistently pro-life,” Stassen reported that he “analyzed the data on abortion during the Bush presidency” and reached some “disturbing” conclusions. "Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed," he said. "Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction."

Stassen's broad conclusion wasn't justified by the sketchy information he cited, however. Furthermore, a primary organization he cited specifically as a source for historical data now contradicts him, saying abortions have continued to decline since Bush took office. More about that later.

Hillary Clinton Uses It

Stassen offered his article as evidence that Bush's economic policies were driving pregnant women to abortion. And although he opposes abortion, his claim was soon picked up and repeated uncritically by the other side – supporters of abortion rights. In a speech to family-planning providers in New York on January 24, 2005 , Sen. Hillary Clinton recounted decreases in the abortion rate that occurred in her husband's administration, then lamented that the situation had changed. She repeated exactly some of the figures that Stassen had given in his Houston Chronicle article.

Clinton : But unfortunately, in the last few years, while we are engaged in an ideological debate instead of one that uses facts and evidence and common sense, the rate of abortion is on the rise in some states . In the three years since President Bush took office, 8 states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and four saw a decrease (4.3% average), so we have a lot of work still ahead of us.

Clinton was careful not to state flatly that abortions were increasing nationally . She spoke only of "some states" in which the rate had increased. But she invited her listeners to conclude that the national trend to fewer abortions had reversed itself since Bush took office.

And in fact a few days later, in an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press on January 30, 2005 , Sen. John Kerry claimed that abortions were up, period:

Kerry: And do you know that in fact abortion has gone up in these last few years with the draconian policies that Republicans have….

A Kerry spokesman confirmed at the time to FactCheck.org that Kerry was relying on the Stassen article for his information.

Finally, as recently as May 22, 2005 , Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean also asserted on NBC News' Meet the Press:

Dean:You know that abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was President ?

Dean's "statistic" went unchallenged by moderator Tim Russert, so millions of viewers probably got the impression that Dean's very specific 25 percent figure was correct. But Dean was wrong -- and by a wide margin.

We asked the Democratic National Committee repeatedly where Dean got his 25 percent figure, but we got no response. Even if Stassen's estimate of 52,000 additional abortions were correct, that would figure to an increase of less than 4 percent. And in any case the rate is going down, not up, according to the most authoritative figures available.

Cherrypicking Data

A close reading of Stassen's article makes clear that he didn't even pretend to have comprehensive national data on abortion rates. He said he looked at data from 16 states only -- and didn't even name most of them.

Stassen said that in the four states that had already posted statistics for three full years of Bush’s first term, he found that abortion was up. Twelve more states had posted statistics for two years of Bush's term – 2001 and 2002 – and here the picture was mixed. According to Stassen, "Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6 percent average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3 percent average)." A version of the piece in the Houston Chronicle reported instead that four saw a decrease with a 4.3 percent average.

So Stassen was projecting findings onto the entire country from 12 states that he said had showed an increase and 5 (or maybe 4) that he said had shown a decrease. That leaves a total of 34 other states for which Stassen had no data whatsoever.

Furthermore, Stassen is contradicted by one of the very organizations whose data he cites. The only primary source of data that Stassen cites specifically in the article is the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization that conducts a periodic survey of all known abortion providers, which numbered nearly 2,000 at last count. Guttmacher's statistics are widely used and respected by all sides in the abortion debate. It is the only organization to compile and publish national abortion-rate data other than the federal Center for Disease Control. CDC's official statistics, however, run only through 2001, so they shed no light on what has happened since Bush took office.

And Guttmacher – as we shall see – now says abortion rates have decreased since Bush took office. And that's based on data from 43 states, not just 16.

De-bunking the statistic

Stassen’s numbers, and the widespread acceptance they seemed to be getting, prompted the Guttmacher Institute to conduct a special analysis to update its comprehensive census of abortion providers for the year 2000. The increases that Stassen reported “would be a significant change in a long-standing trend in the US ,” Leila Darabi of the institute explained to Factcheck.

Besides the fact that Stassen claimed to have data only from 16 states, the Guttmacher Institute said it is likely that many of the states Stassen picked have higher abortion rates historically, have a higher concentration of population subgroups that tend to have more abortions, and see abortion rates rise more quickly when they do go up. Stassen himself named only Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Colorado among the 16 states he says he studied, but his co-author on the Houston Chronicle article listed each state in a separate article posted on the Internet.

The Guttmacher Institute found that two of the states Stassen used had unreliable reporting systems. In Colorado , for instance, where Stassen claimed that rates “skyrocketed 111 percent,” the reporting procedure had been recently changed in order to compensate for historic underreporting. Guttmacher also found Arizona had an inconsistent reporting system.

The Facts

The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher analyzed available government data "as an interim measure until another provider census can be conducted” according to a news release. The interim study analyzed data from 43 states determined to have reliable state reporting systems.

What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide – by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which is the number of women having abortions relative to the total population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That's not as rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a decrease nonetheless.

We give much weight to Guttmacher's analysis. Their figures are widely used and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights advocates. Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and Stassen cites them himself as the source for the number of abortions in 2000.

Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti-abortion policies look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and describes its mission as being" to protect the reproductive choice of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world.” Had Stassen’s numbers proven accurate, the Institute “would have reported and widely publicized a rise in abortion rates,” said Darabi. But facts are facts.

Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can't substantiate his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the Guttmacher study and says it is "significantly better" than his own earlier effort:

Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute) bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort.

Nevertheless, Stassen still argues that the small rate of decline that Guttmacher reports still constitutes a "stall" in what had earlier been a more rapid decline. He also continues to criticize the Bush administration for economic policies that he says bring hardship on low-income women. "It is clear to me that undermining the financial support for mothers, undermining the availability of medical insurance, and increasing the jobless rate for prospective mates so that they are less likely to marry, has a bad influence on abortion rates and infant mortality rates."

For the full text of Stassen's response see "supporting documents" at right.

Correction: Our original article stated that Sen. Clinton had omitted to mention states in which abortions had decreased. In fact, as was obvious from the full quote we gave, she did state that abortions had decreased in four states. This updated article corrects our error.

Sources
Glen Harold Stassen, "Pro-Life? Look at the fruits," Sojomail, 13 October 2004.

Glen Harold Stassen and Gary Krane, "Why Abortion Rate Is Up In Bush Years," Houston Chronicle, 17 October 2004

Sen. Hillary Clinton, "Remarks by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to the NYS Family Planning Providers," 24 January 2005, website.

"Meet the Press," Transcript, National Broadcasting Company, 30 January 2005.

"Meet the Press," Transcript, National Broadcasting Company, 22 May 2005.

"Decades-Long Decline in Number and Rate of U.S. Abortions Continues, New Analysis Shows," Press Release, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 19 May 2005.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


The dangers of a big government is clear. And more and more Big Brother is watching us. The PATRIOT Act is a great example.

=====>I LOVE how all of this talk about how our freedoms to speech and privacy are gone because of the Patriot Act but yet there hasn't one, not even ONE documented case where this has happened. And Alva if you really believed this you should seriously consider going into hiding, I would think that YOU would be public enemy number 1.


You might also notice that in the last 25 years, the government has DRAMATICALLY grown, under the leadership of “conservatives” such as Reagan, and both Bushes. Under Clinton, the rate of government growth was slowed.
=====>Wrong again. )By the way this is not my look of suprise here, the fact that Alva is wrong again). You tend to forget that government shrunk during the Clinton years because the then Republic controlled congress had "Contract with America" that forced the government to reduce. You also tend to just glance over the fact the government has increased because......hold on....this is big.....college-level economic stuff here.....hold on....
WE ARE AT WAR.


Since Bush has taken office he has DOUBLED the size of government in just one term, including the creation of two entirely new federal agencies.

====>Yeah it's called WAR. read aboiut it.

There is a close association between “thought crimes” and sending average Muslims to Guantanomo Bay.
====>Could you please print the names of the accused "thought criminals" you are talking about?


The “War on Terror” has been described as a war that may be fought for the duration of the rest of our lives. We have spent more time fight the “War on Terror” then it took us to win World War II, when the US was ACTUALLY threatened and attacked by a foreign state.

=====>UH. Ok Let me try this for a second. I know I am just a dumb Republican here but bear with me...

World War II----1941-1945= 4 years
War on Terro---2001-2005=4 years

Yeah we have been fighting it longer. Yup. Can't deny that math AT ALL.


The Iraqi people indeed have been enslaved. Labor unions are outlawed. They don’t see running water or electricity.

====>Labor unions are not allowed by Iraqi law, not ours. There IS running water and electricity and it is increasing ever day. Where do you get this from. Please stop watching CNN and watch something else. CNN's ratings are down for a reason.

Children are “wasting”, dying of malnutrition.

=====>Actually more children are being fed, clothed, and taught. But go on this is interesting stuff, really.....yawn....

Women have been forced to put the berkas back on.
===>Woman put burkas on because they feel it is their responsiblity under Sharia law. Women are not FORCED to put them on. But I forgot your fear of religion, my nad. Sorry dude.


100,000 Iraqis have been shot dead or blown to bits. Entire cities have been demolished. And if they stand up and protest, half the time US forces will fire upon them.
======>Could you please provide ANY evidence that our troops are shooting at peaceful protesters in the streets of Iraq. Just one will do.


I suppose you call that “freedom”.
====>If what you described is really happening then no. But somehow I suspect that this is more of a wish on your part than actual fact. If America succeeds in Iraq then your whole "balme America first" gig would go down in flames, oh yeah it already did! Sorry...

Saddam was a sick and horrible man who did much harm to his people, but under him in comparison to today, the Iraqi people were much better off.

====>Yes. While sipping on his Frappaccino in his nice air conditioned home, sitting in front of his laptop drooling over his picture of Michael Moore and Howard Dean he says how much better the Iraqis were under Saddam. Yes....much like the Cubans had more social equality and justice under Castro.


I think you’re confusing “poor diction skills” with complete ignorance.
====>Actually Bush's grades were better than Kerry's. And no I meant what I said. You have confused the man's poor public speaking skills with his intellect.
I quote...
"...despite that he has perhaps made some of the most ignorant and embarrassing remarks in the history of the US politics (such as “However they delineate; quotas, I think vulcanize society.” -Jan. 21, 2000)..."


He apparently does not even know what his job duties are. (“The legislature’s job is to write law. It’s the executive branch’s job to interpret law.” Nov. 22, 2000) You’re also making quite a leap of assumption in saying that I have a “love” of Clinton.

=====>Oh so you agee he was a horrible President and is a bigger liar than Bush could ever hope to be? Well maybe we hade reached some common ground then.

This is a man who I never voted for, who I criticized at every time he blew up a innocent civilian in Haiti, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan, and who sold America down to toilet to multinational corporate hegemony. The best thing you could say about Clinton is that he was the best REPUBLICAN president we’ve had since Eisenhower.

=====>Then you truly are a horrible liberal. You can't even stick with your own folks. And Clinton was never a Republican in any sense of the word. Although I will agree he is a very good public speaker but not a very good liar.

As compared to Democrats who want to lower abortion rates by making the American middle class less desperate.

=====>That's not how you lower the abortion rate. I grw up porr and I wasn't aborted. Be glad your own mother wasn't pro-choice.

Bush had the option to delay the execution for 30 days, in order to get the board to review her plea for clemency. He did not do so, and instead MOCKED her.
=====>You Do realize she was convicted of MURDER right? Not convicted of eating french fries on a DC train. Right?

What “left-wing nuts” were fighting to keep Tucker from being executed? Pat Robertson for one, as well as much of the conservative Christian community. Even radical conservative Gary Bauer weighed in saying, “I think it is nothing short of unbelievable that the governor of a major state running for president thought it was acceptable to mock a woman he decided to put to death”. Charley Davidson, who was a prosecutor of Karla's accomplice, Garrett, stated publicly, “The Karla Tucker who killed Jerry Dean and Debra Thornton cannot be executed by the State of Texas because that person no longer exists.
=====>Well if the same soul is not the same then all Bush did was execute the shell. The fact is that she has to pay for her crime. Plain and simple. Quit apologizing for bad behavior. She is a murderer. How hard is that for you to comprehend. I am writing this in my best English.

The Karla Tucker who remains on death row is a completely different person who, in my opinion, is not capable of those atrocities. I am comfortable enough with this belief that, if possible, I would welcome Karla into my house to meet my family.”

=====>Sure you would. Sure.....

3:55 AM

MiamiMiami said...

Alva,
Are you serious about this article. It totally debunks itself in the first two lines. The protesters were violent! Here it is...

"BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. troops opened fire at former Iraqi soldiers demonstrating to demand back wages outside the American headquarters in Baghdad Wednesday, killing two protesters during a chaotic, rock-throwing melee."

You need to try A LOT HARDER than this. I know you can. You can do it!

Get-A-Free-House said...

How would you like to own a custom-built house at a 42% to 100% discount? Find out how today by visiting Get-A-Free-House.com

Anonymous said...

So this is where all the mortgage amortization information is, I thought I did a good job on my site, but I am humbled. Maybe someone can take a look at my site at mortgage amortization and tell me where I can improve.
Very nice site!!

Anonymous said...

Nice site i came here searching for learn how to make money online and was looking for other people who are interested in learn how to make money online
You might be interested in learn how to make money online

Anonymous said...

Hey came across your site looking for other affiliate program review related sites, and yours came up. Not bad ranking for the terms "affiliate program review" anyway i invite you all since im here to join my new forum! Start posting today! Makecash.org

Anonymous said...

Hey i got here searching for ways to make quick cash
Your sites not too bad!

You got good rankings for them keywords ways to make quick cash

Check out my site
ways to make quick cash

Anonymous said...

Hey blogger do you know that you can make cash from your blog?

Its so simple a child could do it!

This goes for anyone reading this too.

You can make up to $0.40 per visit with this nice affiliate program called Zangocash

Its one of the best programs out there at the minute and can suit any blogger or webmaster!

To sign up and start earning money right away!

Just click this link below
affiliate advertising

So why not start earning today!

TheDevilIsInTheDetails said...

Another type of abortion Resource... LifeLaw.org . A discussion forum for all that deals with such hot-button issues as type of abortion .

mwcart said...

Great blog you have. Just wanted to let you know that I've found a great place for Bank-One-Student-Loan & Student Loan Debt
. Keep up the great blog. Best wishes.

rokkgod said...

I was surfing around and found another George Bush site.George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People This place has a ton of funny videos and mp3s.

Anonymous said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a wholesale teesholden t-shirt site called Holden Tees. We're a small company and we sell shirts and stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time

-Holden Tees

Goodman441 said...

I would like to say this is a great blog about adult affiliate program. I think alot of you might be interested in my site too. Click the Link below to visit my site.
Click Here

Thanks!