Free Advertising

Why does the mainstream media pretend to be anything other than a democratic propaganda machine? Katie Couric gave Michael J. Fox a platform on the CBS Evening News to discuss his views and desires on embryonic stem cell research. Why are his views considered national news? Why is a supposedly 'legitimate journalistic' television show making news of an actor's advocacy for ESR? At what point is the MSM going to answer the questions that we conservatives have about the legitimacy of their news?

Publicity Stunts

Tom Cruise's latest installment of MI is set to hit the stores. And surprisingly, Tom and Katie chose this same time to announce their wedding date in Italy. I have yet to see if their wedding date coincides with the release of Katie's DVD. This seems to be the new way to promote a movie and impending DVD release. For many months we didn't hear a word about Vince and Jen, and then suddenly, shortly before the release of The Breakup DVD, rumors surface that Vince is cheating on Jen and they're in the news defending their relationship.

So what will it be for the promotion of Tom's next movie: a new baby or a divorce?

60 Minutes

Something tells me 60 Minutes might be cooking up another October Surprise. Citizens Against Government Waste was supposed to have a segment on this Sunday's 60 Minutes, but now it has been pushed back to the first Sunday in November. What could be so important that it HAD to air October 29? Something against Republicans that what. They have to allow plenty of time for all of the networks to analyze every last detail over the coming week, give the American people plenty of opportunity to see the last surprise.

Candidates for 2008

Apparently our choices for President for 2008 are going to be limited to Democrats. Really, given the alphabet soup's coverage of potential Democratic candidates for '08 I have only to conclude that Republicans will not be running. From the evening news to morning programs to weekend programs, Democrats have enjoyed rock star coverage. Hillary Clinton from day one has enjoyed speculation about her run. The media has single handedly made her a legitimate candidate by all the press they give her and their constant accolades surrounding her.

John Edwards has been back in the spotlight through the release of his wife's book, and we've been treated to "John the Family Man" who drives his kids to school. But no one thought to trail him on his and his wife's anniversary to see if they went back to Wendy's.

And lately Barack Obama has enjoyed the rock star coverage with the release of his book. So now the headlines are filled with speculation about Barack's presidential ambitions and will white people vote for him? (They still haven't figured out that conservatives are principled voters and will vote for the candidate that represents the principles...color of skin and gender never factors in to the equation; part of the reason why Condi hasn't been paraded around as the token minority in the Bush administration; liberals, on the other hand, love to congratulate themselves any time a minority is granted a position of power, and the person is paraded in front of the media with speeches about what the tolerant liberals are doing for all of humankind by appointing a minority).

Name one candidate on the Republican side who has received the same speculation. Can't think of one? And the alphabet soups wonder why we conservatives don't trust them!


As a side note: thanks to Jane Fonda for telling us on this morning's View that those of us that voted for GW actually thought he stood for the OPPOSITE of what he actually stands for! The majority of GW supporters were misinformed! The mainstream media did a complete disservice by not giving us the facts! Is it just me or are the limousine liberals becoming more and more out of touch with reality?

Let's Call It Even

TMZ ran a story about celebs who claim to be green, but selectively so.

When it comes to transportation, we don't look for luxury, we look for what meets our needs. We have a sedan so that when aging parents visit, we have a comfortable car for them to ride around in. It's not a luxury class sedan. We researched the different makes and models to find the one that we felt would last us a long time. We found one that we're happy with and that meets our needs.

We also needed an SUV. Our part time business requires us to tow a trailer, and we also needed the cargo for hauling wood and other such materials. We got what we could afford and have been making it work. We looked at our lifestyle and our needs and chose accordingly.

Let's get to the celebs. The celebs mentioned were Julia Roberts, JLO, Brad Pitt, and George Clooney. Kudos to these celebs that are driving hybrids. That's the best way to prove your point: live by example. The contrast between what they preach and what they do comes to light when it comes to flying. The celebs highlighted in the TMZ article today all fly by private jet, with the miles in the U.S. running around 1100-3000 miles, and overseas private flights to Tokyo and Africa. One celeb's rep said that obviously the author of the article had no clue about the celeb's "need for private transport" and that the celebrity has no control over his schedule. That's fine; Americans can be understanding. What this celebrity did was make a personal choice based on his needs and his means. But how does he reconcile that with his concerns over the environment? How does he feel justified preaching to the rest of us about being green when he is flying in luxury? Most of us that he is preaching to really have no frivolous luxuries in our life that harms the environment. How about us peons in the fly-over states, to make up for driving our gas guzzling non-hybrids, only fly commercial as a way to balance our energy consumption, and the limousine liberals that preach conservation to us can continue to drive their hybrids to make up for flying privately. Let's call it even.

Picking on Christians

Thanks to Elisabeth Hasselbeck for pointing out how she, as a conservative Christian, is being targeted. Law and Order, SVU aired an episode where a girl named Elisabeth Hassenbeck was raped twice and murdered. Elisabeth's friend was upset and alerted Elisabeth to it, and Elisabeth called the executive producer of the show. He apparently was unsympathetic and suggested it might be a coincidence, even though the show is carefully plotted to pull stories from the headlines. Elisabeth further tried to explain why she thought the show was irresponsible and he said "I don't have to take this, lady," and hung up.

Based on this story and the producer's reaction, it sounds like exactly what it is, a passive aggressive attempt to live out a liberal fantasy: silencing conservatives. I really can't believe this immature, school ground behavior from the party of "tolerance".

Picking On Christians

The entertainment industry is in love with picking on Christians, and so far they are getting away with it. I'm too tired to start a new blog, but I want to begin to track how many programs on the alphabet suit pick on Christians. Right off the top of my head there was Rosie O'Donnell on The View stating that radical Christians were just as dangerous as radical Islamists. Then there's Studio 60, the new NBC show with an all star cast that seems as though it were created to be a passive aggressive outlet for expressing hatred of Christians. I watched the first three episodes just to see if it would get any better since I liked the cast, but sadly, Christians were picked on in every single episode I watched. One episode ran a skit entitled Crazy Christians. Boston Legal did it quite a bit last season, but I didn't document any of it. This season, the one show I watched portrayed a geeky, psychotic Christian who looked like he was stuck in a time warp. While not picking on Christians per say, Desperate Housewives was only too happy to portray Bree as prude with her explanation for it being "I'm a Republican!" I know this is territory I've covered in a previous post, but I want to document this trend more closely.

On a happy note, I've been able to watch two episodes of What About Brian without feeling picked on. Same with Grey's Anatomy. And Dancing With the Stars.

"For Stem Cell Research"

Michael J. Fox is in the news for airing a political ad during the World Series. He endorses Claire McCaskill because she is "for stem cell research". Why do liberals have such a hard time being accurate with their statements? Stem cell research is not against the law. Fox and his wealthy Hollywood friends are more than welcome to donate their dollars to fund stem cell research. The problem with Fox's ad is that McCaskill is for giving federal dollars to embryonic stem cell research; Talent, her opponent, is not. Fox would be more accurate if he said he supports McCaskill because she supports giving federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research. But that argument doesn't pack quite the same punch as just stating that McCaskill is for it and Talent is against it.

Then this issue becomes a pretty basic one: do you prefer tax dollars in the hands of politicians to hand out as they see fit or in the hands of the people who actually earn it and can give it directly to the causes they believe in.

TV Execs Say Conservatives Need Not Watch

Any conservatives watching any network TV? We are essentially an entire demographic that gets ignored. The few nuggets we are tossed are of the reality TV variety, ie, Extreme Makeover Home Edition. But pop on any old prime time show and you'll find conservative Christians the butt of jokes. Studio 60 seems designed solely to pick on Christians. Disappointing, given the star studded cast. Boston Legal likes to portray Christians as kooky psycho killers and the liberal lawyers as reasonable and rational. I don't know any conservative Christians that resemble those portrayed on the likes of Boston Legal. Desperate Housewives couldn't resist making Bree prudish in bed, declaring "I'm a Republican" as explanation for why she doesn't engage in certain acts. Many shows are including gay couples, or suggestions of normalcy for straight people to kiss someone of the same sex. It seems many in Hollywood feel it is their duty not to entertain, but to push their own beliefs and agenda on to those they hate: conservative Christians.

And if you're thinking morning programs are better, think again. The Today show long ago left me in the dust with their stories on 'girl crushes'. The View, whose view? A bunch of liberal bullies and a token conservative who they gang up on? Barbara long left her idea for The View. What she now has is 3 post menopausal women, all unmarried, all liberal, all carrying a little extra weight, two of them comedians...gee, what different views can they give us? And for the ladies that like to preach tolerance, they showed their lack of tolerance when interviewing Bill O'Reilly for his latest book. Elizabeth never got to ask him one question. Barbara, Rosie and Joy all yelled over each other at Bill. They never gave Bill a chance to actually explain his perspective and his book. We understand it's about Traditionalists vs. Secular Progressives. That's about all he got to tell us. Barbara rolled her eyes and flimsily held up the book at the end and dumped it off to Rosie. Is this professional? Bill O'Reilly has the #1 cable news show; how are his fans to view her actions? Then there's Oprah, who seems to be more and more out of touch. She gave a platform to the liberal Bush hating Frank Rich of the NY Times, calling it Truth in America. It was Liberal Rage and Un-Truths in America. Oprah's team clearly doesn't know how to research or Oprah would have called him on all of his lies.

So which network will dare to target the conservative Christian demographic? Which network will reap the rewards that Mel did with Passion of the Christ? In the meantime, I guess it's good for us conservative Christians to have less options in TV programming...it means we're watching less TV.