Another lie of the Left and Big Media?: if you "care" about people, you must be a liberal. Conversely, those nasty conservatives don’t really care about the poor, don’t want to help the needy, and are largely undesireables who clutter up the planet with all things backward and out of date.

What a sham. When Hurricane Katrina hit the Mississippi Gulf Coast, as well as most of the southern half of the state, and Louisiana, the devastation was unimaginable. Many people in both states lost their lives. Some 60,000 homes destroyed or rendered uninhabitable in Mississippi alone. You think the ACLU or leftist websites, or other leftist groups, did anything about that? No, didn’t think so. There were and continue to be hundreds of churches and other faith-based groups that have sent thousands of people to the Mississippi Gulf Coast to help clean up, recover, and rebuild. How much of that have you heard about in the national media? Not much at all.

If the destruction that occurred on the Gulf Coast had occurred outside D.C. or New York City, it would have been gigantic news for days and weeks to the national media. Yet many of the devastated areas of the Gulf Coast went unnoticed by some outlets, and certainly received much less attention than others, i.e., New Orleans.

The day after the worst natural disaster to hit this country, there were 18-wheelers sitting in the parking lot of a large Baptist church in a city in south Mississippi. From the Florida Southern Baptist Convention, the volunteers with their big trucks began serving hundreds of hot meals a day, and going out into the community and cutting trees off of residents’ houses, all for free. These kind-hearted people were there the day after the hurricane! Florida residents who know what it is like to suffer severely from hurricanes. Any chance you saw that reported on a Big Media network news program?

Like we said, we didn’t see anyone from the ACLU or leftist websites unloading ice, food and water, or doing anything anywhere else, for that matter. From the safety and comfort of Capitol Hill, some liberal Democrats barked about Bush not doing enough, but otherwise did not lift a finger.

Just as an example, there is a Methodist church in Auburn, Alabama, which is a four and a half hour drive from the Mississippi Gulf Coast, that sent a "relief team" to the devastated area for months and months on end, weekend upon weekend. The volunteers from Auburn probably didn’t even know the people on the Mississippi coast they were assisting. Do you think, even for a moment, that leftist websites that foster hate were doing the same thing to help those who lost their homes and everything they owned? We didn’t think so, either.

And, for those unfamiliar with these two areas: if Obama had to depend upon the voting breakdown, between himself and McCain, of the members of that Auburn church, as representing the entire nation, he’d be in a lot of trouble come Election Day. We can say that with a fair amount of certainty, even without taking one of Big Media’s "reliable" polls.

So, with all due respect, we think that’s enough about "liberals" being the only ones who "help" people. If you took a survey of all the volunteers who have come to the Gulf Coast and the surrounding areas to help with the recovery from Katrina, we believe there would be a clear majority, if not overwhelming majority, who are Christian and conservative.

Feeding the hungry, providing a friendly hand to those in need--those are not "liberal" characteristics. They aren’t "conservative" characteristics, either. But it is time for the leftists to stop claiming they are the ones who care and conservatives are the ones who don’t.

We love the attention that "Joe the Plumber" has brought to the presidential race. Senator Obama was "out with the people" when he happened upon Joe, and that one backfired on him. We hope Joe the Plumber becomes a symbol of why regular folks everywhere need to realize what is at stake in this election, and that they will go vote for the straight-talking John McCain and his "one of us" running mate, Sarah Palin. To the chagrin of the smooth-talking Barack Obama and his running mate, the gaffe-prone Joe Biden.

Lost in all the attention given to the last debate and Joe the Plumber was another jewel from Joe the here-I-go-again-with-my-foot-in-my-mouth VP candidate. Senator Biden said, about Senator McCain’s economic plan, that it "does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S." Yes, that is a quote, emphasis added by us. Just when you think Joe Biden can’t top himself, "there he goes again." We don’t guess what he meant was that Senator Obama would also call "jobs" a three-letter word. But, hey, the latter did say something about our "57" states.

Just imagine the furor from Big Media had Sarah Palin said either of those remarks. We would be treated to story after story from the liberal media, once again questioning whether Gov. Palin is "ready" to be vice-president, or president. But when Joe says still another gaffe, it’s not even a story to most of Big Media. Same with Senator Obama. Sure, all four of these candidates are out every day, talking to many people, and mistakes can happen–to anyone. But if it is "big news" to Big Media when Republicans trip over their own two feet, it ought to be when Democrats do, as well. But not in the world according to Big Media and the Left.

Big Media is too busy fawning over its Anointed One to actually report the news. Big Media is too committed to carrying out its PR job and agenda of electing Obama to do much of anything to upset what it thinks is an unstoppable train.

However, you, the voters, can knock that train right off the tracks. Joe the Plumber gave you plenty of incentive to do so. Joe the Plumber recognizes that what Obama wants to bring to this country is a socialist/welfare state. Joe the running mate apparently hasn’t caught on to that, or has to keep silent in order to be a real "team" player. Either way, we think Joe the Plumber has a better grasp of the bill of goods Obama is trying to sell, and makes a lot more sense than Joe the running mate does, even on the latter’s good days.

In the debate, we were heartened to see Senator McCain tell Senator Obama that he should have run for president four years ago if he wanted to run against President Bush. We said as much in our earlier column, "EDIT THIS!..." In the VP debate, Senator Biden had harped on the Bush administration, once again, as Senator Obama continuously attempts to do. We said then: "Here’s a tip, senators: your opponent is named John McCain. You know, that fellow on the other side of the Senate aisle that you have so often wanted on yours. Your opponent is not George W. Bush, no matter how much you wish or will it to be so."

We’d love to know if it was a simple slip of the tongue when McCain called Obama "Senator Government"–whether intentional or not, that was a great way to put it. Senator Obama wants you, and Joe the Plumber, and everyone, to believe that "I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you." Apparently by taking more and more of your money and giving more and more handouts to others. What a great way to "build" the economy...

One thing we’ve grown weary of hearing from the media pundits is that Senator McCain "didn’t score a knockout," or words to that effect. Guess what? That wasn’t going to happen. Senator Obama is much too smooth to completely fall apart in a debate setting, even outside the "comfort zone" of a stadium-sized pep rally. Even though we think Senator McCain did win this debate, we won’t be voting on the basis of how pundits or pollsters grade the candidates after a ninety-minute encounter. In our opinion, that doesn’t have a whole lot to do with answering the crisis calls at three a.m., or leading this country in a way that makes the best use of common sense.

There’s about as much truth in Senator Biden’s description of "jobs" as being a three-letter word as there is in his and Senator Obama’s promise of a "tax cut" for "95%" of all of us, to "help" the middle class. The more accurate way to put it would be to say that the "95%" claim is 100% false. Once again, as simply as we can state it: if the Bush tax cuts end, then anyone who pays taxes now will pay more then. That, and the litany of other tax increases Obama has planned, will torpedo the middle class, not "help" it.

Obama wants to end those tax cuts. His priority is hand-outs to those who don’t pay taxes and an increased tax burden on those who do. That’s what his "share the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber was really about.

"Jobs" isn’t a three-letter word. Even if Barack Obama says it is, too. "Joe" is a three-letter word, and we’ll take Joe the Plumber over Joe the running mate, and his running mate, anytime.

To Big Media, almost without exception, the only "good" Republican is a dead one. The extreme hatred and vitriol shown by them to current President Bush...think that is new? Nope. Sure, it probably surpasses any dislike ever expressed by the media toward previous Republican high office holders. "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is alive and well, and will continue beyond his time in office. Everything bad that happens, hey, it’s his fault. Ok? Got it? And while we are at it, it is now John McCain and Sarah Palin’s fault, too.

That is what leftists, Big Media, and the majority of celebrities expressing political opinions would have you believe. But is this the first time they’ve acted this way? Not hardly.

Ronald Reagan is now generally acknowledged, even by a number of Democrats, some liberals among them, as one of the best presidents of our collective lifetime. When he died, we were initially amazed that Big Media treated his passing as a huge media event, with hour-after-hour coverage, and mostly favorable reminiscings about his life and times. What, actual respect being shown toward a Republican, even a conservative one?

Then, it dawned on us. The only good Republican, in Big Media’s omnipotent eye, is a dead one. After he/she is gone, then and only then can they sing some praises. By doing this, Big Media (1) can come off as genteel, respectful, and above-board toward the departed and those who admired him/her, and (2) can use the collective praising as a subtle dig at the current Republicans whom Big Media cannot stand and wishes it could spew out of its sight (see Bush, George W., above, and for this election’s purposes, John McCain and Sarah Palin).

Come on, if you are old enough, can’t you remember how Big Media and the entertainment world treated President Reagan when he was in office? You think current President Bush is the first Republican president to be called "stupid" by the media and Hollywood, and treated as if he didn’t have a clue? Happened all the time when Reagan was in office. The subtle and not so subtle barbs made about his age, his intellect, his hearing, and so on. Saturday night TV shows that regularly presented him in spoofs that made him out to be a dumbo, a puppet whose strings were constantly pulled by others.

What a farce. Big Media failed to recognize one of the greatest, if not the greatest, leaders of our time. Much of liberal Hollywood did the same, and Hollywood was where Ronald Reagan had come from. He was a Republican, and a conservative. Before either of those, he was an American. And, even before that, he was a Christian, and he loved his wife and family. So popular was he that even Democrats voted for him in droves. Yet, his was not a "messianic" type of popularity. He reached the real things, knew of what he spoke (despite the above portrayal of the opposite by the media), and was genuine through and through.

Several observers have drawn comparisons between Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin. You won’t find Big Media pundits on the Left among those. To them, Sarah Palin doesn’t have a clue, and has no business "intruding" into "their" world. Sound familiar? Don’t worry, Sarah, they treated the Great Communicator the same way. Ronald Reagan is John McCain’s hero. We understand. Like Reagan, John McCain is a grounded individual who knows what he believes, and who knows how to lead. He also reminds us of Reagan, as does Sarah. There’s not anyone on the Left we can say that about–not that they would want to be caught dead reminding anyone of "the Gipper."

Big Media admitted at President Reagan’s death what it furiously fought to deny during his public lifetime. Only when he died did Big Media, and some portion of the Left, acknowledge him for who he truly was. No, to them, the only good Republican is...

So, let us get this straight...it’s ok for Democrats to have a "historic" nominee for president, because that nominee was going to be either African-American or female, but it’s not ok for Republicans to have a "historic" nominee for vice-president, because she’s female? "And McCain, while you are at it, pick somebody who won’t help you win, will you?" Sounds fair, huh? At least in the world of the far-left, where everything is the way they say it is...

Another jewel came from Hollywood news contributor Chevy Chase, speaking of Tina Fey, who impersonates Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live: "I want her to decimate this woman." In the double-standard world of the Left, it’s perfectly acceptable for them to say such stuff about a woman who is a conservative, though they would shout in protest from the mountaintops and scream cries of "sexist!" if it was the other way around.

You see, as long as all of us just march along in place, mindlessly and adoringly following Big Media and its cousin, the Hollywood liberal crowd, then everything is ok. That includes buying their products, watching their programs, going to their movies and shows, i.e., making them rich, as well as voting the way they tell us to. But woe to those who dare to think for themselves, who step outside the assigned path, who recognize that the real change in this election is being proposed by the Republican ticket, not the celebrity-laden one supported by the Hollywood Left and Big Media.

They don’t like it much when things don’t go according to plan. More and more of us are recognizing that what this country needs as President is a true leader who is also an American hero, who is bold enough to blaze his own trail, where country comes first, and who reflects his mind-set with his choice for Vice-President. That infuriates those who want a leftist celebrity "rock star" for President, who has spent less time in the U.S. Senate than his opponent did in a North Vietnamese prison, along with his "safe" old-guard pick for Vice-President.

Speak up, America. Do that on Election Day. Make the right choice, which in our estimation, is not the one the media and Hollywood have thrust upon you.

Was that a straight answer, or "the Hokey Pokey"? In late August we listened to Terry McAuliffe, big Hillary Clinton supporter [and former chair of the Democratic National Committee], jawing with the host of a news program, trying to avoid answering a very pointed question. In the heat of last spring’s nomination battle, Hillary said that Obama didn’t have "experience," but at the Democrat’s convention that August night she talked about experience being "important." The question from the host was, "so what experience does Obama have now that he didn’t have in the spring?"

McAuliffe didn’t look real thrilled over being asked. In fairness to him, he certainly wanted his candidate at the top of that ticket, and was now in a position of having to fall into line for the sake of "party unity." But, he said the Democrats "say things in a primary race to get the nomination" or something to that effect...but that "now" they are "unified." Excuse our bluntness, Terry, but which of her statements is true? Both can’t be!

He also said that "any" Democrat is better than John McCain. Oh, really? The same John McCain that John Kerry tried to get to serve as his running mate? The same John McCain that Joe Biden said would make a good running mate, had he secured the nomination? If "any" Democrat is better than John McCain, then why did Kerry and Biden think he was such a good choice for their VP?

McAuliffe continued on with the "new party line" of this season for Democrats, that electing McCain would be just a "third term" of Bush. What an absurd claim. If John McCain is anything, he is an independent-minded person–that’s why he made some Republicans nervous.

Democrats, you can’t have it both ways. John McCain can’t be that independent-minded, maverick Republican who has drawn the ire of some of the more conservative members of his own party, having been asked to be the VP nominee of your party, and also be the second coming of George W. Bush. Anyone who tries to say McCain is not independent-minded and is simply a stooge of the Bush administration is ignoring reality and has no credibility in our book.

Further evidence of this is John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Once again, McCain does the unpredictable, and picks a reformer who probably reminds him of himself in that regard, and someone who is an "outsider" to Washington–which, come to think of it, almost all of us are, also. How nice to have someone much more like us on the ticket, which explains a lot of what you are seeing from Big Media and the Left in terms of trying to ridicule her. They think she is stupid. Well, they think we are stupid, also. They thought Reagan was stupid, too. She’s not "intellectual" enough for them, and didn’t go to the "right" schools. Neither did most of us, and we aren’t going to apologize to the Left or Big Media for any lack of intelligence due to geography or where we were educated.

In our estimation there are plenty of Hillary Clinton supporters who have much more in common with Sarah Palin and John McCain than they do with either Barack Obama or Joe Biden–and, no, we are not talking about race. Senator Clinton is not free to say that, but her supporters are, and several have and have also endorsed McCain/Palin.

Nice try, Terry, but instead of giving us a reason to vote for "your" ticket, all we heard were reasons to vote for the other one–particularly since it’s nominee is that guy your party tried to get on your ticket four years ago.

"And that’s what it’s all about..."

 In our opinion, there are only three possible explanations for the media "calling" the election for Al Gore in 2000, which was premature, and as it turned out, incorrect. The first possibility is incompetence or mistake. Somebody screwed up, and all the other networks jumped off the cliff behind them, with all of them claiming Gore had won. Somebody didn’t do their job, and that was the case at each network that repeated the incorrect "call."

The second possibility is greed. The news business is a business, and a highly competitive one, despite the platitudes of "guarding the people’s freedoms" and stuff like that being the stated reasons for the networks’ existence. All of them wanted to be "first" in proclaiming who had won, so somebody made that call prematurely, in their greediness to lead the way, and they were wrong. The rest of the networks followed suit, since no one wanted to be left behind.

The third possibility is the most disturbing. Given the tremendous liberal bias exhibited by Big Media over the years, particularly since the campaign of Bill Clinton in 1992 up to the present (but even prior to then), we cannot help but have the following opinion–and, this is opinion– we tend to think this third possibility is the most likely one of the three: The media wanted the result they "pronounced." In an effort to help Gore get "over the top" and win the election, they said he had won the election. Despite the fact that we recall our TV screen having a box in the corner that said something to the effect, "FLORIDA: Bush 52% / Gore 46%," when the media said it was "over" and that Gore had won. Huh? How can that be, we recall saying.

The panhandle area of Florida is largely in the Central Time Zone. The polls were open until 7pm central time in that area of Florida, which was a Bush stronghold–he was polling upwards of 70% in that part of the state. When the media made its "call" for Gore, there was 45 to 50 minutes of voting time remaining in that time zone.

That left us with a series of questions, which no one we know of in the media ever attempted to really answer after all this was over. First, how many votes in that central time zone area of Florida did the media cost Bush with its "call" for Gore? The ultimate result had Bush only a few hundred votes ahead of Gore. Without the "call," would that margin have been several thousand?

So many people accept whatever they hear on TV as the truth, and eight years ago that may have been more true than it is now, since today many of us are much more aware of Big Media’s liberal bias. How many people heard that "result" and decided there was no point in stopping by the voting precinct on their way home from work and voting for Bush, or leaving home and getting down there to cast their vote? Since it was "over," according to "the TV," what point was there?

The next questions move us westward across the country. When the media made its "call," voting was still going on in the central, mountain, and pacific time zones, with almost two hours of voting left in the mountain states and nearly three hours left in the pacific states. At the time the media called the election for Gore, there were 35 of our 50 states still voting, as they were either not in the eastern time zone or only partially so, such as Florida and Tennessee.

Gore won the popular vote nationwide by about 544,000 votes out of over 104 million cast. If an average of 15,543 Bush would-be voters in each of those 35 states stayed home after hearing the media’s "pronouncement" of Gore as the winner, then the popular vote was greatly affected by this call, as well as the electoral vote, since some states went to Gore by only a few thousand votes or less. For example, Gore won Iowa by less than 4,200 votes (7 electoral votes), New Mexico by 366 votes (5 electoral votes), Oregon by less than 7,000 votes (7 electoral votes) and Wisconsin by less than 5,800 (11 electoral votes). If the media’s "call" cost Bush all four of those states, then his electoral total should have been 301 to Gore’s 236, rather than the actual total of 271 to 266.

So, how many votes across the nation did the media cost Bush with its "call"? How different would the popular vote have been if the media had done its job properly? How different would the electoral vote have been? We’ll never know, but we do know a couple of other things.

For one, the often-repeated claim of the Left, that Bush was "illegally" elected, is a myth, and downright false. There’s no telling how many more votes Bush would have gotten–and perhaps states he would have won–had the media not done what it did. As to that average of some 15,000 votes per state, think of how many precincts there are in an average state–a bunch of them. That’s not that many votes per precinct that could have made up the 15,000 in a given state–and Gore’s margin of victory was much less than that in the four states listed above.

There’s also the issue of just how many fraudulent votes were cast across the country, and what effect that had on the vote totals–though we’ll never know that, either. As can be seen from above, if there were a mere 400 improperly cast votes in New Mexico in favor of Gore, the outcome of that state would have been determined by those improper votes.

Did that actually happen? We don’t know, but today we are disturbed by the stories of alleged voter fraud that may be occurring in "battleground" states and others around the country. However, voter fraud is a topic that doesn’t hold much interest to Big Media currently.

Ultimately, we don’t know which of those three explanations for the media’s "call" is the actual one. Regardless, the fact that the "call" happened, and the way it did, is enough reason to "turn off" the Big Media networks.

Ancient history, you say? What difference does that make now? We think it is important to learn lessons from history, so the same mistakes or actions don’t get repeated–or if they do, we are at least wise as to what is going on. The 2008 election may come down to the electoral vote of a single state, as it supposedly did in 2000.

Will Big Media make another early "call" this time around? Perhaps in favor of its favorite candidate? We don’t know, but we think there is a strong likelihood that it will. Many in Big Media are already acting like it is "over" almost a month away from Election Day – when so much can still happen between now and then. Remember how disappointed some in Big Media acted on Election Night 2004, when they had to keep announcing state after state for Bush, over Kerry? We can only imagine they must be chomping at the bits today, eager to "call" state after state for Obama, based on, say, four or five per cent of the vote.

We won’t hold our breath waiting for someone in Big Media to tell us that at this point in the race in 1980, Ronald Reagan was still well behind Jimmy Carter in the "polls" (gee, sounds kind of like today, huh?) – yet Reagan ultimately won, and did so decisively. Big Media and the Obama campaign wish that the election was today – but since it isn’t, the next best thing for them is to act like "it’s in the bag" for their candidate.

Whatever you do, don’t fail to cast your vote on the basis of anything Big Media says between now and Election Day! Or on Election Day itself! It is obvious who Big Media wants to have in the White House, and his name is not John McCain. Do you think for a minute that the election results "coverage" by Big Media will have any meaningful level of objectivity?

That brings to mind the 2004 election. We recall that one network had election day "exit polls" in Florida that said John Kerry was several points ahead, when in truth and in fact, he was several points behind, and Bush won that state comfortably. How did that happen? Bad polling? A big "mistake" on someone’s part? Hmmm. We also recall seeing one single news analyst on another network question that, who stated the possibility that this network wanted that result, so that is what showed. Given that the previous election had come down to the result in Florida, that made an impression on us. We never heard anyone else mention that exit poll again. It certainly wasn’t the subject of any "investigative" news story by the offending network.

We think Big Media does the nation a disservice by "projecting" the results of the election while people are still voting. The media should report the actual results as they receive them, but it is past time for them to "lay off" saying who is going to win when only a small percentage of the vote has been reported–especially in close elections–and particularly when so much of the country is still voting.

We were in Great Britain some years ago when races for Parliament were held. We watched in amazement as the three major candidates for a particular seat all appeared on the same stage, and the election result was announced, then and there. You can imagine the tension and excitement. No one had a clue who had won until the announcement. There were no "talking heads" telling us who was going to win based on 4% of the vote or upon some "exit poll" commissioned by that network. Wouldn’t it be something to have that here? What would the media do with themselves while we all waited? Wouldn’t you like to find out?

What will happen this time around? We don’t know, and we can only hope and pray that fairness rules the day, though we unfortunately have plenty of reasons (spelled "A-C-O-R-N") to believe it won’t. But here’s the point: the fact that there is even a reason to question what Big Media has done in the past on Election Day, and have fear of what they will do on this one, does not speak well of too much of the media in this country. Especially since they have little or no interest in investigating alleged voter fraud. To Big Media, ACORN is apparently nothing more than something that falls from a tree.

Remember, no matter what they say, go vote!

We don’t know why we even get surprised any longer. The liberal bias so permeates the "Big Media" networks and outlets that it is as certain as the rising sun in the morning. An obvious example of "shamelessness" are those with the liberal bias–they don’t even try to hide it anymore. They are so brazen, they think they can bash one side and favor the other, and get away with it, completely, all while catapulting Barack Obama into the White House.

They are this way for a number of reasons, probably. They are leftists, and distrust anyone or anything conservative or traditional, and really believe it is up to them to "save" the world from "extremists" like Republicans, conservatives and/or evangelical Christians. They think the rest of us need them, and that without them in our lives, we would wander aimlessly, without direction or meaning. On top of that, they think we are stupid and that we haven’t got a clue–at least without them leading us around, marching in place to their politically correct beat.

Why they are this way isn’t as important as the fact that they are, and what that is doing to our society and our country. We don’t believe they are going to change. In our opinion they will pull out every possible stop to get what they want–Obama in the White House, liberal Democrats in control of Congress, and Big Media in control of the flow of information as well as the thought processes of most Americans. That will be accompanied by a continuing attack on traditional values coupled with the championing of the secular-progressive world view. (please see also our previous column, "2008 is 1984" on our website).

Can they be stopped? We believe they can be. We continue to hope that most in this country don’t want the kind of world the Left and Big Media are trying to push us to–the outcome of this election will go a long way in showing whether we are right about that.

How can they be stopped? We address this elsewhere on our site, but we would re-state the name of the site: BoycottBigMedia.com. We don’t mean this to sound as harsh as some might take it, but we need to continue to hit them where it hurts–in the ratings. We have to believe that if millions and millions of us move our viewership from "Big Media" programming to the one "balanced" TV news service, then that will have a big impact. If more and more of us watch less and less of Big Media network programming, the impact will grow. If millions more cancel subscriptions to liberal newspapers and magazines, the impact will grow still more. Thankfully, there are numerous reliable news sources on the internet which make reading Big Media’s propaganda less necessary than it used to be, just to stay "informed."

Eventually, if the above decline in "customers" of Big Media increases, then their advertising dollars will decrease. They can’t charge advertisers as much if people aren’t watching or reading. If their ad revenue goes on a downward spiral as a result, they can at least know the price of their shameless liberal bias.

Plus, if ten thousand of you pick out a particular sponsor of a leftist television news program, and let that company know that your business with them is history–as in "finished"– we think that will get that company’s executives’ attention in a hurry. If four or five companies get that message from ten or twenty thousand "former" customers as well, the corporate boardrooms might start re-thinking their ad "blitzes" via Big Media outlets.

None of these actions are "censorship" or "underhanded" in any way. For now anyway, this is still a free country. We don’t have to watch or read the stuff Big Media puts out and passes off as news or network programming. What we watch or read, or don’t watch or read, is our choice, not theirs. We don’t have to buy the products or shop at the stores which make Big Media rich with their ad dollars.

We also don’t have to subject our children to the giant reach of Big Media and the Left. That is a challenge in today’s world, but if our kids learn their "values" from too much of what is on television or on the internet, then what kind of world their children will live in is a scary thought.

We state our belief in other columns that Big Media tries its best to make what it wants to happen a "foregone conclusion." Just a few short weeks ago, McCain was ahead in the polls, but now he is behind, and many of the pundits are no doubt ready to "call" the election in Obama’s favor, with the election still a month away. Don’t fall for that, please. Big Media tried that in 2000, as we recall them making it sound like Gore was going to win, and then on election night, mysteriously, he was declared the winner prematurely, while 35 of the 50 states were still voting. We recall them making it sound like Kerry was going to win in 2004, and Bush’s victory wasn’t nearly as close as Big Media had forecast. So, keep your head up. The election isn’t "lost" and it is not "over," no matter how badly Big Media wants all of you to believe that it is. We determine that, not them–at least, if we ignore them and go vote, regardless.

Unfortunately, what may prove to be a "wild card" in this election is just how many fraudulent votes get cast, and for whom–particularly in the "battleground" states. There is only one television news channel or network we know of saying much about voter fraud, as well as the allegations against ACORN, the group with which Obama has a long history, and which either it or its representatives have been accused of improprieties in a number of states. The possibility that "fraud" votes may be cast for Obama makes it even all the more necessary that those of us who do not support Obama go vote–only once apiece–for McCain/Palin. See also our column, Can You Say "Voter Fraud"?

There are no doubt a number of disappointed Hillary supporters out there, 18 million to be exact. Many are definitely not riding the Obama bandwagon. Did you know that some of them call themselves "PUMAs," after the cat? That stands for "Party Unity My...[Backside]"...and they are prepared to vote for McCain/Palin this time around. Sounds good to us.

The PUMAs don’t wish to be mistaken for "Reagan Democrats." Don’t worry, we won’t lump you together. But, since we mentioned it, all you moderate Democrats out there (and the few conservative ones who remain), we encourage you to do what a number of prominent members of your party are doing, and vote principle over party, for McCain/Palin. For more on this point, please see our other columns, such as "Are You Kidding Me?" and "The Hokey Pokey" [coming soon] and "Left, Right, and Stuck in the Middle..." [coming soon] among others.

Senator Joe Lieberman is actively campaigning for his long-time colleague from the other party, John McCain. The Connecticut senator even gave a spirited speech at the Republican National Convention in support of his friend. We thought it quite ironic to see the Democrat’s nominee for Vice-President in 2000 at the Republican convention in 2008, endorsing the GOP’s nominee for President, John McCain, who was also offered the Vice-President spot by the Democrat’s nominee for President in 2004, John Kerry.

Yet, now we hear the cacophony of liberal Democrats publicly yelling that "McCain is just four more years of Bush" while there is talk of their leaders privately threatening Senator Lieberman with retribution for his brave endorsement. How refreshing to see someone follow principle over party, when that party is out of step. If you want "politics as usual," you will get just that if Senators Obama and Biden are elected, despite their oft-repeated mantra of "change."

Even with all of our enthusiasm for Sarah Palin’s fantastic debate performance, and John McCain’s leadership abilities, and with all due respect, here’s a suggestion that we are ready to SHOUT, since we haven’t heard either on the ticket mention it in either debate: Would one of them (or even better, both of them) PLEASE drive home the falsity of the Obama/Biden claim that they will "reduce" taxes on "95%" of us? The Bush tax cuts are gone if Obama becomes president–which means that ANYONE who pays taxes will pay MORE taxes under an Obama presidency–INCLUDING the "middle class" that Obama/Biden claim they are going to help. That means that anyone who believes Joe Biden’s claim that "no one making less than 250k a year will pay a penny more in taxes" falls into that "Yes! I’ll buy the Brooklyn Bridge!–how much?" category–Biden’s claim is the real "bridge to nowhere." [Thanks, we needed to get that off our chest...but come the next debate, y’all put that one in, ok?].

Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) recently called Gov. Sarah Palin "disabled." Yes, he really did. Besides being dirty politics, that is a total lack of class. Particularly since Gov. Palin is the mother of a special-needs baby, whom she and her husband decided to have rather than abort.

Congressman Rangel already raised hackles in Mississippi a few months back when he insulted the entire state. Senator Obama must be really enthused to have the support of someone who makes a regular habit of putting his foot in his mouth–and Rangel’s not helping much, either.

We don’t wish Congressman Rangel any ill will, we really don’t. But liberal Democrats like he and Senator Obama are going to bring us "past" the practice of partisan politics and "business as usual" in Washington? About that "deed" to the Brooklyn Bridge...

What do you think would have happened if Sarah Palin had said that President Franklin D. Roosevelt went on TV when the Great Depression hit and talked to the American people, like President Bush needs to now? She would have been ridiculed at length, lambasted to the ends of the earth, and left for dead politically by Big Media. Who said that? Why, it was Senator Joe Biden, the Democrats’ nominee for Vice-President. Let’s see, Senator, FDR wasn’t president when the Great Depression hit, and TV hadn’t been invented yet. Wow, just a little off on that one, you think? But according to Big Media, Sarah Palin is the one who "isn’t prepared" to be vice-president, or, if circumstances dictated, president.

Saying there is a double standard in the media doesn’t even begin to explain how far it has gone, and how bad things are–those in Big Media who keep this double standard intact don’t deserve to call themselves "journalists"–they ought to just call themselves what they are: advocates for the Left, who employ "attack dog" tactics on those who don’t agree with them, and ignore any shortcomings of those who do further Big Media’s agenda.

We can, but you can’t...

Some Democrats are fuming that John McCain chose a woman as his running mate, with a "hey, he can’t do that!" type of indignation. Please see our upcoming column elsewhere on this site, "We can, but you can’t"...

From the "we’re not making this up, but we wish we were" department, the World Council of Churches, a group which doesn’t exactly lean to the right, and an outfit called "Religions for Peace" as well as some others, held a dinner to "honor" Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yes, they really did. At the Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York City.

"Religions for Peace"? Who are they trying to kid? Iran is a nation that has supplied "insurgents" and others in Iraq the means by which to kill American soldiers, as well as unarmed, innocent Iraqi civilians. So an organization that bills itself as promoting "peace" is going to honor that nation’s leader?

If we were liberals, that would be downright embarrassing, since those "honoring" Ahmadinejad are from the left, politically. As it is, it is disgusting. In today’s world of the Left, false is true, bad is good, and ruthless tyrants get "honored" in our own country while our president gets called a "Nazi" by some in the leftist camp. Anyone wonder why we are so close to going to Hades in a handbasket?

For more on the absurdity of not recognizing who the enemy is, you may want to see An American Carol, the movie just released which actually lampoons the left, not the right (yes, you heard us correctly. How refreshing, though almost unbelievable that such could happen...truth can be stranger than fiction!).

One Obama pundit huffed afterwards that McCain and Palin were "not ready for prime time" but that Biden showed that he and Obama were. No offense, but what a load. You know of what. Funny how Biden didn’t think Obama was ready for the presidency just a few short months ago, but now they are "best buds" and our greatest hope? That Biden now is the standard bearer for a candidate he didn’t think was ready for the White House? That same Joe Biden thinks John McCain isn’t "really" a maverick on things that matter, yet Biden previously named John McCain as a great person to have as his own running mate, had he secured the nomination.

Senator Biden also showed that he and Senator Obama continue to be confused over just who they are running against in this election. Here’s a tip, senators: your opponent is named John McCain. You know, that fellow on the other side of the Senate aisle that you have so often wanted on yours. Your opponent is not George W. Bush, no matter how much you wish or will it to be so.

We are to believe that the same man John Kerry tried to get to serve as his VP four years ago is simply a political reincarnation of George W. Bush? Yes, to repeat ourselves, what a load. Sarah Palin scored with the American people. That is what matters. That is also what draws the ire and disgust of liberal Big Media, too many of which are hopelessly out of touch with those same American people, and wouldn’t want to believe like us, or live with us, or–horrors–be like us.

Sarah does. Sarah is. And they can’t stand that about her. Joe Biden tried to drop in every reference he could about where he was from and his roots–perhaps he recognizes that America knows where she comes from, and doesn’t recognize too much of where Big Media and liberal Democrats are either coming from or, even worse, want to take us.Only a liberal-biased dedicated member of Big Media could score the VP debate as a declaratory victory for Joe Biden. Again, the Senator comes across to us as likeable, perhaps someone we’d enjoy sharing a beverage or a meal with, and spirited conversation. We don’t doubt his considerable experience in the Senate and his dedication to his position.

That being said, Sarah Palin exceeded the expectations of all who were fearing she would not meet those. That was an unfair fear largely fueled by the sharp editing and unreasonable questions sprung upon her by reporters on a mission to sink her, in our opinion.

The horrible treatment of Sarah Palin by Big Media, combined with the relative silence from "the usual suspects" who would be screaming bloody murder over that, if Gov. Palin was a liberal Democrat, has led us to offer this suggestion: the National Organization for Women, or NOW, should re-name itself to NOWWARRL, or the "National Organization for Women Who Are Really, Really Liberal." NOW’s failure to decry Big Media’s horrendously biased "reporting" on Gov. Palin makes it appear that NOW is an organization only for women on the Left. If you, a woman, do not fit NOW’s profile of what a woman should be, i.e., a leftist who sees the issues at most every turn from a liberal perspective, then NOW is going to turn a deaf ear to you if you are attacked by "the system," which, in this case, is Big Media.

This reminds us of the way NOW used to close its eyes and put its hands over its ears when complaints surfaced from women over alleged mistreatment by President Bill Clinton. Kathleen Willey said some very disturbing things about that president, which, if true, does not speak well of his character, to say the least. However, when she came forward regarding that subject, NOW was nowhere to be found.

Today, NOW has made it clear once again that it is an organization primarily for women on the left. If you are a Republican, or a conservative, or an evangelical Christian, then you, as a woman, do not appear to have the same level of importance to NOW, in our opinion. Sarah Palin would seem to be a role model for women everywhere–but, oh yeah, she’s a Republican, a conservative, and a Christian, and that is apparently an Unholy Trinity to NOW. It appears that to NOW, Gov. Palin is to take her lumps and learn her lesson– that’s what she gets for not being an "enlightened" liberal.

Fairness dictates that we note that we have heard some women who can be identified as Democrats and/or liberals decry the terrible actions of Big Media toward Gov. Palin. To their credit, they have plainly stated that the media has been unfair and sexist toward Gov. Palin. For example, they point out that a man would not be asked if he could be both Vice President and a good father (a similar point was made by Mayor Guliani in his rousing oratory which preceded Gov. Palin’s riveting speech at the Republican convention). Unfortunately, they have been the exception rather than the rule, the voices crying out in the wilderness that the vast majority of the Left choose to either ignore, or criticize for daring to question the actions of the status quo of liberal Big Media.

From what we have seen of Gov. Palin, it appears that she knows something about taking care of herself in the public arena, and she has no doubt endured criticism before, especially since she has been a reformer who has ruffled feathers. Still, that does not make what Big Media has done to her acceptable. Big Media’s pious bashing of Sarah Palin is shameful, except too many in Big Media have no shame.

We have no doubt whatsoever that if Sarah Palin was the Democrats’ nominee for Vice-President, then Big Media would not, by and large, be engaging in its theatrical display of bad journalism. Those few who did would be shouted down by the vast majority of the Left, including, if not led by, the National Organization for Women.

But that hasn’t happened here, in the real world. Only because Sarah Palin isn’t one of those really, really liberal women. Thank goodness for that.

"Yes, we can"....get a sweetheart real estate deal, if you know the right group of people (i.e., Tony Rezko) and you can count on the liberal media almost totally ignoring this; kind of like the media has with the Countrywide mess and liberal Democrats in the Senate, that looks an awfully lot like trading favors for questionably friendly loan terms [if Obama or they were Republicans, then Hell hath no fury like the media firestorm that would have ensued...but as it is, hey, "no harm, no foul," right?]

"Yes, we can"....get rid of the very things that are helping to prevent another terrorist attack on American soil, like the eavesdropping program, the Patriot Act, tough interrogation of prisoners, the type of things that helped Great Britain foil the would-be subway attack not long ago...

"Yes, we can"...raise the budget deficit to record highs, and spend our country into a catastrophic level of uncertainty and imbalance, with high levels of inflation sure to follow.