At Last, Some Good News ~ Ep. 1213 ~ The Dan Bongino Show®

From the Bongino Show's description of this episode on youtube.com/Bongino:

In this episode, I address an explosive article in the Wall Street Journal about the Wuhan Virus which questions everything. I also address the continued misinformation and hysteria campaigns being waged by the liberal media. Finally I discuss a critical Supreme Court ruling on racial discrimination and a disastrous decision by the Democrat Nevada Governor.

This part did me in. While I absolutely loved the whole episode, and had some really laughing out loud momemts (that's LOL for you youngsters out there), there was a segment that seriously got me teared up and cleared my sinuses, if you know what I mean.  And I seriously hate to admit it when my eyes well up... has to be allergies, or something like that.  No, it was so much deeper than that.  I am here, not knowing if I will ever get to see my dad again.  My dad turned 100 years old in November, 2019.  He is in a memory care unit.  He is in a locked down nursing care facility.  He is used to seeing me and my siblings quite often, and now we can't see him.  Will he even remember us now?  I don't know... what can I say?  It's even hard for me to keep writing at the moment...

So at last, there is good news.  Researchers in the medical world have determined, possibly, that the number of deaths among the infected may not be as high as once thought.  Not when the entire population of an area is tested, and more people test positive but yet show minimal symptoms, and survive the illness.  So, there is that.

Just before that final segment that was somewhat emotional, Dan discussed that disgusting Governor of Nevada,  Steve Sisolak. Yes, he's a DEMONICRat.  He is barring the use of the malaria drug, Chloroquine, or more specifically, Hydroxychloroquine, which President Trump mentioned that has promise.  Should you not at least wonder, why?  I do, and I am pretty sure that most of us know the answer to that question.  Because, that would give the President a win?  Gov. Sisolak, if you happen to see this post, you need to know that you will be held responsible for not allowing a life-saving medication from being used.  As Dan says, everybody in Nevada needs to be ringing his bell... I mean, the phones in his office.  Is that something that I'd want to be remembered for if I was a governor?  Nope, not so much.

Well, pretty much the same advice should go out to the morons in the mainstream media.  Their misguided attacks on the President will be remembered, and probably spoke of in the history books.  And hopefully, in the college "journalism" schools, eventually.  You see, some of us dopey people out here are actually on to you.  Dan Bongino put it very well in one of the segments... You should watch this all the way through so that you see that!

Blessed are those of us that know how to use a flashlight, and can shed light on the truth.




RELATED STORIES (in other words, read the show notes!):

• What We Know About Potential Treatments for COVID-19 ~ By Kevin Pham ~ Daily Signal

‘Don’t Amplify Misinformation’: Rachel Maddow Wants The Media To Blackout Trump ~ By William Davis ~ Daily Caller

• Soros Bankrolls Coronavirus Attack Ads Against Trump ~ By Joe Schoffstall ~ Washington Free Beacon

(NOTE: You will have to go to the Show Notes to see the rest of the stories today. It really has been that kind of a day, and I'm sorry. And not all of the stories were really discussed on the show. I just included the stories above that I think you need to know about, if you don't already.)

The WikiLeaks vindication of George W. Bush ~ By Larry Elder

I am so glad to see this column by Larry Elder. It turns out that some of those documents found in one of the WikiLeaks releases exposed the truth about WMD in Iraq, and will deny the liberals of using the "Bush Lied, People Died" mantra ever again. It's about time that the truth is finally revealed! I never doubted that there was WMD in Iraq, but I will forever wonder why George W. Bush quit trying to defend himself, and now I'll wonder even more!

The WikiLeaks vindication of George W. Bush

LARRY ELDER

By Larry Elder

December 09, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

But ... there ... was ... yellowcake. This brings us back to WikiLeaks.

Wired magazine's contributing editor, Noah Shachtman – a nonresident fellow at the liberal Brookings Institution – researched the 400,000 WikiLeaked documents released in October. Here's what he found: "By late 2003, even the Bush White House's staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But WikiLeaks' newly released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction (emphasis added). ... Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict – and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."

In 2008, our military shipped out of Iraq – on 37 flights in 3,500 barrels – what even the Associated Press called "the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program": 550 metric tons of the supposedly nonexistent yellowcake. The New York Sun editorialized: "The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power. ... To leave this nuclear material sitting around the Middle East in the hands of Saddam ... would have been too big a risk."

Now the mainscream media no longer deem yellowcake – the WMD Bush supposedly lied about – a WMD. It was, well, old. It was degraded. It was not what we think of when we think of WMD. Really? Square that with what former Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean said in April 2004: "There were no weapons of mass destruction." MSNBC's Rachel Maddow goes even further, insisting, against the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that "Saddam Hussein was not pursuing weapons of mass destruction"!

Bush, hammered by the insidious "Bush Lied, People Died" mantra, endured one of the most vicious smears against any president in history. He is owed an apology.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

RINOs beware ~ By Robert Ringer

In a column Robert Ringer wrote in May, 2010, he said:

The fact that so many people reading this article will find my comments to be extreme speaks only to how far down the road toward socialism we have traveled. We no longer respect property rights, especially when the property is a business. Generations have been brainwashed into believing that abstract notions such as "the good of society" and "social justice" are more important than private ownership.

This column by Ringer expands on the theme of property rights, and is a warning to Republicans that if they regain a majority in the House and Senate, they better not even think about going soft when progressives try to intimidate them into "backing off their true beliefs." Just sayin'...

I have great empathy for Rand Paul in this situation, because I know how difficult it can be when you're put on the spot on national television. But my concern is that too many conservatives and libertarian-centered conservatives are still allowing the left to intimidate them into backing off their true beliefs.

This is what concerns me if Republicans do actually take control of the House and Senate in November. What the tea parties signify more than anything else is that half or more of Americans are finally ready to hear the truth. And if Republicans are still not ready to give it to them, with boldness and without fear, they will be reviled long after our final liberties are lost.

By Robert Ringer

Posted: August 13, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

When MSNBC's Rachel Maddow asked Rand Paul in an interview back in May if he believed that a private business should have the right to refuse to serve African-Americans, he correctly answered, "Yes." But he went on to say, "I'm not in favor of discrimination of any form."

With Republicans on the verge of taking congressional power away from the far left, we need to keep issues like this front and center so RINOs aren't given the opportunity to get back into a business-as-usual mode.

To a person who has progressive pudding jammed between his ears, Rand Paul's one-word answer and his follow-up comment contradict one another. You see, a pudding-filled brain cavity makes life simple. If someone believes a business owner has a right to refuse service to an African-American, that means he (the person who harbors such a belief) favors discrimination.

For the person addicted to a life of nonstop sports, junk TV and Outback Steakhouse, there is little time to intellectualize a serious issue like this. After all, that would require him to reject knee-jerk statements and think through the moral ramifications of the issue.

The real problem is that Maddow asked Paul the wrong question. It was what is commonly referred to as a loaded question. If you're going to be a serious supporter of liberty, you cannot allow yourself to be intimidated into answering loaded questions – i.e., questions based on a false premise or an implied false premise.

Here, the false premise was implied: If a business owner has the right to refuse service to someone, it automatically follows that that someone would be an African-American. It is, of course, an absurd assumption.

What if the owner of the business is an African-American? Like a white owner, a black owner has a right to do whatever he wishes with his business. The reason he possesses such a right is that his business is his property. The same is true when it comes to deciding whom he does and does not wish to service.

Skin color is irrelevant to those who believe in liberty. But to the far left, the so-called race card is like oxygen. For decades, progressives have suffered withdrawal symptoms as race has become less and less of an issue in the U.S. (Ironically, it is a brown man in the White House who has managed to rekindle racial tensions in America through his shameful, nonstop, racially charged rhetoric.)

If you want to discuss the subject of black progress in America, fine. We have millions of blacks who are doctors, dentists, lawyers, engineers, professors, military officers, politicians – even the president of the United States is an African-American! So let's all give ourselves – both whites and blacks – a big pat on the back for bringing about a post-racial era in America. End of discussion on that topic.

But if you want to discuss another topic – the sanctity of private property – I repeat what I said in my May 21 article about unionization: If one believes in the concept of private property – which all sane people of goodwill do – he is obliged to concede that an owner has a right to do anything he wishes with his own property.

As Thomas Sowell has so often pointed out, if an employer refuses to hire or serve people purely on a discriminatory basis, he does so at his own peril, because the marketplace will punish him. For example, speaking for myself, I would never give my business to a company or restaurant that refused to serve people of any specific race or ethnicity, and I think I can safely say that I'm in the majority on that one.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

The incurious, inglorious true believers ~ By Joseph Farah

Joseph is right. It should be a concern to the mainstream press that Obama does not want anyone to see his actual long-form birth certificate. Why would that be? What is he hiding?

And the ones that I am concerned with that are amongst the press that ridicule the "birthers" are Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. They are both very intelligent men. And I've spoken with some people that are now "FORMER" Beck fans, because of his stance on the issue. I don't really understand why either Beck or O'Reilly wouldn't be supporting Farah on this issue. I am almost willing to bet that they have received orders from Fox News, possibly even News Corp and Rupert Murdoch, for some very strange reason. I wouldn't really put it past News Corp. to sacrifice their journalist integrity. It wouldn't be the first time, as Joseph Farah pointed out in a recent column. 

Or, maybe O'Reilly and Beck saw what happened to Lou Dobbs at CNN. Just sayin'...

I would think, at this point, all reasonable people could agree on one thing: Obama is hiding something. Usually, when politicians hide something, there's a reason. Usually that's a concern for a vigilant press and a vigilant public.

I would suggest to you that the "incurious, inglorious true believers," not the so-called "birthers," are the ones worthy of scorn, contempt and caricature.

By Joseph Farah

Posted: May 13, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

They call me a "birther."

Why?

Because I'm one of about 150 million Americans who would like to see Barack Obama's actual, long-form birth certificate as the first step toward determining if he is constitutionally eligible to serve as president.

I know. It seems nutty to Bill O'Reilly and Anderson Cooper and Glenn Beck and Rachel Maddow.

I really don't care what they think – or if they think.

As a matter of fact, I don't care what anyone thinks about Obama's eligibility, because midway through his second year in office it should not be a matter of opinion as to whether he is indeed a "natural born citizen" and legally qualified to reside in the White House.

I've always been skeptical about what politicians claim. That used to be a common trait among people of my profession – journalism. However, lately, I find many in the press actually relying on what politicians say to determine what is truth, reality, fact – and admitting it!

Here's a recent example: Chris Cillizza, White House reporter for the Washington Post, offered this in his column last Friday analyzing a recent poll showing significant doubts among the American people about Obama's birth story: "For the record, the proof that Obama was born in Hawaii is indisputable; Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican, said as much in a recent interview."

Indisputable?

That interview was first published by my news organization. And I suggest there is no public evidence whatsoever, nothing that would carry the day in a court of law, to prove Obama was born in Hawaii – notwithstanding the self-contradictory statement of the esteemed Linda Lingle.

Lingle admits she has never seen Obama's long-form birth certificate.

READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com

Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Profits derived from your purchases
will help me to attend tea party rallies!

Conservatives target their own fringe ~ By Kenneth P. Vogel

"Birthers" get labeled as being extremists?

So, now the Conservative pundits are going after birthers, as well as the John Birch Society, as being some type of loony right-wing extremists? Or how about calling Tom Tancredo a racist? Well, this column says it all. The writer is telling us that the Conservative and Tea Party movements are trying to purge anyone that they feel is on the "fringe" or conspiracy theorists.

It's my opinion that they need to be careful about what they are doing. While trying to narrow the Conservative position by moving it away from the "extreme" right-wing, they seem to be widening out the reach to the "moderates," the very same folks that tend to make up the RINOs in the Republican Party.

I am not sure that is really the best strategy. Not that I would want the Tea Party to be associated with anarchist or revolutionary militia groups, but saying that the John Birch Society or Joseph Farah or Tom Tancredo are radical right-wing extremists or racists is absolutely ignorant. But hey, Pat Buchanan was called names by the liberal press in the past, and many Conservatives were willing to stick by him, knowing that it was smart to just consider the source of the criticism he received.

And then, well, there's Pat Robertson... I can understand if the Tea Party Movement may not want to be associated with him; not because Pat is a Conservative Christian, of course, but more because of the ridiculous statements he's made in the past. Just sayin'...

After filming a brief segment at the conference, liberal MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, a leading tea party antagonist, concluded on her show that “the conservative movement right now is really not afraid to let its freak flag fly. … They‘re happy to show off the ‘we want another revolutionary war,’ ‘we think the black president is arrogant,’ ‘we think the apocalypse is nice’ side of themselves.”


Liberal commentators similarly highlighted the extremism on display at this month’s National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tenn., which included a speech by WorldNetDaily Editor Joseph Farah questioning Obama’s citizenship and one by Tancredo asserting Obama was elected because "we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country."

By KENNETH P. VOGEL

2/27/10 @ 6:40 AM EST

After months of struggling to harness the energy of newly engaged tea party activists, the conservative establishment — with critical midterm congressional elections on the horizon — is taking aim for the first time at the movement’s extremist elements.

The move has been cast by some conservatives as a modern version of the marginalization of the far-right, anti-communist John Birch Society during the reorganization of the conservative movement spearheaded by William F. Buckley Jr. in the 1960s and 1970s.

“A similar effort will be required today of conservative political and intellectual leaders,” former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson wrote in his column in The Washington Post. “It will not be easy. Sometimes it takes courage to stand before a large crowd and proclaim that two plus two equals four.”

But for Gerson and other conservatives, this is not just an intellectual exercise. They have a very specific political goal: to deprive Democrats and their allies of a potentially potent weapon to use against the GOP in November.

“I don’t believe we should be giving [extremists] a platform or empowering them to do anything based off their conspiracy theories,” said Ned Ryun, president of American Majority, “because they give the left ammunition to try to define the tea party movement as crazy and fringy.”

The attempt “to clean up our own house,” as Erick Erickson, founder of the influential conservative blog RedState, puts it, is necessary “because traditional press outlets have decided to spotlight these fringe elements that get attracted to the movement, and focus on them as if they’re a large part of this tea party movement. And I don’t think they are.”

Until recently, organizers and activists mostly seemed content to ignore, or in some cases tolerate, extremists in their ranks, confident they’d be drowned out by the hundreds of thousands of activists who took to congressional town halls and marches around the country to protest big-spending initiatives pushed by President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress.

But inflammatory rhetoric such as former congressman Tom Tancredo’s racially tinged speech at this month’s tea party convention, reports of the involvement of right-wing militia groups and the continued propagation of conspiracy theories about Obama have sometimes cast the movement in an unfavorable light.

Erickson has advised new tea party organizers on how to avoid affiliations with extremists and this month banned birthers — conservatives who believe that Obama was not born in the United States and is, therefore, ineligible to be president — from his blog. (He has long blacklisted truthers, those who believe that the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — a conspiracy theory with devotees across the political spectrum.)

“At some point, you have to use the word ‘crazy,’” said Erickson.

Ryun’s American Majority, a group that trains tea party activists and others around the country, has done much the same thing. Its website has moved to close its sessions to activists who identify themselves with the birther, truther or militia movements or the John Birch Society.

READ FULL STORY at POLITICO

Be sure to check out johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

Ahmadinejad: 'Yep, I'm nuclear!' ~ By Ann Coulter

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

Even if you weren't aware that the U.S. has the worst intelligence in the world, and even if you didn't notice that the leak was timed perfectly to embarrass Bush, wouldn't any normal person be suspicious of a report concluding Ahmadinejad was behaving like a prince?


Not liberals. Our intelligence agencies concluded Iran had suspended its nuclear program in 2003, so Bush owed Ahmadinejad an apology.


Feb. 11, 2010: Ahmadinejad announces that Iran is now a nuclear power.

By Ann Coulter

Posted: February 17, 2010 ~ 6:02 pm Eastern

© 2010

The only man causing President Obama more headaches than Joe Biden these days is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who, coincidentally, was right after Biden on Obama's short-list for VP).

Despite Obama's personal magnetism, the Iranian president persists in moving like gangbusters to build nuclear weapons, leading to Ahmadinejad's announcement last week that Iran is now a "nuclear state."

Gee, that's weird – because I remember being told in December 2007 that all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that Iran had ceased nuclear-weapons development as of 2003.

At the time of that leak, many of us recalled that the U.S. has the worst intelligence-gathering operations in the world. The Czechs, the French, the Italians – even the Iraqis (who were trained by the Soviets) – all have better intelligence.

Burkina Faso has better intelligence – and their director of intelligence is a witch doctor. The marketing division of Wal-Mart has more reliable intel than the U.S. government does.

After Watergate, the off-the-charts left-wing Congress gleefully set about dismantling this nation's intelligence operations on the theory that Watergate never would have happened if only there had been no CIA.

Ron Dellums, a typical Democrat of the time, who – amazingly – was a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, famously declared in 1975: "We should totally dismantle every intelligence agency in this country piece by piece, brick by brick, nail by nail."

And so they did.

So now, our "spies" are prohibited from spying. The only job of a CIA officer these days is to read foreign newspapers and leak classified information to the New York Times. It's like a secret society of newspaper readers. The reason no one at the CIA saw 9/11 coming was that there wasn't anything about it in the Islamabad Post.

READ FULL STORY >

Purveyors of hate ~ By Henry Lamb

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

These ordinary people are organizing from the precinct level to counties, to states and into national groups. They fully intend to reject the Washington majority's plan to empower government far beyond its constitutional limits in order to nationalize the economy and enslave individuals.


People who insist on calling these American patriots "teabaggers" are, indeed, purveyors of hate.

By Henry Lamb

Posted: February 13, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

What is the correct word to describe people who deliberately, publicly and repeatedly use the "N" word when they refer to black people? There are such people. Are they sick? Are they mean? Are they stupid? Are they just full of hate?

How do you describe people who deliberately, publicly and repeatedly call gay people "queers"? There are such people. Are they sick? Are they mean? Are they stupid? Are they just full of hate – or are they all of the above.

Obviously, people who insist on doing these things have no compassion or appreciation for people who are different from themselves. They have no tolerance. Most people condemn this behavior and find it appalling.

What is the correct word to describe people who deliberately, publicly and repeatedly call the people who attend tea parties – "teabaggers"?

These people are called: Anderson Cooper (CNN); Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Dylan Ratigan, Rachel Maddow, Anna Marie Cox, Janeane Garofalo (MSNBC); Bill Maher (HBO); ABC News; CBS News: Daily Kos; Huffington Post; and a host of other bloggers and TV personalities.

The people who deliberately, publicly and repeatedly refer to tea-party participants as "teabaggers" suffer from the same character flaw that makes people use the "N" word and call gay people "queers." The character flaw that would allow someone to tie a hangman's noose on a tree in front of a black man's house or burn a cross on his front lawn is precisely the same flaw that allows a person to deliberately, publicly and repeatedly call someone a "teabagger" when they know it to be untrue.

These are the same people who preach tolerance – but practice hate.

These are the same people who never missed an opportunity to denigrate and demean President Bush, but rush to label Obama protesters as hate-mongering redneck "teabaggers."

By their deliberate, public repetition of the term "teabaggers" in reference to the participants of tea-party events, these people and institutions are condoning and perpetuating hate for those who hold a different political view. Moreover, their actions tell those who are influenced by them that it is normal and right to belittle and demean the people who are not "politically correct" as defined by the "in" crowd.

It is sad to realize that this attitude is learned in school, particularly in many colleges and universities. David Horowitz was shouted down at Emory University by students who suffer this same character flaw. Rep. Tom Tancredo met the same fate at the University of North Carolina. College kids have learned that it is perfectly normal and right to shout down or deny the First Amendment to anyone who holds a political view different from their own.

Is it any wonder that when this crowd gets to Congress they think it is perfectly normal and right to shut out opposing views? Democrats routinely reject amendments offered by Republicans, often with no discussion or debate. On President Obama's health-care bill, Democrats refused to even let Republicans into the room when key portions of the bill were being negotiated. Then they have the audacity to call Republicans the party of "No."

This is the kind of disingenuous political representation that makes ordinary people rise up.

READ FULL STORY >

MSNBC Exclusive: Fort Hood never happened! ~ By Ann Coulter

Commentary from WorldNetDaily

By Ann Coulter Posted: November 25, 2009 ~ 5:43 pm Eastern © 2009 It's been weeks since eyewitnesses reported that Maj. Nidal Hasan shouted "Allahu akbar" before spraying Fort Hood with gunfire, killing 13 people. Since then we also learned that Hasan gave a medical lecture on beheading infidels and pouring burning oil down their throats (unfortunately not covered under the Senate health-care bill). Some wondered if perhaps a pattern was beginning to emerge but were promptly dismissed as racist cranks. We also found out Hasan had business cards printed up with the jihadist abbreviation "SoA" for "Soldier of Allah." Was that enough to conclude that the shooting was an act of terrorism – or does somebody around here need to take another cultural sensitivity class? And we know that Hasan had contacted several jihadist websites and that he had been exchanging e-mails with a radical Islamic cleric in Yemen. The FBI learned that last December, but the rest of us only found out about it a week ago. Is it still too soon to come to the conclusion that the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terrorism? Alas, it is still too early to tell at MSNBC. For Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews – at least two of whom would be severely punished under Shariah law – the shooting of George Tiller was an act of terrorism, no question. The death of a census taker in Kentucky was also an act of terrorism. (We learned this week that it was a suicide/insurance scam.) But as to Maj. Hasan, the jury is still out – and will be out for many, many years. Actually, according to Keith, the Fort Hood massacre may not have happened at all. He has argued persuasively, on several occasions, that it is impossible, literally impossible, to commit mass murder at a military base. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

Election '09: Change I can believe in! ~ By Ann Coulter

From WorldNetDaily

By Ann Coulter Posted: November 04, 2009 ~ 6:12 pm Eastern © 2009

MSNBC, Aug. 31, 2009, Keith Olbermann on Robert F. McDonnell, Republican candidate for governor of Virginia: "In (McDonnell's master's thesis), he described women having jobs as detrimental to the family, called legalized use of contraception illogical, pushed to make divorce more difficult and insisted government should favor married couples over, quote, 'cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators.' Wow. When did he write this? 1875? No, 1989. Wow, 1989. "Goodbye, Mr. McDonnell." MSNBC, Sept. 22, 2009, Rachel Maddow also on McDonnell: "And here's where the conservative movement and the Republican establishment smash into each other like bumper cars without bumpers. Here's where Republican electoral chances stop being separate from the wild-eyed excesses of the conservative movement. "Part of watching Republicans try to return to power is watching ... the conservative movement eat the Republican Party, eat their electoral chances over and over and over again."

On election night, conservatives-eating-Republicans resulted in an 18-point landslide for McDonnell, who beat his Democratic opponent 59 percent to 41 percent – winning two-thirds of all independent voters and ending the Democrats' eight-year reign in the Virginia governor's office. Republicans swept all statewide offices for the first time in 12 years, winning the races for lieutenant governor and attorney general, as well as assembly seats, garbage inspector, dog catcher and anything else Virginians could vote for. To paraphrase a pompous blowhard: Goodbye, Mr. Democrat. And that's not the most exciting news from election night! Astoundingly, Jon Corzine, the incumbent governor of heavily Democratic New Jersey – a state that Barack Obama won by 16 points just a year ago – lost by 5 points. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]

The truth about journalists' bias ~ By John Stossel

From WorldNetDaily

By John Stossel Posted: November 04, 2009 ~ 1:00 am Eastern © 2009 I made the New York Times last week. It even ran my picture. My mother would be proud. Unfortunately, the story was critical. It said, "Critics have leaped on Mr. Stossel's speaking engagements as the latest evidence of conservative bias on the part of Fox." Which "critics" had "leaped"? The reporter mentioned Rachel Maddow. I wouldn't think her criticism newsworthy, but Times reporters may use MSNBC as their guide to life. He also quoted an "associate professor of journalism" who said my speeches were "'pretty shameful' by traditional journalistic standards." All this because I spoke at an event for Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a "conservative advocacy group." It is odd that this is a news story. In August, AFP hired me to do the very same thing. I give the money to charity. The Times didn't call that "shameful." But in August, I worked for ABC News. Now, I work for Fox. Hmmm. It reminds me of something that happened earlier in my career. I was one of America's first TV consumer reporters. I approached the job with an attitude. If companies ripped people off, I would embarrass them on TV – and demand that government do something. (I now regret the latter – the former was a good thing.) I clearly had a point of view: I was a crusader out to punish corporate bullies. My colleagues liked it. I got job offers. I won 19 Emmys. I was invited to speak at journalism conferences. Then, gradually, I figured out that business, for the most part, treats consumers pretty well. The way to get rich in business is to create something good, sell it for a reasonable price, acquire a reputation for honesty, and keep pleasing customers so they come back for more. As a local TV reporter, I could find plenty of crooks. But once I got to the national stage – "20/20" and "Good Morning America" – it was hard to find comparable national scams. There were some: Enron, Bernie Madoff, etc. But they are rare. In a $14 trillion economy, you'd think there'd be more. But there aren't. I figured out why: Market forces, even when hampered by government, keep scammers in check. Reputation matters. Word gets out. Good companies thrive, and bad ones atrophy. Regulation rarely deters the cheaters, but competition does. [CLICK HERE TO READ MORE]