Many of the media pundits have long ago chosen collectivism over liberty as their cause. But George Will and Peggy Noonan? Perhaps they have reached that point in their careers where the approbation of their colleagues in New York and Washington is more desirable than the rough and tumble world where middle America struggles each day. When one is at the top of one’s profession and accustomed to hobnobbing with the elites it is difficult to abandon the comfort of status and position for the condemnation that would surely follow if they criticized our messianic president.

But this is an historical moment and the time for choosing is fast approaching. It appears that Will and Noonan have chosen to be approvingly fashionable and remain in the circles of the elites rather than join those who are not afraid to display fire and passion when defending liberty. One cannot imagine the likes of Will and Noonan at Concord Bridge, an “overheated” place and time which ended in violent acts. But out of that “overheated era”, as Peggy Noonan describes our present day political discussion, came the freest and greatest society to yet exist on this earth. Could that have been accomplished by learned discussions and dialogue between the elites then in power? We all know the answer to that.

This is not to say that we must all be prepared to rush to the barricades on a moment’s notice. But neither should we feel timid about voicing our opposition to those in power when we disagree with the radical course they are charting, in opposition to the wishes and consent of the governed.

George Will has said that the adjectives Rush Limbaugh applies to Obama and the nouns he equates to Obama “are just not right.” In fact, they are right, Mr. Will, and a large segment of the country knows they are right. President Obama is the most inexperienced president in our history. He is probably the most incompetent but only time will tell if he can wrest that mantle from President Carter. President Obama is clearly a socialist and was the most liberal person in the U.S. Senate. Just what adjectives and nouns applied by Rush were “not right”?

The alarms should be going off all over America in those households where good but uninformed people were persuaded to vote for a man simply because they thought they would be a part of history in voting for the first black president. Everyone who was alive in 1941 remembered where they were and what they were doing when Pearl Harbor was attacked. In the same vein, everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 believed they were at a turning point in history and were casting a historic ballot. In voting for an unknown and untested politician based on the fad of the moment, they unknowingly launched the country in a direction that was totally unexpected to many of them. Let us hope that that fateful election day does not become another “day of infamy”.

By making these statements, I know I run the risk of being tagged a “dangerous” person. And the George Wills and Peggy Noonans of this world will dismiss me, as they did Rush, as being “nothing like an American majority.” But if they know their history, they will know that a relatively small percentage of American colonists—nothing like an American majority—overthrew the most powerful government in the world and defeated the most powerful army in that world at that time.

While patriots like Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson were loosing “a daily agitating barrage that coarsens and inflames” and “dangerous” men and women were engaging in violent acts in the “overheated era” of the revolution, I am quite certain there were timid souls peeking out from behind the curtains of their safe havens, expressing grave doubts about the wisdom of those “divisive” people who used “bold colors” rather than “pastels” to describe George III and his government. George Will and Peggy Noonan may cry “Peace, Peace—but there is no peace.” I know not what course others may take, but “give me Rush and Glenn Beck or give me death!”

The leftists in this country are infuriated that the expected coronation of the most liberal person in the U.S. Senate may not come to pass. Instead, a strong young woman steeped in the traditional values that made this country great is reviving the conservative revolution. Ain’t life wonderful?

The mainstream media has removed all doubt as to where it stands. The mainstream media is unabashedly biased and, let’s be honest—it is corrupt. When the media tries to dictate the results of a national election by withholding information from its citizens and selectively reporting the facts, it is surely as guilty of election fraud as someone who attempts to buy votes or stuff the ballot box.

The frenzy we are seeing in the mainstream media today is aimed at smearing and destroying Governor Palin before the momentum of the campaign can build and become unstoppable in the next two months. Such a goal is not a legitimate function of a free and open press.

If it were not for talk radio, the Internet and the generally fair and responsible people at FOX News, we would all have the choices of the mainstream media forced upon us. Some of us would not realize that we had been propagandized into thinking and doing exactly as our elitist handlers want us to think and do. Others of us would have doubts, but who to take those doubts and give voice to them, without fear of being ridiculed and shouted down? And still others might actually resist the collectivist juggernaut and be branded as dangerous enemies of the state in need of counseling and reeducation.

Thankfully, there are alternative sources of news out there and Americans now have a voice and a champion who came along at the right moment in history. There is change in the air—and it is nowhere near the Obama camp.

The initial assault on McCain-Palin is to portray Governor Palin as an unknown with no real record of accomplishment who is not ready for the responsibilities of being vice president. Stop and think about the ridiculousness of this attack, given the lack of experience of Senator Obama.

Theodore Roosevelt, generally accepted as one of our great presidents, was 42 years old as Vice President under President McKinley, when he was elevated to the presidency. Roosevelt had two years as governor before that and not quite two years as Assistant Secretary of the Navy. Palin’s more than two years as Governor of our largest state and prior service as a mayor is comparable.

John F. Kennedy was 43 years old when elected President and had no real executive experience, having been in the U.S. Senate for 7 years and the U.S. House for 6 years.

How can it seriously be argued that Roosevelt and Kennedy were unprepared for the presidency when their prior experience was roughly comparable to Palin’s? If Sarah Palin could lead as Governor of Alaska and accomplish as much as she has, all the while raising 4 children, aren’t her capabilities as great as men who have done similar things but without the equivalent family responsibilities? And let’s not forget that Palin is running for the office of Vice President (something Vice President John Garner said wasn’t worth “a warm bucket of spit”)—not the presidency.

The attack on Palin is a calculated sexist attack disguised as a debate about qualifications. The majority of Americans simply will not fall for that once the voices of reason and fairness point out the very obvious flaws in this argument.

What is really exciting conservatives and the Republican base is the thought that they finally have a courageous and articulate spokesperson who is not intimidated by the mainstream media and the various left-wing lobbies and special interest groups.

We are about to engage in a two month campaign that promises to be as exciting as anything we have seen in a long time. We owe a debt of gratitude to Senator McCain for having the courage to lead this fight with such a ticket. If we are fortunate enough to elect the ticket, maybe we can finally break the monopoly power of the mainstream media and once again allow ideas and discussions to flourish in a free and open environment. Free and independent people do not follow messiahs for long—they follow leaders who share their ideals and values.

Years ago we might have chuckled at reading such a silly article and shaken our heads in comical disbelief. Today, it is clear beyond doubt that the mainstream media seeks to stage a coup by imposing their beliefs and values on the citizens of this country through incessant propagandizing and opinion shaping. A press that writes every article with a preordained agenda and bias against individual liberties can be very dangerous if its audience does not recognize the propaganda for what it is.

Many of us thought that the mainstream media would muffle their harsh criticism of anything conservative or supportive of traditional values after the 2004 elections. Instead, the press has launched even more vigorous attacks, sensing the inability of the current administration to articulate any coherent positions on key issues or to boldly advance conservative policies. There has been a vacuum at the top in the current administration and the left has rushed in to occupy the empty ground.

Does the mainstream media understand the ultimate impact that lack of oil can have on our country and Western Civilization? Of course they do. They care more about advancing their socialist agenda in this country than they do about the economic strength and survival of the country. A sad–and frightening–state of affairs.

Let us suppose, for a moment, that the United States could secure its economic future for decades by tapping the oil that exists in Alaska, but that to do so it must obliterate the polar bear population in Alaska. If we could prevent the economic collapse of this country by proceeding to extract the oil without regard to the consequences to polar bears, should we do it? There is no question that the answer from the mainstream media and the environmentalist movement would be a resounding “No!” And there is no question that the majority of Americans, if faced with such a scenario would advocate moving forward now to drill for oil and gas.

With the survival of our airlines in question and the very real possibility of further shocks to our financial, housing and retail sectors, it is time for Americans to ignore the mainstream media and focus on electing only those representatives to Congress who will opt for survival of this country over protection of “threatened” species against “annoyance” by those seeking to insure that free American citizens can continue to travel to work and keep the economy alive and healthy.

One of the sad footnotes to all of this is that it was President Bush’s Secretary of Interior who approved putting polar bears on the list of “threatened” species, despite the evidence to the contrary. No doubt Secretary Kempthorne will be toasted by the opinion molders and cocktail party crowd as a caring and enlightened public servant. To me, he is just another bureaucrat seeking approval and adulation from those who have consistently opposed the administration of which he is a part. President Bush could have exercised his executive prerogatives to stop this action but why should he start now?

Our politicians are little more than over-compensated panderers to public opinion as defined by the glitterati of the left. Of course, the “public opinion” has been shaped and manufactured by the mainstream media and its accomplices, but few in Congress have the intelligence to understand the magnitude of the psychological warfare being waged against us or the have the courage to oppose it.

We should be thankful that there were no polar bears at Yorktown and that freedom was more important than the many annoyances that had to be suffered to secure the blessings of freedom for all of us. But Washington knew that the protection of free men threatened by government oppression and tyranny must take precedence over “annoyance” to beasts of the wild. History remembers Washington as the “father of his country”. History will remember Secretary Kempthorne and this administration as the protectors of polar bears from annoyance—if it remembers them at all.

If one disagrees with a philosophy disseminated from the pulpit, not in a subtle and devious fashion but in a blisteringly blatant bombardment by a loud and rabid activist, how likely is it that he or she would remain as a loyal attendee of the church? Yet, Senator Obama and his wife continued to attend Reverend Wright’s ranting sermons with no protest. None, that is, until Senator Obama realized that his attendance of Wright’s church and support for his “spiritual mentor” might become a political liability. And even then, Senator Obama was careful not to totally repudiate Reverend Wright. Obama said he “strongly disagreed” with “many” of Wright’s political views. It’s just that it took over 20 years for this Harvard-trained lawyer and aspirant to The White House to get worked up enough to register his disagreement. I have a feeling that the majority of Americans do not believe Obama’s remarks aimed, as they were, at carefully distancing himself from Wright’s more outrageous statements without antagonizing the far left wing of his party.

What does the Reverend Wright affair tell us about Senator Obama’s political views? It clearly tells us that Senator Obama is not just liberal—he is liberal to the point of being radical and on the very fringe of liberal political thinking in this country. Of course, Senator Obama’s soothing words and mellifluous voice seek to reassure Americans that he is a gentle and decent man who is in the mainstream of American political thought. In fact, many of us suspect that he is much more comfortable with Reverend Wright’s Marxist philosophy and radical opinions than either he, the mainstream media or the Democratic Party would have us think.

Webster defines “alien” as “differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility”.The Reverend Wright imbroglio leads to one inescapable conclusion if one uses all of his or her faculties and life experiences in analyzing the statements and explanations of Senator Obama—that Senator Obama’s political beliefs are alien to those of the vast majority of Americans. Senator Obama’s true political views—those distilled from his actions over the past decades as opposed to those carefully contrived words that ooze with slithering smoothness from his lips—confirm that he is the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate and probably the most liberal person ever to run for the presidency.

One does not continue to sit in a congregation for over 20 years listening to Marxist philosophies and anti-American sentiment if one does not agree, in whole or in part, with such sentiments. One does not take the title of his best-selling book, “The Audacity of Hope”, from the sermons of a minister who espouses such far left political views unless one agrees with them, in whole or in part. And one does not consistently and regularly vote in favor of a liberal agenda in the Senate and state legislature unless one is a dedicated liberal supporter of greater government control over our lives. Senator Obama is alien to American mainstream political thought and values.

We can all admire a candidate’s rhetorical skills and glibness on the campaign trail. However, there comes a time for plain talking and direct answers to questions about a candidate’s political philosophy when a candidate’s beliefs are called into serious question by actions, or inactions, of the candidate himself. That time is now.

While a McCain administration could be expected to propose less “liberal” legislation and a somewhat less intrusive federal government than either Obama or Clinton, the differences would not be great. If one looks at the net result of legislative and executive initiatives, it could well be the case that more McCain-proposed legislation would be passed than that proposed by a Democratic administration. This would likely be the case if Republicans in the Congress functioned effectively as a “loyal opposition” and stopped the worst of any socialistic initiatives of the liberal Democrats. Those same Republicans would be reluctant to vote against legislation pushed by “their” president.

The question that Senator McCain must answer for doubting conservatives is “Why are we better off with you in the White House than we would be if a Democrat is elected president and Republicans retain enough power in Congress to stop Democrat programs harmful to the country?” Based on McCain’s past record and positions, it is not readily apparent that McCain would be significantly better than the alternative. Certainly this is the case until McCain convinces conservatives that he shares many of their views on the critical issues of the day.

For a conservative Republican to be taking such a position will seem like heresy to some. How could we not support McCain when the result would be the likely election of a much more liberal candidate as president? The benefits of such an outcome could be several. For one, the Republican Party might come to its senses and purge those who brought on such a defeat. The Republican Party might actually become more interested in governing like a party truly interested in limited government and individual freedom rather than perpetuating its power. Secondly, the country could truly see the Democratic Party and its president for what they are, based not on campaign promises and empty rhetoric but on actual practices and results in office. Such a four year experience could rekindle the fire in those who have been let down by the Republican Party of today and motivate them to take back their party. And finally, with the country headed for some difficult economic times, it would be an opportunity to let the country see just how effectively the liberal Democrats can govern in trying times. Four years of such a spectacle should energize the conservative core of this country and stimulate interest and participation by those previously uncommitted souls whose interest in politics was erratic at best. Such an experience would be akin to water boarding for many who have forgotten what the left wing of the Democratic Party is really like.

If McCain were to be elected, will we get a president committed to limited government? Will we get back some of our First Amendment freedoms lost under McCain-Feingold? Will we know without doubt that conservative jurists will be appointed to the Supreme Court? Will we have a president who will take strong and effective measures to control illegal immigration? Will we have a president who stops pandering to the environmentalists and the global warming crowd? Will effective action be taken to reform social security and the federal income tax? Knowing the likely answers to these questions, why would conservatives be better off with McCain than the alternatives? It’s time to play defense in the Congress for the next four years and start building and organizing for 2012. That is, unless McCain can convince us otherwise.

The conventional answer is that Senator McCain is the lesser of two evils and, as conservatives, we would be better off with him in the White House than either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton. But would we?

While a McCain administration could be expected to propose less “liberal” legislation and a somewhat less intrusive federal government than either Obama or Clinton, the differences would not be great. If one looks at the net result of legislative and executive initiatives, it could well be the case that more McCain-proposed legislation would be passed than that proposed by a Democratic administration. This would likely be the case if Republicans in the Congress functioned effectively as a “loyal opposition” and stopped the worst of any socialistic initiatives of the liberal Democrats. Those same Republicans would be reluctant to vote against legislation pushed by “their” president.

The question that Senator McCain must answer for doubting conservatives is “Why are we better off with you in the White House than we would be if a Democrat is elected president and Republicans retain enough power in Congress to stop Democrat programs harmful to the country?” Based on McCain’s past record and positions, it is not readily apparent that McCain would be significantly better than the alternative. Certainly this is the case until McCain convinces conservatives that he shares many of their views on the critical issues of the day.

For a conservative Republican to be taking such a position will seem like heresy to some. How could we not support McCain when the result would be the likely election of a much more liberal candidate as president? The benefits of such an outcome could be several. For one, the Republican Party might come to its senses and purge those who brought on such a defeat. The Republican Party might actually become more interested in governing like a party truly interested in limited government and individual freedom rather than perpetuating its power. Secondly, the country could truly see the Democratic Party and its president for what they are, based not on campaign promises and empty rhetoric but on actual practices and results in office. Such a four year experience could rekindle the fire in those who have been let down by the Republican Party of today and motivate them to take back their party. And finally, with the country headed for some difficult economic times, it would be an opportunity to let the country see just how effectively the liberal Democrats can govern in trying times. Four years of such a spectacle should energize the conservative core of this country and stimulate interest and participation by those previously uncommitted souls whose interest in politics was erratic at best. Such an experience would be akin to water boarding for many who have forgotten what the left wing of the Democratic Party is really like.

If McCain were to be elected, will we get a president committed to limited government? Will we get back some of our First Amendment freedoms lost under McCain-Feingold? Will we know without doubt that conservative jurists will be appointed to the Supreme Court? Will we have a president who will take strong and effective measures to control illegal immigration? Will we have a president who stops pandering to the environmentalists and the global warming crowd? Will effective action be taken to reform social security and the federal income tax? Knowing the likely answers to these questions, why would conservatives be better off with McCain than the alternatives? It’s time to play defense in the Congress for the next four years and start building and organizing for 2012. That is, unless McCain can convince us otherwise.

Much of the Republican base supports President Bush’s resolve in seeking victory in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. That base would be energized if the administration was more effective in describing the reasons why victory in Iraq is critical and if it could more clearly explain why victory there is vital to our national interests. The primary reason why the United States is in Iraq is to further our national security interests, and not to bring democracy to Iraq or to replace the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. President Bush’s initial positioning and justification for the war in Iraq was flawed and resulted in lack of commitment by many Americans to the successful prosecution of the war and a loss of the administration’s credibility. The purported rationalizations for the war were simply blurred. The administration’s current positioning is sharper and more focused on the security interests of this nation, but comes at a time when a number of Republican leaders are “straying” and further weakening the Bush administration at a very inopportune time.

Even though the Republican defections on the war in Iraq are eroding the administration’s strength at this critical juncture, there may be something more powerful and more insidious at work here. The Republican base has become angry and frustrated with the leadership’s inaction on issues that impact them daily and significantly and which result in the middle class shouldering more of the burden of the high cost of government while losing individual rights and economic security at the same time. This feeling that the leadership of our government is out of touch with middle class America and governing much like the Democrat elites saps support for the administration at a time when it needs support most.

The Bush administration’s position on illegal immigration has hurt it tremendously and continues to inflict major damage. How does the administration expect to retain credibility for its efforts in the war on terror when the refusal to stop illegal immigration makes suspect all of the calls for more restrictions on law abiding Americans in the guise of promoting security? Should American citizens be made to carry a national ID card and have their records and conversations more easily exposed to
federal government snooping when illegals can access many of our nation’s taxpayer-funded benefits without identification or accountability? The inconsistency of these positions is glaring—and it is insulting to the American middle class that is footing the bill. It is obvious to the base that illegal immigration is costing a huge amount, both in tax dollars and in negative cultural change. When President Bush disputes or downplays this, the base becomes more exasperated, and rightly so.

The failure of the administration to have any impact on Social Security reform or tax reform is another major irritant to the conservative base. If the administration could not effect any such reforms when it controlled both houses of Congress and The White House, why should the base expect any relief now that control has been lost? If the administration could not get more of its judicial appointees reviewed and confirmed when it controlled the legislative and executive branches, why should the base expect effective action now? To explain these failures by pointing to those in Congress who are Republicans in name only is disingenuous. Ronald Reagan worked with Congresses controlled by Democrats, yet the conservative agenda was advanced and the base always knew where President Reagan stood on issues. If the leadership of today’s Republican Party is not loyal to its base and true to its philosophy, why should that base remain loyal to the leadership?

If the Republicans lose either house of Congress, the damage that would be inflicted upon the country by the leftist Democrats who would accede to the committee chairmanships and positions of power would be almost unimaginable. These leftists would not only attempt to undo every conservative initiative in the domestic policy arena but would seek to withdraw support to those who are presently assisting this country in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the war against terrorism. Many of those presently assisting us are already nervous about our will as a country to see this through to a successful conclusion, both based on past history and present statements in our mainstream media. If the United States backs away from the battle against the Islamic fascists, it will be many years before others will trust our national will enough to ally with us. There can be no doubt where a Democratic-controlled Congress will try to take us, knowing the present Democratic leadership. Those conservatives who find it difficult to vote for some Republicans need to view the upcoming elections as an opportunity to vote against the likes of Pelosi, Murtha, Kennedy and Schumer. 2006 is a time to celebrate the fine old American tradition of voting against, rather than for.

Now I know it is not considered chic to be negative and that it is considered far more commendable to be positive, upbeat and proactive. But isn’t it much more exciting to vote against a radical leftist and see them go down in flames than to vote for an opponent for whom you can only muster lukewarm support? After all, any one of a thousand people, no matter whether they are somewhat lacking in conviction on this issue or that, or even if downright mediocre, is better than a Murtha or Pelosi. Let’s send a message to the mainstream media, Hollywood, the academic world and the big-money backers of the left by voting against these people. This is one election in which it should be infinitely easier to vote against than it is to vote for. Honor your country and your principles by voting against a jerk. Who you are voting for is not, at this juncture, as important as who you are voting against. A rising tide of negativity will sweep all before it if we just let our indignation, anger and exasperation do their job in the voting booths across this country this November.

Frankly, Mr. Rove, your lecture is insulting to me since it amounts to nothing more than an attempt to silence President Bush’s critics on this issue by portraying them as uncaring and ignorant American firststers. If Mr. Rove is truly as sappy as he sounded in his La Raza speech, he should go to work writing children’s books where it may be appropriate for sentimentality and warm, fuzzy feelings to take the place of reality.

Rove said in his speech that the immigration debate had “clouded the views of some people in America and led them to fail to understand that Hispanics and all immigrants, are real Americans.” Hispanics are not “real Americans” by virtue of being Hispanic but only by reason of being a citizen of this country. Legal immigrants may be “real Americans” Mr. Rove but illegal aliens are not-and your pontificating to the rest of us will not make it so. The real idiocy of Rove’s speech is that he insults the vast majority of American citizens in an effort to court a minority that he thinks is growing in political power. That is called pandering and is disappointing to see coming from Rove. But since I have “clouded vision” maybe I am missing the subtle distinctions that Rove sees.

Rove’s speech is an example of the actions and statements coming from the Bush administration that are worrisome to the conservative base. The speech did not address the real issues but sought only to silence critics and appease political opponents with a lot of sophomoric drivel. Rove’s statement that “everything that this country is…… is because we are a nation of diversity” is nonsensical blather. Everything that this country is is because we are a nation united in our belief in individual freedom and liberty and the rule of law. “Diversity” may be nice and interesting but it did not create the freest and greatest nation on earth. Diversity is a liberal buzz-word that is invoked to elicit nods of approval from other liberals and intimidate the feeble-minded into acquiescence with whatever preposterous idea or scheme is being advanced at the moment. We expected better of you, Mr. Rove, than trivializing the debate on illegal immigration. The people who stood up to the British regulars on Lexington green were fiercely united in their belief in individual liberty and personal responsibility-they were not a bunch of goody two shoes fighting for diversity and free medical care.

Few Americans advocate restraints on the freedom of the press to print or broadcast whatever they choose. But many Americans now realize that the purported “news” disseminated by the mainstream media is little more than propaganda. One could select almost any issue from the top twenty issues of concern to Americans today and without first reading an article or listening to a broadcast, predict the theme and conclusion of any mainstream media piece on the topic. Immigration, war in Iraq, terrorism, abortion, gun control, global warming, the environment, affirmative action or any other hot topic of the day will be presented with a pre-packaged analysis and conclusion that supports liberal doctrine on that subject. For liberals and conservatives who are engaged and well informed, this propaganda simply reinforces their beliefs or infuriates, depending upon who the recipient is. But for those who have no firm opinions on the subjects or who have little interest in these issues, the steady stream of manufactured news and slick propaganda can cause the recipients to adopt the positions of what they mistakenly believe to be the popular sentiment of the moment. If the mainstream media were selling a product, they would be guilty of fraud and misrepresentation. But since they are selling selective information and half-baked opinion masquerading as fact, they are guilty only of unprofessionalism. But they deserve the contempt of every American who understands what they are doing and how they are perverting the concept of a free press.

Some will no doubt argue that to call the mainstream media the enemy of the people is a gross exaggeration. But if an institution in this country deliberately attempts to generate anti-war sentiment by misstating the facts while American troops are fighting and dying, doesn’t that suggest that the media is aiding our enemy? If the media accuses the U.S. government and our soldiers of war crimes before an investigation has been completed and without regard to the presumption of innocence that accused Americans enjoy while at the same time showing little or no outrage for acts of unspeakable brutality such as beheading civilians and murdering innocent men, women and children, doesn’t that suggest active aid and encouragement to our enemy? And if the media intentionally discloses details of secret programs designed to obtain intelligence about al-Queda, doesn’t that directly aid the terrorists who have sworn to destroy us?

The mainstream media has shown, and continues to show, that it favors defeat in Iraq rather than victory by the United States. The media condemns the U.S. military based upon unsubstantiated allegations and calls for punishment of our soldiers while largely ignoring admitted and documented savagery by terrorists. An element of our society that wishes the failure of our forces in war and the defeat of western civilization at the hands of terrorists can only be described as an enemy of the people of this country, the vast majority of whom support the free and open institutions of western civilization that are under attack by radical Islam.

The Viet Nam War was lost largely as a result of the anti-war campaign instigated and carried out by the mainstream media. The same forces are at work in America today, trying to achieve a similar result. The mainstream media, still seething from the defeats of their “chosen” candidates in 2000 and 2004 are more openly hostile than ever before to the current administration and conservatives in general. This hostility and arrogance can be seen daily in the faces and words of network news anchors and commentators and on the pages of the liberal press. It is time that the majority of Americans recognize that the mainstream media holds them and their conservative values in contempt.

It is too much to hope for that those autocrats at the helm of the mainstream media today will repent and pursue the goal of “honesty of the press”. But if enough Americans stop patronizing the mainstream media outlets, the old anti-war and anti-American mainstream media will fail and by replaced by media that more truly reflects the culture of which they are a part.