….If A Conservative Said That?

thought-bubble-can-you-imagineI’m old enough to know better by now, but I’m still amazed how Democrats and liberals can get away with saying a whole lot of stuff while, if said by a Republican or conservative, they’re ignored or ridiculed by the mainstream media.

One of the latest comments is from New Jersey Democrat Sen. Bob Menendez who’s now blaming conservatives for all his recent ethics scandals because of his “Hispanic” heritage.  However, when former Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign got caught up in a sex scandal and subsequent ethics probe which ended his political career in 2009, I never heard him play the “race card.”  Actually, I’ve never heard any white guy play the “race card” in politics.

Before Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder signed his state’s right-to-work legislation, Rev. Charles Williams II, a Detroit-area pastor and liberal activist, warned him at a pro-union rally that, “You sign that bill, you won’t get no rest.  We’ll meet you on Geddes Road (where Snyder resides). We’ll be at your daughter’s soccer game. We’ll visit you at your church. We’ll be at your office.”  If a conservative said that to a Democrat Governor, he’d probably be in jail or, at the very least, arrested.

Recently, President Obama said the following in Chicago, “There’s no more important ingredient for success, nothing that would be more important for us reducing violence than strong, stable families — which means we should do more to promote marriage and encourage fatherhood” to the applause of the predominantly young, black audience. Remember, when then-Vice President Dan Quayle, said, “It doesn’t help matters when primetime TV has Murphy Brown, a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid professional woman, mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another lifestyle choice.”  Same message but while Obama’s audience applauded him, Quayle became the butt of jokes nation-wide.

Colorado Democrat State Sen. Ken Salazar (no relation, thank God) recently advocated against concealed weapon permits on campuses by saying, “You don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop, pop a round at somebody.” Last time I looked, he’s still in the legislature while two Republicans lost their elections last year when they said stupid stuff about “rape.”

Bill Maher, with almost 2 million followers on Twitter, recently tweeted, “Man, #HermanCainis making a comeback – says he likes working with Fox team, particularly some of them fine-ass white women they got there.”  Need I say more?

I’ve seen Obama take a sip of water many times during his press conferences, yet, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow found it necessary to play Sen. Marco Rubio doing the same thing during his response to the SOTU address on loop at the bottom of the screen during her broadcast for more than 13 minutes and, of course, Rev. Al Sharpton found his own way to ridicule the moment.


Comedian, Chris Rock, appeared on Capitol Hill to support Obama’s gun control efforts and called the President “our boss” and even said he was like the “Dad of our country.”  Can you imagine any Republican saying that about President Bush, for example.  (I guess Mr. Rock doesn’t know that we’re the boss and the President works for us.)

How about Columbia professor, Mark Lamont Hill’s “15 Most Overrated White People.”  I can’t even imagine the uproar a similar list of overrated black people would cause.

I remember very well the brouhaha in the media when President Bush mispronounced the word “nuclear.”  The press was all over him and ready to pounce on every one of his gaffes.  Yet, President Obama gets a pass when he referred to Hawaii as Asia (November 16, 2011), said America was the country that built the “intercontinental railroad” (September 22, 2011), referred to “Navy Corpsman Christian Brossard (pronouncing the “ps” even though it’s silent and even though his name was “Christopher” and not “Christian) (February 5, 2010), referred to a reporter as “sweetie,” referred to 57 states in America, and even went so far as to claim that an entire town of ten thousand people were killed in Kansas when, in fact, the tornado killed only 12 people.”  He gets a pass for his gaffes – after all, he is supposed to be the smartest President we’ve ever had.

I don’t get it, but if you do, God bless you.

Author Bio:

For over twenty years, Leona has tried to heed her husband’s advice, “you don’t have to say everything you think.” She’s failed miserably. Licensed to practice law in California and Washington, she works exclusively in the area of child abuse and neglect. She considers herself a news junkie and writes about people and events on her website, “I Don’t Get It,” which she describes as the “musings of an almost 60-year old conservative woman on political, social and cultural life in America.” It’s not her intention to offend anyone who “gets it.” She just doesn’t. Originally from Brooklyn, and later Los Angeles, she now lives with her husband, Michael, on a beautiful island in the Pacific Northwest, which she describes as a bastion of liberalism.
Author website: http://www.idontgetit.us
  • Ron F

    A conservative didn’t say it so I do not know how the media would react. It is easy to ignore them if a person wants to. I recognize there is a media bias so I ignore them including Fox News. There is enough independent new sources and my guess is that the media has declining influence. Even with the media bias, the Republican party controls the house and a majority of governorships in the country. I am not sure what Senator Salazar said about women being afraid of rape is the same as the stupid things the he two Republicans said about rape. I believe Representative Canter just said that he would go to war with conservative tea party Republicans if they stopped a vote on the Violence agaist Women act which I think was equally stupid. I do think conservatives and Republicans would do better sticking to their message and not caring about the media response.

  • Drew Page

    when this president passes gas, the MSM say it was a fine rendering of Mozart.

  • Kansan

    Why We Bought Bush’s Lies
    By Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson, Guardian UK
    02 March 13

    We knew WMD intelligence was flawed, but there was a larger failure of officials, media and public to halt the neocon juggernaut.

    It has been 10 long years since “Shock and Awe” – the opening bombardment
    of Baghdad – lit up the skies above the Tigris. A decade later, we know far more about the case the Bush administration made to the world to justify its war of choice to overthrow Saddam Hussein.Books like Hubris by David Corn and Michael Isikoff, and British commission and US Senate reports have catalogued the extent to which intelligence was misused to mislead the public.

    Yet, even as the intervening period has brought profound change for the United States and its role in the world, have we learned the lessons of that disastrous period? And what were those lessons?

    For nearly a year prior to the invasion, President Bush and his administration peppered the airwaves with serious accusations against Saddam Hussein, including claims of aluminum tubes that could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium, and of Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium yellowcake from Africa. The intelligence supporting the claims was either not believed or was highly disputed by the experts. But that did not stop senior government officials from
    repeating them incessantly; nor did it prevent the powerful neoconservative ideologues who were the war’s most fervent supporters from parroting them with menacingly jingoistic passion.

    Who can forget the trademark line, delivered by Condoleezza Rice:

    We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

    As a covert CIA operations officer working frantically in the months before the war to find and verify hard intelligence about Iraq’s presumed WMD program, Valerie was keenly interested in watching Secretary of State Colin Powell address the United Nations on 6 February 2003. His reputation and service to the United States was stellar, and he was viewed as the lone moderate inside what many others considered to be a hawkish cabinet.

    As Valerie watched the speech unfold on TV from CIA headquarters that morning, she experienced what can only be described as “cognitive dissonance”. It became clear, as Powell laid out the case for war (with CIA Director George Tenet sitting conspicuously just behind the secretary’s right shoulder), that his robust claims about the state of Iraqi WMD simply did not match the intelligence which she had worked on daily for months.

    Powell’s claim from a discredited defector code-named “Curveball” on Iraq’s biological weapons capability was particularly alarming. Valerie knew that “Curveball” had been deemed a “fabricator” by the agency, meaning that none of his intelligence could be believed.

    The implications suddenly become obvious: we were watching a kabuki play and the outcome was predetermined. The Bush administration was determined to go to war, however bad the intelligence, and not even Secretary of State Powell was going to stand in the way.

    Joe, too, watched Powell’s speech, wondering whether the secretary would repeat the statement, first made by President Bush in his state of the union address several days earlier , that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” At the request of the CIA, Joe had investigated that claim in February 2002, as it pertained to Niger and had reported back to the agency that there was no evidence to support the charge. Tellingly, Colin Powell made no mention at the UN of any Iraqi effort to seek uranium, either from Niger or anywhere else
    in Africa.

    Rumors of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal had first surfaced in Rome in 2001, as documents purporting to be related to the sale of 500 metric tonnes of yellowcake (a lightly refined uranium ore) circulated in intelligence circles and among journalists. Those documents were later found to be forgeries, but by the time the charge made its way into the president’s speech, it had already been largely discounted by both the State Department and the CIA. The agency’s
    director told the White House three times not to use the claim because the CIA believed it to be false.

    The now infamous 16 words made it into the state of the union speech only by agreement between the White House and the CIA to attribute the charge to the British government, which had published such a claim in its “White Paper” on Iraq, in September 2002. Unfortunately, as then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw testified to the House of Commons foreign affairs select committee in June 2003, the British claim had been based on separate intelligence from the forged
    documents, and that the British had not shared their intelligence with the US government.

    In sum, we are left to believe that a significant part of President Bush’s case for war was based on intelligence that neither he nor his intelligence officials had even seen. The declassification of several documents in recent years, and a US Senate investigation report published in 2008 conclude that there was far closer collusion between the Bush and Blair administrations than the Straw testimony
    suggests. Yet, the British government to this day continues to stand behind its “separate intelligence” – which it has yet to make public.

    The Powell address to the UN and the Niger-Iraq saga are but two examples of the efforts of the Bush administration to manipulate intelligence to support its political objectives and the lengths to which it went to secure support for its war. As former White House press secretary Scott McClellan put it:

    “Bush and his White House were engaging in a carefully orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval to our advantage.”

    That it was so successful is an indictment of a corrupt administration. But it is also emblematic of the failure of the checks and balances that are the hallmark of our democracy. As Obama appointees John Kerry and Chuck Hagel can attest, the US Congress was ineffective, to say the least, in the exercise of its oversight responsibilities. (The same applies to the UK Parliament.) The
    Washington press corps was dilatory in its investigative reporting –
    valuing access and cozy relationships with senior officials above the
    search for truth; ultimately, the media served as lapdogs rather than

    And the public, still reeling from 911 and whipped up by the fear-mongering since, instinctively trusted its leaders. Given the full force and power of the administration’s efforts to sell the war, it is no wonder that nearly 60% of Americans were in favor of the invasion in the early part of 2003.

    Not surprisingly, that figure has flipped, with nearly 60% of Americans now saying that the Iraq war was a mistake; more than 70% of the British public agree. We owe it to ourselves and to our partners in the “coalition of the willing” to confront the fact that, when it mattered a decade ago, our Congress, our press, and we as citizens were not vigilant enough in holding our government to account for its statements and actions.

    We did not do nearly enough to prevent this tragedy perpetrated on Iraq, on the world, and on ourselves.

  • Kansan

    So who’s on the guy’s list, as the 10 most overrated white people?

    President Obama’s Economic Team – Despite wolf cries from the Right that President Obama is organizing a socialist revolution, the President’s economic advisors are living proof that he’s far from a Fabianist. Rather than delivering on the change that many people expected — and that the Obama Administration continues to trumpet as fact against all evidence to the contrary — Obama’s closest
    economic advisors have continued to push forward a business-as-usual strategy that continues to reward big business, stimulate the wealthy, undermine fair trade, and deny the possibility of living wages for poor people around the globe.

    You disagree, I guess. Jack Lew is not any improvement on these stooges.

    Who else?

    Sarah Palin.

    Case closed. The woman’s a moron.

    • rdgeorge

      You are aware of Joe Biden presumably?

  • Kansan

    Dan Quale was lampooned because he was and is an idiot: A “Chauncey Gardinier.”

    He was the feeble minded son of a wealthy publisher who bought his election as U.S. Senator.

    When Bush I picked him for Veep, he danced around the stage like the winner of the 100 yard dash at the Special Olympics.

    He actually put himself up to run for President in 2000.

    What a moron!

    • rdgeorge

      Do you know Joe Biden?

      • Kansan

        Never met the man.

  • Kansan

    They’re building a bridge over the Potomac for all the white liberals fleeing to Virginia.

    I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.

    Presidential Candidate and Governor George C. Wallace
    The white people of the South are the greatest minority in this nation. They deserve consideration and understanding instead of the persecution of twisted propaganda.

    Presidential candidate, governor and US Senator Strom Thurmond
    On the group UNITY: Journalists of Color, Inc. pushing for more diversity in journalism:

    Half a century after Martin Luther King envisioned a day when his children would be judged ‘not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character,’ journalists of color are demanding the hiring and promotion of journalists based on the color of their skin. Jim Crow is back. Only the color of the beneficiaries and the color of the victims have been reversed.

    Also from the chapter, “The End Of White America”:

    Those who believe the rise to power of an Obama rainbow coalition of peoples of color means the whites who helped to engineer it will steer it are deluding themselves. The whites may discover what it is like to ride in the back of the bus.

    From the chapter, “Equality or Freedom?”:

    Not until the 1960s did courts begin to use the Fourteenth Amendment to impose a concept of equality that the authors of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The Federalist Papers, and the Gettysburg Address never believed in. Before the 1960s, equality meant every citizen enjoyed the same constitutional rights and the equal protection of existing laws. Nothing in the Constitution or federal law mandated social, racial, or gender equality.

    His political comrades on the Supreme Court seem to agree with him:

    However, a careful reading of special reports
    compiled by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), the
    Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR) and the Alliance for
    Justice shows that they have legitimate concerns about Alito’s staunch
    opposition to civil rights and his eagerness to limit the power
    Congress has to remedy racial discrimination.

    “Judge Alito’s 1985
    application to be the Reagan administration’s Deputy Assistant Attorney
    General in the Office of Legal Counsel reveals the beginnings of his
    ideology and subsequent judicial philosophy,” the LCCR report observes.
    “In that application, he strongly embraces the conservative ideology of
    the Reagan administration, singling out his work to restrict
    affirmative action and limit the remedies available to victims of
    discrimination as areas that he was ‘particularly proud.’”

    LDF report quotes Alito’s comments in more detail: “Most recently, it
    has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve
    in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan’s
    administration and to help advance legal positions in which I
    personally believe very strongly. I am particularly proud of my
    contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the
    Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed.”

    His opponents were not seeking quotas, which had been forbidden by the executive order creating affirmative action.

    LDF discovered that, “As a lawyer in the Solicitor General’s office, Alito
    participated in three major affirmative action cases before the Supreme Court….

    he argued against court-ordered affirmative action as a remedy for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964…against voluntary affirmative action under Title VII…and against voluntary affirmative action under the Constitution…”

    In his 1985 application, LCCR noted, Alito wrote: “In college, I developed a deep
    interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause and reapportionment.”

    LCRR observes, “At the time of his statement, nearly everyone accepted the legitimacy of the Warren Court’s 20-year old rulings on reapportionment – Baker v. Carr, which said for the first time, that the federal courts had a role to play in making sure that all Americans have a right to equal representation; Wesberry v. Sanders, in which the Court ruled that Congressional districts have to be roughly equal in population; and Reynolds v. Sims, in which the Court held that state legislative districts had to be equal in population, according to the principle of
    ‘one person, one vote.’”

    On the bench, Alito dissented from the majority’s decision that a Black employee had supplied enough information for her racial discrimination case to be heard by a jury. In Bray v. Marriott Hotels, Alito favored a very narrow reading of
    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the section barring employment discrimination. The majority said that if Alito’s interpretation of the law had been accepted, “Title VII would be eviscerated” and that his view would “immunize an employers from the reach of Title VII” in certain circumstances.

    The majority also took Alito to task for his dissent in Riley v. Taylor, a case about
    whether the prosecutor had used racially-motivated peremptory strikes to exclude African-Americans from a jury. LDF said Alito equated that action to the statistical oddity of five of the last six U.S. presidents being left-handed. The judges in the majority rebuked Alito, accusing him of minimizing “the history of discrimination against potential black jurors and black defendants.”

  • fitzsimmons Photography

    They get away with it because Republicans don’t rant and rave about it to the MSM( not to Fox) but to NBC or CBS or ABC. We(our poiticians need to be on top of this every time it surfaces. Remind them of their mistakes,their gaffes,their lies over and over again. Republicans and Conservatives keep talking to Fox, they keep preaching to the choir so the info only gets to the people who already know….I’ve written to all the politicians I know and have suggested that every time Barack Obama lies there should be a media blitz….everytime these gaffes happen, everyone who can should get on and make them look like the fools they are. Sharpton alone would keep them busy for years!!!And Barack Obama. Produce little thirty second spots,tweet,jam the waves of every social media medium there is. GIVE IT BACK!!!!!!!!Stop being spinless weenies…….

  • Marshall Stewart

    The ignorant, stupid, and pathetic join smug liberals (Bill Maher for example) in the Democrat camp of double standard commentary. Add in the lame news media (aka talking heads or teleprompter readers) and you get slimed answers which the news media is only too happy to read and publish. Yikes, what shall we do?

  • chief98110

    The media is definitely liberal and biased a result of progressive
    education in many of our schools and colleges. I predict an evolution of
    Liberalism is coming based on economics. The internet is changing the
    way we get our information and education. Traditional schools and
    colleges, with few exceptions, are failing miserably to prepare our
    youth for the job market. Look at the statistics of college graduates
    and the jobs they land after graduation. Look at the huge school debt
    they incur for their liberal eduction.
    Hollywood media moguls and
    progressive educators may control things now but change is coming and I
    hope I live to see these jerks on the corner of a freeway off-ramp with a
    cardboard sign,” I’m a Liberal – will work for food or $$$”

    • johnfromil

      One of the facts of life, is that it seems many liberal college grads have degrees in the social sciences. Give you a hint. There are a lot more jobs in the hard sciences such as engineering, chemistry, and physics, but those take work and cannot be passed by writing reasonably good essays echoing the mantra of their socialist professors.

      • Drew Page

        John — You are correct. There aren’t many jobs out there looking for grads with degrees in History, Political Science, Sociology, Women’s Studies, Black Studies, Art/Music Appreciation. Unless someone is looking for a career in teaching these subjects, there aren’t many employers looking for candidates with these degrees. ON the other hand, there are many more opportunities for those grads with degrees in Computer Science, Medicine, Accounting and Engineering.

    • johnfromil

      As an afterthought, one part of the sign is incorrect. Liberals wont work for anything. They will expect welfare to support them.

  • Kevin Leahy

    The Big 3 liberal television media (ABC, CBS, NBC) all compete for viewership and basically hang themselves by just each taking a portion of the same pie. If just ONE of those networks were to change their political stance to a more conservative tone, I guarantee that network would blow the other two away in the ratings war.

    • Drew Page

      Whenver three or more people agree on everything, all but one aren’t needed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1560111594 Robert Blum

    No different than the boy who cried wolf . . . or an individual falsely crying rape –

    ‘Racism’ is a potent word so often used today to gain or retain raw power . . . . yielding diminishing returns only when ‘the people’ address such a falsehood .

  • Kansan

    Oh, really?

    You’ve “never heard a white guy playing the race card in politics?”

    Uh, how about this, picked up on with admiration from and recirculated by the neo-Nazis at Stormfront?

    WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) didn’t vote for the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill when it passed the Senate last week. And on Wednesday, he gave a blunt reason why: he doesn’t think tribal courts are capable of giving a fair trial to non-Native Americans.

    Grassley was holding a town hall meeting in Indianola, Iowa, when a
    constituent asked him about his VAWA vote. Think Progress reported on
    the meeting and posted a video of Grassley’s response, during which he argued that, since reservations are made up of Native Americans, those jurists wouldn’t be fair to a non-Native American.

    “If you have a jury, the jury is supposed to be a reflection of society,” Grassley said. “Under the laws of our land, you’ve got to have a jury that is a reflection of society as a whole, and on an Indian reservation, it’s going to be made up of Indians, right? So the non-Indian doesn’t get a fair trial.”

    Grassley was referring to a provision in the Senate VAWA bill that would give tribal courts new authority to prosecute non-Native American men who abuse Native American women on tribal lands. As it stands, tribal courts have no criminal authority over non-tribal members on reservations, only civil authority. Federal and state law enforcement are supposed to step in in cases of domestic violence involving non-Native Americans on reservations, but often they are hours away and lack the resources to respond. The result is that non-Native American men who abuse Native American women on tribal lands — something that happens at appallingly high rates — are effectively immune from the law.

    • nickshaw

      Grassley pointed out the very real chance that a non-native may not get a fair trial in an Indian court. What is wrong with that?
      Or are you saying that speaking the truth is now considered racism?
      This is the evil worm of political correctness. Truth, even when backed by overwhelming evidence, can no longer be spoken aloud.

      Why is it that when blacks complain that they can’t get a fair trial from an all white jury liberals will rush to agree yet, you think Grassley is playing the race card in virtually the same situation?
      And I’d love to see you back up the claim that non-native men abuse native women on tribal lands at “appallingly high rates” as opposed to the rate native men abuse native women on tribal lands.
      As well, I’d be interested in knowing how non-native men are living on tribal lands in the first place and how prevalent this is.
      Apparently, you have these figures at your fingertips to make such an assertion?

      • Kansan

        Bill Janklow also was driving drunk and speeding, as usual, when he killed a motorcyclist by turning left in front of him. He then fled the scene of the accident.


        William “Wild Bill” Janklow was the Republican governor of South Dakota. In
        1955, at the age of 16, he was convicted of the sexual assault of a
        17-year old woman. As a juvenile offense, this conviction carried
        little weight under U.S. law.

        However, in 1966, while working as the tribal attorney for the Rosebud
        Sioux, Janklow–aged 27–was accused of raping his children’s
        15-year-old babysitter, Jancita Eagle Deer. Adult sexual offenses being
        more grave than this earlier recorded exploit, Janklow used his
        capacity as head of reservation legal services to stave off the
        (illegible) of formal, federal charges. He then resigned his position
        and left tribal jurisdiction.

        Having progressed through the “mainstream” South Dakota legal system
        during the intervening seven years, Janklow achieved status as the
        state’s Deputy Attorney General by the time of the 1973 American Indian
        Movement (AIM) occupation of Wounded Knee. Opting to run for Attorney
        General the following year, he undertook a campaign of hardline
        prosecutorial assault upon AIM members designed to win him the advantage
        of local headlines and support of South Dakota’s virulently anti-Indian
        white citizenry.

        AIM countered this offensive when organization member Douglass Durham
        discovered the old Rosebud rape files. AIM leader Dennis Banks secured
        the filing of charges and brought the case before tribal judge Mario
        Gonzales. Durham, meanwhile, had located Jancita Eagle Deer in Iowa,
        where she had resided since dropping out of high school shortly after
        the 1966 incident.

        Durham was able to persuade Eagle Deer to return to the Rosebud in order
        to testify at the upcoming trial: Janklow refused to enter tribal
        jurisdiction either to stand trial or even to answer questions
        concerning the charges. Gonzales then issued a warrant for the arrest
        of the South Dakota Deputy Attorney General on charges of rape and
        obstruction of justice. Durham and Eagle Deer apparently became lovers;
        in any event she became his traveling companion. And, South Dakota
        being South Dakota, Janklow won his election by a landslide.

        Janklow’s Justice

        In his new capacity as Attorney General, Janklow introduced his anti-AIM
        campaign, winning a good deal of federal approval for his efforts and
        focusing his most lethal attentions on Dennis Banks (who had showcased
        the rape charges), rather than on Douglass Durham (who had discovered
        and pushed them). Said Janklow, “The way to deal with Dennis Banks is
        with a bullet between the eyes.”

        Regardless of his political stance, Janklow was and is a trained
        attorney, possessed of the usual legalistic logic accompanying the
        profession of law. His omission of Durham from his personal “hitlist,”
        particularly given Durham’s close relationship with the only witness who
        could categorically link him to the act of rape, seemed odd at the
        time. It was soon to be less so.

        During the January 1975 AIM takeover of the Alexian Brothers Abbey in
        Wisconsin, it came out that Durham was a paid ($1,000 a month, cash) FBI
        informant. Since 1973, based largely on his superior performance in
        sniffing out the information about Janklow and in locating Eagle Deer,
        he had been selected to serve as head of AIM security. In this
        capacity, he had been privy to many of the private defense team meetings
        during the so-called “Wounded Knee Trials” of Russell Means and Dennis

        Although the AIM leadership was acquitted in the trials, it remains true
        that no effort has ever been made to bring the prosecutors or
        responsible FBI officials to court on what amounted to flagrant perjury
        and contempt of court, as well as obvious attempts at miscarriages of
        justice. Both the government lawyers and the FBI denied under oath to
        the trial judges they had infiltrated the defense team.

        Meanwhile, Durham dropped out of sight, with Eagle Deer in tow. Her
        body turned up in a roadside ditch in Nebraska in March 1975. While the
        official Nebraska State Police account lists cause of death merely as
        “hit-and-run,” even their autopsy report indicates she had been beaten
        sometime shortly before being run over. Douglass Durham was never
        questioned in the matter of his companion’s death. Rather, he was
        called as the sole witness before the House of Representatives’ Internal
        Security Committee’ “investigation” of AIM during the summer of 1975 to
        provide evidence that “the American Indian Movement is a terrorist
        organization.” From there, he went on a national speaking tour arranged
        by the John Birch Society and endorsed by William Janklow, who had
        decided to run for governor.

        Freed of the spectre of Eagle Deer’s possible testimony against him in
        court, Janklow proceeded to secure a conviction against Dennis
        Banks–before an all-white jury–on charges of “rioting” in the face of a
        police assault upon AIM in Custer, South Dakota in 1973. Faced with a
        prison sentence under Jankow, Banks went underground. When he surfaced
        again, it was in California where the circumstances surrounding his case
        were deemed enough to warrant Governor Jerry Brown’s granting of a
        sanctuary from extradition to South Dakota. (See sidebar.)

        In the meantime, Janklow was possibly repaying certain debts to his
        clandestine benefactors by utilizing a federal ploy to dispose of other
        AIM thorns in the government’s flesh. Notably, this centered upon the
        utilization of one of the FBI’s “all purpose witnesses,” a clinically
        unbalanced Lakota woman named Myrtle Poor Bear.

        • nickshaw

          This proves what to me?
          That there are (or were) bad Republicans?
          Of course there were (and are).
          Power corrupts on both sides of the political spectrum.
          However, we are talking about the current state of the Dim party and the double standards of media who support them here.

          • Kansan

            This situation is the poster child for powerful white guys who are able to commit
            terrible crimes on reservations and yet rarely suffer any consequences.

        • Kansan

          It’s the poster child for powerful white guys who are able to commit terrible crimes on reservations and yet rarely suffer any consequences.

  • Moppie!!!!

    He was shot 15 times and had sharpnel wounds?????

  • http://twitter.com/eRtwngr eRightWinger

    I get it Bernie. But without proposing solutions you’re just throwing red meat to like minded readers creating a sort of echo chamber. Where are the endowments from deep pocketed conservatives for attracting conservative journalism students and professors? We’ve had years of Media Research Center and FoxNews calling out media bias and it seems to only get worse. What are your solutions?

    • Drew Page

      Hillsdale College in Michigan is one of those conservative institutions you are looking for. They hire conservative professors and teach a conservative philosophy. They are funded through tuition from students and by endowments from those deep pocketed conservatives you mention. Fox News supports Hillsdale College and demands fair reporting from its news staff while sponsiring plenty of conservative opinion and analysis programs.
      One of the reasons for the success of Fox News is that it is a refreshing change from the MSM that are open and ardent supporters of liberal philosophy in general and the Obama administration in particular.

  • Iklwa

    The likelihood of conservative making threats to invade
    personal privacy on a political opponent is low to begin with.

    Of course, it may have something to do with the chilling
    effects of the probability of the conservative waking up one fine day with a
    Predator drone overhead and a Hellfire missile in his bedroom because he has
    been deemed subversive.

    I find it interesting how liberals resist new weapons
    systems (i.e. the Predator drone) and then gleefully use it to avoid tiresome
    paperwork (“We don’t need to interrogate no Taliban prisoners. Just drone ‘em.
    That way we avoid the issue of Guantanimo.”)

  • Brhurdle

    Media bias cannot be denied by anyone with just a minimum of objectivity. I also admit that FNC is as biased to the right as the remaining media is as biased to the left. I personally do not see any event or trend that will change this situation. There is a good side of this situation in that most people are aware of this media bias and are choosing their sources accordingly. Unfortunately, at some point the advertisers will become a source of retribution and will be severely hurt by the backlash since the country is roughly split 50-50. At that point, traditional media will become financially unsustainable and will disappear. I say good riddance.

    • New Yorker

      So keep watching Fox News and listening to Limbaugh…..ignorance is bliss…

      • http://twitter.com/ChicTown33 Phyliss Duke

        N.Y. “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” –M. L. King

  • bonzo3244

    Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. The problem is when a someones ideology doesn’t allow them to see their own. The media is a wonderful example of this. In their liberal enclaves of utopian dreams they don’t see is as hypocrisy, to them it’s just allowable indiscretions on their march to bringing in their progressive future

    • Drew Page

      “Progress” is one of those words that carry a positive connotation, but what must be understood is the direction in which progress is being made, before we can determine if ‘progress’ is good or bad. Progress toward finding a cure for diseases and illnesses if a good thing. But diseases and illnessnes can also progress , which means they are getting worse. We can progrees towards peace or towards war, towards positive ends or toward negative ones. Even when progress is made in a positive direction, it carries a price tag. Then the inevitable question arises, “Who’s gonna pay?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6VDL3C4WJ7HIMZND3DFBWJAHRY Bill

    It is their classic trump card and will play it all the time! I knew this four years ago when Obama was elected. They have used it so much that the term “racism” has become meaningless anymore!

  • ted

    GET REAL! TARGET: Conservatives and Republicans and Tea Partiers. The enboldened Far-left media has a free field with no denunciation by anyone. They are propagandists and Progressives. Obama’s blatant lying, obfuscating and Republican bashing is OK, so is everything else.
    Liberals/Democrats/Progressives have been winning for 75 years and will not stop now. It is absolute power over you and me that is their goal.
    GET REAL. We the rational, law-loving, moderate human beings have LOST. End of game.

  • New Yorker

    More whining from right wingers about the media…Losers need excuses….

    • Moppie

      How can you be so blind and naïve…what is there in your DNA that won’t allow you to see the truth when it’s put in front of you? None are so blind as those who will not see. Perhaps you may want to speak to some of the Holocaust victims, while we still have those people to warn us, and see what happened in Germany when the press took on the mantle of Hitler! History is repeating itself New Yorker.

      • New Yorker

        if the media is so liberal how did Bush win twice? Your use of the holocaust to support your position is not only absurd, it’s offensive to Jews…stop being a fool…

        • chief98110

          The media never groveled at the altar of Bush like they do for Mr. Obama, or didn’t you notice sitting in you parents basement!

        • Moppie

          . I think the Holocaust was MUCH more offensive to The Jewish people than my comment! I was using it as an example of people being too trusting until it’s too late. Wise up, New Yorker, I wasn’t insulting Jewish people. BTW, where did I say anything about the press being liberal?

    • nickshaw

      You’re kinda’ a one trick pony, ain’t ya’?

    • seek456

      why are you here? You invented yourself to troll sites, why?

  • http://twitter.com/Chrissy1826 Christine Kolbe

    Question, “How did the media become what it is today?” Second question, “Specifically who controls the media?” These powerful few are trying to control the thought of the masses. How frightening!!

    • Kansan

      Uh, Rupert Murdoch? Phillip Anschutz?

  • Ted Crawford

    They are not just complicit by what they fail to report, they are also complicit in how they spin what they can’t avoid reporting!
    Obama’s “Gaffe”(?) of having visited” I think 57 States with one to go” Even if we accept that he ment to say 47 states, the math still doesn’t work. We have 50 States not 49. However there are 57 States in Islam!
    Obama’s “Gaffe”(?) , when complimenting John McCain for not mentioning his “Muslim Faith”! He was NOT under any pressure, it dosen’t get much more friendly than George Stephanopolos and ABC!
    “Gaffes”? i think not! More likely they were Freudian Slips! “out of the abundance of the Heart, the mouth speaks”

    • Kansan

      Get a life. You might enjoy it.

  • Gradivus

    They’re liberat Democrats–of course they can get away with it. As far as the lapdog “progressive” media are concerned, “their sh_t don’t stink.”

    • New Yorker

      I think you need to get back on your medication……stop whining and hating..

      • fitzsimmons Photography

        Ha! This is softball compared to the left’s hitmen….Maddow,Cutter and Matthews to name a few!!

      • Drew Page

        You must be one of those liberal New Yorkers. I’ll tell you what, I’ll stop whining about the liberal media, when you stop whining about more gun control. I’ll stop ‘hating’ liberal politicians when I see them stop saying that “More taxes will solve everything.”

  • ulyssesmsu

    The problem is not that liberal media make fun of conservatives who say XYZ. Who cares what they say? Ignore them. But the much larger issues is the collectivist collusion that creates an unethical and dishonest narrative. They’re no longer just “liberal media.” They’re dishonest, unethical liberal media–which means, no media at all.

    • Ted Crawford

      I’m not overly concerned with organization that represent themselves in an honest manner. CPUSA doesn’t hide the fact that they espouse Communism, in fact they embrace it! By the way they also Embraced Obama in 2012. They believed that Obama’s policy was so good for their cause that they didn’t run a candidate but rather threw all their support behind Obama!
      I’m far less concerned with those who openly express their Anarchist ideaology, than I am with those who hid their true beliefs behind the curtain of Libertarian Party mantra, such as Ron Paul did!

  • http://twitter.com/itchingtogo JP

    If the mainstream media came out today and endorsed a Reagan-istic Conervative for the next election, I would be very skeptical and not likely to endorse them myself. That’s how much I distrust the media.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roscoe-Bonnifitucci/100000459519027 Roscoe Bonnifitucci

    The Criminal Main Stream Media is the lapdog of the Left and the Progressive Crony. They are so Left, they have no idea they are Marxist in substance, form and agenda. They smack of anti-semitism, anti-Christianity and anti-God in general. The Culture is defined by the Socialist mentality as documented in the Congressional Record in 1963.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roscoe-Bonnifitucci/100000459519027 Roscoe Bonnifitucci

    The Criminal Main Stream Media is the lapdog of the Left and the Progressive Crony. They are so Left, they have no idea they are Marxist in substance, form and agenda. They smack of anti-semitism, anti-Christianity and anti-God in general.

    • Kansan

      Are you able to speak at all without depending on stupid slogans?

      • chief98110

        Yeah that may be true but he is still correct.

      • soundnfury

        You mean the sort of slogans that the President & left uses? I agree… Guest shouldn’t stoop to that level.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roscoe-Bonnifitucci/100000459519027 Roscoe Bonnifitucci

    The Criminal Main Stream Media is the lapdog of the Left and the Progressive Crony. They are so Left, they have no idea they are Marxist in substance, form and agenda.

    • Moppie

      Oh, but they do, Guest. Never underestimate their power. Never underestimate those who control the news media.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roscoe-Bonnifitucci/100000459519027 Roscoe Bonnifitucci

    The Criminal Main Stream Media is the lapdog of the Left and the Progressive Crony.

  • Roger Ward

    For many years now, there has been a double standard when judging the statements and/or actions of liberals vs those of conservatives. This inequity parallels the political views of the left which, unfortunately controls the media (except Fox news.)