Comedian Bill Cosby’s Courageous Crusade
Not Politically Correct – But Right On

By Sara Pentz

Most people know actor Bill Cosby as a comedian. His humor has captivated TV and film audiences. He has written books and is known for his humorous Jell-O television commercials. He has even recorded jazz albums and dubbed cartoon voices.

The man has simply resonated throughout the culture for the past 50 years because of his talent. And while he is very funny, he seems always to be deeply concerned with projecting positive images of African Americans. It is a noble cause.

For the most part Cosby’s comedy centers on giving insight into parenting. Life Magazine once described his famous sitcom “The Bill Cosby Show” in the following way: “What Cosby offered…was a gentle, whimsical, warm-hearted sitcom about family life that found humor in the little things that happen in every home and everlasting value in the love and trust that exist between parents and children.”

Most people don’t know that Cosby had to repeat the tenth grade because his study habits gave way to his love of athletics. He dropped out shortly thereafter and joined the Navy. He finished high school via a correspondence course while still in the service. When he was discharged, he enrolled at Temple University as the result of an athletic scholarship, where he earned academic honors. In addition, Cosby completed his Masters Degree and his Doctorate in Education.

Imagine the pride of this man whose son, Ennis William Cosby, overcame learning disabilities to earn a master's degree in special education at Columbia University's Teachers College. He was studying for his doctorate when in l997 he was shot to death. He was changing a tire on his car in the remote area of the San Diego Freeway—about 15 miles from downtown Los Angeles—when he was murdered. He was Bill Cosby’s only son. “He was my hero,” the comedian said.

Ennis Cosby had spent his last day tutoring a young boy who had learning disabilities. Tragic as the death was, Cosby returned immediately to work and to carry on his passion for education, self-improvement and teaching young black men how to be independent and productive members of society.

In a way it should not have come as a shock when in the late spring of 2004, Cosby took aim at blacks who don't take responsibility for their economic status, blame police for incarcerations and teach their kids poor speaking habits. What was shocking was how and where this comedian chose to make his very serious comments—at a NAACP event in Washington D.C. commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision which paved the way for integrating schools.

"Ladies and gentlemen, the lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal. These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids – $500 sneakers for what? And won't spend $200 for 'Hooked on Phonics.'

"They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk: 'Why you ain't,' 'Where you is' ... And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. ... Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. ... You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth!"

"These are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca-Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake and then we run out and we are outraged, [saying] 'The cops shouldn't have shot him.' What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand?"

Criticizing African-Americans for wearing saggy pants, speaking improper English and giving children names like "…Shaniqua, Shaligua, Mohammed and all that crap," Cosby said,

"I am talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange [prison] suit.” "Where were you when he was 2? Where were you when he was 12? Where were you when he was 18, and how come you didn't know that he had a pistol? And where is the father?

NAACP President Kweisi Mfume, Howard University President H. Patrick Swygert, NAACP legal defense fund head Theodore Shaw and other national African-American leaders sat stone-faced throughout Cosby’s remarks. The audience rang out with laughter and applause.

Perhaps Mr. Cosby had read a book called "Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America," by Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson. In it Peterson reports that “…increasing numbers of Americans have come to regard Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other establishment "black leaders" as con artists, gaining money and power by promoting racial tension and class warfare.” It is a bold book written by a successful entrepreneur, motivational speaker, author, and founder/president of a nonprofit organization, the Los Angeles-based Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny or B.O.N.D.–whose purpose is "rebuilding the family by rebuilding the man."

In the book Peterson shows “…how the civil-rights establishment has made a lucrative career out of keeping racial strife alive in America.” He reveals how “…establishment black leaders endlessly promise solutions to the problems of America's inner cities, but deliver only ineffective Band-Aids…from the dismal failure of the welfare system, to the farce of the slavery-reparations movement, to the problems within black churches and the hypocrisy and corruption of current black leaders…”

Whether or not Cosby read the book, he continued his crusade throughout 2004 telling parents they must work to educate their children before they wind up teenage moms, jail inmates, drug dealers—or dead. Cosby stressed that it is the parents—not just the schools themselves—who need to step up. "Parents are 99 percent," he told the San Francisco Chronicle. "School districts don't parent. They teach… It's time for people to just stop seeing themselves so much as victims, so much in poverty, and realize what education does and fight for it like you're fighting for your life..."

Bill Cosby is himself fighting for his own life metaphorically by taking on this courageous crusade. The roots of it seem to be deeply embedded in his soul going back to his childhood. Remarkably, he appears not to care one whit what his black compatriots say about him. It is utterly refreshing to hear this black man speak out without concern for being politically correct.

Bill Cosby, MA, PhD, may always be remembered for his humor, but that alone is not the mark of the man. He is insightful and heroic—and every American should be indebted to him for his new crusade to raise black children up to be educated, to be free and to take responsibility for their actions. And maybe some of that will rub off on all the other children in the world who believe they are owed something by someone else.

The Blogosphere Rising
By Sara Pentz

In a recent news report people were asked what they would do without the Internet. Most said they would not be able to ‘survive;’ some said they would ‘die.’ While certainly they used hyperbole to describe their distress at that thought, their sentiments were a small indication of how the Internet is becoming more of a major influence in our everyday lives.

Evidence of this comes from the rise of the Internet blog. A blog is basically a journal that is available on the web. The activity of updating a blog is called blogging and someone who keeps a blog is a blogger. Therefore, the term blogosphere is the space on the Internet where one can read or write blogs.

Events happen that underscore this inescapable trend toward blogging on the blogosphere. For example, the recent discrediting of CBS’s “60 Minutes Wednesday’ report, about faked National Guard memos used to impugn the character of President George W. Bush, represents a glowing example of this paradigm shift.

Here was an example of a mainstream media outlet presenting a dishonest report to the American people where facts, research and contradictory testimony would not allow the CBS team to waver from its political agenda; where partisans with an ax to grind carried the thrust of the story. Worse than that, the CBS team had to—in some way—understand the deception, because the thesis was openly rejected in advance of the report by a number of noted experts. It was an ugly example of dishonesty in journalism too often repeated in today’s mainstream media.

But the jig was up when, only a few hours after the report aired, a legion of legitimate legal and political experts showed up on the web to expose the deception. In one of the great moments in Internet history, a collage of remote souls collectively did what CBS News had failed to do. They sought the truth. They were specialists in a multitude of areas such as documents, handwriting, copy machines, typewriters, computers, software programs, typefaces, military technology and Texas National Guard history. Together, within less than two days, they sank the CBS report, countering it with documented data in a manner never before witnessed—to which by the way CBS thumbed its nose.

It was a technological feat that suddenly gave the blogosphere official credibility and celebrity. While it is certainly known how fast the Internet can give access to and deliver information, this kind of counter attack had never before been displayed with such speedy and devastating results. The revelations emerging throughout the sphere were forcing the mainstream to address the incident—albeit with its usual unwillingness.

Writing esoterically about the explosion of the blogosphere, University of Dallas professor Frederick Turner of TechCenterStation.com, explains: “What we saw was an extraordinary example of what chaos and complexity theorists call spontaneous self-organization. Out of a highly communicative but apparently chaotic medium…a perfectly-matched team of specialists had self-assembled out of the ether.” He adds, “The dazzling speed and monstrous bandwidth of the information flow had crossed some kind of threshold, in which thousands of minds could act as…an intelligence with not merely cognitive, but moral characteristics.”

The power of the blogosphere had coalesced morality—truth, justice, responsibility—and overpowered the mainstream media with its force. Just as basic research, fact checking and critical editing has begun to erode in newspapers, magazines, and TV news around the world, these basic journalistic endeavors found a solid and impeccably obvious place on the Internet.

A new journalism was emerging—a journalism with smarts as well as courage. This is the kind of courage that takes responsibility for actions and behavior in the face of hard moral choices. Here lies the bravery to distill information with independent thinking and without biased editing. It is the free and plucky thinking that is so absent in other spheres where hack redundancy has found its ground.

This was, then, a supreme and sublime reallocation of power. The blogosphere was rising up to take over where the mainstream media had failed. Bloggers began to understand the magnitude of their importance. They had thrust aside the media elite and taken over the role of the arbiter of truth. And the very act became a nod to the new journalism that is going to quickly permeate the culture. No longer can the media elite falsify, fake, lie and cheat with impunity because they will be ‘outed’ by bloggers around the world.

Perhaps, that is why these media elitists fear, despise and ridicule bloggers. In the midst of CBS attempts to cover up the faked memo report, a quote by one senior CBSer united the bloggers. He attacked and attempted to ridicule them by pejoratively calling them, “…some guys sitting in their living rooms in their pajamas.” The insult was a bomb; backfiring as only it could into the laps of the arrogant. The quote whizzed through the blogosphere tap-dancing from website to website; careening through chat rooms and strings; and into the words of think-tank pundits—all at a speed of this new lightening-fast technology. As it did, the insult was caricatured in cartoons, jokes and puns. The bloggers loved it. They had found their identity and gloried in it. They laughed at the pettiness of the elites because it was all so untrue.

From Townhall.com John Leo writes, “Dan Rather associated them (bloggers) with rumor and propaganda. This seems to mean that many in the mainstream press still don’t understand bloggers…the kind of self-made journalists who make their case with hyperlinks to primary sources and other data. Arguments without authority count for nothing, and softheaded analyses and hoaxes are quickly exposed. As RealClear Politics.com said, it’s a fast-moving, “very transparent, self-correcting environment ultimately based on facts.”

Here’s a succinct comment from Brent Bozell, President of Media Research Center. “The conservative counterculture buzzes daily about the misinformation the liberal media tries to feed the people. Media accountability to their audience is now coming directly from the audience.”

It seems inevitable that these stalwart bloggers will gain more and more respectability—while marching in their formal tuxedos to the cadence of the truthseeker. The more they each come forward with non-partisan information, the more they will inflate their ranks and sink the mainstream Liberally-biased media.

Bloggers will multiply exponentially with respect to the masses of people who write honestly with facts, objectivity and the truth. And the blogosphere will rise just like the phoenix—that mythical bird, a symbol of virtue, power and prosperity, that flies far ahead in the lead scanning the landscape and distant space with its intense and perfect vision. And, like the legendary phoenix, the blogosphere will lead the dawn of a new and brighter day.

Mr. Chrenkoff’s Blog
Witnessing Two Revolutions
By Sara Pentz

In an article written for Opinionjournal.com, the online version of the Wall Street Journal, on Monday, November 8, 2004, there is an excellent behind-the-news summary accounting of the war—and the peace—in Iraq. It is an amazing read for two reasons.

First, Mr. Chrenkoff’s blog details the good news from Iraq that the mainstream media has disgracefully refused to report. This blogger has given us a look at Democracy in progress. His accounts show us how a once subjugated people are taking control of their lives. How the American soldier, American free enterprise, humanitarian help from around the world, and freedom itself have had an impact on these so recently tyrannized people.

Second, in an unprecedented move a major media outlet has published an Internet blog written by Arthur Chrenkoff, an Australian blogger. It is a deserved sanction made by one of the world’s more influential newspapers. It demonstrates the vital importance of bloggers and their Internet writings. The blog itself, http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/, proves that bloggers can be intelligent, impartial, honest and observant—and that some of the best are here to stay.

We are, in fact, witnessing two revolutions—the rise of the credibility of the blogger, and the building of a free society in the face of undeniably appalling odds. The American mainstream press has subjugated both of these revolutions until now.

The Stuff of Mr. Chrenkoff’s Blog

Mr. Chrenkoff’s blog focuses a bright white light on a country evolving in a way we cannot quite imagine. It is not a report about failures, beheadings, murderers and the carnage of war. Mr. Chrenkoff takes us behind the scenes to look at how Democracy is working in this ruined country.

It is an inspiring journey as Mr. Chrenkoff documents details, and quotes Iraqis who are experiencing their freedom at work. He shows us how they express and demonstrate their courage and resourcefulness as they rebuild Iraq with the help of people who understand their plight. It is a story of heros and hope.

He writes about the emergence of political parties and voter registration—about the development of precinct organization and the upcoming election. He writes about the small triumphs of such things as successful local city council elections.

He writes about shops filled with brand-new refrigerators, televisions and air conditioners. He writes about a northern Iraqi governor who talks about promoting tourism, and about local residents who shrug off questions of violence and kidnappings as they emerge from the chaos.

He writes about an Iraqi economy celebrating the first anniversary of the introduction of the new dinar—about how the Iraqi Central Bank will soon license foreign banks. This is the same central bank, he writes, that auctioned Treasury bills from the beginning of July 2004 for the first time in years.

Mr. Chrenkoff writes about how construction work is thriving throughout the country and the infrastructure is being rebuilt. About how water quality is improving as water-treatment plants appear, and new electricity plants that will provide air conditioning for the summer of 2005. And he tells us about how ChevronTexaco Corp. signed a memorandum of understanding recently with Iraq's Oil Ministry to provide free technical assistance to upgrade the country's exploration and production industry.

He writes about teacher’s salaries raised from $5 to an average of $300 a month—about a new Minister of Education who quickly assembled a senior staff after some 12,000 teachers and administrators who had been members of the now-banned Ba'ath Party were fired. UNICEF and USAID, he writes, distributed school supplies to more than five million students and reprinted textbooks, after removing much of the propaganda of the previous regime. Then he talks about the boxes full of medical textbooks donated by a textbook company, and the need for more books of every kind.

He writes about how a company will shortly provide Internet services to universities and educational institutions in Iraq using advanced digital satellite telecommunications equipment for data, voice and video applications. It is one of the most effective technologies used today to meet a diverse set of communications needs and to provide remote area connectivity.

He writes about how the Iraqi medical system is being rebuilt. About how Iraqi physicians now arrange medical conferences in collaboration with American military physicians. Together they discuss blood diseases, chest trauma and the future of emergency medical services. Gunfights near conference sites and terrorist threats have failed to deter invited American physicians and more than 300 Iraqi physicians from participating in these conference. He writes about how medical centers, dental clinics, hospitals and drugstores are being rebuilt—sometimes from the ground up.

He tells us that museum officials recently began to study, catalog and reconcile scattered but priceless collections and how they plan to create a digital catalog of more than 100,000 artifacts. The catalog will be made available in English and Arabic, on the Internet and in print.

He writes about a small group of young men who recently gathered on a patchy grass field behind Baghdad University's College of Sports Education. They were there to organizer Iraq's fledgling national baseball team. He writes about how humor is on the rise throughout the population because people are feeling in control of their lives. He tells us that toys are streaming in from all over so that little boys and girls are given a chance for a happy childhood.

The Meaning of Mr. Chrenkoff’s Blog

Mr. Chrenkoff’s blog is informative, comprehensive and objective. It is the kind of report not available in newspapers or on television in any country in the world. As such it is an embarrassment—especially to the American mainstream media (as it should be) because this country boasts a high regard for non-partisan reporting. If anything, Mr. Chrenkoff’s blog proves the dismal failure of the American media to honor that tradition.

That Mr. Chrenkoff’s blog can be read only on the Internet is shamefully underscoring the refusal of the American media to tell the other story of Iraq. No wonder media elites are smearing bloggers. They are terrified of these people who can outperform them across the spectrum.

Mr. Chrekoff’s blog is a clear testimony to the certainty of freedom of the press. When the void for objective reporting occurred and the technology became available, the bloggers stepped forth with a kind of passion to counter and correct the misinformation campaigns of the mainstream media elite.

It is a sad fact that most people accept the news they read in mainstream media, day after day, as if it were the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We have been, often unwittingly, brainwashed by this current gang of elite East and West Coast American reporters. We have accepted the word of news anchors and pundits who twist the facts, compound partisan reports and perpetrate the big lie.

But no longer. These bloggers can take well-deserved credit for their efforts to expose the media’s bias. They laid bare CBS’s Dan Rather for his slanderous attack in a CBS Reports TV show on President Bush during the election campaign. They offered a very different view of Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam record—partially accounting for his election defeat.

With a few exceptions, bloggers are focused on one principle—the emergence of truth through facts. And they can do that because they have the knowledge and the incentive. They come from every profession, opinion and philosophy to rip through the falsehoods, dishonesty and revisionism of the elite media. It’s as if these bloggers have collectively risen up to say, “We’re not going to take it any more.” This is their revolution.

The Revolutionary

Mr. Chenkoff’s blog offers a very different view of Iraq than we learn from the American media every day.

“Judging by the response to this now almost regular column,” he says, “I would venture a guess that part of the explanation why the American involvement in Iraq continues to enjoy a majority popular support is that a significant number of people throughout the country (America) have stopped relying on the mainstream media for all the news from Iraq.”

This is the story of two revolutions. Neither involves guns. Instead they are more intangible and far more important. They use the power of ideas—that individual freedoms create a better life and that freedom of the press demands honesty and a reverence for the truth.

The Racist Liberal Exposed
It's Not an Aberration

By Sara Pentz

"MADISON, Wis. - A radio talk show host who called Condoleezza Rice an "Aunt Jemima" issued an apology Friday (Nov. 18, 2004), but not to Rice. “It is with a heavy heart that I apologize this morning to Aunt Jemima,” John "Sly" Sylvester said on WTDY-AM in Madison (Nov. 16, 2004). "She wasn't a self-serving hack politician who got up in front of Congress and lied. Aunt Jemima didn't kowtow to Don Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney.” “Aunt Jemima never lied about yellow cake uranium, she just makes a damn good pancake.”
- Associated Press

“Sylvester, who is white, said he called Rice "Aunt Jemima" on Wednesday's show to describe her and other black officials as having only a subservient role in the Bush administration. He also referred to Secretary of State Colin Powell as an "Uncle Tom" – a contemptuous term for black people whose behavior toward whites is regarded as fawning or servile.”
– Associated Press

To most civilized human beings these comments broadcast by John Sylvester are so shockingly out of order that it is beyond comprehension why they were said. They represent the height of bottom-feeder slurs. They characterize Dr. Condoleezza Rice as a lackey of the Bush Administration. They seek to belittle her as a dunce, a yes-man, a liar and incapable of filling Colin Powell's shoes. Dr. Rice is the object of scorn and racist charges because she is not considered authentically black—that is, she is not seen as a black in the political tradition of liberalism. That's the meaning behind the euphemistic use of the word ‘authentic' when used in this context.

Dr. Rice is the main object of attack. The difference between Rice and Powell is a distinctly liberal politic. Powell is depicted as a man of immense integrity and stature because he's to the left of many in the Bush White House. He is portrayed by the left as an authentic African American precisely because of his views, not because of his remarkable record of accomplishments. Conversely, in spite of her own extraordinary resume, Rice is, according to the leftists, the one who sold-out to the conservative politic, and, therefore, is fair game as the object of vulgar contempt.

Dr. Condoleezza Rice’s resume is clearly outstanding. She became the National Security Advisor to President Bush in 2001. She was Provost of Stanford University, and as a professor of political science there, she won two of the highest teaching honors. At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow of the Hoover Institution.

Her books include “Germany Unified and Europe Transformed” (1995) with Philip Zelikow, “The Gorbachev Er”a (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and “Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army” (1984).

She served in the elder Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and as a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military.

She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors. In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.

Dr. Rice earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver; her master's from the University of Notre Dame; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver. She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College, the University of Alabama, the University of Notre Dame, the National Defense University, the Mississippi College School of Law, the University of Louisville and Michigan State University.

Quite clearly, she cannot be criticized for her intellect!

It is critical to mention here that such outrageous comments as those made by John Sylvester, and others, are allowed to be stated in the United States because we adhere to the principle that anyone can say anything they want—except to advocate the intended overthrow of the government. Our freedoms protect us from prison when we speak insults such as those made by liberal radio personality Sylvester. This is what makes our country great. In many other countries you would be a dead duck within a matter of seconds if you criticized a governmental official in such a manner.

Liberal political cartoonists have joined the rush to denigrate Dr. Rice in a series of cartoons too vile to show here. They have produced drawings of her that can only be characterized as racist, patronizing, and grotesque. It is naked bigotry.

One such is Universal Press Syndicate cartoonist Ted Rall who has created a cartoon that depicts Ms. Rice proclaiming herself Bush's "House Nigga." A black man demands that Rice, "Hand over her hair straightener.” His t-shirt reads, "You're not white, stupid.” The Washington Post newspaper, among others, actually published this cartoon.

Conservative columnist (and minority) Michelle Malkin calls Rall “a very useful idiot,” saying, “…most on the Left attempt to conceal their liberal racism in the drapery of diversity and multiculturalism but not Rall…(he) is not the far Left fringe. He…reflects the closet thinking of mainstream media editors across the country and their mainstream liberal audiences. His work is reportedly carried in 140 newspapers.”

Sane men will ask, what provokes this kind of gutter language and graphic insult against the minorities of President Bush's cabinet? And why is there such an outpouring of deathly silence from black leaders and so-called principled Democrats across the country in response?

The people who write and speak these kinds of insults are incapable of arguing intellectually. They scream. They don't explain. They shriek. They don't debate. They disrupt. They don't listen. They are out of control in the same way the terrible two-year-old can be. But they demand we listen to them. They call it censorship when we don't care to do so. Theirs is the kind of language heard repeatedly from the lefties and the liberals, from Senator Kerry and the European press, throughout the recent presidential campaign. It is all unintelligible gibberish devoid of meaning.

This kind of trash is now gushing out of the mouths of American liberals and is passed on from liberal website to liberal website, newspaper-to-newspaper, without repudiation or remorse. It is prompted by the other half of the country who voted for Kerry as a vote against Bush. When they didn't win, they threw a tantrum, went into a deep blue funk and became so infuriated they allowed their emotions of hate to overrule sane argument. Their unchecked rage filled those who revel in it with a kind of perverse pleasure and, therefore, a false sense of power and security. But it has all backfired—as it has allowed the liberal's politics of racist hate to surface.

These rabid attacks come basically from these racists because they feel their ideas are threatened. Their slander is meant to be malicious and malevolent—intended to do harm to the object of their spitting and hissing. And while they miss that mark, the intent of the authors must be addressed.

For years, we have been told by liberals that this kind of hate is the sole province of the good ‘ol Southern white boys and a few dimwitted truckers. Their condescension was always so transparent. And while it may be the case that some folks have spewed their fair share of bigotry, the current denigrating epitaphs come straight out of the mouths of elitist liberals who consider themselves secular, sophisticated and superior—above the fray, so to speak. These are the same liberals who have for, at least, sixty years proclaimed themselves to be the protectors of minorities in this country.

Now the ugly truth is out.

These people don't care one whit about supporting minorities. They only care about manipulating the black vote to suit their liberal ends. And they care more about the power this gives them than they do the power a legitimate support might give to a black minority. Notice that blacks who voted for President Bush also came from regions of the country where they were freer from taxes and governmental regulations, allowing them to build a productive and secure life on their own.

It is quite clear that individual black leaders have also sold out their communities in order to amass their own kind of personal power. This is the real source of opposition to Dr. Rice. White Democrats know that she will not be a functionary for these racist Democrats. She is one tough principled cookie and a strong supporter of her President—one reason why she might be a Republican presidential candidate in 2008.

It's hardly news that liberal elites depict liberal blacks as paragons of virtue. Black conservatives, however, are portrayed as traitors to their race—Uncle Toms, backsliders and ingrates. Liberal blacks are feted and honored—the Jesse Jacksons of the world are coddled and praised by white liberals. No one dare challenge their statements, thinking or behavior. By promulgating this pattern, naming it politically correct, liberals have been able to manipulate blacks over the years in order to solidify their control over them—as well as control over conservatives of every color.

To understand this phenomenon think 1960s Black Panthers—Huey Newton, Eldridge Cleaver— who became honored guests at a cultural phenomenon of the 1970s that seriously impacted the course of black civil rights history. It was labeled ‘radical chic,’ this single event. It was a cocktail party held at the Manhattan home of classical music composer Leonard Bernstein, who invited members of the quasi-military group of black nationalists—called the Black Panthers—to be his guests where they mingled with the effete society matrons and hackneyed socialists of the day.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s it became fashionable for these so-called elites to delve into the more radical aspects of American politics. Extremists, especially those on the far left, were glamorized in the press. Even the most revolutionary blacks who had plotted the bombings of police buildings in New York City, were placed on white marble pedestals. With that, it became politically incorrect to criticize the blacks, even the revolutionary ones—and nary a disparaging word was said of their masters.

The event gave sanction to the association between liberals and their alliance with many blacks and whites who eventually became criminals in the radical civil rights movement. It was a move to capture the alliance of the black radicals and solidify an allegiance. Beneath it was the utter contempt by these liberals for their black counterparts. The chic socializing was a gimmick used to disguise the liberal's motives. This ‘radical chic' party was wrapped in an air of sophistication, but it was pompous pretension at it lowest.

Today, the slurs, instigated by Sylvester, Rall and their ilk against Dr. Rice and other conservative blacks, are so blatantly over-the-top that they miss their mark and become meaningless vulgarities—impotent at their core. Ms. Malkin has an interesting answer to this perverse and open hostility toward Rice and Powell. She posits that liberals deride them because, they say, the two cabinet members do not support the real interests and values of the black community.

But this is utter nonsense as the statistics demonstrate. In fact, Rice stands for the same values that are currently emerging from the black community—as seen also in new voting patterns for this year's presidential election. Statistics show that 53% of the black community opposes gay marriage. 60% support school vouchers. 56% of blacks oppose abortion. These views place blacks directly in the political sphere of mainstream conservative thought.

Compare the actual values of the black community with the values of black political leaders and it becomes clear that they are diametrically opposed to the values of the larger black community. However, these same black leaders do hold values that are in perfect accord with white Democrats who support abortion and gay marriage while opposing school vouchers.

Look closely and it is evident that racist-thinking liberals have inadvertently outed themselves. They have created their own magnificent implosion. Look closely and it becomes evident that these liberals are allowing black people to be verbally and graphically assaulted by liberal white people and no one—absolutely none of them—is taking issue. It is the height of hypocrisy and it is appalling.

Based on their actions of the last few decades, the left's words and deeds are now revealing the contempt and hatred they have always had for blacks—many of whom are now escaping the liberals' grasp. This is not an aberration. It is a trend. As well, it is the shocking truth that might just offer blacks their rightful status as individuals of intelligence and promise in a society that is open to people of all colors.

Capitulation - Negotiation The Fate of Fools

By Sara Pentz

The power of freedom is such that when a people rise up against dictators, tyrants and religious fanatics, nothing will stop them. Nothing, that is, except a cowardly lack of support by those who are free and able to help them—but refuse. It is therefore mandatory that those who live in freedom must support uprisings designed to eliminate the bonds of suppression. There will always be a resistance to oppression where there is restraint of freedom—because freedom is fundamental to mankind.

Such was the case in the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and East Berlin as brave people rose up against Communism, and such is the case in the country of Iran according to at least one geopolitical expert. Legitimate freedom fighters of this kind have changed the world throughout history—and changed it for the better, no doubt.

Writing for WorldTribune.com, Dr Assad Homayoun, a former senior diplomat in the Iranian Foreign Ministry, states that the dictator-clerics in Iran are ripe for a fall very much like what happened in the Soviet Union of the 1980s. He also warns that Iran will become a serious military nuclear power if the current Iranian clerics in charge are allowed to stay in power.

It is thus clear that the free nations of the world must come to the aid of those in Iran who are seriously waging a war for their individual rights, free from the dictates of these cleric tyrants. “The downfall of those in charge might not be as far off as one would think,” adds Dr. homayoun. But still the odds of Iran leaning one way or the other remains dependent upon the outside world. Do we allow Iran to keep racing toward nuclear power or do we morally and physically support those inside the country who are fighting against that direction?

Dr. Homayoun: “Today, the great majority of Iranians have indicated through a wide range of quiet and public protests that they are against the ruling clerics and are ready to rise to establish a secular democratic government.” “…they have shown on many occasions that, at the appropriate “tipping point”, they have the strength to act suddenly to change their situation, provided they understand that the outside world supports them.”

As Dr. Homayoun believes, “The most practical option for the United States is to assist the Iranian people, given the momentum of the anti-clerical sentiment in Iran.” According to his thesis, the clerical Administration of Iran has lost its political and religious legitimacy. “It is fragile and ready to be toppled,” he argues.

“The Armed Forces as a whole and a large body of the Revolutionary Guard Corps are dissatisfied with the leadership,” Dr. Homayoun writes. “They fully understand that the mullahs, with their mishandling of foreign and domestic affairs, are leading Iran to the verge of destruction and disintegration. More than 270,000, out of approximately 300,000 clerics, have turned against their own leaders,” he points out.

“While hardliners in a recent election forced out so-called reformists, the system is not as monolithic as it looks. A power struggle within the system, like the last days of the Soviet Union, is underway. The only thing the Iranians need is open U.S. moral and political support which will give them the psychological impetus to act.”

Recently Britain, France, Germany and the European Union—and not the United States—negotiated a deal which prohibits Iran from all uranium gas processing activities in return for being able to continue its sensitive fuel cycle work. Shortly after the agreement was announced Iran rushed to produce the components of nuclear weapon fuel before the deal went into effect—testimony to the fact that this country clearly does not intend to take the ban seriously. It’s called stockpiling.

So, instead of hard line talk, moral support and the threat of action and retaliation, the inevitable series of negotiations and capitulations begin. It is such with the bulk of European leaders, a tradition that has—for the most part—ruled for years. But, as Dr. Homayoun warns, will fail because to attempt negotiations with Iran’s clerics is impossible.

For aggressive warmongers like Iran, negotiating on a large scale is a sign of weakness by the other party. And when there is an appearance of weakness these kinds of people ‘sniff it out’ and responds with hostility. Therefore, the very act of negotiating can give the enemy a feeling of greater power and completely defeat the idea of a valid compromise. This, of course, is always true when principled people attempt to agree with people only interested in force as a resolution to their ideas. It won’t work.

History tells us this is exactly the case. One look at the appeasement policies of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain during the critical years of 1938-39, as he negotiated with Hitler, Daladier of France and Mussolini of Italy to stop the progress of war by the Germans, demonstrates the failure of negotiating with the enemy. Only six months later Hitler defied the agreement when he annexed Czechoslovakia and later invaded Poland—acts that launched WWII—a war that lasted six years with the slaughter of millions.

Negotiations cannot work in Iran either, or any other dictatorship, based on one fundamental concept: that there is nothing to negotiate or compromise when the issue is freedom versus the loss and restraint thereof.

Negotiation, by its very nature, implies a willingness to discuss grievances in a way that could or might lead to a compromising solution—a so-called win-win situation. But there cannot ever be a negotiation over the issue of freedom. On this issue there must be no compromise. You cannot be half free or 50% restricted. Negotiations can only take place, as in the case of a business deal, when both parties have something of value to exchange. But there is no value to exchange in negotiating with any country that imprisons people without their consent—or with any person who wields uncompromising power over another.

As Dr. Homayoun points out: “Negotiation, compromise or the offering incentives, such as is being advocated by various European leaders, will not change the intentions of the ruling clerics, but could bolster and contribute to consolidation of their shaky administration. Indeed, any signs of protection of the clerics by European leaders disappoint and antagonize the people of Iran. Perhaps more importantly, the European proposal—also advocated by failed U.S. Presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry—to offer the clerics non-military nuclear energy technology as an incentive for Iran to stop developing military nuclear capability, should be seen as being patently ludicrous, as it was for North Korea.”

It takes strength, determination and the adherence to the principles of freedom, to stay the course and stand up to dictators. It is often the case that single statements give a resounding ring to these principles: much like President Ronald Reagan’s brilliant command, “Tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev.” That bold phrase turned the tide of Communism that was already headed for a philosophical collapse.

The lesson to be learned is that an uncompromising stand against evil is the only position to take when dealing with tyrants. There must be no negotiation of this point. The Iranian clerics should take note that President George Bush has made this stand, even though the countries of England, France, German and the European Union have not. And, by implication, he has sent a strong signal of support to those in Iran who are willing to struggle for their freedom.

The Defeat of Kerry
Aloof Elitism, Moral Relativism and Meddling Outsiders
By Sara Pentz (11/11/04)

Pundits have spent thousands of hours and millions of words dissecting the 2004 presidential election results. Theories abound about why John Kerry lost and George Bush won. It’s all about moral values some say. No, it was the Swift Vets ads others say. Was it tax cuts, national security or abortion? Was it the lack of the youth vote or the Christian fundamentalists vote? Pick your reason and you’d be partially right.

It all boils down to a few points that account for the defeat of Senator John Kerry. And they are as clear as the arrogant look on his face.

The American public rejected John Kerry because they did not like his superficiality and his condescending elitism. They did not vote for him because they did not like that he stood for nothing but his own self-image. The American people did not elect Kerry because in their simple, hardworking lives they could not relate to the unimaginably lavish lifestyle he so flagrantly flaunted—that set him apart from them. It was so European.

The Red States rejected him because he was soft on terrorism. They did not choose him because he encouraged the impotent meddling of the United Nations, and cozied up to European leaders who are avowed enemies of a country devoted to individualism, free enterprise and the kind of confidence that makes this country so exceptional. It was so un-American.

Despite apocalyptic claims of systemic voter suppression, the scandal of the exit polls, the vandalized party headquarters, the threat of ten thousands of lawyers and general scare tactics—more than120 million Americans went to the polls and solidified the course of this president.

Against all odds, George Bush was the winner. He overcame the blatant media campaign against him. He prevailed over the billionaires who vowed to defeat him. He remained steadfast when party hacks, aging Hollywood comics and vindictive militants called him vile names. It was all so base.

He never swerved in the face of the hateful firestorm leveled at him by the left-wingers. His was a campaign of optimism and hope. You may not agree with all President Bush has said and done, but if it were not for his adherence to his own vision, the United States would be the worse off for many things, most importantly the fight against of terrorism.

American voters flatly rejected Mr. Kerry because they saw that he stood for absolutely nothing. He was against the Iraq war but he was for it. He was against gay marriage but he was for it. These are not idle flip-flops. They represent the lack of a core value system that guides actions, behavior and the character of man. Without them Kerry remained in an intellectual state of perpetual motion that canceled out each attempt at a stand and ended up forging a gigantic zero around his head.

John Kerry simply cannot make up his mind on any issue because—it is a documented fact—he took a poll of his colleagues at every turn in order to know where he should stand. In fact, his are the vacillations of a mind that is not capable of taking a stand because it is fastidiously focused on only one goal—a zealot’s all-consuming need to be President of the United States. He was preoccupied with this personal fanaticism from an early age and, as such, nothing—absolutely nothing—could take precedence over that in his thinking.

As political commentator George Will so aptly pointed out—Kerry’s was a biography candidacy. It was all about his Vietnam record and that proved to be the predominant issue that most assuredly sunk the premise of his candidacy. Most people do not go around bragging about their heroism. For a presidential candidate to do so with such cocky swagger and artificial pomp, without providing a campaign of ideas for the future, is the height of pretension. He was like a broken record, repeating over and over again what a good fellow he was. Even so, despite all the money behind him, the media of hate and the ragtag of vagabond celebrities touting him, he was not to be believed. Braggadocio cannot top substance.

Kerry’s philosophy, which also reflects that of many democrats—particularly those in Washington DC—consists of a subjective view of life and a moral relativism that necessitates a kind of broad ‘whatever’ attitude on everyday issues. His is a life without absolutes, without accountability, without values. If anything, this is why the exit polls reflected the so-called ‘moral values’ theory of his defeat.

The moral values issue is not, however—as some would condescendingly say—about the singular issues of religious preferences or gay marriages. It is far more fundamental than that. Instead, to most Americans morality encompasses the values of honesty, integrity, hard work, belief in themselves, a love of their country and an ardent passion for the virtues of freedom and enterprise. These are what defeated a John Kerry who seemed to be without them except in some superficial vague way.

For Kerry and his ilk words have no meaning. Their words do not represent a solid commitment to anything in particular, rather to everything in general. They are merely tools to toss around in order to curry favor and gain access to power—or to blaspheme and degrade their opponents. Kerry’s words were not those of the great leader that the American people deserve.

Beneath it all the average Joes could see through the ruse because it was as obvious as the nose on Mr. Kerry’s face. His affectations of superiority, his arrogance, his belief in his own entitlement—these characteristics were transparent. He stood for the worst conceit of the Liberals—their view that they are morally superior to what they would call ‘religious fanatics, racists, homophobes and cowboys.’ Kerry saw the rest of the folk as stupid hicks—in contrast to his view of himself as benevolent, worldly and wise.

As Victor David Hanson, a military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, wrote for National Review online, “His (Kerry’s) unsolvable problems ranged from his Brahmin, aristocratic coldness and deductive pessimism, to his transparent and opportunistic flip-flopping…”

Hanson’s evaluation is right on target. He wrote, “The East and West Coasts and the big cities may reflect the sway of the universities, the media, Hollywood, and the arts, but the folks in between somehow ignore what the professors preach to their children, what they read in the major newspapers, and what they are told on TV. The Internet, right-wing radio, and cable news do not so much move Middle America as reflect its preexisting deep skepticism of our aristocracy and its engineered morality imposed from on high.”

As for aloof elitism, moral relativism or meddling outsiders, Americans basically don’t like other people dictating to them—whether its Barbra Streisand, Kofi Annan, Jacques Charac or John Kerry. They made that clear in the election of 2004 by voting for George W. Bush.

Bringing Down a President
Dan Rather’s 60 Minute Flameout
By Sara Pentz

'When you tether yourself to ideology, you necessarily liberate yourself from facts. '
Author Daniel J. Flynn, Townhall.com, September 21, 2004

On Monday evening, September 21, 2004, Dan Rather publicly apologized to his viewers for airing on CBS’s “60 Minutes Wednesday” the anti-Bush story based on partisan sources and forged documents. Up to that point, Rather explained how he was not responsible for the flameout at his network that the report was causing. Instead, for 12 days, he publicly insisted that he was the victim—that he had been lied to—that he was the innocent. He maintained that CBS was promoting truth in the face of the partisan political forces that were ripping into the September 8, 2004 broadcast.

It was a transparent apology—an attempt to shift the blame and portray himself as a lily-white truthsayer. In fact, the report was one of the most blatant examples of TV network news bias perpetrated on the American public. It will go down in history books as a classic case study of non-objective, partisan and fallacious reporting.

No wonder Rather is so publicly defensive. He has blown his television network sky high in his own flameout. Watch for the network’s inevitable implosion as Rather’s ratings continue to plummet, and advertisers try to decide whether they are getting their money’s worth.

Since that on-air apology, Rather has repeatedly turned-coat on his flimsy mea culpa. He has defiantly failed to concede that the documents are forgeries; he has never apologized to the experts and analysts he impugned as partisan; and he has not retracted the discredited story. He has only said he was sorry. That is hardly a confession equal to the enormity of the deceptive scheme perpetrated by him and his co-workers in this report—one dangerously bent on bringing down the President of the United States. It did not, however, do that. In fact, it backfired on CBS, and the fallout has spread throughout the culture at CBS causing considerable discomfort.

Here is a recap of how CBS prepared the report, the sources they relied on and those they ignored.

The original players: Democratic Texas politician Ben Barnes; CBS producer Mary Mapes openly known for proselytizing her Liberal views; and adamant Bush-hater Bill Burkett, an ex-Lt. Col. in the Texas Air National Guard, who provided the faked memos. Barnes and Burkett have been decisively exposed as fabricators, liars and publicity hounds. Mapes has been ‘outed’ as an extreme Liberal with close ties and deeply insidious activity with the Kerry Campaign.

On the other side, the players consist of Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, George W. Bush's squadron commander in the National Guard, now deceased. Others included a number of professional document experts who told CBS, during the preparation of the report, that the memos were fakes—followed by hundreds of documented experts who came forth on the Internet to demonstrate the report’s astonishing bias hardly 60 minutes after it had aired.

The shameful groundwork for the false report: Rather and the CBS producer relied on the testimony of the hyper-partisan Democrat Barnes, whose claims he helped Bush into the Guard has flip-flopped over the years. His daughter has publicly called her father a liar with regard to his statements because, she says, he is a publicity-seeking politico with an upcoming book to hype.

Further, Barnes was involved in a bribery and stock fraud scandal in the early 1970s, and had a sweetheart deal with a Texas lottery company in which he received 3.5 cents for every ticket sold—more than $3 million per year. This was information readily available to anyone interested in checking Barnes’ background.

Rather’s CBS segment producer, Mary Mapes, came up with the four memos from Burkett. If she had been honest about a background check on him she would have found his home replete with anti-Bush propaganda. Further, he had a personal ax to grind against President Bush and had sought out publicity for himself in his rage to damage the president—a fact Mapes rejected out of hand.

Burkett had peddled the same faked documents to various media and political sources—each had flat-out turned him down. He called the Kerry Campaign trying to retail the memos. He tried to pawn off the memos to several major newspapers, but was again rebuffed. He even attempted to find a buyer inside the Al Gore camp, to no avail. And even the blasphemous Michael Moore had rejected him. Burkett’s motives were always blatantly questionable.

Then it was learned that ‘experts’ used by CBS to authenticate the memos were not accredited by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners. By their own admissions they came forward to say that they were not document experts, and their roles in the report were misleading at best.

Burkett finally made his deal with Mapes, allegedly with the caveat that she pass along the information to the Kerry campaign. She would, of course, have to do this on the sly for fear of retribution by her network. She is said to have called a top Kerry campaign aid, fulfilling her promise to Burkett—ignoring the fact that her job might be at stake. Her behavior represents a blatant disregard for journalistic ethics, a violation of CBS’s own policy of Standards and Practices and a probable cause for dismissal.

Rather intoned on air that these four ‘newly’ discovered memos were from the personal file of Lt. Col. Killian. However, Killian’s wife and son stepped forward immediately after the Rather report to deny that Killian could or would have written such memos. They maintained that Killian had a history of hand writing his memos, a fact later confirmed by Killian’s secretary.

Further, Rather deliberately refused to include information in the aired report from several document experts who had stated that the memos were not authentic. This is of paramount import because it establishes absolute, irrefutable proof that CBS and Rather were aware of, but not willing—in advance of the report—to honestly challenge their agenda. This clearly points to the bias of everyone involved—a fact that could be provable in a court of law if it were a legal issue.

The entire episode began to disintegrate when professional experts came forward on the Internet to document the discrepancies of the forged memos. They demonstrated how the CBS version of the l971 memos was written with a Microsoft program—not yet available in the early 70s. It must have been humiliating to the network that had prized and touted Rather over the years as the consummate professional, to be exposed by bloggers on the Internet.

Far more repugnant, Rather and his production team refused to take responsibility for a politically motivated smear. Saying you’re sorry is not enough. That was the extent of his apology—even through the end of September 2004. This man deliberately rejected the truth and, consequently, abdicated his role as journalist—so much for the principles of fair, accurate, reliable and independent reporting – the ranking motto at CBS News.

It is, frankly, just plain silly to take these people seriously. They consider themselves to be professional journalists with the highest of moral integrity. But they do not care one whit whether they use politically motivated deceit to fool and lie to us. That is obscene and representative of the arrogance demonstrated by the entire gang.

The truth is these people, who tout their credibility, are not to be trusted. They exhibit an elitist media attitude that upholds a deep contempt for the American public. In fact, it would be far better to say that it is the American viewing public that has been betrayed and cheated—rather than Mr. Rather.

Political Polling
Blowing in the Wind

By Sara Pentz

Each day prior to the 2004 presidential election an online organization called realclearpolitics.com records rolling averages demonstrating that Bush leads Kerry or Kerry leads Bush. The Zogby poll, considered to be the most historically accurate, shows the election is a flat-out tie one day and the next it’s a different story. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll shows Kerry leading by 1.0 point. An ABC/Washington Post poll shows Bush ahead by 6 points.

Indeed, from minute to minute poll numbers tumble and levitate as if blowing in the wind. However, polls can be much more dangerous that the colorful fall leaves that glide so innocently to Earth. They can be used to influence performance, control thought, verify predetermined theses, counter rational objection, lead segments of society to certain false conclusions or discourage voters from casting ballots—and these are just a few of the more malevolent goals.

Even worse, if a bias is built into the statistical sampling or a testing error is caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others polls, the outcome can be seriously harmful and misleading. The most scientific polls are constantly searching for the truth—the facts. It is often impossible to determine which is which unless someone takes the time to research the specific circumstances of the poll.

Political polling is based on the art of statistics, an imperfect science at best. The only perfect poll of the American public would be one that interviewed everyone in the United States. Since that is impossible, pollsters take random samples—a selection of participants from the population in which each subject is chosen entirely by chance. Polling less than about 1,500 people is not considered reliable for our population of 209 million.

The margin of error is anywhere between three percent and five percent for any of the more carefully crafted polls. That margin rises dramatically as the group controlling the poll searches for a prescribed outcome. It is critical to understand that polling errors occur when there are flaws in the wording of questions, in the order of the questions, in the nature of the question response options and in the timing of the poll.

Unless there is a difference of, at least, ten points between one candidate and his opponent, the chances of either winning is up for grabs—especially in political polls where one single news event prior to a November presidential election could change the minds of thousands of people.

Somehow it seems that for all of these conditions to be in perfect sync, it would be impossible to poll. Yet, pollsters abound and report their findings sometimes overnight, sometime collectively with an assortment of other pollsters and mostly with impunity.

When appraising the use of polls to determine election outcomes, it is clear there is a deep variation of opinion from differing segments of society that is often not reflected in the polls. There is also a deep variation in the way polls are conducted. Some are honest attempts to reflect opinion and some are not. Some are accurately reported in the media, some not.

According to an article published for the Public Agenda, a nonpartisan opinion research organization, public opinion researchers liken polling to making a big pot of soup. “To taste-test the soup, you don't have to eat the whole pot, or even a whole bowl's worth. You only have to try a bite,” they say. The same is true, they allege, of public opinion. “You don't have to ask every single person in America to find out what Americans think; you only need to ask a few to get the flavor of public opinion.”

In fact, there is a flaw in their soup. You cannot compare one taste of the same soup to the variety of answers of 1,500 different people because the contents of the soup remains exactly the same while the ideas of people do not. This soup analogy is not valid when talking about the great American melting pot.

Poll watcher and respected commentator Bruce Bartlett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, writes at Townhall.com “If polls were truly scientific, if the public were well informed, and if public opinion was stable, this (polling) might help advance political debate. However, none of those things are true. Moreover, it is too easy to load questions so as to get pretty much whatever answer is wanted by whoever is paying for the poll.”

It is important to understand Mr. Bartlett’s pronouncements because with the proliferation of polling the cost has decreased—making it more affordable for any ragtag group to create questions to suit partisan goals.

Then again, some people polled do not honestly reflect their true opinions. In fact, in a time-diary analysis done in l994 to account for every minute of a person’s life, 26 percent of Americans actually went to church weekly, although the Gallup poll for the same period reported the figure at 42 percent. So there can be a vast difference between what people do and what they say they do. Some respondents may not be willing to state their own beliefs, either because of the sensitive nature of the question or the possibility their answer may be considered socially unacceptable.

Pollsters ask questions on many subjects, in many different ways. Here’s an actual example: Do you think Bush’s handling of the war is appropriate? How could an individual answer yes, no or maybe to that question? It is ridiculous to assume that the average citizen could consider—or even know—all the complicated information known only to the president as he guides the nation. Therefore, any reasonable answer to that question must be: How can I know what the President knows?

How people get their information, is, of course, at the heart of what judgments they make and what opinions they hold. With accusations of bias aimed at so many of the mainstream media is it often nearly impossible to know what is fact and what is the opinion of the reporter. Individuals often make fatal judgments about their own personal lives because they do not consider all the relevant facts. If they are not getting all the facts from the news media outlets, or those facts are slanted, how can they possible answer questions for a poll?

For example, The New York Times has publicly endorsed Mr. Kerry. Its polls consistently show Kerry leading. A combined Times/CBS polls favors Kerry more times than not. It is a documented fact that Times writers consistently write about how the public does not like Bush and CBS News has been castigated for a discredited report smearing Bush.

Furthermore, bias is a documented fact when the reporting of polls by the elite media is involved. For example, whenever a CBS News poll placed Bush ahead of Kerry, the CBS Evening News ignored the result, according the Media Research Center (MRC) online.

Again according to MRC, when a Newsweek poll put Kerry ahead of Bush by three points, 49 to 46 percent, the NBC Nightly News touted it, reporting that Kerry’s "performance had sharply improved his standing with voters" and trumpeted Kerry's lead as "a big jump for the challenger after a month of trailing the President." But two weeks later when a fresh Newsweek poll showed a Bush rebound with the President ahead of Kerry by two points, 48 to 46 percent; the NBC Nightly News did not consider it newsworthy even though the newscast spent six-and-a-half minutes on campaign coverage. In other words, it consciously ignored the information. Now, that’s bias.

It is important to understand bias—the practice of influencing in a particular or typically unfair direction and from prejudicial point of view by favoring certain facts or opinion over others. Often the mainstream media will twist the facts in order to favor a point of view, or they will eliminate certain facts and weight other that are more to their liking. Most reporters resist that label: some for ugly ulterior motives, others for self-serving reasons and most because they simply do not care.

Biased reporting is meant to influence voters. The hope is that as the polls go, so go the voters. Most reporters would say it is their duty to guide the public because only they can know what’s best for ‘the great unwashed masses.’ This attitude deeply permeates the mainstream media and, in much the same way that politicians contradict themselves when playing to their constituents, reporters and anchors hold to this ‘I know best attitude’ dogmatically in order to solidify their job security. In fact, there is no mistaking the fact that at the base of this arrogant attitude is a bald grab for power.

Polling sinks to new depths when self-serving organizations attempt to affect outcomes for political purposes. In fact, a number of academically sponsored, or so-called think tank organizations, pop new studies just prior to elections that are deeply flawed and riddled with assumptions, rough approximations and inaccuracies. Writing for National Review online Chester E. Finn Jr. points out a report that was created and then contradicted by the prestigious RAND Corporation: “One can't help but recall four years ago when, weeks before the election, a RAND analyst released a "study” purporting to show that (educational) achievement gains in Texas were not as rosy as then-Governor Bush claimed. It was immediate rebutted by, among others, another RAND analysis.”

Speaking of the nadir of poll reporting, The Wall Street Journal’s online Opinion Journal recently discussed the following Baltimore Sun story, "Heavy viewers of the Fox News Channel are nearly four times as likely to hold demonstrably untrue positions about the war in Iraq as media consumers who rely on National Public Radio or the Public Broadcasting System, according to a study released this week by a research center affiliated with the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs.”

But wait! This "study," turns out to be pure propaganda, according to Opinion Journal. Here are the questions that were asked. They are designed as trick questions, each containing an erroneous belief. 1. "Saddam Hussein has been directly linked with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks." 2. "Weapons of mass destruction have already been found in Iraq." 3. "World opinion favored the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq." One would have to label each of these questions untrue, therefore slanting the outcome and twisting the survey numbers in a partisan direction.

In the last analysis, one should ask the question: Are political polls a rigged affair or a fair appraisal of public opinion? As in all cases of opinion, one must look at the circumstances, the goals, the motives behind the surveys—keeping in mind that most of the information about polls is filtered through the views of pollsters, journalists, self-interested parties and those who pay the bill. Given those issues, one must always be cautious of relying on polls to form or solidify opinions.

In a broader sense, it is absolutely imperative that we do not allow polls to influence our vote, regulate our minds or dictate law. That is the fundament caveat implicit in understanding the roll of polls.

(Sara Pentz is media and political commentator. She has been a TV news reporter and an editor/writer for magazines and newspapers. sara@sarapentz.com)

This article was written September 27, 2004

Dissecting Dan
By Sara Pentz

When you look closely at one of the first statements made by disgraced CBS anchor Dan Rather after his disastrous “60 Minutes Wednesday” report smearing President Bush using fake documents, partisan politicians, and blind obedience to his personal political agenda—it is enlightening to see the ‘it’s-not-my-fault’ implications rampant throughout his statements. His so-called apology is one of the most insincere in all of television news broadcasting. There is not a morsel of repentance evident.

It is typical of Mr. Rather—a man who has spent his life glorifying liberal theories through his network reporting. He follows in the grand tradition of his predecessor Walter Cronkite. At least Cronkite has the honesty to admit that throughout his CBS career he was a liberal. Rather’s history is quite the opposite. He endlessly denies his liberal leanings even though they can be clearly documented over the course of his career.

The latest denial tops them all. He has accused the White House of trying to ‘smear’ him. Speaking recently at a media forum in New York City, Rather insisted, "I don't have a political agenda…I'm an independent journalist,” reported the Washington Post and NewsMax.com. Further, Rather pledged that he wouldn't give in to his critics who, he said, were themselves guilty of bias.

Rather adamantly maintains that he is politically independent and demonstrates shock that anyone would think otherwise. He guards his political independence as if his life depended on it. And, in fact, it does. If Rather is fired, dismissed, or retired early by CBS, his personal credibility will be tarnished forever. In other words he has a lot at stake. If he is booted, as he should be, it will end his career and besmirch his life’s work—perhaps a fitting punishment for so much arrogance.

This is the man who has been openly accused of liberal bias by just about everyone on the planet. He has insulted, pilloried, harangued and castigated presidents and vice presidents—all Republicans. That’s our first clue, giving lie to his argument that he is not biased. He has praised Carter, Clinton and Kerry. He has tossed softball questions to them and applauded their actions and behavior. The clues were there all along on his nightly reports and throughout the endless hours of his 60 Minutes program.

To bring home the issue of bias by Rather, here’s a brief look at the implications and contradictions in this particular statement, September 20, 2004, when Rather first addressed his use of forged documents. It will demonstrate his irresponsibility and the insincerity of his apology.

“Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 Minutes Wednesday (September 8, 2004) story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome. Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.”

First, Rather said CBS, “…vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously.” Did they do that? No. They waited 12 days before even acknowledging that there might be a problem. In fact, in a bizarre statement several days into the brouhaha, Rather said he wanted to be the first person to break the story if the documents were really forgeries. Since he was actually the last person to acknowledge that fact, he then lied about his intent and therefore becomes suspect as a trustworthy reporter.

Next example: “And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.” Many weeks after the so-called confession CBS and Rather have not ‘let us know’ what issues their examination turned up. In fact, they have been so confused about how to examine the problem that they brought in two prominent outsiders to investigate. Or perhaps they did that because they were wary of their own bias. In fact, both CBS and Rather have fervently fought to maintain a cover-up of the details “…whatever the outcome”—the opposite of what they said they would do. That promise is un-kept. It is a delaying tactic used in the hopes that the entire incident will go away. The evasion needed to take this kind of stance is immense.

Next example: “I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers.” Dan Rather admits to being misled? How could that be for this seasoned professional? To admit such implies that he is not smart enough, or dedicated enough to his profession, to detect the forgeries. Or, if we are to take him at his word, is he admitting that he can easily be conned, scammed and deceived by a source? Does he really want us to think this? These are not very flattering descriptions to apply to a network news anchor—especially one who has a reputation for an inflated ego.

Next example: “…if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.” Why was Mr. Rather so blinded by the forgeries? The answer—he was not looking for truth. His sole agenda was to damage President Bush so much so that he could not allow himself to think about the possibility that the documents were not authentic. It is a monumental act of subterfuge. To this day Rather still contends that the content is true even though the evidence is fake—a blatant refusal to adhere to the principles of journalism—and to the vital relationship between the cause and effect.

In the last analysis, Mr. Rather has only himself to blame for the current rush to judge him of corrupt reporting. He has only himself to blame for being deceive, duped and misled about information he received and then spoon-fed to the American public. We can only hope that CBS will punish a man who not only lies, but also refuses to take responsibility for his unconscionable behavior.

Freedom to Speak the Ridiculous
By Sara Pentz

“Just because you have the right to say something
doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to say.”
Fred Friendly, former President of CBS News

Let’s be clear about something. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. Regarding the freedom of speech, this document does not, however, guarantee that what people say will necessarily be rational, logical, factual, objective, truthful—or, perhaps more importantly, meaningful. A comment can be a falsehood. It can be a distortion. But it can be said. Once said, however, the comment can be discussed, criticized, analyzed, questioned, decapitated and revealed for its flaws and inaccuracies. This is called open discourse, and it is a fundamental principle of American law.

Let’s be clear about this Amendment. It applies to the government only and not to the private sector. It was written to protect man from the government. If, for example, the publisher of this publication chose to eliminate my column, he has the right to do so. I can call his actions censorship—I would be wrong—but I don’t have the right to force him to publish my column. One can call anything censorship and anyone a censor, but, unless it is done by a government, it is not an issue of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech means the freedom to advocate one’s views and to bear the possible consequences, including disagreement by others as well as opposition and lack of support. It is meant to protect dissenters and unpopular minorities from forcible suppression by the government. Furthermore, this Amendment does not demand that we hand a microphone to anyone who would advocate our destruction.

The First Amendment is a two-sided coin. It allows anyone to speak the truth or spout any nonsense and not fear banishment to the nearby prison. It works both ways. The people are protected when the truth is told and when it is not. That is the splendid impartiality of this document. But there are those who argue that dissent is censorship or intimidation when it comes from their opposition. They do so in order to stifle dissention. It is necessary to identify this if we are to adhere to the distinction between freedom of speech and the accusation of censorship.

Here are two examples of how people misunderstand this issue. The First Amendment does not protect anyone who physically threatens another person in words or writing. To do so is actionable under the law. As an example, The Washington Post wrote in a recent article: “…it was said that Susan Sarandon's mother accused Sarandon and Tim Robbins of "indoctrinating" her grandson with their leftist views. A snarling Robbins confronted Grove at a party and said, "If you ever write about my family again, I will (bleeping) find you and I will (bleeping) hurt you.” If Mrs. Grove chose to, she could have correctly filed a lawsuit against Mr. Robbins because she had been threatened with physical harm.

As another example, Columnist Jonah Goldberg at Townhall.com makes this point about the lack of understanding of the First Amendment by this star: “Tim Robbins who, after being disinvited from an event at the Baseball Hall of Fame because of his anti-war stance, denounced the climate of "intimidation" and "censorship" that (he says) is preventing open debate and discussion in America. Robbins made his comments during a televised speech (to millions of people) at the National Press Club (before a gathering of the American media).” Clearly, Mr. Robbins is accusing a private group, and not the government, of intimidation and censorship.

Unfortunately, in the oft-times schizophrenic world of news reporting, political/academic commentary and Hollywood stars, there are some who believe that only they have the right to say what they want. They believe that anyone who criticizes them should be banished to that prison—or, at the very least, judged as infringing upon their freedom of expression. Such views also demonstrate their lack of understanding of the First Amendment.

In fact, by using words like intimidation and censorship, many speakers are hoping that their opponents will be silenced. Those people are like bullies in the schoolyard playground who do not wish to debate on an intellectual level. They call upon the word censorship as they would a stick and a stone. Criticism and analysis are their ugly enemies. They mock the very concepts of debate, discussion and disagreement.

Let the reader beware. It is incumbent upon each of us to understand the difference between fact and fancy; between truth and spin; between honest disagreement and dishonest harangue. It is our responsibility to be the judge. Because twisting and spinning, distorting and falsifying are unethical. They may be legal, but they are deceitful and corrupt.

So, let us be clear that the First Amendment is a precious tool that promises freedom from governmental abuses. Let us be clear that this document, guaranteeing debate, dissention, disagreement and criticism, is a marvel of mankind. And, let us be clear that— unless we critique those who use it out of context or as a threat—we lessen its very value.