Obama Worshipping Media Shows True Colors

"The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge" ~ Elbert Hubbard

In an AOL news article entitled, Palin Spells Out Role as Vice President, the Liberally biased Associated Depressed shows how absolutely biased they really are.

To begin with, the article reads, Campaigning on her own, the Alaska governor also said Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama "wants to raise income taxes and raise payroll taxes and raise investment income taxes and raise business taxes and raise the death tax.

"But John McCain and I know that's not the way you grow the economy," she added."

That's nice, isn't it?

But wait. There's more.

The article goes on to state, as if their findings are indisputable, "[I]ndependent groups such as the Tax Policy Center have concluded that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposal, which include higher income and payroll taxes only for the wealthiest wage-earners."

Well, we Conservatives all know that the wealthiest wage earners in America are already taxed more than the poorest wage earners. In fact, many of the poorest wage earners don't pay taxes at all. Many of them get tax credits on top of that. But I digress.

A Wikipedia search of the Tax Policy Center shows them to be a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, based in Washington, D.C..

OK. So what is the Brookings Institution?

Another Wikipedia search shows the Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, D.C....Brookings is one of America's oldest think tanks...Their stated mission is to "provide innovative and practical recommendations that advance three broad goals: strengthen American democracy; foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans; and secure a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system."

Brookings states that its scholars "represent diverse points of view" and describes itself as non-partisan.

What is the Urban Institute? Wikipedia describes it as a Washington, D.C. based nonpartisan think tank that collects data, conducts policy research, evaluates social programs, educates the public on key domestic issues, and provides advice and technical assistance to developing governments abroad.

Now, that would seem to be two organizations beyond reproach, wouldn't it?

But let's read further, shall we?

According to Liberally biased Wikipedia, "Media descriptions of Brookings range from liberal to centrist..."

And this: "The organization's president, Strobe Talbott, was United States Deputy Secretary of State under President Clinton. Brookings employs five research vice presidents: Carlos Pascual (former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and senior director on the National Security Council staff), Lael Brainard (a former White House Deputy National Economic Adviser and Chair of the Deputy Secretaries Committee on International Economics during the Clinton Administration), William Gale (a former senior staff economist for the Council of Economic Advisers under President Bush), Bruce Katz, and Pietro Nivola."

Carlos Pascual is an ex Ambassador to the Ukraine, appointed by President Bill Clinton. Finding information on Bruce Katz proved to be more difficult, but he worked in the Clinton administration under scandal plagued Henry Cisneros.

Even less can be ascertained about Pietro Nivola. Apparently he is, or was, a professor of Political Science at several different Universities including Harvard and Stanford. What do you want to bet he's a Liberal?

I don't know William Gale's ideological leanings, but I discovered one article wherein he published his case against the fair Tax. I think the idea of a fair tax is a Conservative concept.

So much for "diverse points of view".

If my Liberal readers intend to point to Gale's inclusion at the Brookings Institution as proof the Institution is indeed nonpartisan, let me remind them that just because someone worked in a Republican administration, it doesn't necessarily mean he is a Conservative. The words, "Republican" and Conservative" are not necessarily synonymous.

Think Scott McClelland.

As far as the Urban Institute, well, according to Wikipedia, "The Institute was established as an independent organization in 1968 by the Lyndon B. Johnson administration to study the nation’s urban problems and evaluate the Great Society initiatives embodied in more than 400 laws passed in the prior four years. Gradually, its research and funding base broadened."

Well, at least they are loyal to their first love.

So, the Brookings Institution and The Urban Institute are non-partisan, eh?

About as non-partisan as MSNBC.

Yep, four Liberal Democrats and one token (possibly Liberal) Republican to study policy. That's fair.

Just like MSNBC.

This is not to say the Brookings Institution and The Urban Institute are intentionally biased, but, let's face it. It is impossible to have no opinion. Everyone, no matter how fair one considers himself to be, cannot escape looking at an issue from one's own perspective.

So, is the statement, "that four out of five U.S. households would receive tax cuts under Obama's proposal, which include higher income and payroll taxes only for the wealthiest wage-earners." a factual statement? That would seem to depend on how the study was conducted and who or what they studied. Wealth, as I have pointed out before, is relative. Who is wealthy according to this study?

The rest of the article includes certain words and phrases that indicate the Associated Depressed and AOL are about as non-partisan as the Daily Kos, to wit:

" Yet the governor, with little experience outside her own state, has largely been kept out of public view while aides seek to bring her up to date on a range of issues."

Huh? She answered the questions of Charlie Gibson calmly, with assurance and poise, and the Liberally biased media thinks she needs to be brought up to date?

She beat Gibson like a red-headed step child! Were the media watchdogs chewing bones when that interview was going on? Apparently, they didn't see it.

Again, from the AP article, "she told her audience that she had told Congress "thanks, but no thanks" when it came to the so-called Bridge to Nowhere... She made no mention of the fact that she favored federal funding for the structure before she turned against it."

Considering the numerous times their hero, Barry Hussein, has changed his mind on practically every issue (except his belief that the surge hasn't worked), I think the Liberally biased AP should probably keep their dog out of that hunt.

"I've got another idea that I think Senator McCain likes. In Alaska, we took the state checkbook and put it online, so everyone can see where their money goes. We're going to bring that kind of openness to Washington," she said.

In fact, there already is a searchable database that allows the public to track federal grants and contracts, and Obama was a principle force behind the 2006 law that created it, along with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

Principle force? I doubt it. I'll bet Tom Coburn introduced the act and Obama merely signed his name on it, to prove he actually co-sponsored a bill.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act is one of Obama's few legislative accomplishments in his short Senate tenure.

Ah! Finally! The Obama adoring media admits Obama hasn't really accomplished much.

Too bad it came in the second to last paragraph.

Conclusion?

Do I have to spell it out?