Today’s first two headlines really exposed their bias:

NYT > Business
 Bernanke Offers Bleaker View on U.S. Economy - one hour ago
 Stocks Edge Higher on Bernanke Remarks - one hour ago

So, the NYT’s spin on Bernanke’s latest comments are “bleak”. Actually, “Bleaker”, with reference to other comments Bernanke had given in the past. Their article is a depressing piece to read, when in fact, Bernanke’s comments weren’t all that bad.

The truth about Bernanke’s statements are found in the very next NYT headline. This one is about data – the stock market. They can’t lie about data. The markets were up based on Bernanke’s remarks. So the people with money – the ones who are doing the most analysis on the economy, saw optimism in Bernanke’s remarks. Which, if you read all his remarks, is the conclusion anyone without a liberal agenda would make.

So what does the reporter do? She writes an entire story on a two words that McCain asked be retracted, having explained what he meant immediately thereafter. And what do the soulless editors do? Make the quote a headline and lead with it.

This is just such incredible dishonesty in reporting. They don’t even try to hide their liberal allegiances and biases. This wasn’t a major policy speech or a debate. This was just having a conversation with reporters on the bus. And it’s the lead story of the day?

McCain could use a smart guy that actually understands the economy and how things work in the real world. He could also use someone that more conservatives like, even though not all of them like Romney. And he needs someone younger and presidential, since he’ll be two years older than Reagan at his first inauguration.

In the past week, Huckabee has been talking a lot about how he has no expectation of getting a VP invitation. He’s also seemed to be more critical of John McCain in the past week. This could be because they are the only two candidates left in the competition, but he can’t really still think it’s a competition anymore. So maybe it’s because he now realizes he’s not getting the VP nod.

Rudy Giuliani doesn’t want to be second fiddle.

Romney dropped out very suddenly. He knows there are millions of Republicans in future primaries that want to vote for him. Why would he drop out so suddenly? His answers didn’t seem to explain it.

Romney doesn’t need to be president this time around. He could use some Washington experience, even though he’d like to come in as a fresh outsider.

Could it be that McCain went to Romney and said, “We’re killing each other and it’s counter productive. By the end of the season, we will have only convinced every conservative that neither of us is conservative. Huck is a nice guy, and he has been kissing up to me, but he’s not the right guy for the job. Drop out now, and you’re the man.”

If Hillary and Obama were smart, they’d work out a Pres/VP deal as well. They would be a hard ticket to beat. Of course, it would only work if Obama can humble himself and accept working for Hillary.

First of all, Gonzales didn’t do anything wrong. There is only the appearance of wrongdoing. And of course, that appearance of wrongdoing comes from liberals like Leahy whining about him and the press eagerly echoing the whines. Gonzales may have approved the firings of a few AGs, but he had every right to do that. And if the President thought he should do it, there’s nothing wrong with that either. The US Attorney General is a cabinet-level position that is appointed by the President. He is in the Executive Branch of Government. He works for the President, not Congress. And people under him can be hired or fired by him. Leahy needs to google “three branches of U.S. Government” and try to understand how these three branches work. A little knowledge on this subject might help him understand his job a little better as a Senator and as the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and keep him from making a fool of himself repeatedly.

Here are a couple interesting thoughts on health care under a potential President H.R. Clinton:

Rudy Giuliani had a great quote: If we institute Hillarycare, where will the Canadians go for health care?

On that point, have you ever had to get a drivers license, or a building permit, or do you already have to work through the Medicare nightmare to get health care, or have you ever had to see a doctor in a foreign country — not third world — I’m talking about countries in Europe or Australia or Canada? Think about the people you had to deal with and the bureaucracy you had to put up with. Is that really what you want your health care system to be?

Don’t post some comment about how everyone is covered there. Everyone is covered here too. My nephew just had brain surgery and the only difference between his care and the care of the immigrant kids that were in the hospital at the same time is that his care was paid for by my brother-in-law and his insurance, whereas the immigrant families all got their care for free.

Now the country has new challenges. Rival religious factions are at war with one another. The influence of the “religion of hate” has caused violence and murder. We may have been naïve or ill-informed when we, the American people, bipartisan leaders in congress, and even the UN authorized the war. We may not have understood how much hatred and culture of murder and revenge lay beneath the surface. But now we have to decide if we will help Iraq through this next struggle. Will we help them solve their domestic civil war and contain those religious fanatics that are causing the most problems? This is a new question. It is a question we would not have had to ask if we hadn’t gone there in the first place, but it does not diminish the fact that we achieved what we set out to achieve.

But as Bjorn Lomborg, the “Skeptical Environmentalist” has pointed out, too many environmental observers like to focus only on the “dark side of life”. The same 2003 WHO report that ranks malaria the 8th highest cause of global mortality also ranks lower respiratory infections as the 3rd highest cause of mortality. This includes diseases such as pneumonia that are more common when it’s cold.

Where is the UN scientific study outlining the benefits of global warming on reducing the incidence of pneumonia and other cold weather diseases?

If cold weather diseases could decrease with global warming, what would result in a decrease in warm weather diseases such as malaria? Global cooling? Actually, malaria occurs in areas that are warm, but the main cause of malaria is the lack of economic development. In warm areas with strong economies, malaria is not a problem. Singapore’s malaria death rate is .00003%, compared to Liberia, with a similar latitude but weaker economy with a rate of.21000%.

Therefore, if the so-called scientists at the UN conference wanted to really reduce warm weather diseases, they would focus more on economic development.

And what does the US complain is the main flaw with the Kyoto protocol? Besides that it’s useless in terms of saving the environment, it will damage the economies of the countries that adhere to it. I guess the US is on the right track regarding the environment after all!

Just another example of the misguided, negligent, and even deceitful news generated by the global warming kool-aid drinkers.