[Froufrou]

The problem of journalism’s control of the venue of argument would be ameliorated if we could get them into court. In front of SCOTUS they would not be permitted to use their mighty megaphones. And to get to court all it takes is the filing of a civil suit. A lawsuit must be filed against broadcast journalism, naming not only the broadcast licensees, but the FCC.

Thanks for the ping. This sounds good, in theory, but we have to factor in Ginsberg and her liberal associates. I'm not sure they would even hear the case!

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

we have to factor in Ginsberg and her liberal associates. I'm not sure they would even hear the case!

Certainly, considering that after I wrote this Congress passed, President Bush signed, and SCOTUS rejected an appeal of, the blatantly unconstitutional McCain-Feingold. That certainly is discouraging.

But since then Roberts and Alito have joined SCOTUS, replacing Rhenquist (who voted against McCain-Feingold) and O'Connor (who voted to uphold it). The ruling in favor of McCain-Feingold was a 5-4 decision, so if both Alito and Roberts uphold the Constitution then McCain-Feingold will be overturned when next it is considered (unless a conservative retires before a liberal does, which is relatively unlikely).

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The democrats think that Allen having a jewish mother would be a problem for him, and have been trying for a few weeks now to figure a way to get it out without linking it to the Webb campaign. Getting a reporter to ASK the question is a good way to do that, we could use help proving that the reporter had connections to the Democrats.

her name was Peggy Fox, she works for WUSA-TV in Washington DC.

Oh, come on now. You know perfectly well that all Democrats are connected to all "objective" reporters. You generally don't look for direct links of individual reporters the the DNC, that's not the way it works. The general link is that liberalism is nothing more than toadying to journalism.

That is, journalism's bias is in favor of its own importance, and "liberal" is just a common code word for someone who has no scruple about promoting journalism. "Objective" journalists and "liberals" promote journalism at the expense of the rest of society by attacking every institution except journalism.

Certain people support journalism's jihad against all other institutions, and in return journalism excepts those people from that jihad. Those who support journalism's jihad are favored by journalism with positive PR - including the label of "moderate" or "progressive" or, before they ran it into the ground, the label "liberal."

Since it is the politician called the "liberal" who associates himself with the actual position of journalism - rather than the journalist who associates himself with the position of the "liberal" - it is inherently impossible to seperate the two on any principled constitutional basis. But of course the situation makes a mockery of any constitutional rationale for the regulation of all political money except for the money spent by "objective" journalism.

The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . . It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith

Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklin

(Video)Allen Responds To "Jewish Question".
Washigton Post