Walter Cronkite

Walter Cronkite's death brought back many memories from a bygone era in television news. As anchors go he was a cut above, then and now. And, for that I give him his due, and say, 'Rest in peace.'

However, I have seen over-the-top statements about Cronkite since his death that bear little resemblance to reality. He was not as non-partisan as people like to think. He used his position to lobby against the Viet Nam War while our troops were still in the field losing their lives, and he openly opposed Ronald Reagan from 1975 until he was elected in 1981.

No doubt Cronkite made an honest attempt to be as objective as he could, but he certainly did not always succeed, and by the last years of his career he had succumbed to the very same scourge that all talking heads on television news exhibit--the dreadful bias and slant that favors liberals.

In retirement he advocated 'one world government.'

Not exactly a great 'patriot.'

Wondering if Gibson Will Bow to 'Dear Leader'

Tomorrow is the big day when ABC News will use all of its news broadcasts to promote Obama's plan for a government takeover of healthcare.

I wonder if Charles Gibson and company will bow to 'dear leader' when standing in his luminous presence.

Brian Williams of NBC News did exactly that a few weeks ago after interviewing Obama at the White House.

Is this now what the Fuhrer expects from his loyal subjects?

It only stands to reason that NBC, which is owned by GE, which is solidly in the tank for Obama and his 'green initiatives'--and now ABC/Disney, which has thrown its journalistic integrity out the window in order to become part of the new 'Pravda'--would be expected to act as loyal little subjects to the headmaster. He owns them now.

Watch the body language tomorrow if you think you can stomach this charade. As for me, I won't watch a single minute of it. Of course, I gave up on Couric and Williams too. I don't depend on the government propaganda machine for my news.

Couric/CBS News Lied

Tonight's broadcast of Katie Couric's CBS Evening News was replete with more lies on behalf of the Obama campaign.

First, Couric and CBS lied about the 'fact check' process on McCain and Obama during last night's debate. Supposedly, Obama's tax plan will enable small businesses to get a tax cut, thus helping 'Plumber Joe.' This is according to some watchdog group.

The assertion is FALSE. Under Obama, who wishes to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, everyone will experience the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Interesting that NOBODY takes into account the INCREASES in taxes that will come when Obama-Democrats allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. This skews the figures of the 'facts check' organizations and assumptions about the Obama tax plan.

As I have repeatedly stated, you cannot claim to lower taxes for 95% of Americans if you will let the Bush tax cuts expire. THAT will RAISE taxes automatically on everyone.

Plumber Joe, therefore, will get hit hard even if Obama does nothing but allow the present system of tax cuts to expire in 2010. This is the dirty little secret Democrats don't want you to know, and CBS/Couric are helping them lie about it.

Second, Couric pointed to some poll showing that Obama supposedly beat McCain in last night's debate by an outrageous percentage, 52-29%.

That poll is SKEWED. The samples CBS and the New York Times use are heavily loaded up with Democrat participants, making their polls patently FALSE.

Third, CBS came to Obama's aid in trashing Plumber Joe by bringing up a tax bill he owes the state of Ohio--a mere $1200 or so. But the report was worded in such a way that Joe's reputation was impugned. This is unconscionable. And this is the way Obama and his mainstream media morons do business.

Fourth, CBS/Couric showed a video of Joe supposedly admitting today that under the Obama plan he would get a tax cut. If he did actually say that, it was because of the CBS-Couric blather that hides the expiration of the Bush tax cut in 2010, which will dramatically increase taxes on every single human being who pays taxes in this country.

CBS-Couric-mainstream reporters are pathetic.

Another Couric/CBS News Hit Piece on Palin

Under the guise of doing a 'fact-check,' Katie Couric and CBS News ran a piece Tuesday evening on Sarah Palin and her claim that she stopped construction on the 'bridge to nowhere' in Alaska.

The bridge had been a Congressional earmark secured for Alaska by one of its U.S. Senators, Ted Stevens. Early on, Palin had supported the project, as she had Stevens.

But as Palin began to discover the corruption within Alaska politics after she became Governor of the state, the bridge to nowhere was one project that she decided to stop.

There is no corruption in supporting something that you think is legit and then changing your mind once you discover 'it ain't legit.'

CBS News, however, spun the story on Palin to suggest that she only put a halt to the bridge when she found out how unpopular it was...right at the last minute, before being selected to run as John McCain's running mate.

Perhaps we should do a 'fact-check' on CBS News.

The CBS spin is clearly FALSE. The facts are that Palin supported Ted Stevens early on and the bridge as well. Then she ran for Governor. Once elected she began a systematic campaign to rid Alaska of corruption in politics.

When she embarked on this gargantuan crusade, some discoveries were made that were hard to swallow. First, she discovered that Ted Stevens, although a Republican, had engaged in some rather underhanded dealings with Alaskan businesses, one of which was the construction firm that began building the 'bridge to nowhere.'

The money for the pork-barrel project had already been sent to Alaska long before Palin was elected Governor.

Once she became aware of the corruption involved in the Stevens scheme concerning the bridge, Palin called a halt to the construction, but kept the money for Alaska to spend on much-needed highway and infrastructure projects.

Thus, the bridge to nowhere was nixed and legitimate projects got the money.

Couric and CBS News conveniently failed to mention the timeline involved in the Palin campaign to rid Alaskan politics of corruption, and what it cost her personally to go up against powerful people in her own Party, such as Stevens.

And they certainly never mentioned the fact that a pork barrel project that was knee-deep in corruption was stopped cold while worthwhile, legitimate projects in the state got a boost.

It would seem that CBS News is in dire need of a 'facts-check' whenever it does a 'facts-check' segment on Palin and McCain.

But then, we all know already that Katie and her cohorts are in the tank for Obama. So what else can we expect?

CBS NEWS HATCHETS UP MCCAIN CAMPAIGN

It becomes more obvious with each passing week that the MSM is in the tank for Obama. No greater example can be found than tonight's broadcast of the CBS (Cheerleading for Barack System) Evening News.

Katie Couric's lead story is about John McCain's new ad which compares the rock-star type worship of Barack Obama to infamous Hollywood starlets such as Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and others.

It is a legitimate criticism, and much of it Obama has brought on himself.

But Couric referred to the McCain tactics as 'the low road,' echoing the sentiments of Barack Obama himself.

And then she brings on Bob Schieffer to parrot that line, calling the McCain ad 'silly' and 'weird.'

Schieffer ended his segment by these ominous words, 'McCain is not getting any traction at all, and with this latest ad it is hard to see how anyone will take that seriously.'

Wow. No traction? What about poll after poll that shows McCain gaining on Obama in many of the battleground states where the Democrat has been ahead? What about the latest Gallup and Rasmussen polls showing that among likely voters, McCain is up by 4 over Obama?

I have a message for Katie and Bob. It's hard for us out in the American heartland to take YOU seriously.

Scandalous CBS Reporter Lands Obama Interview

Much has been made, and rightly so, of the fawning reporters of the mainstream media who are following in Barack Obama's train to the Middle East and Europe this week.

Katie, Charles, and Brian will all be there to give us a play-by-play.

But it is CBS that has scored first with a one-on-one interview with the Illinois Junior Senator.

And guess who was the CBS reporter who scored that first one-on-one interview.

None other than Lara Logan--the one who has been named as 'the other woman' in a divorce lawsuit brought by the wife of one of the men with whom Logan allegedly had an affair while serving as CBS's war correspondent in Iraq.

She is also reported to be pregnant with the man's child. Or at least she was, maybe.

Logan had disappeared from the air for several weeks after the story first made news. She had taken on a high profile after receiving a promotion to become CBS News' Chief Correspondent for 'Foreign Affairs,' often appearing along side of Katie Couric in the studio.

Yet when CBS News aired its segment Sunday evening of its much-touted 'first interview with Obama by a major network' while on the highly publicized trip abroad, the reporter who was on the scene doing the interview was none other than Lara Logan.

The irony of it all was almost too good to be true...the perfect example of fawning female mainstream media reporters following Obama around like a bunch of groupies.

Yet Logan did a fairly respectable job, pushing the Junior Senator to explain his plan for more troops in Afghanistan, possibly in Pakistan, and the potential for a greater and greatly expanded war.

In fact, she pushed him hard, and he refused to answer.

Many will no doubt claim that Obama deftly dodged any landmines set by Logan in the interview. But the fact is it was very obvious that he was stonewalling. He simply refused to answer questions concerning the potential for failure in a greater war in Afghanistan, and he certainly would not comment on Pakistan's probable failure in solving the problem of terrorist camps along its border with Afghanistan.

More likely than the fact that Obama was stonewalling is the distinct probability that he simply does not know the answers to the questions.

And it was very obvious.

This means, of course, that perhaps CBS made the right move in putting Logan in charge of the interview. Perhaps it's the first step in the network's redeeming its image in the wake of widespread criticism that it is 'in the tank' for Obama, and perhaps it's Logan's first step in putting a bad chapter behind her and moving onward toward becoming a serious news reporter.

News Bias:Couric/CBS Adopt Strategy of Obama

As former Democratic National Committee Chair Terry McAuliff stated recently, 'There is no doubt that the mainstream media is in the tank for Obama.'

This happens to be one of the few times McAuliff has been completely honest in his entire political career.

As if reading from a script written by Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee, and the Barack Obama campaign, Katie Couric began Thursday's CBS Evening News with the headline that 'Republicans deliver a double-pronged attack against Barack Obama.'

Actually they did absolutely no such thing. But Barack Obama claims they did. Funny how in these instances the guilty party shouts first and shouts the loudest.

Here is the series of events to led to the Couric/CBS News smear of the GOP, in chronological order.

President Bush had traveled to Israel to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the creation of the Jewish nation in their native land. In the President's prepared remarks before the Israeli Knesset, Mr. Bush described those who propose negotiating with terrorists and state sponsors of terror as appeasement-driven.

He also compared them to those who advocated appeasement with Adolf Hitler even as the dictator conducted his bloody scourge throughout Europe prior to WW II.

Winston Churchill had to contend with such appeasement-driven boneheads in the British Parliament in the years leading up to the Nazi attack against Great Britain. There, too, British politicians such as Prime Minister Chamberlain advocated 'sitting down and talking to Hitler.'

Chamberlain did exactly that, returning home to London with a treaty signed by Hitler himself.

Churchill was not impressed.

And, as Churchill had warned, no sooner had the ink dried on the treaty than Hitler had done precisely what he agreed not to do. He invaded Poland. Great Britain had a treaty with Poland in which they agreed to come to Poland's defense if they were attacked. Thus, Britain was automatically thrust into the middle of war.

From the very beginning there have been voices within the U.S. Government, particularly within the Congress, who have advocated policies of appeasement with terrorist states. John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and a host of other Democrats in Congress have urged the President to sit down at the negotiating table with Iran, Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad, and the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Thus, the concept is nothing new.

But one would have thought that the President had fired the first shot in World War III if one listens exclusively to the mainstream media. Immediately Barack Obama was all over the television news networks, claiming that Bush had attacked him personally in his speech in Israel.

Why would Obama think that Bush had singled him out when there are many others who have advocated appeasement among the Democrats?

Obama did nothing but 'out' himself as one of the guilty parties. As the presumptive Democratic nominee he has consistently advocated 'sitting down at the negotiating table' with terrorist thugs and goons who kill people either because they are not Muslim or because they support Israel.

Thus, Obama was the first to yell. But soon he was joined by his partners in crime, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Dick Durbin, among others. They decried and condemned the Bush comments, referring to them as 'beneath the dignity of the office of the President,' and other such nonsense.

In what way did he disparage the office of President? By telling the truth? By reminding Israel that there are those within the U.S. Government who are just as naive and shortsighted as Chamberlain and British politicians before WW II?

This information is of vital concern to Israel's very survival in a dangerous area of the world where they are overwhelmingly outnumbered 99-to-1.

These facts were apparently lost on Couric and company at CBS, who proceeded to read the Democratic playbook word-for-word as they described these events. The very fact that Couric stated that Obama had been 'attacked' by Republicans gave one the impression that he was ganged up on by a group of attack dogs.

And within Obama's strategy for winning the White House is the tactic of making sure it is always inappropriate to criticize him in any way, and in this case, even when they don't intend to. Attacking Obama automatically makes one mean and racist.

And the mainstream media, particularly Couric and CBS News, have bought it hook, line, and sinker.

But this is not all.

The second part of the supposed 'two-pronged attack against Obama' occurred when a CBS reporter asked Republican Presidential candidate John McCain about Bush's remarks and Obama's claims.

McCain correctly mused that it is always a mistake to negotiate with terrorists and that Obama's suggestion to that effect shows his naivete and inexperience. Again, McCain spoke nothing but absolute truth.

Thus, CBS News' template for doing a smear job against Republicans, Bush, and McCain was in place.

Nothing the President said was untrue. Nothing he said did anything but confirm common knowledge about the policy proposals for the Middle East that do, indeed, emphasize appeasement. He never mentioned Barack Obama by name. But it was Obama who seized it and made it all about him.

And not only did CBS News take the Obama script and use it, but they also baited John McCain to respond, not so much to the President's speech, but to Barack Obama's response. And this supposedly amounted to a two-pronged Republican attack against Obama, although the 'second prong' was initiated by a CBS News reporter.

Perhaps Obama, Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Kennedy, and Durbin should do some serious soul-searching. Their vitriolic responses to the President's words show that those words hit a raw nerve.

And so, ladies and gentlemen of surrender and appeasement, if the shoe fits, wear it. Don't try to make this about Bush when he was merely accurately reporting facts. If you support sitting down at the negotiating table with terrorists who are known to lie and say anything to further their agenda, then say so. We all already know you support these things anyway.

Couric May Be Gone In Two Weeks, Sources Say

The buzz around the news business and political circles is that CBS News lead anchor, Katie Couric, may be out of a job in as little as two weeks.

Rumors of a major shakeup at CBS News have been floating about for weeks. Couric has not helped the CBS Evening News pull itself up out of the ratings doldrums, and in fact, the ratings have only plunged further since she assumed the anchor's chair.

The big news that has made its way around the Beltway, however, is that CBS may be getting ready to outsource its news reporting to CNN.

This would be earth-shattering news to the network newscasts, which have been a mainstay of the big three networks since their inception. However, as times have changed and viewers are presented with a variety of choices from which to get their news, the network news broadcasts have suffered terribly, losing viewers by the millions every year.

As far back as a decade ago media watchers were predicting the demise of network news broadcasts as they gradually become dinosaurs from a bygone era.

Fox dominates cable news, and they are not the only choice. CNN, of course, is the grandfather of cable news services although they have lost much of their dominance to Fox.

And then there are the endless sources of news on the Internet.

Couric, it seems, came along at the wrong time. She isn't bad as an anchor, although she is definitely liberal in her bias. But she is not as bad as many, and much much better than her predecessor, Dan Rather, who never attempted to hide his bias or aim at objectivity.

Sources close to Couric's negotiations with CBS state that the anchor may stay through the 2008 Presidential election, but that if acceptable terms cannot be reached she could be gone in as little as two weeks.

If the latter holds sway, the question is will CBS News once again turn to its white male, gray-haired veterans, such as Bob Sheiffer, until it reaches an agreement with CNN on outsourcing the news.

Clinton Ladies Intervention Team Strikes Again

The Clinton Ladies Intervention Team, the name coined by columnist Monica Crowley to designate Mrs. Clinton's hit squad that is charged with the task of planting questions at opponent's news conferences and debates, as well as coordinate the vast network news machine controlled by Hillary, has been quite busy since the candidate was booed in Iowa on Saturday.

As expected, the Clinton Ladies Intervention Team jumped into high gear following a disastrous question-and-answer session by phone that the candidate had with Iowa voters.

The weather was so bad that Clinton was forced to cancel her appearance, but she took questions by phone. The crowd booed the candidate at least four or five times during her brief session with them.

Mrs. Clinton made no friends and may well have created some enemies when she answered questions on illegal aliens. She made it clear she supports a 'path to citizenship' for illegals, enabling them to circumvent the legal process that millions of others went through, thus catapulting them to the head of the line, in front of those seeking LEGAL citizenship.

The candidate also stated that she would seek to accomplish this along with the Democrat-controlled Congress within her first 100 days in office.

The boos began to crescendo until by the time the candidate hung up the phone, very loud boos were heard from the audience.

Thus, today it was the Clinton Ladies Intervention Team to the rescue.

CBS News and Katie Couric practically joined the team today as not only did they fail to show Mrs. Clinton's disastrous question-and-answer session in Iowa on Saturday but they took pains to show her in a very friendly crowd today, as the candidate coincidentally proceeded to take swipes at the Bush Administration.

In addition, Clinton got loads of free publicity, compliments of Couric and Company, when the Evening News did a segment on 'attempting to get the youth vote.' Here again, the segment coincidentally focused almost exclusively on the Democrats rather than Republicans, although the segment was designed to show the importance of youth to BOTH Parties.

But guess who got most of the airtime in the segment? You guess it--Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In fact, Couric and Company broadcast a key quote from Mrs. Clinton as she stated, 'The youth and their future is what this campaign is all about.'

If one is paying attention merely to the pictorial symbols and not the spin-verbiage that Couric used to mislead viewers concerning the nature of the piece, it is clear that the network wished for viewers to take with them two powerful images and thoughts--one, only Democrats are concerned about the youth of America, and two, it is Mrs. Clinton who has fashioned her entire campaign around youth and their future.

As if we didn't already know, we are now assured with proof positive that Couric and CBS News are part of the Clinton Ladies Intervention Team.

Ignoring the IGNORE-amuses

Ignoramuses come a dime a dozen. But since when has it become standard practice to put them on TV on every major network, including Fox, to provide political commentary?

To be frank, I have sworn off the entire lot of them, and that includes Fox's Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and all the rest. Granted, they are not nearly as bad as CBS, NBC, ABC, or the Clinton News Network (CNN), but Fox nonetheless has started standing on my last good nerve.

We have known for quite some time that Fox has been promoting Rudy Giuliani. Rupert Murdock has seen to that. Thus, we can overlook the sometimes not-so-subtle manner in which Fox pushes the candidate.

But the thing that is entirely unacceptable is for conservative commentators such as Hannity and O'Reilly to practically place every single instinct they have on the back burner in order to place Giuliani at the forefront of their starry-eyed gaze.

Both of them know better.

But the absolute last straw was when attorney and Fox commentator Monica Crowley, for whom we normally have utmost respect, states that Giuliani and ROMNEY are the two front-runners, and that Huckabee is a possibility.

Never once did Crowley mention Fred Thompson, who is in a national statistical dead-head for the front-runner position with Rudy among GOP voters who are extremely likely to vote in the primaries.

It is as if Thompson isn't even there.

Are these commentators such hopeless ignoramuses that they are totally unaware of the polls, or is it that they have simply sold out heart, soul, body, and mind to Rupert Murdock?

It is too late to make amends for these near-unforgivable mistakes. I have hit the ignore button on the ignoramuses. And unless Fox somehow redeems itself, they are history in my book, just like CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN.

Unfortunately, I happened to inadvertently catch Katie Couric's interview with Rudy Giuliani, during which she went after the Mayor with a vengeance in spite of the fact that in her interview with the Queen of Sleaze, the Hildabeast, she acted as if she were so awe-struck that she could give Mrs. Clinton a bear-hug at any moment.

Here again, Couric referred to only Giuliani and Romney as the 'front-runners,' while waxing eloquent over the fact that Mike Huckabee seems to be 'coming on strong.'

No mention of Fred Thompson being in a statistical tie with Rudy.

So, is Fox now using the very same template as CBS?

It seems odd that within the very same week both Fox and CBS would speak of the GOP candidates in the very same fashion, with the exception that CBS obviously is in the Clinton camp while Fox is in the Giuliani camp.

I try very hard not to watch network news broadcasts anymore. The frustration level involved in the endeavor far outweighs anything to be gained. Yet it is important to know what the talking heads are doing and saying.

Unfortunately, I now have to add Fox to that list of the ignoramuses, about which I am too curious to totally ignore, after all.

Katie Couric/CBS News Blunder

This week's series of posts on the blunders of the news commentators focuses today on Katie Couric and CBS News.

A hot tip to Katie and the producers at CBS: when you are doing a segment on the mindset of evangelical Christians you don't turn to the publisher of one of the most liberal Christian publications in the nation as an example of the typical conservative religious voter.

As an example of the modern evangelical voter, the CBS piece cited the publisher of Sojourners' Magazine, historically one of the leftwing's most vocal proponents for 'Christian socialism.'

Sojourners has a long history of advocating for positions that conservative evangelicals and conservative voters in general have deplored. For historical perspective one only has to note that the magazine has long admired the philosophy of Jimmy Carter and deplored that of Ronald Reagan.

It is no wonder, then, that one listens to Sojourners' editor Jim Wallis' words to the effect that, 'God is neither Republican nor Democrat,' with a certain incredulity given the fact that his magazine has always supported the position of Democrats.

The very fact that the CBS News piece would interview Wallis about evangelical Christians makes the entire segment suspect. For example, CBS rolled out some poll figures that suggest conservative, evangelical Christians are not concerned anymore with abortion or traditional family issues.

One can safely assume that the numbers are highly suspect and are indicative of CBS' practice of slanting the manner in which poll numbers are reported in order to get a certain result.

Supposedly the conservative Christians cite 'healthcare' and 'Social Security' as their top concerns in the 2008 Presidential race. Abortion and family issues are not even in the top five.

Do I believe it? Not one bit. And if you believe it, as the saying goes, I have some swampland to sell you...

It is difficult to determine who, exactly, CBS picked for its poll of evangelical Christians. More than likely they included the likes of those who read Sojourners. If this is the case, you can count on those poll numbers being skewed.

It is also safe to assume that CBS did not include in the survey James Dobson's army of radio listeners. It is highly naive of CBS to assume that these persons will not vote their conscience on social issues related to abortion, the family, gun rights, and other issues related to personal liberty.

CBS's Anti-GOP Machine At It Again

If one had listened to the CBS Evening News totally at face value Saturday evening, one would think that the GOP is the one political party in America that is synonymous with scandal, corruption, hypocrisy, and graft.

Ever since we at The Liberty Sphere have taken it upon ourselves to do a periodic reality check on CBS News, highlighting examples of bias, we have discovered that often one has to be most diligent on the weekends when viewership is lower.

This is particularly true with the evening news broadcasts on Saturday and Sunday, as well as the flagship news magazine '60 Minutes.'

It is during these times that often CBS News will slip in some of its most blatantly slanted news stories.

Such was the case Saturday evening. In reporting the resignation of Idaho Senator Larry Craig, CBS News proceeded to do a hatchet job--the 2nd this week--on the Republican Party. During the segment on Craig, the reporter stated that the GOP has a 'brand problem,' that the Republican Party is a 'weakened brand,' and that going into the 2008 election cycle the Party is at a distinct disadvantage with the voters because of 'all of the scandals and corruption' involving Republicans over the past few years.

The very same hatchet job was done earlier in the week, as we reported here on The Liberty Sphere.

And once again, the reporter went down the list naming each Republican over the past four years who has been involved in scandals of one kind or another, never once mentioning the fact that Democrats have been knee-deep in corruption of their own making.

The fact that Larry Craig was 'caught' in a sex sting operation, which the police and the government have no business delving into to begin with, only serves to emphasize Democratic hypocrisy. The very party that claims that the government should stay out of the private lives of Americans, particularly their private sex lives, is the first to condemn Republicans such as Craig.

But of course, as long as the Democrats can keep the story of Larry Craig and those dirty rotten scoundrel Republicans at the top of the news, they can slip underneath the radar screen when it comes to Hillary Clinton's five-year relationship with a major fundraiser who was wanted in the state of California for committing crimes.

It turns out that this particular fundraiser had contributed mega-bucks not only to Clinton, but to Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, and at least a half-dozen other Democrats.

Attempting to escape any blame or association with corruption, the Democrats who were involved in this dirty money scandal did what they always do when they are caught with their pants down--they 'give the money back,' or in this case 'give it to charity.'

My, what precious angels.

This is precisely what Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, did when it came to light he had received illegal campaign funds. He gave the money back, and this supposedly made the illegal activity null and void.

Is this how we as a society treat, say, embezzlers, for example? As long as they 'give the money' back they are automatically absolved of any wrongdoing? I don't think so.

John Conyers, Democratic chair of the House Judiciary Committee, 'promised not to do it again' when it came to light he had broken federal campaign laws.

How do you think you would fare as an ordinary citizen if this were your only defense after being arrested for breaking a federal law? 'Your Honor, I promise I won't do it again if you let me go free and drop the charges.' Yeah, right.

And as for Democrats Dianne Feinstein and William Jefferson, who clearly had their hands soiled with dirty money, little or nothing is being done by the Democratic leadership to address the obvious corruption exhibited by both.

After all, it is the GOP that is the Party of corruption. Any factual information that proves otherwise or doesn't fit the template set by the Democratic Party and the mainstream media must be pushed aside.

The present playbook of the Democrats and their mouthpieces at CBS News and the other networks has George Soros, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, and the Congressional Democratic leadership written all over it.

As soon as the Democrats took control of Congress in November of 2006, this playbook was put together. Inside sources in the Congress reported that the Democratic leadership would immediately launch into a massive media blitz involving countless Congressional investigations into 'GOP corruption.'

The objective would be to so bury the Bush White House and the Republican Party with an endless barrage of charges of corruption that the GOP would go limping into the 2008 general election, leaving the Democrats with a decisive advantage.

Not only has the Democratic leadership followed through with that strategy, but they have successfully enlisted the help of their allies in the mainstream media to bombard the American public with the message, 'Those Republicans are sleazy, but those Democrats are clean.'

My friends, if you believe those Democrats are clean, then you have tweety birds and tooth fairies flying around in your head.

Couric/CBS Goes Bonkers Over Craig Scandal

Katie Couric and the CBS Evening News went bonkers over the Craig scandal, showing a graphic containing pictures of all of the Republicans in Congress who have been implicated in scandals over the past several years.

Never has CBS done a similar thing to highlight Democrats in Congress who have been implicated in scandals. And there have been plenty.

As most Liberty Sphere readers know by now, from time to time we do a quick survey of what and how news gets reported on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. Couric's years at the NBC Today Show solidified her credentials as one of the most liberal talking heads in the business.

And with the new evening news producer, who made a name for himself at CNN as one of the most unreliable, biased, and agenda-driven news producers in the business, we wanted to see just how far CBS would go to slant the news it presents on its evening broadcast.

Rarely has CBS News given a fair shake to Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and others who adhere to traditional American values. A perfect case in point is the Craig scandal.

When Couric reported the news that Senator Craig from Idaho had pleaded guilty to a lesser charge in an airport bathroom sting operation, the graphic shown behind her contained the pictures of all of the Republicans in recent years who have had their difficulties with scandal.

Yet when Democratic Congressman William Jefferson was caught with $90,000 in cold cash in his freezer, along with charges that he peddled his influence in Congress to benefit foreign governments--for a price, of course--there were no graphics or pictures of all of the Democrats who have been implicated in scandal over the past few years.

And the names of these Democrats read like a Who's Who among the most powerful and influential persons in Washington--Harry Reid, John Conyers, Dianne Feinstein, John Murtha, Ted Kennedy, and Nancy Pelosi.

In fact, not a single outlet of the mainstream media even bothered to mention that Dianne Feinstein engaged in awarding lucrative government contracts to her husband's businesses--a practice that directly benefited Feinstein and her husband, which is against the law.

This major scandal was swept under the rug by the Democratic leadership in Congress and the mainstream media. The closest the story ever came to being reported in a major media outlet was when the Capitol Hill newsletter called 'The Hill' ran the story a couple of months ago.

Does this excuse Senator Craig's hypocrisy and behavior? No way. But it does provide yet one more example of how the liberal mainstream media machine attempts to portray Republicans as those dastardly poor examples of ethics while casting the Democrats as the innocent little angels.

Perhaps, though, the public simply isn't buying it. With public approval of the Democratic-controlled Congress at the all-time low of just 16%, maybe the public has wised up to the underhanded, slanted tactics of CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN to sway voters with one-sided news stories.

All I can say is, it's about time.

The Rehabilitation of Dan Rather

When one watches Dan Rather's news program on HDTV on satellite, one gets the impression that one is witnessing a curious phenomenon involving the rehabilitation of the veteran news man's reputation. Rather is thoughtful, reflective, respectful--a far cry from the tempestuous, volatile, and impulsive Dan Rather to which most Americans became accustomed in his long career at CBS News.

Mr. Rather is actually easy to watch at HDTV. His interviews are in-depth, relaxed, and perceptive, allowing the interviewee to feel at ease and thus, more apt to disclose information without any of the defensiveness one feels when confronted by an aggressive news-hound.

One is apt to wonder about the change. Has Rather grown more mellow with age? Has he finally matured in concert with his age? Or is this a more calculated plan to rehabilitate the reporter's image after the debacle at CBS where it was disclosed that he and his lieutenants had fabricated a story concerning President Bush's service in the National Guard?

Perhaps it is a bit of both, and that's okay.

With age comes wisdom, or at least that is the hope. Perhaps even more wisdom is to be gleaned from making glaring mistakes in one's senior years.

Nonetheless, the change is striking.

Long before Dan Rather became anchor at CBS News following the retirement of icon Walter Cronkite in 1981, he had been the network's chief White House correspondent. During those years many wondered if perhaps Rather's penchant for being in the center of controversy became the news that overshadowed the news.

At the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Rather was roughed up by a group of protesters demonstrating on the Convention floor. He even received a gash on the side of his head, which necessitated that he wear a white patch for several weeks thereafter.

Rather never missed a beat, however. He gave a full report on the incident, on live TV, to Cronkite who was up in the booth, and he was back on the front lines the very next day.

When Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey for the Presidency in 1968, Rather could hardly contain his utter disdain for Nixon. The glee with which Rather reported on the President's woes in the aftermath of Watergate was obvious. At one point, during a Presidential news conference, Rather arose to ask a question, to which the crowd of reporters responded with applause and cheers.

Who was it that said reporters weren't biased and partisan?

The President, seeking to break the tension with some humor, responded by quipping, 'Dan, are you running for something?'

Rather responded with an acerbic, 'No, Mr. President, are you?'

Years later, after assuming the role as anchor, Rather ambushed Vice-President George H.W. Bush, who was campaigning for President in 1988. The deal was that Bush would answer no questions about Iran-Contra. Rather proceeded to ask a question about Iran-Contra anyway, which sent Bush erupting into a 3-minute tirade.

Rather never got in a word edge-wise.

Many observers believed that Bush won the Presidency precisely because of the Dan Rather interview. He had taken on the unabashed liberal anchorman and won.

And then of course there was the incident where Rather walked off the set of the CBS Evening News one night, in protest of the decision by the network to delay the news broadcast due to a sporting event. The action left CBS with a blank screen for several minutes until producers decided what they were going to do.

The one thing we all came to expect from Dan Rather was the unexpected--and the volatile.

But the fabricated story on George W. Bush's military service was the last straw. When the news came to light that the whole thing was made up, with very little evidence to lend the allegations any credibility, CBS deftly eased Rather out the door in conjunction with the announcement of his upcoming retirement.

The thing is, Rather never retired.

Thus, we now are witnessing an aging news man in the sunset of his professional life taking a 180-degree about face. Perhaps Rather wishes to be remembered by some things other than his less-than-admirable decisions earlier in his career.

After all, he even appeared 2 weeks ago on Fox News on Neil Cavuto's afternoon broadcast. For a liberal, mainstream media icon to appear on Fox, on one of the most overtly conservative programs on Fox, is ample proof that something is happening.

Either Rather has lost his mind, or he really has gained some wisdom with age.

Couric/CBS Continue Climate Propaganda

Without missing a beat the Katie Couric/CBS News propaganda machine continued with its erroneous and misleading 'news' stories on climate change. Monday night's broadcast proved what The Liberty Sphere had predicted, i.e., that the mainstream media would deliberately bury stories about NASA's 'mistake' that led to the current climate hysteria.

Five full days had passed since the news broke concerning a Y2K bug that caused a widespread bump in temperature readings by NASA's computers. It was last Wednesday that NASA quietly leaked the information that it had corrected the bug, which resulted in an entirely different scenario concerning global warming.

The corrected information shows that the year 1934 is the hottest in recorded history instead of 1998. In addition, five of the ten hottest years on record occurred before the 1940s, and the decade of the 1930s contains three of the hottest years since records began to be kept.

None of this, of course, was reported by CBS, ABC, NBC, or CNN.

Instead, Couric and CBS News ran a special news report Monday evening that continued to spread half-truths and outright untruths concerning global warming, particularly in light of the fact that the new NASA data shows that the earth is actually 1-2% COOLER than we had originally thought.

If one listened closely to the scientists who were interviewed in the piece, one would notice that no one stated that mankind is the cause for climate change. In fact, at one point a scientist who is examining the data in the Arctic Circle stated that, 'We are continuing to attempt to determine what role humans may have played, if any, in the gradual melting of the ice.'

By anyone's estimation, this is hardly a definitive statement on 'man-made global warming.' The scientist went further to say that 150,000 years ago, the place they were standing would have been much thicker with ice, and that 150,000 years prior to that, the area would be covered with water rather than ice.

300,000 years ago, the Arctic Circle was devoid of most of its ice? Which of the oil refineries and automobiles existing at that time caused this?

In spite of the the obvious uncertainty of the scientists CBS interviewed, the piece deftly glossed over any such backtracking and hedging, and proceeded to frame the entire news story in terms of man-made climate change.

Never once was there any mention of the NASA debacle in the year 2000, which they are just now getting around to correct.

Thus, the propaganda machine is alive and well. The facts be damned.

The Katie Couric-Dan Rather Flap

Washington, DC (TLS). It seems ole Danny-boy has ignited a wildfire with his unnecessary comments about Katie Couric. Let's not forget that ole Danny-boy's career is forever tainted by the fact that he helped produce and air a FALSE report on George W. Bush's military service...for which several CBS associates lost their jobs.

Some would say that ole Danny-boy lost his job too over that one, except it was conveniently covered up by Rather's supposed 'retirement,' except he never retired!

For a VERY intriguing take on the the Couric-Rather flap, read this, entitled, 'In Defence of Cleveland and Katie C.':
http://pribek.net/2007/06/12/in-defense-of-cleveland-katie-c/

Katie Couric-CBS News' Spin of Attorney Firings

Charlotte, NC (TLS). As much as one would like to say that the slanted and downright dishonest journalism at CBS News is an isolated phenomenon, unfortunately the practices one observes being utilized by Katie Couric and CBS News is but one small example of a widespread problem in television news on the three major networks.

Couric and the brass at CBS News have pulled another fast one on the public by claiming that the actions of the Bush Administration in firing eight U.S. Prosecutors is 'unprecedented.'

Not only did Couric use the term 'unprecedented' to describe the dismissals, but she turned to a CBS News' legal advisor/reporter, who again stated that the firings were 'unprecedented.'

All of this was done, of course, to support the charges of ethically-challenged Democrats and Little Chucky Schumer that the firings were politically motivated.

The problem is that Couric's description of the actions of Attorney-General Alberto Gonzalez in dismissing the attorneys is simply not true. CBS News lied. Katie Couric lied. The firings are anything BUT 'unprecedented.'

Let me refresh the memories of the CBS producers and their anchor for just a moment. In 1993, President Bill Clinton summarily fired every single one of the U.S. Prosecutors in the Justice Department--all 93 of them.

In addition, the one and only reason that Clinton, via Attorney-General Janet Reno, fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys was purely a political one. Clinton wanted his own people in those positions, period. One of the fired prosecutors in particular was investigating the shady dealings of the Clintons in Arkansas and replaced by a Clinton crony.

Thus, the charge that Bush fired eight U.S. Attorneys 'for political purposes' seems rather disingenuous, hollow, and hypocritical coming from Democrats and their mouthpieces in the mainstream media. When are these dismissals ever NOT 'political?'

The 93 attorneys that Clinton and Reno dismissed had done no wrong. There was no stain on their performance. None had been accused of failing to accomplish the task to which they were assigned. Yet Clinton fired every last one of them.

So, the question becomes, why did Katie Couric and CBS News conveniently fail to report the 1993 Clinton Administration massacre of U.S. Attorneys while describing the dismissal of only 8 attorneys by the Bush Administration as 'unprecedented?'

If Couric and CBS News defend their actions by claiming that 1993 was different because a new President is expected to make changes in political appointments, then they will have done nothing but prove that the recent firing of eight is nothing unusual at all. They are POLITICAL APPOINTEES that serve at the discretion of the President.

Thus, if Clinton could dismiss all 93 attorneys in 1993 for political reasons which we grant to all Presidents, then what is the problem with Bush's firing 8 of these attorneys for political reasons?

Despite the cries of the dismissed attorneys and their defenders in claiming that prosecutors for the U.S. government should be 'free from the politics of Washington,' the fact of the matter is that without the political appointments they received, they would never have gotten those jobs at all. The very positions they hold are 'political' appointments and always have been.

In addition, invariably, story after story is beginning to slowly emerge as we find out more about the eight who were fired--stories that indicate these particular attorneys failed to perform a few crucial aspects of their jobs. In Washington State, for example, the U.S. Attorney failed to file a request for a recount of a very close and hotly contested race in that state. Others failed to expedite the investigations of widespread corruption and illegal activity on the part of some high-profile Democrats who so far have not only gotten away with their crimes but sit in powerful offices within the new Congress.

It is clear, therefore, that the eight prosecutors in question were negligent in performing their duty and needed to go.

In fact, there are more who need to go for different reasons, such as Johnny Sutton, who so far has succeeded in making a name for himself as perhaps the most corrupt attorney in the federal government.

However, CBS News and Katie Couric have been negligent in their duties to fully inform the public of all the pertinent facts in a story. Their statement that the firing of eight attorneys is 'unprecedented' is not only a lie, but it hides a basic truth that Clinton and company did far worse in firing all 93. And once again, CBS News has shown itself to be nothing more than a 30-minute advertisement for the Democrat Party.

Bring on the fairness doctrine!

Leftwing Activist New Head of CBS News

Washington, DC (TLS). The Katie Couric Show on CBS News has a new boss. With Katie's plummeting ratings, the brass at CBS decided that something drastic had to be done to save Couric's neck. After all, she is one of the highest paid talking heads in all of television.

Surely nothing that Couric has done would cause such a mass exodus of viewers.

The fall guy, therefore, was her former boss, Rome Hartman, executive producer of the show, who himself had been no detached, unbiased purveyor of truth. CBS News is more like a half-hour ad for the Democrat Party than a news broadcast. And, as we have shown on The Liberty Sphere, Couric herself is such an unabashed Liberal that she has been a willing co-conspirator in this blatant slanting of news stories. Her years at NBC's Today Show further prove the point, as we have documented.

But guess who is now Couric's new executive producer? None other than Bill Clinton crony Rick Kaplan. Kaplan's cozy relationship with the Clintons is well-known. He even helped the former President with his image problem in the media when Clinton was being hit with the scandals of Monica Lewinsky and his subsequent impeachment.

Kaplan's work for Clinton was done while he was presiding over CNN.

Does this surprise anyone?

Kaplan also headed MSNBC. In his work for both CNN and MSNBC, Kaplan presided over consistently slanted news stories and programs that favored Democrats.

Interestingly, he was fired from both networks.

Now he winds up at CBS News with a decidedly Liberal anchor as we approach one of the most pivotal election cycles in the history of the Republic. George Soros must be doing cartwheels. He could not even buy such a beautiful scenario in which news is consistently slanted to favor Democrats and trash Republicans leading up to the 2008 election.

As we have observed many times, the big four networks, CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN are all in the hip-pocket of Liberal Democrats. Yet this gang of thugs claims we need a 'fairness doctrine' so that they can get equal time on conservative talk radio.

I will repeat my former challenge to these numbskulls. Bring back the fairness doctrine. Get your equal time on conservative talk radio. And then we will demand equal time to answer Couric, Gibson, and all the rest on the big four TV networks.

Liberal Democrats have gotten free air time on the major network news programs for over 40 years--40 years' worth of blatant, in-your-face bias in favor of every Liberal program and politician to come down the pike. If they want equal time on conservative talk radio, then we will mount a campaign to demand equal time to answer Couric's bias--and that of all of her competitors on the other networks.

Oh, by the way, we will want that during prime time, on CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN.

Is it a deal?

Katie Couric, Al Gore, and the 'Greens'

Washington, DC (TLS). An unexpected turn has been taken by The Liberty Sphere of late, as we have inadvertently discovered just how deep and systemic is the Leftist slant and outright bias of Katie Couric and CBS News. The Liberty Sphere was the first to blow the whistle on Couric and CBS's outright dishonest news reporting concerning a poll that supposedly showed a 53% majority of Americans that either want to withdraw funding from the War in Iraq or deny funds for the troop surge.

As we pointed out, Couric and CBS, using a deceptive slight-of-hand maneuver with the poll numbers, twisted the results to say something they actually did not say at all.

Since that episode of the Couric propaganda fiction report on CBS, The Liberty Sphere has been watching the program very closely for more instances of Liberal bias.

We found it yet again on Monday evening.

Couric's lead story Monday evening was the buy-out of a Texas coal mining company by a corporation known for its 'green' sensitivity. Supposedly this was earth-shattering news, in a manner of speaking, since this is reportedly the first time an environmentalist-friendly company has bought out one of the dark, evil, and sinister companies that produce energy, heat, and cooling for most Americans by the use of fossil fuels.

The dreaded fossil fuels, of course, are the main reason the earth is warming, according to the Leftist propaganda of extremist environmentalist activists who wish to dismantle American free enterprise, capitalism, and individual freedom in the name of 'saving the environment.'

No matter that most of the good science that is based upon actual observable fact and a non-biased approach to considering the earth's climate history show no such thing.

Yet here again is Couric and CBS spouting their slanted 'news' in favor of those propagandists who wish to lay the blame for global warming squarely at the feet of mankind, so that government can then launch the single biggest attack on human freedom in the history of the world.

But this was not enough.

Couric's second story of the evening piggy-backed on the lead story about the Texas buy-out. This story, not surprisingly, focused upon Al Gore's environmentalist extremist film and its selection to receive an Academy Award on Sunday evening. The film was not selected as best motion picture, and yet, it merited a prime spot on Couric's show.

No mention was made of the film that won best picture.

Gore's hook, line, and sinker approach to the 'man-is-to-blame-for-global-warming' mantra has earned him the accolades of Hollywood, the European Union, Socialists, Communists, and every other nut-case on the planet who would love to impose their brave new world on American society and rob the citizens of liberty. It is no wonder, therefore, that one of Gore's comrades at arms in this siege, i.e. Katie Couric, would give him prime billing as the second story of the night on Monday evening's news broadcast.

I am sure that billionaire atheist and Democrat operative George Soros was very proud.

The Liberty Sphere will continue to monitor Couric's reports at CBS. We may even launch this as a regular feature of The Liberty Sphere and call it 'the Couric Watch.' Our intent is not simply to inform our readers about the spin doctors at CBS News but to underscore and attempt to understand this fascinating phenomenon--the thorough indoctrination of the public by a major news organization.

So stay tuned. There will be much more to come.

Poll Shows Americans Want to Win in Iraq

Washington, DC (TLS). For several weeks now, The Liberty Sphere has had reason to doubt most of the major national polls concerning the War in Iraq, the strategy of President Bush in the War, and the feelings of citizens about the so-called 'troop surge.' The first indication that something fishy was going on with polling data surfaced when Katie Couric and CBS News utilized a deft 'slight of hand' procedure to misrepresent poll results.

In that exclusive Liberty Sphere report, we blew the whistle on Couric's attempt to portray the results of a national poll as indicating that a 53% majority of Americans either do not support funding the troop surge or support the withdrawal of funding from the war altogether. The truth was that only 45% of those polled stated they would not support funding the troop surge...meaning a 55% majority SUPPORT it. In addition, a mere 8% of those polled stated they would withdraw funding from the War entirely. Couric conveniently failed to mention that this meant that fully 92% of those polled FAVOR continued funding of the War.

However, Couric and company went further than simply not giving all the facts. They actually used a dishonest technique to arrive at their so-called 53% majority against the War. Couric added the 45% and the 8% together to arrive at the 53%.

No problem, you say? Well, only if you are totally unaware of simple mathematics and statistical data, which Couric and CBS News obviously hoped was the case. When using their exact same technique using the percentages of those who SUPPORT funding the War (92%) and those who SUPPORT funding the troop surge (55%), one arrives at a whopping 147% majority of Americans who support funding the surge and the War in general.

Naturally these figures are skewed due to the simple fact that you cannot have 147% support. 100% is as good as it gets. Thus, the method by which Couric and CBS News arrived at their so-called 53% majority who either wish to deny funding to the surge or withdraw funding from the War altogether is so fundamentally flawed that the conclusion is skewed and grossly misleading.

Against that backdrop comes news today that a new poll finds that Americans actually express widespread approval for continuing the fight against terrorism in Iraq and giving the troop surge a fair chance.

According to CNS News Service, a new POS poll (Public Opinion Strategies) indicates that by a 53% to 46% margin, Americans believe that Democrats are going to far too fast in pressuring the President to withdraw from Iraq. The national survey, conducted among a bi-partisan cross-section of citizens, shows that the public still supports President Bush and wants a 'clear victory' in the War in Iraq.

In a surprising footnote to the poll, respondents stated that they believe the central focus of fighting the War on Terror is Iraq and the surrounding area, and that they want a clear strategy aimed a victory in the region.

This nation-wide survey was taken February 5-7, 2007.

We can rest assured we will never hear about THIS poll from Katie Couric and CBS News, or any of the other three major networks that slant the news in favor of the Bush-bashing forces. The results are too far outside the commonly accepted political orthodoxy that guides the reporting of the news in the mainstream media. Yet I have a strong hunch that this poll is infinitely closer to the real truth than the blatant dishonest reporting of poll results by CBS News.