"Who and What is in the White House?"

One of the mothers who lost her son on the COLE gave an interview on FOX. (hat tip Indie in the comments)

She declined the White House Invitation to meet with Obama. (She also, voted for him and says in the interview that she made a mistake in doing so). You can see the anguish on her face...the tears in her eyes. Obama should be ashamed for what he's making her go through.

Read it all here, along with Neil Cavuto's video interview with the woman on Fox.

So, who or what is in the White House? We have not yet seen the true nature of the monstrosity we have just elected in our drunken stupor. But one thing we do know for sure, the man in the White House is the most dangerous man in the nation.

Fox News Joins Liberal MSM in Obama Lovefest

I first noticed it during the 2008 Presidential campaign. A slight, subtle, but noticeable change took place in the manner in which news concerning Barack Obama was being reported on Fox News.

And then what began as trickle became an avalanche during the final McCain-Obama debate.

Every single commentator on Fox News' panel of experts, including Britt Hume, stated how awful McCain was and how masterfully Obama had beaten McCain in the debate.

I remember thinking at the time, how odd!

Never before in all the years I have been watching Fox News have I ever seen ALL of its conservative commentators so obviously throw their support behind a liberal political candidate.

I smelled something fishy even then.

And now, the news comes that Rupert Murdoch, the king pin of the Fox mega-network conglomerate, has instructed his No. 2 man Roger Ailes to tell his conservative commentators to back off criticism of Obama.

These instructions went to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, and others who have been openly critical of Obama.

In the midst of a solid monopoly on television news reporting held by Leftists such as CBS, CNN, ABC, NBC, and MSNBC, moderate-to conservative viewers found solace in Fox News. At least in its commentary, the network was solidly conservative.

That day is gone.

And thus, the march of Obama toward total domination of ALL media, including the control of content, continues unabated.

This is not good news for democracy, liberty, or the Bill of Rights.

For a complete analysis of this disturbing development, including Rush Limbaugh's commentary on the matter, click HERE.

But make no mistake about it, my friends, if Fox News is intent on going down this road, you can bet your last swig of whiskey that THIS commentator will be just as relentless in attacking Fox as I have been in attacking the rest of the leftwing media hacks and talking heads.

The very last thing we need is a Chris Matthews-lite or a Katie Couric wannabe on Fox.

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.

Now It's Sean Hannity's Turn to Blunder

Yesterday we reported that Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly made a major blunder by suggesting that not only has Giuliani practically sewn up the GOP nomination but that he should tap Mitt Romney as his running mate.

Now it's Fox News commentator Sean Hannity's turn to blunder.

We have commented recently that Fox apparently wishes for the GOP to be dominated by northeastern liberals, such as Giuliani and Romney. Hannity seems to be no exception.

On his daily radio broadcast, Hannity took a call from a woman who stated that she was very concerned that some of the GOP front-runners cannot gain the support of evangelical Christian conservatives. The caller stated that the GOP nominee will need this block of voters to win.

We agree. We have commented at length many times on how desperately the GOP needs evangelical conservatives to beat Hillary Clinton.

Yet Hannity hedged a bit, stating that 'this is what the primary process is all about.'

Granted, that's true, but the primary process is certainly not being influenced by certain conservative commentators who have all but conceded the GOP nomination to Rudy.

As we have stated before, repeatedly, if Giuliani is the nominee the religious right will stay home on election day, throwing the election to Hillary. They have already told us that this is what they plan to do.

Why should we not believe them? Giuliani's record on a range of issues from gun control to abortion has alienated the vast majority of evangelical voters. Their view is, if there is essentially no difference between Hillary and Rudy on gun control and abortion, for example, then why vote at all?

Personally, I have some very good, sound reasons as to why they should vote for Giuliani if he is the nominee, not the least of which he is not a Socialist like Hillary, and he would appoint to the Supreme Court and the federal bench only strict constructionists, unlike Hillary.

Nonetheless, my position is a hard sell when it comes to persons who so value human life that they would rather die themselves than vote for someone who supports abortion rights. And just enough of these persons will, indeed, stay home on election day to throw the election to Hillary.

I honestly do not think that commentators like O'Reilly and Hannity truly understand the mindset of the evangelical voter. These pundits are far too prone to underestimate the commitment of evangelicals to principle over Party, to issues over ideology, to honor and faith over politics.

Issues oriented voters couldn't care less about what happens to the Supreme Court if the supposed alternative to Hillary is himself a supporter of abortion rights.

In a close election, or even a not so close election, the loss of a mere 5 million evangelical voters could tip the election to Hillary.

And this is precisely why choosing Rudy as the GOP nominee is highly risky and therefore terribly ill-advised, unless the candidate experiences a major surge in popularity over Hillary. Thus, Hannity has it wrong...at least for now.

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.

Dems Choose Debate Sponsors--Snub Fox

Washington, DC (TLS). The Democrats, continuing with their obvious cowardice at the prospects of facing Fox News, have chosen instead to allow CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC/MSNBC to host their next six debates...an obvious snub of Fox.

What are these bozos afraid of? Being asked the hard questions?

Obviously. They had rather Chris Matthews ask them about sex or about their thoughts on Hillary winning the White House.

What idiots.

CNN will get two out of the next six debates, NBC/MSNBC will also get two, and CBS and ABC will get one a piece.

Way to go, guys. It must be nice to have the reporters who are already in your hip pocket to ask you the soft-ball questions.

Read the full story here:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/politics/debates_dnc_announces_six_two_on_cnn_two_on_nbcmsnbc_59165.asp

The 2nd Debate--Ratings of the Republican Candidates

Columbia, SC (TLS). The Republican candidates squared off for their second debate here this evening at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, SC. The University, which boasts over 30,000 students here in a metropolitan area of roughly 400,000, became the focus of thousands of news personnel from around the country, some from as far away as Washington State, in order to see these candidates in action.

An estimated crowd of 10,000 gathered for this forum, which was hosted and aired by Fox News. News veteran Britt Hume, Washington bureau chief for Fox News, did his normally admirable job of moderating this debate.

The questions presented to the candidates were reasonable, thoughtful, thorough, sometimes confrontational, and substantive. In fact, Fox News, Britt Hume, and company, can take pride in the fact that tonight they displayed a brilliant presentation of professional journalism.

Tonight's format was decidedly different from what we have seen so far in these gatherings. Fox had stated prior to the debate to expect changes, and they delivered. There was room for interaction between candidates, with Giuliani going head-to-head with Ron Paul on the reasons we were attacked on 9/11. There was even an innovative part of the debate where Britt Hume presented a hypothetical scenario of a terrorist attack on America. The candidates then had to describe what they would do in light of the attack.

As always, The Liberty Sphere will begin by presenting our analysis of the effectiveness of the candidates' presentation, i.e., clarity and style of communication, connection with the audience, logical progression of rhetoric, and ability to answer the questions asked rather than running off on tangents.

In light of these qualities, The Liberty Sphere ranks the candidates as follows, in order of their overall effectiveness of presentation:

Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter (3-way tie)
John McCain, Tom Tancredo, Mitt Romney, Sam Brownback (4-way tie)
Tommy Thompson
Jim Gilmore
Ron Paul

The person showing the most improvement over the first debate was Tom Tancredo, who was engaging, articulate, and powerful. The biggest disappointment was Ron Paul, who implied that the reason we were attacked on 9/11 was directly due to our involvement in the Middle East for years. This played right into the hands of Rudy Giuliani, who was visibly outraged at such a suggestion, and displayed the indignation of one personally offended by the mere suggestion that America itself is responsible for the terrorist murders of our citizens.

When we are dealing with radical Islam, no amount of isolationalism would have prevented them from attempting to carry out the will of Allah in slaughtering the infidels. Ron Paul should know this.

In fact, the major gaffe of the evening was by Ron Paul on this issue, who may have just insured his demise as a viable candidate.

Second, The Liberty Sphere will rate the candidates based upon our eight-point 'Liberty Scale.' This is the heart of our ratings system, for the emphasis here is exclusively on the issues alone.

The eight issues we have chosen by which to rate the candidates on the issues are as follows: taxes, gun rights, national defense, abortion, the War on Terror, the War in Iraq, border security, and immigration control. These particular issues are at the heart of liberty, and they are consistent with The Liberty Sphere's mission statement.

For a full explanation on our rationale for rating the candidates on these eight issues, see our post on the first Democratic debate here:
http://thelibertysphere.blogspot.com/2007/04/ratings-of-democratic-presidential.html

Based upon The Liberty Sphere's analysis of each of the 10 Republican Presidential candidates and the extent to which they adhere to our eight key indicators of liberty, the candidates in tonight's debate are rated as follows on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest score:

Duncan Hunter--10
Mike Huckabee--10
Tom Tancredo--8
Jim Gilmore--7
Rudy Giuliani--7
Mitt Romney--6
Sam Brownback--6
Ron Paul--6
Tommy Thompson--6
John McCain--5

You will note several items of interest. Tom Tancredo significantly helped himself in tonight's debate. So did Rudy Giuliani. Ron Paul lost a great amount of ground due to his more complete explanation of his views on foreign policy and his apparent short-sighted take on the nature of radical Islam. We did not create Muslim terrorists. To merely imply such a thing either deliberately or inadvertently is to insure the end of one's candidacy, for all intents and purposes.

Our rationale on giving significantly higher marks to Rudy this evening revolves, in part, around his eloquent explanation of his views on abortion. Although we disagree on how to deal with a moral issue, we can respect his point of view because he is honest about it, and because he has obviously thought it through very thoroughly. In addition, we believe that his credentials as a player on the world stage against global terrorism were on full display this evening. And it doesn't hurt that he pledges to appoint only strict constructionists to the courts and that he believes in American capitalism and free enterprise as opposed to Hillary Clinton's socialism.

Stupid Questions

Washington, DC (TLS). Everyone knows that Chris Matthews of NBC is a partisan, biased, Leftwing nutcase. He has never attempted to hide the fact. He was seen recently on a late-night talk show using expletives to describe Republicans. He has done this before.

But the questions Matthews issued to the Republican candidates during their first debate cannot be described in any other way but 'stupid.'

'How would you feel about Hillary Clinton in the White House?'

'Well, ah, gee whiz there, Chris, I would just LOVE it if Hillary were in the White House! After all, that's why I'm running for President, you IDIOT!'

I wish someone had had the guts to answer the stupid question in that manner.

However, now it is Mike Wallace's turn to ask the stupid questions. In an upcoming 60 Minutes interview on CBS with Mitt Romney, Wallace reportedly asks Romney if he and his wife 'ever had premarital sex.'

Excuse me, Mr. Wallace, but with all due respect this is an IDIOTIC question that demeans your entire distinguished career.

So does it all come down to this? I suppose the start of it all was the question put to Bill Clinton in 1992, 'Boxers or briefs?'

The news business has reached a very low ebb. Not only do they think we want to know what type of underwear the candidates wear, but they have the unmitigated gall to ask an opponent what he/she thinks if their rival wins the White House. DUH!

And who cares if Mitt Romney and his wife had premarital sex!

We can only hope that with Fox News sponsoring the next debate, we will get some questions that are worthy of a serious dialogue concerning the nation's future. It would be hard to imagine Britt Hume or John Gibson asking the candidates such blatantly mindless questions that have nothing to do with their ability to be President.

No wonder none of the Democrats want to face Fox News reporters asking the questions!

But, since apparently the Dems have insisted that only so-called 'mainstream' news organizations sponsor their debates--you know, the ones that want to know about premarital sex--I have come up with a few stupid questions the mighty heavy-weights of ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN could ask the Democrats.

'Mrs. Clinton, are you presently taking prescription hormonal therapy for post-menopausal women? And could this medication impair your decision-making?'

'Mr. Obama, which brand of smokes do you prefer? Winstons? Benson and Hedges? Would you offer Hillary a smoke if you were to light up after the debate?'

'Mr. Biden, are you standing there lusting after Hillary while waiting for your next question? And would you describe Hillary as an attractive woman or more of a bulldog?'

'Mr. Dodd, have you ever engaged in cross-dressing?'

'Mr. Edwards, if elected, would you disclose just who it is that does your hair? Chris Matthews and others of us want to know.'

'Mr. Kucinich, how many more times do you think you will have to position yourself to be photographed with President Bush before people remember who you are?'

'Mr. Gravel, do YOU even remember who you are?'

And finally.....

'Mr. Richardson, since you served in the Clinton White House and are friends of Bill (and we all know Bill talks)....tell us what all of America wants to know...does Hillary wear thong panties?'

FOX ALLOWS ALL REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES IN DEBATE

Washington, DC (TLS). The May 15 Republican debate, which will be held in Columbia, South Carolina and televised on Fox News, will feature ALL 10 of the candidates after all.

Apparently Fox and the S.C. Republican Party heard the outcry from the rank and file Republicans concerning their plan to feature only the three front-runners. Thus, in a joint statement released today by Fox News and the S.C. Republican Party, all 10 Republican candidates will be featured in the May 15 debate.

The Liberty Sphere applauds both Fox and the Republicans for this very wise decision. As we saw in last night's Republican debate in California, allowing ALL candidates makes for some interesting surprises. Who would have known how strong Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee come across on the national stage had they not been allowed to be a part of last night's debate?

In addition, we fully expect there to be some movement in the polls toward Mitt Romney. We cannot be certain at this point exactly how much movement, but the candidate did so well Thursday night that he is sure to gain some supporters who had not yet had the chance to see him in action.

In fact, look for Mitt Romney, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, and Jim Gilmore all to gain in the polls.

Neither Rudy Giuliani nor John McCain did or said anything last evening that would sway voters, in our opinion. In short, they neither hurt nor helped themselves. Their support will probably remain steady, but at this point we do not see either candidate picking up widespread new support resulting from last night's debate. But neither candidate lost any ground either.

The public, however, needs to have a second look at all ten of the candidates. The South Carolina debate will give them that opportunity.

FOX EXCLUDES GOP CANDIDATES FROM DEBATE

Washington, DC (TLS). The Liberty Sphere has learned that Fox News Channel is planning on excluding the majority of the GOP candidates from a debate scheduled for May 15, 2007, in Columbia, South Carolina. The South Carolina Republican Party is co-sponsoring the debate along with Fox News.

According to sources planning the event, Fox and the S.C. GOP is considering excluding 7 of the 10 GOP candidates from the televised debate.

Those sources also state that the agreement with the candidates was that only those who polled more than 1% of likely voters would be invited to the debate. This excludes candidates such as Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Ron Paul, Sam Brownback, and Mike Huckabee, among others.

This would mean that the May 15 South Carolina debate will feature only Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney.

However, on Thursday night of this week, May 3, MSNBC is sponsoring a GOP debate that features ALL of the announced candidates.

Needless to say, many conservatives are in an uproar about the South Carolina debate. It has even been suggested that the S.C. Republican Party is deliberately excluding the most conservative voices in the field of candidates, in order to showcase Giuliani, McCain, and Romney.

S.C.'s two Republican Senators may have a stake in this decision. Senator Lindsey Graham supports McCain, while Senator Jim DeMint supports Romney.

The vast majority of Republican voters in South Carolina, however, are solidly conservative, and many clearly do not feel that the top three candidates in the field best represent their views. This is why such a decision to exclude conservatives from the debate appears very odd to most GOP insiders in the state, given the fact that it is still very early in the campaign.

It is time for the South Carolina Republican Party and Fox News to hear from you, the voters. Demand that ALL GOP candidates participate in the May 15 debate. This is only fair.

Is a boycott in order unless the rest of the candidates are allowed to participate?

COWARDS! Dems Ditch Fox Debates AGAIN

Washington, DC (TLS). For the 2nd time in two months, the candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination have pulled out of debates sponsored by Fox News.

The first time, the candidates ditched a Fox-sponsored debate over something Roger Ailes said about Barack Obama. So, they picked up their rattles and pacifiers, and went home.

This time, Fox was planning a mammoth debate co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus and the CBC in September.

But Barack Hussein Obama pulled out today, citing a policy of only participating in 'Democratic National Committee sanctioned debates.' Yet Obama stated that 'CNN would be a more appropriate venue.'

Sure, Senator. We understand. CNN will throw you soft-balls just as all the mainstream media news outlets have done. You wouldn't want to face the tough questions Fox may pose, would you? You know....like Republicans have had to do for decades at the hands of a hostile mainstream media that clearly preferred Liberal candidates?

B. Hussein Obama is not the only coward in the mix, however.

Hillary Clinton also bailed today, citing the same supposed 'policy' of appearing only at 'DNC-sanctioned debates.'

What the heck is that, anyway? 'A DNC-sanctioned debate.' Hmmm.

Let me guess. A DNC-sanctioned debate will mean Fox News will not be allowed to have any part of it. A DNC-sanctioned debate will probably involve Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Wolf Blitzer, or Helen Thomas. No questions will be allowed on Hillary's graduate thesis at Wellesley, showing her metamorphosis from a Goldwater Republican to an extremist Leftist collectivist who prefers European styled Socialism to American free enterprise.

In addition, no questions would be raised concerning Obama's connections to extremists in Islam (even his own pastor questioned his ties to Islam when Obama joined the United Church of Christ--another ultra-Leftwing outfit that takes every opportunity possible to bash America). And of course, a DNC-sanctioned event would involve absolutely no questions about the fact that Obama has the most Liberal voting record in the Senate--even more so than Ted 'Senator Blowhard' Kennedy.

Hillary would also be given a pass on her enormous dark cloud of corruption that follows her and her husband wherever they go.

My friends, what if Newt Gingrich were to say, 'I will not appear at any debate except that which is sanctioned by the Republican National Committee?'

Or what if Rudy Giuliani were to say, 'I will appear only at debates sponsored by Fox News?'

What do you think would be the response of the mainstream media to such statements on the part of Republicans?

I can tell you it would dominate the news for months. Charles Gibson and his colleagues at the other networks would see to that.

Yet this is the 2nd time--read that again, the SECOND TIME--the Democrat cowards have refused to appear at a debate involving Fox News.

If the mainstream media allows these clowns to get away with this without sounding the clarion alarm about how candidates are ducking the hard questions, then there will be even more ample proof that they are in the hip-pocket of the DNC and the Democratic candidates.

Of course, we knew that anyway. We already know for a fact that George Soros paid them off and met with them regularly during the 2006 election cycle to talk with them about pushing stories that made Bush look bad and squelching stories that made him look good.

It is obvious that the cowardly lame-brains that make up the field of Democratic candidates this year want nothing but soft-peddled questions. They want to dictate what will and will not be asked. They want to avoid pointed questions that shine the spotlight on their glaring faults, contradictions, and extremist ideology.

In short, they are yellow-bellied cowards that don't even have the guts to face Fox News! So, tell me, how in the HELL will they muster up the courage to face Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il?

LIBERTY ALERT! ALL CHARGES TO BE DROPPED IN DUKE RAPE SCANDAL

Durham, NC (TLS). The Liberty Sphere has learned that all charges are to be dropped against the three accused students in the Duke lacrosse rape scandal. Paul Caulfield, writer for Inside Lacrosse Magazine, told FOX NEWS today that sources close to the case state that all of the remaining charges against the three students are to be dropped within the next few days.

Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong had already dropped the charges of rape when the accuser changed her story about what happened for a 2nd or 3rd time. But charges remained against the three for kidnapping and unspecified sex crimes.

Caulfield stated that his sources were not only defense attorneys in the case but others who would have the inside scoop on what to expect.

While Caulfield refused to specify who, exactly, provided him with this information, he implied that the information came from both the defense AND the prosecution. The North Carolina Bar had issued a scathing report in a brief filed this week on Mike Nifong, who is now a defendant charged with ethics violations, prosecutorial misconduct, and lying to the court.

In that brief the Bar expressed incredulity toward Nifong's defense of his behavior, which consisted of using previous erroneous statements to prove that he had not lied to the court.

In short, Nifong claims he did not lie by pointing to previous lies before the court--a most curious line of reasoning given that trying to prove one's trustworthiness by pointing to previous lies certainly doesn't help one's case.

The brief filed by the Bar has perhaps given us a foreshadowing of things to come, namely, that Nifong faces an uphill battle at best in coming out of this thing unscathed. Further, if records show that the accusers made false charges and that Nifong mishandled those false charges, then civil litigation on the part of the families of the three students is almost a certainty.

Taking the long view, that one brief filed by the North Carolina Bar this week may well be the signal of the end to this long nightmare. The predictions made by sources who spoke to
Paul Caulfield may be the confirmation of the broad speculation that the poignant words of the Bar concerning Nifong's behavior could well be the long-awaited sign that the North Carolina judicial system is finally ready to rid the state of this stain on its reputation.

We can only hope that Caulfield is right.