What's with Some New Yorkers? When It's Not Horse Head or Dead Fish Messages, They're Hacking Off an Animal's Hoof to Send in the Mail as a Warning!!

We've seen this scene repeated over and over through recent history in the Empire State. First we saw fast-talking, bombastic Hollywood film producer Jack Woltz and his prized $600,000 race horse Khartoum, whom Woltz decided not to race and instead put him out to stud.

Then some deranged mob boss with cotton balls in his jowls (half a continent away in New York) had the beloved Khartoum beheaded, with the old nag's melon mysteriously showing up under Woltz's bed covers (making for quite the 6 a.m. wake-up call, BTW). All that just because the brash Woltz was not a man in a position to be made to look ridiculous. He ain't no band leader, after all.

Next it was the curious case of one Luca Brasi (he lived on the second floor, but wasn't a second story guy). Always a New York muscle man (and quite the pro wrestler under the moniker of The Zebra Kid) and never known for his flaming wit, the "scary guy" was nevertheless enlisted by the supposedly wise Don to go undercover and pull a con job on the murderous Tattaglia brothers.

Seeing right through Brasi's subterfuge (couldn't see that coming), the Tattaglias promptly pinned Brasi's hand to a bar counter with a knife and guillotined the life right out of the fat man from behind. After tossing Brasi's obese hide in the East River, the brazen brothers sent the Don a Sicilian message: A couple of dead fish wrapped inside Luca's bulletproof vest. The warning imparted: "Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes."

But that wasn't the end of the animal abuse. In the decades that followed, Queens resident Tommy DeVito and his friends hit a deer one night on the New Jersey Turnpike. The poor animal got stuck in the car's grill, resulting in a late night visit to the home of Tommy's mama, Catherine Scorsese.

Tommy needed to borrow a giant butcher knife to hack off the deer's hoof (or is it a paw?) and get it the hell out of the car grill. While one man looked one way, and the other man looked the other way, Tommy BTW drafted the big butcher knife into double duty, using it to polish off made man Billy Batts, who just happened to be resting for a spell in the car's trunk. That's when Tommy's BF Henry knew he'd gone from rags to riches (or not).

All of that background now exhaustively detailed, we get to today's news (talk about a NON-inverted pyramid) involving some slimeball hacking off a pig hoof (or is it a paw? foot?) and sending the bloody appendage through first class U.S. mail to one New York U.S. representative and republican Peter King (link to full story at bottom).

King in March led the controversial congressional hearings on the development of radicals within the Muslim-American community, giving people antagonistic to those hearings a motive to pull off the hog hack job that was posted to King.

The very latest tonight is that a note accompanying the swine hoof "contained anti-Semetic ramblings" and "referenced" the hearings, which would appear to make it quite possible that this Perhaps Meccan Message came from none other than some demented individual within the American Muslim community.

But that didn't stop the Council on American-Islamic Relations from actually trying to blame the sloven bloody slab on some right-wing extremist accidentally sending the "message" to the wrong target, i.e. King:

"My guess is it was an anti-Muslim bigot, and bigots not being brain surgeons they probably got their signals crossed," said some braintrust called Ibrahim Hooper (any relation to Tobe or Sonney?) from the Council. Well, bigots aren't the only ones limited in their brain surgery propensities, Mr. Hooper.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20050620-10391695.html

[Postscript: If you were expecting me to use this space today to weigh in on the University of Missouri's shockingly disappointing hiring of some person named Harth or Haith or Faith or whatever from Miami to be Mediocrity University's new head basketball coach, then look somewhere else. After years of being a fan who feels like a snake bite victim caught in an endless loop, I am now done with Missouri sports. Life's way too short.]

Mine, Baby, Mine! As Fair & Balanced As Moammar Ghadafi on a Tightrope: A Classic Coal Case This Past Weekend of Fox News' Right-Wing Slant…

As a person who constantly calls out the left-wing slant of the so-called "mainstream" media, I also get sick & tired of Fox News claiming (example link at bottom) that while its evening show hosts may slant to the right, the network's regular news coverage does not. Phooey! An example from Sunday:

It was seemingly a rather innocent story that I just happened to view as background noise as I was working on a brief. It was titled onscreen as "Coal Industry Gets Boost Over Nuclear Power Concerns." Only problem? There was absolutely nothing in the story supporting the proposition that the coal industry is actually going to "get a boost" through increased coal demand because of "concerns" over nuclear power following the Japanese earthquake and tsunami.

Instead, first they trotted out some coal company executive who said his company was expanding. The dude made no reference to this generic expansion being in any way attributable to concerns over nuclear power or even being because of increased demand. Hell, for all we know, his company has been doing well in recent years and now they're looking to expand. Who the hell knows?

Next Fox wheels out some purported "expert" talking head who speculates that American coal exports will be increasing in years to come, but the guy doesn't tie that to nuclear concerns. He didn't say anything about such a link. As a matter of fact, no one in the story did say anything about such a link except for the reporter. Of course, there was the obligatory reference to Obama's minions revoking coal mining licenses in Kentucky and West Virginia.

This is not journalism. This is raising innuendo and purposefully supporting a political view that you espouse (here, that overbearing Obama coal regulation is bad and may threaten this alleged new wave of coal demand) through a story that has no real substance to it. That's called advocacy. There's nothing journalistic about it.

So please realize that when I rail on the so-called "mainstream" media, I recognize that Fox News is no better. All peas in the same partisan pods. Only a blinded and/or disingenuous partisan ideologue would argue otherwise.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-01-fox-news_x.htm

NATO Forces Kill Almost Two Dozen Libyan Rebels & Civilians in the Past 48 Hours: Their Blood Is on Your Hands, Mr. President.

On your hands, Mr. Obama, especially since 20 percenter leftists such as yourself went around for years saying that the blood of those killed in that bullshit war in Iraq was on Bush's hands (which it was, BTW). What's good for the Bush is good for the leftist, methinks. And I thought the idea was to kill Moammar Ghadafi's troops, not the rebel ones?

First on Friday seven Libyan civilians were accidentally killed (so-called "collateral damage") by NATO bombardament. Then today came the news that at least 13 (15 or more by some reports, such as the linked one) Libyan rebels were accidentally killed by bombing from a NATO plane. (Link to full story at bottom).

I'm clearly on record on this blog that my standard for getting involved in wars and/or military operations in foreign countries is that the involvement be absolutely necessary. And Libya ain't it. Not even close. Now we're over there killing innocent civilians as well as the same rebels we're allegedly there to help.

Maybe Obama can trot out Secretary of War Gates again to try to explain away these latest innocent killings as "Ghadafi placing corpses at the scene of bombings to make it look like people were killed." Pathetic. Can you imagine the left-slanting "mainstream" media backlash if that idiot Bush had tried to put one over like that on the collateral deaths in Iraq?

It's time to get us the hell out of there, Mr. Obama. And I mean all the way out, not simply relinquishing some of our operations to other NATO forces. But I know you won't do that.

Because you're an absolute hypocrite, the same as most of your fellow 20 percenter leftists (the tiny swath of the country whom you actually represent, Mr. President): If a democrat party member holds the White House, most of the leftist 20 percenters either remain silent or actually try to defend the president when he engages in warfare and efforts at neoconservative-style regime change.

But if a republican is in the White House, katy bar the damn door! They go ape$hit in the streets! Slimeball stuff.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nato-forces-kill-15-libya-rebels/story?id=13282016&page=1

Taking Tree Huggin' to Whole New Heights, An Environmentalist Circus Clown Shinnies Her Way Up a Tree, Clowns Around, & Refuses to Come Down!

If she'd been Doink the evil wrestling clown (pictured immediately above), she would have just clocked the local mayor one right in the kisser. But being the peace-lovin' greenie gagster that she is, she chose a different avenue of comedic expression: Scaling a tree "to protest cutting down trees."

NBC Miami reports Ana Rodriguez – the eagle-freakin' joker in the clown outfit – didn't much care for the Palm Beach, Florida, city council's decision "to allow development of [the local Briger Forest] for a Scripps Research lab." Not by a flower-lapel water (errr, long) shot.

Now while your average circus clown might take the ordinary civilian route of calling councilmen, writing them letters, or showing up at city council meetings, Rodriguez had a different form of dissent in mind: Climbing a big tree and refusing to come down. What else was she gonna do, right!?

But this prankster preservationist does take after Doink in one respect: Employing the menacing "sad clown" look instead of your garden-variety gleeful clown get-up (which is SO circus clown last summer).

Indeed, the linked report indicates that Rodriguez is quite the ecological exhibitionist, calling the media in advance of her treehuggin' romp in the forest. She even clumb the ol' tree with a protest sign in tow that read, "Dead Forests are no joke." (Personally, I would have used, "Dead Forests are no laughing matter.").

But this madcap naturalist started to run afoul of the law (allegedly) when she refused to make her way down from her nest-side perch and instead forced the local fire department to scurry to the scene, fire up one of its big lift contraptions, and forcibly remove this nature lovin' jester from her birdseye pulpit. (Cops were down there on the ground, BTW, to slap the ol' cuffs on this zany tree-drolling luddite faster than you can say pine-lovin' picador.)

Shockingly absent from the news accounts of this story are any quotes from those firefighters! I mean this a fertile area of material. I'm thinking a question such as, "You guys often get called to a scene to pull a cat down from a tree, but did you ever think you'd get here today to find a stubborn, deranged circus clown up there?"

As for Rodriguez, now this granola snarfin' jokester may have to run her next set of conservationist cut-up antics in the Fun House, as she reportedly may face a bit of hard time in the harlequin hoosegow on charges of trespassing and "resisting arrest without violence." I wonder if they have any trees in "the yard"?

http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Protestor-Fights-Tree-Cutting-In-Clown-Makeup-119063639.html

SHOCK: New Poll Shows that Either Gary Busey or Kate Gosselin Would Win Three-Way 2012 Presidential Race with Obama and Sarah Palin!

...This according to a new Rasmussen poll this week. I suppose that given Obama's recent deflated poll (even despite his hot, yet overbearing, wife) and Palin's in-the-tank polling numbers for the past several months, perhaps crazy polling data like the new Rasmussen result shouldn't come as such a big shocker.

But STILL: Gary Busey?!? Dude's nuttier than a Christmas (am I still allowed to use that term in the United States, BTW?) fruitcake! More demented than 30 days solitary confinement in a Mississippi $hithouse! More out there than John Hinckley on holiday on the planet Neptune. More bananas than even a gorilla would eat. More crackers would go really great with my Wendy's chili, thank you. [Sorry, I'm in the drive through at the moment.]

And how about Kate Freakin' Gosselin in that new poll?!? She makes Palin's Diva Ways look like Sandy Olsson at Frenchy's slumber party. She makes Obama's arrogance and condescension look like Kwai Chang Caine bowing down to Master Po. She makes very little food, and even less love, reportedly.

All that being said, I guess whom better to take on a deranged right-winger like Palin and a loony left-winger like Obama than a madman straight out the funny farm and an extremely high maintenance reality star straight out the snake pit, no?

And where in the hell is Rasmussen drawing its polling sample from anyway, BTW? The local nuthouse? Yeah, that's real scientific, there, Rasmussen.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/03/31/no_joke_april_fools_snowstorm_heads_to_mass/

"Obama's Approval Hits New Low" While "Hillary Nears All-Time High": Might We See a Clinton Primary Challenge to Obama in 2012?

It was pretty obvious back in early 2009. Obama brought in political enemy Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state as a rough equivalent to the oft-stated principle from the Godfather pictures -- "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." But how long will it last?

According to new Gallup polling -- and despite Hillary in my estimation looking just as lost on the Libyan war as Obama himself -- Hillary's on an "all-time high" like Rita Coolidge in an obscure 007 flick:

"Clinton's favorable rating from Americans is now 66%, up from 61% in July 2010 and her highest rating to date while serving in the Obama administration. The current rating is just one percentage point below her all-time high rating of 67%, from December 1998 [following the Bill/Monica Lewinsky scandal]."

But not such good news for the president, as Obama's poll is definitely not rising, even given Michelle's general attractiveness. As Politico.com reports this week on a new Quinnipiac University poll:

"Half of registered voters surveyed for the poll think that the president does not deserve a second term in office, while 41% say he does. In another Quinnipiac poll released just four weeks ago, 45% said the president did not deserve reelection, while 47% said he did."

The 41% number is a "record low" for Obama, says Politico. [Interestingly, the Gallup polling data puts Obama's approval rating at above 50%, which on its face would not seem to jive with the Quinnipiac poll. However, my assumption is that the discrepancy has a hell of a lot to do with the fact that Quinnipiac polled registered voters, while it doesn't appear that Gallup imposed such a restriction (polling "Americans" in general, apparently.]

All of this new polling begs the question raised more than once before: Would Hillary consider a 2012 democrat party primary challenge from Obama's "right"? It still remains unlikely, and would presumably require Clinton (sooner rather than later) to resign as secretary of state (the enemy fleeing the gates, so to speak).

But if Obama's approval rating with registered voters continues to linger well under 50% in the months to come, he suddenly becomes very vulnerable in the general election despite (1) the huge inherent advantage he has in that election as the incumbent president and (2) the fact that the likely republican challenger will come from the current odd assortment of boring white male retreads and never-weres.

If it becomes pretty clear that Obama may be more likely than not to lose in 2012, I could see Clinton seriously considering tossing her hat into the primary ring. She's previously claimed to rule out a run in 2012, but these politicians all the time change their mind on such things (and make statements taking opposite positions from the past) and are rarely held accountable for it by much of anyone (except me).

Make no mistake, I believe I'm pretty clearly on record that I don't like Clinton and don't think I could ever vote for her. Frankly, as far to the left that the democrat party of today is, I doubt I'll ever again in my life vote for a democrat (I almost always vote for third party candidates).

But if we have to have either Obama or Clinton as president and no one else, give me Clinton because while she's certainly no "moderate" in my eyes, she's also not nearly as hardcore far leftist 20 percenter as Obama. She in many ways takes after her slimeball husband (whom I once voted for, believe it or not!) in that regard:

Like her husband, Hillary is very politically calculated in every single thing she does and will act "moderate" when she feels it's in her best political interests while acting more pure leftist when she sees a political advantage to doing that. Obama's not nearly as good at this. He was good at the "moderate" act during the 2008 campaign, but his efforts to pull it off as president since the distastrous 2010 midterm elections have been lackluster at best.

In other words, Obama's no Bubba! (Or Hillary, for that matter). And that fact could just result in continued poor polling numbers that would lead a Hillary Clinton to seriously consider a primary run. As consummate politicians (very much a derogatory description in my mind, BTW) such as Clinton are fond of often saying: "I wouldn't rule it out."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146891/Hillary-Clinton-Favorable-Near-Time-High.aspx
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/52208.html

Big Dog Sen. Chuck Schumer Overheard on Phone Telling Other Dems to Label GOP Budget Cuts As "Extreme." Do They Really Think Independents Will Buy It?

The New York senator and democrat party big dog had a media conference call yesterday with some of his democrat party Senate colleagues. Not knowing that reporters were already on the line, he started talking and directing his fellow democrats to start following a strategy of incessantly labeling as "extreme" and "draconian" anything that republicans propose in terms of federal budget cuts. He indicated that this is the new strategy of the Senate democrat party caucus. (Link to full story at bottom).

About a minute into this little impromptu strategy session, Schumer was apparently made aware that reporters were already on the call. In what must have been quite hilarious for the reporters to hear, a deafening silence ensued for a short period of time. Then the call got going, with the democrats reportedly taking Schumer's direction almost immediately, complete with references to the "extreme right wing" from deranged California senator Barbara Boxer.

This story has made quite the rounds on the net over the past 24 hours, but here's my initial reaction and first question: What's shocking or surprising about this democrat party strategy when it comes to opposing GOP budget cut proposals? Of course they're going to try to label them as "extreme." Most of our pathetic political discourse in this country has devolved into non-substantive efforts to make the other party or other candidate look "more extreme than we are." Yawn.

But this gets to my second question, as raised at the top: Does the democrat party really think the tired old strategy of labeling the other side as "extreme" is really going to work on Independents when it comes to proposed budget cuts given the current climate in the country? I'm actually asking a serious question.

Apparently the democrat party does believe such messaging will work or they wouldn't be using it. And I frankly have no idea how successful it might be with my fellow Independents. Maybe a lot of them will buy into that, who knows. After all, Independents (me not among them) put Obama's behind in office in 2008 after so many bought his disingenuous "moderate" act.

Without at least some polling data to look at, I can only speak for myself on the issue. And I have to say, any democrat who tries to tell me that just about any cut to the federal budget is too "extreme" or "draconian" right now is going to be ringing extremely hollow. It'll just fall on deaf ears. And I'll have a very simple five-word response: $14.2 Trillion. What's your plan?

(And sorry, firing up the ol' printing press ain't a viable retort).

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/sen_chuck_schumer_calls_gop_extreme_g3aZDBU7DoCH8KrC4YMEpL

Speaking of Hypocrites: Fat Tub of Goo Socialist Dictator Hugo Chavez Tells His People to Cut Their Calories & Boob Jobs. He & Michelle Should Lunch.

After all, the First Lady loves to lecture us about our diets, and I bet she doesn't approve of boob jobs either. She and the fat ass Hugo should sit down for lunch to discuss those topics over plates of tree bark, spinach leaves and muskmelon, methinks. Whom better to learn from, after all, about how to best go about controlling every aspect of a population's private lives than a bona fide leftist authoritarian dictator?

Chavez has reportedly long railed against his people's cholesterol levels and alcohol consumption. His latest pronouncements concerning the diets of his Venezuelan subjects came during a speech on Sunday. Warning Venezuelans that they need to cut their calorie intake, this goof ranted, "Be careful with weight gain! . . . Be careful with obesity!"

This big boob has also reportedly been crusading against fake boobs in recent weeks, at one point trying to take Venezuelan doctors to task for allegedly "convincing women, many women - not all of them - that if they don't have big bosoms, they should feel bad."

And boob jobs are apparently all the rage in the socialist country. Reports the AP: "Breast enlargement is widely popular in image-conscious Venezuela, where newspapers publish advertisements from clinics offering breast implants on credit and beauty pageant contestants often undergo plastic surgery."

It's even gone so far that last year one Venezuelan politician reportedly offered up a pair of breast implants as the grand prize in a raffle organized to raise money for his campaign! No word yet how that little stunt sat with leftist dictator Chavez.

And finally, of course, no rant or series of rants from that buffoon would be complete without a healthy dose of some deranged anti-capitalism rhetoric. Chavez reportedly took that topic to all-new lows (even by his standards) last week when he suggested that capitalism was to blame for destroying all life on the planet Mars! But does he really need to take it quite that far? Why not just blame it on boob jobs and cheeseburgers?

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_VENEZUELA_CHAVEZ?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-27-20-03-25

Obama's Minions at "Media Matters" Go Nixonian, Much Like Their Illustrious Leader, in "War of Sabotage" and Building Enemy Files Against Fox News...

...like Leader, like Lackeys, I suppose.

[Preface: This kind of stuff is extremely spooky. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't be blogging about it. I'm not in the business of being partisan (since I disdain partisans on both sides) or trying to make mountains out of mole hills. We have the leftist 20 percenters and deranged right-wingers for that purpose.]

He's not shy about it. I'll give him that. The founder of leftist 20 percenter group "Media Matters," David Brock (pictured immediately above), says his organization is upping the ol' ante against Fox News Channel. He says he and his fellow leftists at Media Matters are embarking on a new "all-out campaign" of "guerilla warfare and sabotage" against Fox News. (Link to Politico.com's full story at bottom).

Politico.com reports over the weekend that "the group, launched as a more traditional media critic, has all but abandoned its monitoring of newspapers and other television networks and is narrowing its focus to Fox and a handful of conservative websites." Politico says this represents a "shift from media critic to a new species of political animal."

Says Media Matters' Brock: "The strategy we had had toward Fox was basically a strategy of containment. [The new strategy is] war on Fox."

Indeed. This new strategy reads like a Nixonian playbook, complete with building files on "enemies," sending out goons to bother private citizens in their own homes, trying to sick regulators on people to shut them up, and other assorted dirty tricks that might be described as making Nixon’s henchmen look like garden-variety amateurs. More on all of that in a minute. But first, a little background to this sort of mindset is necessary:

The Nixonian Mindset of Today’s American Leftists

We've seen it on full display almost from Day 1 when it comes to the ultimate leader of the leftists, Barack Obama: Rhetoric and tactics reminiscent of the notorious "dirty tricks" famously employed by the administration of Richard M. Nixon in the late 1960's and early-to-mid 1970's.

These sorts of tactics and rhetoric are an affront to all common decency, not to mention to the basic freedoms we enjoy as citizens of the United States of America. To wit (and as documented in the archives of this blog):

-August 5, 2009: Obama's administration encourages Americans to report to the White House anyone viewed as having a "fishy" opinion on the democrat party's health care monstrosity.

-December 18, 2009: Obama threatens democrat party congressman Peter DeFazio by telling him, "Don't think we're not keeping score, brother!" Put another way: You better toe the line even when I don't do every single thing you fellow far leftists want, or else there will be real political consequences for you.

-January 29, 2010: Obama crows, "I am NOT an ideologue!" Much like when Nixon famously spouted, "I am NOT a crook," the proclamation rang completely hollow.

-August 18, 2010: Obama's leftist-in-arms and then Creature of the House, Nancy Pelosi, called for any investigation of those opposed to the building of the Ground Zero mosque. Translation: Shut the people up with whom I disagree by sicking government regulators on them (very similar to one tactic in the new Media Matters strategy, as documented below).

-December 10, 2010: Deranged right-winger Karl Rove accuses the Obama administration of compiling an "enemies list" just like Nixon did.

-December 26, 2010: Obama calls his critics "enemies," again conjuring up images of Nixon’s infamous "enemies list."

Media Matters' Master Plan

With that background in mind, check out the full-on Nixon-style full-court press that Media Matters is planning against Fox News (my thoughts on the right-slanting Fox News are set forth further below). Suffice it to say that there's a lot of "assembling" goin' on. As Politico.com reports and as Media Matters freely admits:

-Media Matters is "assembling opposition research files not only on Fox's top executives but on a series of midlevel officials." This will involve "conducting 'opposition research' on a dozen or so 'mid and senior-level execs and producers,' " including "recording their public appearances and digging into public records associated with them."

-"The group is assembling a legal team to help people who have clashed with Fox to file lawsuits for defamation, invasion of privacy or other causes.” [BTW, if Fox has defamed or invaded the privacy of someone, why does that person need some leftist group to help them sue? They don't, of course. Instead, this part of the strategy appears squarely concocted to manufacture lawsuits of limited or no merit against Fox News.]

-Media Matters "has hired two experienced reporters [a very loose use of that term], Joe Strupp and Alexander Zaitchik [Woodward and Bernstein, they are not], to dig into Fox's operation and to help assemble a book on the network, due out in 2012 from Vintage/Anchor."

-Media Matters "has hired an activist who led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid [demented right-winger] Glenn Beck's show” on Fox. [Actually, the Beck angle is very difficult for me to criticize a whole hell of a lot. That demented freak is totally loony tunes. I've frankly wondered where in the hell he's gotten his audience, from the beginning.]

-"Media Matters also plans to run a broad campaign against Fox's parent company, News Corp, an effort which most likely will involve opening a United Kingdom arm in London to attack the company's interests there."

-In connection with that aspect of the new strategy, Media Matters has "hired an executive from [radical far leftist website] Move.On.org . . . and also is looking for ways to turn regulators [see my Nixonian Mindset section above] in the U.S., U.K., and elsewhere against the network."

-Media Matters "will focus on [News Corp CEO and Fox head man Rupert] Murdoch and try to disrupt his commercial interests – whether that be here or . . . in London."

-The involvement in Media Matters of radical leftist interests such as MoveOn.org is not isolated. The group currently operates on a $10 million annual budget, one-tenth of which is bankrolled by far leftist moneyman George Soros, Politico.com reports.

-Just for good measure, Media Matters intends to engage in a "broader project to take advantage of internal dissent" at Fox News. Says Media Matters: "We made a list of every single person who works for Fox . . . and we went out to try to meet them.” [That sort of thing is purely Nixonian. Nice job, Media Matters!]

Slimeball Stuff

I'm on record on this blog probably dozens of times before: Fox News slants to the right and should be ashamed of itself for doing so and still holding itself out to the public as a legitimate news organization.

The very same criticism applies equally to all of the left-slanting so-called "mainstream media" outlets (although there's nothing "mainstream" about them) such as MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS and all of the left-wing newspapers such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post. So where's the Nixonian effort aimed at all of those so-called "news" organizations?

I had to laugh out loud (literally) at Media Matters' purported justification for its new Nixonian strategy towards Fox News. Said Media Matters: "Fox News is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public."

AS IF any of the left-slanting and left-leaning media outlets are any different from Fox News in that regard! Nope, to the out-of-touch American 20 percenter leftist, morality is only to be applied to right-wingers. But when it comes to them (the leftist 20 percenters), any tactic, any strategy, any word or action, is justified so long as it tends to support the leftist cause. But if a right-winger does the same thing, it's wrong. Hypocrites, to the last. (And very dangerous ones at that).

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51949.html

"ROCK CHALK SHOCK"! "This Is One of the Most Shocking Upsets that We've Ever Seen in the NCAA Tournament": VCU 71, Kansas 61.

Those were the words of television analyst Steve Kerr as lightly regarded #11 seed Virginia Commonwealth University roughed up, shocked and upset #1 seed Kansas ("KU") today by double digits to go to the Final Four. (Link to full story at bottom).

Fittingly, snow currently falls heavily on this late March day in both Lawrence, Kansas and in Kansas City, much like VCU (a team which barely even made the NCAA tournament) snowed all over KU's road to the Final Four. Two things seem fairly apparent to me. First, KU appears to have taken VCU lightly. They probably paid way too much attention to the fact that VCU lost earlier this season to Richmond -- a team that KU pounded earlier in the Sweet 16 round of the tournament a few days ago.

Second, KU choked. The jayhawkers went a pathetic 2 for 21 from three-point range. And they shot a paltry 53% (15 for 28) from the free throw line. That's called letting the pressure of the moment get to you.

And I wonder whether there will now be any questions about KU's highly compensated head coach, Bill Self? Yes, Self has his one national championship from 2008, but the fact remains that apart from that one year, Self has never gone to a Final Four. Take away 2008, and Self is sort of Kansas version of the old Missouri head coach, Norm Stewart: Great in the regular season but Mr. Elite 8 when it comes to the NCAA Tournament.

Self now has exactly the same number of Final Four appearances (one) as VCU's young upstart head coach, Shaka Smart. And Self has fewer Final Four appearances than the mid-major head coach at Butler, Brad Stevens (who now has two).

Of course, the obvious retort of KU Fan to a Missouri guy saying these things would be to say, "that's still one more than Missouri has." True enough. But Missouri isn't thought of as one of the "elite" college basketball programs, and Missouri doesn't have one of the most highly paid head coaches in college basketball. Food for thought.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/42296683/ns/sports-college_basketball/