National Public Radio or National Progressive Tadio

Being the open minded Conservative that I am, I listen to NPR daily. I am fully aware NPR is a left leaning radio enterprise, and have no illusions of them being anything but liberal. However I’m convinced it never hurts to get a different perspective on things; in fact it’s healthy to hear views that differ from your own. It keeps you from being close-minded.

I enjoy the music, the shows, and some of the stories they broadcast, I can easily cope with their global warming dribble, but I cannot help but notice NPR has become more left-leaning than in times past. Their stories even border on free advertising for candidates and causes of their choice.

Just a couple of stories to prove my point; on 7/29 there was as story about the coming battle for the Senate seat in Georgia .

Instead of focusing equally on both candidates, the story was a glowing endorsement for Michelle Nunn, the daughter of the well-known Sam Nunn former Senator from the state of Ga. This is Nunn’s first run at public office, and other than being the daughter of a former Senator, what qualifications does Ms. Nunn possess that would make her a good representative of the people of Georgia?

Qualifications (or lack there of) mattered little to NPR, Nunn is a liberal democrat, NPR is a left leaning organization, so maybe NPR felt ‘obligated’ give Ms. Nunn some free advertisement – a glowing story – on national radio. What better way to skirt the limits one can contribute to a political campaign than free publicity?

Exactly how much does advertising on the radio on a national scale cost? According to Cabrillo.edu  “National Radio cost is $5,000-10,000 per 60 seconds.” So if a particular candidate is in NPR’s good graces (shares the same political views), and NPR does a 5 minute story on their campaign, that turns out to be a $50,000 campaign donation the candidate doesn’t have to list on the contribution ledger. If NPR decides to do several stories on the same person, the value of the publicity becomes obvious.

The real story in this particular Senate race is the Tea-Party candidate David Perdue. NPR blew past this fact in their story, only mentioning David Perdue as surviving a ‘bruising’ primary race. It was a ‘bruising’ primary between the Republican establishment and a Tea Party candidate. Tea Party candidates are gaining ground on the right side of the isle, even though Harry Reid said “the Tea Party is dead.

The format is always the same with NPR; the reporter begins the story, or interview, bashing the right – then goes into the rest of the story justifying the liberal position for some 10 minutes or so. “That crazy Tea Party guy going up against the morally superior Ms. Nunn who stands for social justice and the right way to do things” seems to be the theme here.

People are tired of politics as usual, on both sides of the Isle, and the Tea Party is offering new-comers, who seem to be interested in fixing things, not just offering lip service. That is the real story of this Senate race in Georgia. David Perdue, an experienced businessman fought through the bruising primary, while Michelle Nunn road her father’s name to a cozy post in a non-profit organization – in short a high class community organizer.

Nunn, an unknown liberal, and unsoiled by the last 6 years of Obama, going against a Tea Party candidate, is the real story here. But NPR focuses on Nunn more than the contest. It’s already been established how much money this much advertising would have cost the Nunn campaign if they had to purchase the time. NPR gave it to the Nunn campaign for free. That’s the reason I don’t donate to NPR. They operate in the interest of the Progressive Movement not the ‘public.’

One would think NPR (National Public Radio) would give both sides, both parties equal time, equal grace, and a neutral opinion, but such is not the case. One would think National Public Radio would represent equally the opinions of the ‘public.’ But alas National Progressive Radio seems to be a more accurate definition of NPR than does National Public Radio.

My second example is the story on Hillary Clinton’s book tour  by Mara Liasson. You’ve probably seen Ms. Liasson on Fox News, appearing to be middle of the road (fair and balanced) but a liberal to the core. As was her puff-piece on the Clinton book tour.
Puff-piece is a fair description of Ms. Clinton’s failed book tour. Hillary’s book sales were around 85,000 in the first week of release (#1 on the NYT best seller list), then nose-dived to 48,000 the 2nd week. That sounds like crash and burn to me. Hell, I saw the book on sale at Sam’s Wholesale club two weeks ago (a month after the initial release). This book’s appeal sank faster than the Titanic.

Does anyone but the staff at NPR think Hillary’s book was the huge success it was being portrayed as in this story? No. But again National Progressive Radio gave Ms. Clinton a glowing review, even highlighting the books title “Hard Choices,” as indicative of what a great President, albeit a poor candidate, she would make.

I began laughing out loud at this point in the story, wondering if any of those ‘hard choices’ had anything to do with choosing the YouTube video to blame Benghazi on.

Maybe it was supporting the $70,000 apology campaign video put together by the Obama Administration. Maybe one of those ‘hard choices’ was the failure to address any questions about her claim of being broke, yet her and Bill collecting millions of dollars in speaking engagement fees.

The Clinton book tour is a flop. You can paint it any color you want, but a flop is a flop, no matter what color. I bet the publisher is currently worried if they will even make enough from book sales to cover the advance they paid Ms. Clinton.

Back to the point; NPR is all too ready to do puff pieces on Liberal candidates, thereby giving them tens of thousands of dollars of free national advertising, while the stories done on Conservatives are short and full of snide implications. If the Tea Party is mentioned at all it is done in a derogatory fashion.

There are links to the stories sited in the article, listen for yourself. Then decide for yourself. I could site several stories weekly, but you get the point.

Take your pick – National Progressive Radio or National Public Radio. Enjoy yourself while listening, just be aware their programming (except for the music) is liberal through and through.

 

The Flexibility Or Weakness of Obama

Remember this?

 

This little agreement between President Obama and Vladimir Putin (March 2012) yielded this result a short year later (3/15/2013). Newly elected president Obama pulled the plug on the 4th phase of a missile defense system in Poland.

This was not the first time Obama had canceled missile defense deployment in Europe; the first time was in 2009, during his first year as President.

The first year of both terms the president took the liberty of weakening Europe’s missile defenses. Each time these cancelations took place with little fan-fair, but this time with consequences.

Was the Russian encroachment into Crimea part of the deal that Obama indicated he ‘would have more flexibility’ in? Or was it yet another foreign policy weakness of this administration exposed? Or was it both?

In either event, people’s lives are at risk, and those lives are at risk, in part anyway, because this administration has failed.

So when you hear Obama say this

 

Do you believe him? Do you think the Russians believe him? Do you think anyone on the world stage believes him?

I doubt it.

Since the primary function of the commander in chief is to protect this nation against any and all enemies, how safe do you feel? It’s one thing to support a president that hands out domestic freebies to his constituents, it’s quite another to support a president who is putting our national security, your life, at risk.

 

Europe has lost the missile shield; Russia has Edwin Snowden, and will soon install a puppet government in Crimea, all because of the flexibility of this president.

What security have we already lost, and how much more will we lose in the future?

It wasn’t too many years ago that a very popular, and flexible Bill Clinton had the opportunity to collect Osama Bin Laden from a country willing to hand him over.

Clinton ignored the opportunity, perhaps too busy enjoying his domestic popularity and Bin Laden disappeared.

Of course that little mistake culminated in 9/11. 9/11, a day that would mark history with the largest single day loss of American life, eclipsing the loss of American life at Pearl Harbor.

What will the ‘flexibility’ or weakness of this president hold in store for our future security, or lack thereof?