-By Warner Todd Huston

Well, we keep seeing the Old Media blasting (or trying to) John McCain's bold choice for his vice president, Sarah Palin. They keep pretending that Palin has no "experience." Of course, they refuse to say a word about Barry Hussein Obama's thin resume, but hey... THAT'S why they are the Media. To take the side of the far left.

Still, I thought it might be interesting to see Barry's record next to Sarah's. Now, remember, Barry is the guy that the extremists on the left say is "qualified" to be the actual president and Palin is only running for vice president.

Barack Obama:

Age: 47

Family:

• Wife: Michelle
• 2 Children: Malia, Sasha.

Education:

• B.A. Political Science/International Relations, Columbia University, 1983
• J.D. Harvard Law School, 1991
• Editor of Harvard Law Review

Political Experience:

• State Senator, Illinois, 1996-2004
• No initiatives or legislation of notice, many non-votes and little by way of a record
• U.S. Senator, Illinois, 2005-present
• No initiatives or legislation of notice, little time spent in Washington as he's been running for president since 2004

Professional Experience:

• Senior Lecturer, Constitutional Law, University of Chicago, 1992-2004
• Never tenured and wrote no scholarly papers
• Attorney, Miner Barnhill & Galland, 1993-2004
• Never became a partner
• "Community Organizer"
• Responsible for no major initiatives or programs

Summary:

Never achieved any major accomplishment after Harvard. Was not a leader of extraordinary courage, did not reach across the aisle, and was responsible for no major initiatives that changed the corrupt Chicago way of business. Never owned a business, has no executive experience at all.

Sarah Palin

Age: 44

Family:

• Husband: Todd
• 5 Children: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, Trig

Education:

• B.S. Journalism, Minor Political Science University of Idaho, 1987

Political Experience:

• Former Council Member of Wasilla City Council, Alaska
• Fought wasteful spending and high taxes
• Former Mayor of Wasilla City, Alaska
• Led the fight against cronyism and wasteful spending
• Candidate, Lieutenant Governor, Alaska, 2002 (Came in 2nd)
• Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 2003 - 2004
• Rooted out major corruption and fought party bosses (and won)
• Governor of Alaska, 2006-present
• Beat party bosses and incumbent Gov of her own Party, ran on an anti-corruption platform
• 2008, Negotiated Alaska natural gas pipeline deal between Canada and Alaska

Professional Experience:

• First Place, Miss Wasilla Beauty Contest, 1984
• Second Place, Miss Alaska Pageant, 1984
• Television Sports Reporter, 1987-1989
• Owns commercial fishing business with husband

Summary:

Achieved much in her family life. Took on corrupt party bosses in several capacities and won. Became Governor and gained executive experience. She's had time to achieve all this before she is 50-years-old AND have 5 children! Simply astounding.

Obviously, I'd stack Palin's far more extensive experience against Barry Hussein Obama's any time. At LEAST Palin's done something. Unlike Barry who has thus far wasted his potential.

-By Warner Todd Huston On CNN's extremist leftist show "The Situation Room," Jack Cafferty had his little cage shaken again to do his poor man's impression of Keith Olbermann yesterday. He took after Sarah Palin to desperately try and defame her. All he ended up doing, though, was to show that he is a complete fool by using something against her that can be used against his OWN favorite pick as VP, Slow Joe Biden. Cafferty says of the state of Alaska: "Sarah Palin is in her first term as governor of Alaska that's a state that has 13 people and some caribou." Well, isn't that nice? To slam Alaska like that? But, wait. What about Cafferty's pick? Joe Biden, Senator for... uh... what state? Why it's that giant state, that land of towering population, the center of American Metropolises Delaware. Delaware MUST be HUGE, right Cafferty? Alaska population as of 2006: 670,053 Delaware population as of 2006: 853,904 Oops. Yeah that's a BIG difference there, Cafferty!!

-By Warner Todd Huston

Some how, the Old Media has missed the good news on Iraq. On August 27, the Rasmussen polling organization published a poll that showed American confidence is at its highest level ever in support of the War on Terror since they've begun tracking in January of 2004. This poll got little notice by the Old Media, of course, but it illustrates an issue that McCain should exploit to his benefit -- especially after Obama's acceptance speech last night.

Rasmussen found that Fifty-four percent of American voters now think that the U.S. is winning the war in Iraq and forty-eight percent think the situation will get even better in the next six months. Further, Rasmussen reports that this turn around in public opinion has been sharp when just last year only twenty-seven percent thought things were going to get better in Iraq.

Ominously for the Obama campaign, the poll also found that sixty-two percent of men agree that the U.S. is winning the War on Terror while forty-six percent of women do. Less than a quarter of women now think the terrorists are winning with just fourteen percent of men feel that way.This growing support augers against Obama's continued anti-war stance.

It all points to two salient facts: the surge worked and we've won the war in Iraq. And people are starting to notice... not that the media is.

Yet, what did Obama say concerning Iraq just the other night in his acceptance speech?

For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats that we face.

...And today, today, as my call for a timeframe to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush administration, even after we learned that Iraq has $79 billion in surplus while we are wallowing in deficit, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.

...You don't defeat -- you don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in 80 countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances.

Clearly, according to this Rasmussen poll, John McCain does not "stand alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war." The American people are by increasing numbers standing next to him in support of this effort, sensing its success.

Barack Obama is placing himself on the losing side of the Iraq war, giving succor to the enemy and clearly showing himself to misunderstand the mood of the American people. America is turning the page from its anti-war pessimism and beginning to see that George Bush's "stubbornness" was the right path to victory. Yet Obama continues down his anti-war path.

Despite the lack of reporting by the Old Media of this fact, the McCain camp should exploit this growing gap between Obama's defeatist stance and the public's growing support of the War on Terror.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Taking a look at the stories in the Old Media will show that the Media is turning attack dog ASAP on McCain's choice for vice president, Sarah Palin. Notice the main meme is her supposed "inexperience." Funny how Palin was the VP pick for about 15 seconds before the Old Media went after her "inexperience" while they have yet to hit Barry Obama on HIS inexperience at all and he's been running for president since 2004. We should also note that Palin didn't get the honeymoon that Biden got when his announcement was made. But, the worst is yet to come and the Daily Kos is doing its level best to mine the lowest of lows. In a Kos diary today, it is being alleged that Sarah Palin "faked" the pregnancy of her last child, a baby born with Down's Syndrome. The claim is that it was her teenaged daughter's child, not hers. And, true to form, the Kossacks took that absurd calumny and hate even further in the comments.

With all the pseudo gravity the Kos diarist could muster, this ridiculous story of a "cover-up" was floated for the foolish Kossacks to lap up. Inky99 gave us the scurrilous diary headlined "Palin's faked 'pregnancy'? Covering for teen daughter?," in which the Kossacks posit that Governor Palin covered up her own teenage daughter's teen pregnancy by pretending it is her own child instead of her daughter's.

But it appears that Pallin's last child, a baby with Down's syndrome, may not be hers. It may be that of her teenage daughter.

Actually, "it appears" in no way to be true. The diarist gives a story from the Anchoage Daily News that does not in any way prove the diarist's claim -- nor even broach the subject of a faked pregnancy, for that matter.

The Kos diarist then goes on to claim that the "proof" of this claim is that Palin's teenage daughter was sick and out of public eye for a few months earlier in the year.

Apparently her teenage daughter was out of school, unseen, for months, because she "had mono".

And, even if this story is true, why is it one worth pursuing? Why it's because Palin is pro-life, you see...

... seeing as how she's quite willing to butt into the private lives of every other American woman, I think it's fair game.

Yeah. Stay classy Daily Kos.

And the diary entry isn't the worst of it. The comments get more vicious as each one passes. Here are a few:

Commenter psilocynic posted, "Ethics violations out the a ss. And she covered for her unwed prego teen! this keeps getting better! History, my dear kossacks. We are watching the death of the rethugican party!"

Next concernedamerican posted a slam on Palin's commitment to her baby. "She decided not to take maternity leave with this pregnancy!!!! What's up with that? With a special needs baby?" And then went on to accept the claims without proof saying, "Kind of hypocritical to push abstinence programs in schools and then cover up your own teenage daughter's pregnancy with a lie that you had the baby yourself, dontcha think?"

Not4bushwa also assumed it was all true merely because it was posted on DailyKos, saying: "If Palin had come clean about her daughter or if McCain had vetted her more carefully and not chosen her, this would not be a story. But she didn't and he didn't. Tough luck, poor judgment, another right-wing hypocrite scandal." And later wrote, "This is a big lie. Why the excessive secrecy? So much shame for a fairly common predicament--teenage pregnancy? I wonder: Who's the father?"

Obviously, since a Kos diarist posted this garbage story, many Kossacks will simply believe it is true despite that there is no proof at all for even a single word of the accusations.

Poster sailmaker finds Motherhood so disgusting that he can't imagine a vice president doing it, posting that his "mind boggles at the idea of a lactating VP." That's classy, isn't it?

Poster Subversive really went for the gutter with, "The only thing missing from this story is that the baby wasn't Black."

Not content just to indulge in this conspiracy theory, poster TrentinaNE really went for the black helicopters. "Maybe it's a set-up to get rid of McCain. The story(ies) about Palin come out, he looks like a doofus and withdraws from the race, the Rethugs nominate Romney. Sounds implausible, I know, but I wouldn't write off anything in Roveland."

I think someone forgot their meds that morning. What a nutcase theory that was!

These are just a few of the over-the-top posts on DailyKos concerning the lies that Palin faked her pregnancy. This is the sort of garbage we see everyday from the haters and rumormongers on extremist leftist sites like Kos and the Democratic Underground, even Huffington Post, for that matter.

(Photo credit: vanityfair.com)

-By Warner Todd Huston

The folks at Yahoo News Photos section must have been greatly amused by their web page titled "Anthropology & Archaeology." The first four pictures in the slide show are various archaeological discoveries... well, except for the third one. THAT one happens to be a photo of John McCain. Yes, Yahoo seems to be saying that John McCain is an archaeological artifact! Nice ageist slap, eh?

Here's a screen shot of the original page...

The first two images in the Yahoo slideshow depict a pair of photos provided by Aristotle University of Thessaloniki of artifacts from a dig in Greece. The McCain photo, on the other hand, has a caption quoting John McCain's thoughts on the latest Indiana Jones movie. All the rest of the photos in the slideshow deal with various archaeological subjects.

Needless to say, the John Mccain photo has no place in this slide show... unless you want to make a slam on McCain for his age.

Not very subtle, Yahoo News. Not very subtle at all.

For Immediate Release John McCain Selects Alaska Governor Sarah Palin As Vice Presidential Running Mate ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain today announced that he has selected Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate and to serve as his vice president. Governor Palin is a tough executive who has demonstrated during her time in office that she is ready to be president. She has brought Republicans and Democrats together within her Administration and has a record of delivering on the change and reform that we need in Washington. Governor Palin has challenged the influence of the big oil companies while fighting for the development of new energy resources. She leads a state that matters to every one of us -- Alaska has significant energy resources and she has been a leader in the fight to make America energy independent. In Alaska, Governor Palin challenged a corrupt system and passed a landmark ethics reform bill. She has actually used her veto and cut budgetary spending. She put a stop to the "bridge to nowhere" that would have cost taxpayers $400 million dollars. As the head of Alaska's National Guard and as the mother of a soldier herself, Governor Palin understands what it takes to lead our nation and she understands the importance of supporting our troops. Governor Palin has the record of reform and bipartisanship that others can only speak of. Her experience in shaking up the status quo is exactly what is needed in Washington today.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Well, this is a great choice. Sarah Palin current Gov. of Alaska, corruption fighter, pro-life, anti-gay marriage... she even hunts and fishes.

This is a very good pick!

-By Warner Todd Huston

In New York, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein has ordered the release of eight more grand jury transcripts from the famous 1951 spy case that led to the conviction of the husband and wife pro-Soviet spy team of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. Reuters reports this story as if there is some cloud of doubt still hanging over the Rosenberg's conviction despite that their guilt is no longer debatable. Yet here is Reuters giving cover to those who stubbornly wish to cast doubt on the U.S. prosecution of the Rosenbergs. It also gives Reuters and U.S. detractors the opportunity once again smear America by raising their favorite Cold War boogie man, Joe McCarthy.

Reuters sternly tells us that,

The Rosenbergs were convicted in 1951 of passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union and executed in 1953. Rosenberg supporters describe the case as a frame-up amid anti-communist McCarthyism hysteria and Cold War fear.

It is amazing to see Reuters use every U.S. bash they could in one little paragraph. The Rosenbergs were victims of a "frame-up" because of "McCarthyism hysteria and Cold War fear." Notice how Reuters seems to forget to mention that there is no longer any doubt that the Rosenbergs were guilty, though?

In the aftermath of the 1951 trial, the Rosenberg's fellow traveling supporters always maintained that Julius and Ethel were innocent and that the era of McCarthyism railroaded these innocents to their execution in 1953. This conception casts the U.S. in the role of evil oppressor and the Soviet spies as victims. Granted, for many years the explicit guilt of the Rosenbergs was in some doubt as U.S. evidence was secreted in the grand jury testimony and other sources remained classified.

However, as time rolled on, the Rosenberg's guilt became steadily more assured as sources began to emerge to convincingly prove that Julius passed nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, his wife serving as a willing accomplice. By the 1980s information of the FBI's project Venona emerged in which declassified coded messages from the Soviet Union from the Rosenberg's era proved their guilt. Nikita Krushchev even admitted to their guilt in his posthumous 1990 autobiography.

And yet... Reuters seems to have forgotten this whole history. The fact that the Rosenbergs really were guilty seems to have been ignored in this Reuters story even as the specter of McCarthysim was used to its fullest.

So, why did Reuters leave the real, proven guilt of the Rosenbergs out of this story even as they found ample room to bring up "McCarthyism" and "Cold War fears"? Why else but to continue the myth that the Rosenbergs might have been innocent so that their prosecution and execution can continue to be used as manufactured proof that the U.S. is evil?

Instead of a proper news story, what we end up with here is Reuters once again adding its voice to continued anti-Americanism.

(Photo credit: Virginia Western Community College)

- By Warner Todd Huston

Jay Mariotti, a firebrand sports columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, announced he is quitting the print biz loudly proclaiming that newspapers are "dying" and that he didn't want to go down with the ship of the struggling industry. Naturally, the management of the Sun-Times is not amused.

Mariotti told Chicago's CBS 2 news that newspapers are in serious trouble and he wanted out before he was forced out. "It's been a tremendous experience, but I'm going to be honest with you, the profession is dying,'' Mariotti told CBS 2, "I don't think either paper [Sun-Times or Chicago Tribune] is going to survive.

"To showcase your work ... you need a stellar Web site and if a newspaper doesn't have that, you can't be stuck in the 20th century with your old newspaper.''

Jay Mariotti is one of those columnists that one either loves or hates, it seems. I hear this all the time from Chicago sports fans (among whom I do not include myself), so it isn't surprising that his quitting should be as obnoxious and loud as his writing career has thus far been. He even blamed former top execs for "looting" the Sun-Times in his CBS 2 interview.

Mariotti effectively burned his bridges, though.

Sun-Times Editor Michael Cooke said in an e-mail to CBS 2: "That's Jay's opinion. He has plenty of them. But the facts, of course, say something different. I'm going with the facts. Well, it's turning nasty ... and that's typical of Jay to throw a bomb on the way out of a place that cared for him, nurtured him, paid him well for 17 years.

Editor Cooke also threw his own dig Marittoi's way saying that he hadn't heard from any "grief-stricken fans" upon Mariotti's leaving.

Mariotti intends to focus on new web outlets and also will continue his ESPN appearances.

This incident is just one more example of the on going evolution of the news industry. Many think the print business will be left in the past and will go the way of the buggy whip. Others think that they will adapt. What ever the case, we will continue to see these growing pains as the Internet takes on more and more responsibilities of the news vending business.

(Photo credit: ESPN.com)

State labor board allows teacher to give union dues to charity that fights sex-trafficking
Union objected to the selection of this charity

http://www.effwa.org/main/article.php?article_id=2525&number=48

OLYMPIA—The Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) has ruled that Susan Wiggs, a Vancouver middle school teacher, is free to send her union dues to a charity that fights sex-trafficking, despite the union’s objections to this charity. On August 22, 2008, PERC upheld an initial ruling that said individuals who object to union membership for religious reasons are permitted to select the charity that will receive their dues.
 
In August 2005, Susan Wiggs requested to resign from the Vancouver Education Association (VEA). State and federal law allow teachers and other workers to leave their union on religious grounds and send their dues to a charitable organization. Wiggs indicated her dues would go to Shared Hope International, a 501(c)3 organization that works internationally against sex trafficking and slavery.
 
VEA Executive Director Roy Maier refused the teacher’s charitable selection, saying the organization was “not acceptable” to the VEA. Wiggs provided the union with documentation of Shared Hope’s non-profit, non-sectarian status, but the union refused to accommodate her selection, and failed to provide a clear explanation for the denial.
 
On October 18, 2006, the VEA filed a petition against Wiggs with the Public Employment Relations Commission. Wiggs contacted the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (EFF), and EFF obtained legal representation for her PERC hearings, where she was represented by attorney Thomas F. Klein. The main issue was who has the final word on the choice of charity. The union argued it had the authority to approve or disapprove any nonreligious charity Wiggs designated.
 
The PERC examiner issued an initial ruling agreeing with Wiggs on January 22, 2008. In his decision Examiner Joel Greene said the law “requires the union to agree to Wiggs’s designation of an organization to receive her alternative dues payments once she proves the designated organization is both nonreligious and a charity. Wiggs met her burden of proof.”
 
The VEA appealed this ruling to the full commission. PERC unanimously upheld the initial ruling on August 22. “We find that the Examiner’s decision accurately states the law. Where a union agrees that an employee’s closely held religious beliefs qualify that employee to assert his or her right of non-association, as long as the employee designates a qualified non-religious charity, there is no legal issue for the Commission to adjudicate. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s decision.”
 
“This decision has state-wide impact,” said Michael Reitz, general counsel of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. “The union cannot exercise veto power over a teacher’s legitimate choice. Susan selected this charity because of her interest in rescuing children from exploitation. Unfortunately, she’s had to fight her own union for three years to send her money to this charity.”
 
The VEA has 30 days to appeal the ruling to superior court. 

-By Warner Todd Huston

Members of Barack Obama’s campaign HQ in Chicago tried to shut down a local radio show on the City's most powerful radio signal, WGN 720, because they didn't like a conservative guest that was on going on the air to discuss Senator Barack Obama's ties to local terrorist William Ayers. This is a shocking attempt at stifling political free speech and a bald attempt to quash debate by the office of the Democratic Party's nominee. The funny thing is, WGN is the most liberal station in the City with every host but one slavishly supporting the junior Senator from Illinois.

Show host Milt Rosenberg, the station's only conservative leaning host (probably to be considered more libertarian than Republican), had on short notice asked conservative writer Stanley Kurtz to come on the air to discuss his work on uncovering Obama's ties to terrorist Wiliam Ayres and the Annenberg Challenge project. Kurtz was just in Chicago for his investigation and Rosenberg contacted Kurtz only that morning to appear. At the same time, Rosenberg's producer contacted the Obama campaign's HQ -- which is but blocks from the radio station in downtown Chicago -- to offer some time on the air with Kurtz to debate Kurtz' claims about Obama and Ayres. The campaign, however, flatly refused the offer of the equal air time and instead tried to drum up via email a protest of the show, trying to get it stopped.

After the refusal of host Rosenberg's offer to appear on the air with Kurtz, the Obama campaign issued an extensive email (The Chicago Tribune has the full text) to drum up protests of the radio station, which said in part...

In the next few hours, we have a crucial opportunity to fight one of the most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack.

Tonight, WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears. He's currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers.

Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse.

The email gave the Rosenberg show contact info and told people to call and protest Kurtz' appearance. The email also lied to its supporters by acting as if the Obama campaign was not offered fair rebuttal time.

It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves. At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz's lies.

I happen to live in Chicago and by chance was listening to the Milt Rosenberg show and heard for myself the host assure listeners that he offered the air time to the Obama campaign, an offer that was refused. Rosenberg even went so far as to offer any other show date for the Obama campaign's rebuttal to Kurtz' work.

Then, in compliance with the Obama campaign’s email instructions, a parade of callers was aired all telling Rosenberg to shut down the Kurtz interview. Each caller was quite insensible to the unAmerican reaction in which they were indulging and each one was entirely unreasonable and uninformed on the facts. Sadly, this anti-American attitude seems typical of Obama supporters nation wide.

Now, Dr. Rosenberg's show is one of the most intelligent, even high brow, shows on the radio, so schmaltzy, exploitation radio is as far from his style as one can get. Rosenberg interviews authors of the highest standing and show topics range from philosophy, to Opera, to physics and political science. He even does a delightful yearly show on the misuse of the English language as well as one on the year's best literary offerings. Like I said, exploitation radio he ain't.

So, for the Obama campaign to act as if this particular show is an affront to reasoned debate is an outrageous charge. Just as outrageous is the Obama campaign's obvious desire to destroy free political speech. It makes one quake to wonder what sort of oppressive climate an Obama presidency would impose on the country?

Audio from WGN Radio:

-By Warner Todd Huston

More bad news for the newspaper industry. Anyone paying attention to the current state of financial distress in the print news industry will realize that saving money is the order of the day industry wide. Yet, not long ago the Associated Press announced that it was to raise its prices to the print news industry causing consternation everywhere. This new rate structure has caused quite a few newspapers to begin the process of dropping AP content giving pause to consider what the future of the AP might become?

Several papers have already announced that they are preparing to drop the AP, the latest of which appears to be the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. The Minnesota paper has announced it will cease using AP content by 2010. The Star-Trib joins The Bakersfield Californian, and two papers from Washington State, The Yakima Herald-Republic and Wenatchee World. Also The Post Register of Idaho Falls informed the AP that they were going to drop their service in early August.

And according to a June 26 article in The Wall Street Journal, the eight largest papers in Ohio are banding together to create their own news service.

Some newspapers have attempted to reduce their reliance on the AP. This past spring, prompted by unhappiness with the AP's fees and reduced coverage of state and local news, the eight largest newspapers in Ohio created a cooperative called the Ohio News Organization, or OHNO, which allows its members to sidestep the AP by sharing stories. Five Montana newspapers owned by the newspaper concern Lee Enterprises Inc. have also begun sharing more content. And editors in Texas, Pennsylvania and Indiana have quietly inquired about how the Ohio cooperative works.

The same Wall Street Journal article reports that the AP has seen its income nearly triple from new customers on the Internet and that the AP is investing in sports, entertainment and business news to service those outlets. All this reveals an AP that seems to be making their product harder for print media to justify purchasing and papers are getting the message.

There is another thing that the print industry is bemoaning; the loss of APs local coverage. The agreement that the AP has with these papers is that if the AP does not send a reporter to a local story but the paper does, the AP can then take the local paper's story, do a rewrite, and sell it as its own. It appears that the AP is sending its reporters less and less and rewriting local paper's stories more often causing the print outlets to cry foul.

For its part, though, the AP is emerging stronger than ever by adapting to the electronic media on the double but it all goes to highlight the ever darkening future of print media as the news industry struggles to adjust to a changing world.

Warner Todd Huston

The ratings for the Democratic National Convention for ABC, CBS and NBC fell by a million viewers compared to the opener for the 2004 convention with headliner Bill Clinton TVWeek is reporting. On the other hand, the cable newsers saw a ratings jump from their 2004 convention ratings. This reveals the further decline in the old paradigm with the big three networks steadily losing their news influence bit by bit to cable outlets.

ABC, CBS and NBC brought in 12.1 million viewers in the 10 p.m. hour, down one million from 2004, according to preliminary, fast-national data from Nielsen Media Research. NBC scored the largest audience.

But the cable news networks saw some pretty impressive gains in ratings for the DNC opening.

According to Nielsen data, CNN was the biggest draw of the night with an average of 3.7 million viewers, up 85% from its July 26, 2004, opening night audience. Fox News Channel, usually the most-watched news network, averaged slightly more than 3 million viewers for the night, up 84% from 2004. MSNBC scored an average of slightly more than 2.1 million viewers, up 88% from opening night 2004.

The big three each gave the convention a one hour coverage while the cable stations went wall-to-wall. So, the one hour coverage could have hurt their viewership since the cable stations dedicated much more time to it.

But, the decision to go only one hour was itself a recognition that the big three simply hadn't the standing to dedicate more time to such coverage.

Just one more small nail in the coffin of the big three net's news departments. It seems that the big three could be on track to eventually cut their news departments to the bone.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Chris Redfern, the Democratic Party Chairman of Ohio, apparently thinks that Americans are so stingy and selfish that the only way charity work gets done is if government taxes the people to make it happen. In a recent radio interview, Redfern expressed the assumption that "unfortunately most Americans would not" help out the poor. Even worse, Redfern honestly believes that freebies and charity work is just as much the proper role of government as funding the "military, law enforcement, and fire protection," proving he hasn't a clue what the proper role should be of the government America's founders created.

In an interview with Toledo radio station 1370 WSPD, Redfern made the outrageous comments on how selfish Americans are and how we need government to force us all to care for, as he put it, "the least among us."

Radio host LeFebvre, however, wondered why people making subsistence pay should be forced to pay the way of those who refuse to work? Using the situation of his board operator, Don Zellars, LeFebvre asked Democratic Party Chair Redfern why the lower middle classes should be expected to float the indigent? Close to the end of the interview, this exchange took place:

Fred LeFebvre: Don's question was more about, you know, he's struggling to pay his mortgage -- he's a brand new home owner here in Toledo -- his wife has to work, he's gotta pay for his own helathcare coverage here at the radio station, he wants... his questions is: how is it fair that he has to pay for other people before he gets his own money? How is it fair?

Chris Redfern: Well, if you're applying the same logic to those kinds of programs or projects or initiatives, you have to be consistent. Why does it make people uncomfortable when I point out law enforcement, fire protection, the military should be treated the same as the environment, or helping out the least among us? You know, Don was taught early on that it's his obligation as a human just to look out for the next guy. That doesn't mean you have to... ya pay for everything, it means the least among us...

LeFebvre: But I think Don would do that if he had a chance to on his own. Because he is a charitable guy.

Redfern: Ha, ha.

LeFebvre: I mean seriously, he would do it if he had a choice.

Redfern: Well, I suspect Don would, but unfortunately most Americans would not and if we remove that kind of support stratagem then you remove the entire reason for having any kind of projects, programs or initiatives including the military, law enforcement, fire protection.

First of all, let us consider the arrogance of the rhetoric Redfern uses to describe the poor. I don't know about you, but I don't view the poor as "the least among us." Talk about condescension!

Secondly, it is clear that Redfern neither has an understanding of, nor any interest in, the Constitution of the United States. Someone needs to inform this addled pol that the "the military" is mandated by the Constitution. Charity work is not. The role of police and fire protection is truly a legitimate role of government. Charity is not. Contrary to Redfern's bald faced claims, there is NO "logic" or "consistency" that mandates charity work be done by government to the same extent as the military, police and fire protection. In fact, it is just a cynical warping of the truth used by Redfern to excuse his socialist theories and big government, nanny state policies. Our government was never intended to indulge in charity work. In fact, several presidents have been quoted exactly to that effect since the founding up until the socialist reengineering of government undertaken by FDR.

To quote a few...

"A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labour the bread which it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities."--Thomas Jefferson

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." --James Madison

"I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity, [such spending] would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded." --President Franklin Pierce

"Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." - Grover Cleveland

"I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds. .. I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."--President Grover Cleveland

"We must always ask: Is government working to liberate and empower the individual? Is it creating incentives for people to produce, save, invest, and profit from legitimate risks and honest toil? Is it encouraging all of us to reach for the stars? Or does it seek to compel, command, and coerce people into submission and dependence? Ask these questions, because no matter where you look today, you will see that development depends on economic freedom." --Ronald Reagan

Finally, Redfern's claim that American's are too selfish to give charity is an outright lie. At least it is an outright lie where it concerns conservative Americans. For instance, ABC's John Stossel found that conservatives give far more to charity than liberals. Of course, based on Stossel's work, perhaps it is expected that leftist Redfern never met an American that cares much to indulge in charity? After all, if he only hangs around other leftists when would he ever meet a generous American? Maybe he at least has an excuse to think so ill about his fellow Americans? Seriously though, it is only his illogical, uninformed personal experience as opposed to an opinion based on any fact that would make him think so.

But, even that aside, Americans over all, liberal or conservative, are far more generous than other peoples across the globe. As I wrote in 2007, according to CAF International, Americans individually give 1.67% of GDP whereas the UK gives only .73% while Canada gives only .72%. From there the bottom drops out with Australia giving only .69% and the rest at 40% or less. Unsurprisingly, France brings up the tail with .14% of GDP.

In the end, all we have here is a politician who does not have the first clue about the Constitution or the proper role of government. Not only that, but he doesn't care and that is to the shame of Democrats everywhere in Ohio that have supported this sort of unAmerican thinking.

(H/T Maggie Thurber of Thurber's Thoughts)

(Photo credit: The Columbus Dispatch)