Media Bias Over Hurricane Sandy Relief Pork
In the debate over the Sandy Relief bill, MSNBC again demonstrated why they earned the Pew Research title of “Most biased news outlet.” While these rabidly liberal propagandists have become, as NJ.com reports, “must-watch television for liberals around the country,” it begs the question,” Do those liberals believe all the verbal spitballs these agitpropists spew at the cameras?
I ask having endured quite a few minutes of both “Up with Chris Hayes” and “PoliticsNation” with Al Sharpton during which each show’s theme was: “Why do Republicans hate Hurricane Sandy victims?” Those two hosts wheeled in such experts as New York Representative Hakeem Jeffries, who ignorantly proclaimed that never before has a political party stymied emergency relief funds. Congress has many well-educated aides steeped in enough history to educate the representative on the many times when morally budget-conscious congressmen and women have done just that. Perhaps he would do well to seek them out before proving again that a fool best reveals himself when he opens his mouth.
I was actually expecting the knowledgeable liberal columnist E.J. Dionne to broaden the conversation by discussing the billions of pork dollars poisoning the Sandy Relief bill and perhaps excoriating the Republicans for choosing to be fiscally prudent but no, he, too went on a 180-proof liberal bias binge, waving his armchair psychology toward the approving host. As you read this a few days later, we are learning the truth, not that it matters to the MSNBC gang who are likely now spray-painting their philosophies on fresh moving targets.
The Democratic Senate loaded up so many billions of dollars in spending unrelated to the Sandy victims that the blatant political abuse of these victims outraged many Republicans.
Keep in mind this emergency money was meant to fund government flood insurance claims and help New York and New Jersey citizens who are still living in various states of homelessness or excruciating home damage. Instead, the Obama Administration, Democrats Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Mark Begich and Republican Lisa Murkowski, to name just a few, larded up the Sandy Relief Bill with unrelated spending.
While some appropriations are Sandy-related, such as nearly four times more the 4 million dollars NASA requested for damaged beach dunes, most seems totally unrelated to anything except the need for the Democrat-controlled Senate to send “grub money” letters to their constituents and campaign contributors. Why else would Schumer proudly boast to a reporter that he’s happy the Amtrak lobby got millions of Sandy victim dollars for tunnels they think they might want to build some day?
It’s now been widely reported by reputable news reporters that the Democratic Senate poisoned the Sandy Relief bill with over 30 billion dollars in pork, such as planting trees on private properties, Alaskan and Mississippi fisheries, cars for Homeland Security and Department of Justice, a National Water Priorities study and some money for government buildings with Sandy damage. Oh, yeah, and Obama demanded 15 billion in community block grants. In the Sandy relief bill. Really.
If MSNBC decides to try to become as relevant to general audiences as Fox News reportedly is, maybe the better debates would be based on such events as loading up a relief bill with NOAA weather forecasting and other agency requests instead of straw man “Why do Republicans hate (name your favorite group here)?” Meanwhile, Republicans passed a 9.7 billion dollar relief bill for Sandy victims while Schumer, unmolested by his apparent media cronies at MSNBC, stews about the remaining $51 billion combo of pure pork and slightly relevant Sandy money.
After his 20-year old son overdosed on drugs, Mike Stollings decided to post a photo of his body at the funeral home on Facebook out of grief and guilt. The...Read More
PARIS — A chess piece has fallen in Latin America. The road to prosperity and peace for the citizens of
Although studies show that: we conservatives are usually happier and more optimistic than most about our personal lives, we also tend