NOT NEWS TO THE DALLAS MORNING LIBERAL LEADER
*Obama plays 160th round of golf
(He doesn’t just play golf, folks – he wallows in it! See below. … Not a story at The News, though — he’s a Dem!)
*Obama leaves Michelle in Hawaii as ‘birthday present’
(They travel separately a lot – costing us loads. Even their stinkin’ dog got his own V-22 Osprey to Martha’s Vineyard last summer. Who cares? Not The News!)
Meanwhile, The News’ “news” and opinion
*Quietly taking on tea party; Pro-business coalition raises funds for GOP incumbents, p. 1A –Holding to DMN custom, Dem scribe “Hoppe-Along Lefty” puts tea partiers in the “anti-government,” “anti-tax,” “hard right” camp. You know, fringe nut-bags who don’t want to“govern.” She either doesn’t know or won’t admit that we’re mainstream conservatives – of all ages and backgrounds, and we’re easily the majority in this state. We are NOT “anti-tax” or “anti-government” or “hard-right” – unless, of course, following the U.S. Constitution means that. (Ms. Hoppe also labels us “insurgents,” a term used most recently by j-schoolers for Muslim terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.) … Only deep into the jump page is truth about these tea-party loathing“business trade groups” addressed. Per conservative Michael Quinn Sullivan: “This is what we’ve come to expect out of the Washington, anti-Ted Cruz movement. They want people who will vote for cronyism and corporate welfare.” It seems in simply flipping this story, the angle could have easily been: Tea party keeps up fight against status quo; some business groups oppose less government, more accountability.
*U.S. sends help to trapped ships, AP, p. 18A – You knew this was coming: Now WE must clean up these silly “global-warming” alarmists’ mess. (Still no mention in The News that these were“global warming” researchers and their fans. Not a syllable. That’s devotion, baby!)
*Gun writer targeted for column, NYT, p. 7A – It seems “crazy right-wingers” didn’t like thisgun-columnist saying the Second Amendment should be “regulated,” like “all constitutional rights.”There reaction caused NYT lefty scribe Ravi Somaiya to lament, “Moderate voices that might broaden the discussion from within are silenced. When writers stray from the party line promoting an absolutist view of an unfettered right to bear arms, their publications … excommunicate them.” Isn’t that just awful?? … You’ll not see these lamentations aimed at pro-abort goons or radical homosexual activists in The News’ hallowed pages. Wouldn’t be civilized.
*5 decades later, are we winning [war on poverty]?, NYT, p. 11A – No. We’re not. Still, The Times says (emphasis mine), “The federal government has succeeded in preventing the poverty rate from climbing far higher.” (Sound familiar?) And, “There is broad consensus that the social welfare programs created since the New Deal have hugely improved living conditions for low-income Americans.” And, “Still, a broad range of researchers interviewed by [The Times] stressed the improvement in the lives of low-income since Johnson started his crusade.” ‘Course, it DOESN’T MATTER we’re $17 TRILLION in debt and are nursing at least another $90 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. The Times mentions NONE of that! Hahahahahahaha! Not a PEEP about cost!! Amazing! … Just pure “income inequality” propaganda meant to raise the minimum wage, friends. The News even runs it right next to a piece with Dear Leader calling for it.
*Income divide on rise in Texas, Schnurman Business commentary, p. 1D – “Schneering Schnurman” has a Me-Too! compliment to The Times’ bilge above! Good boy!
*As income gap rises, expectations dip, Bloomberg, p. 2D – MORE “income inequality!” HowDOES this happen? … It’s called following the playbook, folks — the Democrat Party playbook.
*Software flaws prevent sign-ups, WashPo, p. 7A – Still? This really oughta be front-page, ‘cuz a DMN headline told us weeks ago the Nov. 30th “fix” deadline would be met. … No worries, though: WashPo says “the chaos is likely to prove temporary …” But, of course!
*The talk of 2013, Points, p. 1P – The News’ “most notable” Talking Points from the year gone by! … So why is an opposing quote included with Ted Cruz’s quote — but not for Abortion Barbie’s? Just an oversight? A grievous editing error? Is Abortion Barbie” simply not controversial? …… Hardly.
