For more than thirty years what is known as the “main stream media” spent it’s time lying, coercing, and doing it’s best to deceive viewers.

With the introduction of C Span in 1979, their monopoly over what information the public received began to end.  Finally people had a way to see the news unfiltered. It was a revelation. Those who took the time to watch realized how the media had been pulling the wool over their eyes.

Despite the advent of C Span, the media still maintained control over opinion.  Realizing the C Span audience was comparatively low in contrast to their own, they began the practice of mixing news and commentary, no longer distinguishing between the two.  This was the era of the “Fairness Doctrine”.  When they did allow those with alternate views to express themselves, as required by the law, it was usually in the wee hours of the morning when most were unable to see them.  To make matters worse, the spokespeople they selected from the other side were the most inarticulate they could find.

In 1987, under the Reagan administration the “Fairness Doctrine” ended and the era of talk radio began.  For the first time since the advent of electronic media, conservatives had a voice.  The first spokesman for the “new media” and still the most popular, was Rush Limbaugh. Contrary to the way he’s been portrayed by those used to dominating the airwaves, Limbaugh was not telling people what to think, he was confirming what they already believed.  This was the beginning of the end for broadcasters and journalists who up to that point had a lock on the “information highway.”

Rather than cleaning up their act, they saw the new medium as a challenge and felt it was their duty to counter what they perceived as “right wing” propaganda, moving them farther to the left.  The result, twenty years later the organizations formerly known as “The Big Three”, (meaning ABC, CBS, and NBC) have lost more than half their viewership and their counterparts in print are on the ropes as well.  

From the elections of 2000 and 2004, to proposition 8, the attitude of the left has been “it only counts when we win.” Frankly, I’m fed up.

While I will be the first to admit that there are a number of actions taken on the part of the Bush Administration that I vehemently disagree with, the 700 billion bailout serves as the most recent example, they have done a great deal of good too, not the least of which has been keeping the nation safe from further terrorist attacks. You would never know it from the reports in the mainstream media. They and their counterparts in government have done their level best to undermine this administration at every turn. Why? Because they didn’t hold the reigns of power. Now that they’re in charge they will no doubt defend to the death whatever actions their friends in the White House and Congress decide to take. This “scorched earth” policy of the left has done more to damage this country than the terrorist attacks of 911.

Their side lost in the Prop 8 referendum battle and what have we heard, “the vote was narrow”, “the people who voted for it are intolerant.” Well I have a revelation for them: We Won, You Lost. Grow up and deal with it! Had the roles been reversed and our side protested on the same grounds can you imagine their reaction? The hypocrisy of these spoiled brats is beyond the pale. No wonder they’ve been labeled the "entitled generation”.

While I may not agree with a number of the Obama administration’s policies, there may be certain issues on which I will support them as I did with the Clinton administration on “Welfare Reform”, and NAFTA“.

Unlike those on the left I consider myself an American first and a partisan second. They choose to be “Americans” only when things are going their way, otherwise they threaten to leave the country or worse sabotage it if things are not done in the exact manner prescribed by them, this includes the right of free speech. They and their cronies in congress would love nothing more than to silence the voice of conservatives no matter the cost. They constantly push the false argument that the am dial is unfairly dominated by the right . While it is true that the majority of “talk radio” is conservative, there's a reason for it, it’s known as "free enterprise." If nobody listened to Limbaugh, Hannity, or the rest, they would be off the air faster than a “New York minute.” Air America has been struggling to find an audience for four years and they are failing miserably. Why? Because not even those on the left want to listen to these humorless drones blather on 24 hours a day.

The old saying applies here, “build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door.” Up til now they’ve had neither the trap, or the mice, only a bunch of “rats” who want to see the end of everyone and everything they disagree with.

Appearing on today's "Good Morning America" former "Weather Underground" leader, turned college professor, William Ayers, said that the bombing campaign he engaged in wasn't terrorism, " because it doesn't target people, to kill or injure." Tell that to the families of those who died in the attack on the "Murah Federal Building" in Oklahoma City. Ayers is under the misconception that his attacks were on buildings rather than people. The last time I checked, people work in those buildings. Ayers also repeated his earlier statement that "I don't think we did enough." Well I don't think the media "did enough" to expose the relationship between the Democratic nominee, and an unrepentant terrorist.

The left can have the David's, both of them, and “Peggy Sue” too. These fair weather friends are more interested in being loved than being right. They are the first in line to knock their own if it puts more silver, (usually thirty pieces) in their pockets. Camille Paglia is not one of them. She is rarely if ever seen on the talk show circuit, left or right. She only speaks when she has something worth saying, and she is as unpretentious as the others are pretentious.

I first learned about Ms. Paglia when she introduced herself to Rush Limabaugh more than 15 years ago. Limbaugh was shocked when she approached him, thinking that because of her sexual orientation (Ms. Paglia is gay) and her views, many of which do not fit the conservative mold, that she wouldn't give him the time of day, let alone express admiration for him. Ms. Paglia is (no pun intended) a straight shooter and in Limbaugh she recognized a kindred soul. She is what I would call a fiscal and subsequently a common sense conservative. While she is a feminist, unlike others in her movement, she doesn't find it necessary to emasculate men in order to build herself up.

In an opinion piece appearing in the current issue of Salon Magazine, she excoriates the left for it's treatment of Sara Palin, "As for the Democrats who sneered and howled that Palin was unprepared to be a vice-presidential nominee -- what navel-gazing hypocrisy! What protests were raised in the party or mainstream media when John Edwards, with vastly less political experience than Palin, got John Kerry's nod for veep four years ago?"

Though many have encouraged Mrs. Palin to join the political fraternity known as the U.S Senate, I consider such a move to be a waste of her talent. Sara Palin’s strength comes from the fact that she is an executive and for her to do otherwise would only serve to diminish her.  Ms. Paglia concurs, "The U.S. Senate as a career option? What a claustrophobic, nitpicking comedown for an energetic Alaskan -- nothing but droning committees and incestuous back-scratching. No, Sarah Palin should stick to her governorship and just hit the rubber-chicken circuit, as Richard Nixon did in his long haul back from political limbo following his California gubernatorial defeat in 1962."

While many "conservatives" were appalled by McCain’s choice of VP, Ms. Paglia is an unabashed fan of the Alaska governor, "I like Sarah Palin, and I've heartily enjoyed her arrival on the national stage. As a career classroom teacher, I can see how smart she is -- and quite frankly, I think the people who don't see it are the stupid ones, wrapped in the fuzzy mummy-gauze of their own worn-out partisan dogma. So she doesn't speak the King's English -- big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist. I stand on what I said (as a staunch pro-choice advocate) in my last two columns -- that Palin as a pro-life wife, mother and ambitious professional represents the next big shift in feminism. Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World."