Fuzzy Math:
We all use math every day: to predict weather, to tell time, to handle money. And then there are those who use math to falsify cable news ratings. Submitted for your consideration, an attack on Glenn Beck that goes the extra step, ridiculing Beck by citing imaginary numbers:

It was funny to hear Beck and his crew claim that nobody watches Morning Joe, when everyone knows that is the top rated morning cable news show. The “Independent” Beck once again revealed his true colors.

That’s odd. According to the latest monthly ratings chart, Morning Joe has fewer viewers than CNN’s American Morning. And neither one comes close to Fox & Friends, which has more people watching than Joe and CNN combined!

Meanwhile, our pal Eric Boehlert, last seen lying about Fox News FOIAs, has resurfaced again. Fresh from his bizarre assertion that Communist Lee Harvey Oswald was actually an agent of “right wing hatred”, Boehlert adds this delightful dissertation to his resume:

By now, everyone knows that on Sunday, Obama will make the rounds on the morning news shows but that Fox News Sunday, hosted by Wallace, will be left out…. Here’s the funny part, though. During one pity party session, a Fox News host claimed Obama was skipping out on “the highly-rated Fox News Sunday.” Here we go with more alternate universe stuff from the GOP Noise Machine. Because if by “highly rated” Fox meant dead last, than yeah, it’s an accurate description. The facts: Wallace hosts, and has hosted for years, the perennial Sunday morning news show loser. Fox News Sunday pretty much gets lapped by the rest of network field…. we’ll offer up this novel advice to Wallace: Get more viewers! Maybe if your show wasn’t a ratings doormat (like, for a decade running), Obama would make time for you. But why should the White House make an effort to include Fox when Wallace’s show at times barely draws one million viewers?

Mr Boehlert isn’t exactly telling the whole truth. Two of the network Sunday shows–Fox News Sunday and NBC’s Meet the Press–are played again on their respective cable news channels. And guess what happens? MtP picks up about 500,000 more, and FNS adds around 2,000,000 to its totals. And when we “count every vote”, we find the “doormat” of Sunday shows is CNN’s. Fox News Sunday is right up there neck-and-neck with Meet the Press in the race for the most viewers.

Crying Wolff:
In what purports to be an analysis of the “cold war” between President Obama and Fox News, writer Michael Wolff lays out a case for his proposition that Fox News is guilty of a “continued, insidious demonization” of the President. To make his point, he claims that just about everything anti-Obama that is “kooky” is FNC’s fault:

Much of the kooky stuff, the birther business…is Fox-driven.

It is? Who on Fox News is pushing the “birther issue”? Is it Glenn Beck? Apparently not. O’Reilly? Even Media Matters doesn’t claim that. We couldn’t find anything in FNC transcripts promoting “birtherism”. (Besides, isn’t Lou Dobbs the guy who’s supposed to be “driving” that issue?) What exactly is Wolff’s claim based on? Does he just throw crap against the wall, based on nothing whatsoever, and expect it to stick as long as it’s a smear of Fox? That’s not journalism. That’s just crying Wolff.

Worst Reporting in the World:
One thing that’s always a bit risky: judging something you haven’t seen. That’s generally regarded as disreputable, and in some circles it’s a firing offense. But it’s all in a day’s work for Keith Olbermann, who on Tuesday decided to take a shot at Bill O’Reilly for doing a story Olby assiduously avoided: ACORN. Olbermann was speaking to his impartial expert guest, Markos “Screw ‘Em” Moulitsas:

OLBERMANN:  As if we needed an underscoring, you mentioned Bill O‘Reilly‘s name.  At this hour, as we speak, the segment he is doing is about ACORN, as if Barack Obama were its founder, president, and made million dollars a year or a week off of it.  It underscores it perfectly. Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos—always a pleasure, my friend.

Now it takes a bit of chutzpah to brazenly characterize something you can’t possibly have listened to (Olbermann was on the air opposite O’Reilly) but since accuracy is optional on Countdown, that’s not so much of a problem. However, for those who are interested in the truth, O’Reilly–far from trying to join Obama and ACORN at the hip–went out of his way to do just the opposite:

O’REILLY: The only link to Obama is a link from his own words. That’s all. Now, if more stuff comes out–just because a group supports you doesn’t mean that you have any relationship with the group.
McGLOWAN: His own campaign gave close to $900,000 for a get-out-the-vote campaign in a Presidential election… That’s breaking the law, Bill, that’s a non-profit organization…
O’REILLY: If it’s proven that the President knew about law-breaking then he’s in big trouble, but it’s not anywhere close to that.

Does Olbermann ever tell the truth about Bill O’Reilly?

Making It Up Is Easy to Do:
It was just two weeks ago when newshound Priscilla’s ignorant ramblings on the Rifqa Bary case were exposed as fallacious. But she’s back this week and ready to smear anew. Prissy is up in arms again about–you guessed it–an interview on Fox & Friends. What is both memorable and amazing is how she manages to parlay a handful of videos she found online into a full-out assault on all of Fox News:

Fox News has been all this case like flies on you know what and while they did have a few “fair and balanced” pieces, the preponderance of coverage was done from the perspective that Bary’s allegation that her parents will kill her for her conversion has credibility despite the evidence to the contrary.

Well if Fox News has covered this case so much, then Priscilla should be able to cite how she knows what the “preponderance of coverage” actually is. Yet the evidence she cites are a few other F&F segments and her own discredited report. FNC is the only news channel with a one-hour evening newscast. Prissy says nothing about the many reports aired there. She conveniently avoids citing any coverage on Studio-B, Special Report, The Live Desk, and America’s Newsroom. But she still knows what the “preponderance of coverage” by Fox is, because she cited her own articles!

Question for Priscilla: did you see the coverage on all those programs and choose to leave it out on purpose, or did you pull an Olbermann and just decide to characterize something you didn’t even see? Take the America’s Newsroom coverage, for example. Did this segment not fit your agenda–is that why you never mentioned it? Just how is it anything other than fair and balanced? Or how about spending over six minutes–which the newshounds have described as “an eternity” in tv news–interviewing the attorney for the parents? Why did you leave that out? Are you deliberately avoiding dozens of reports that aired on Fox to prop up phony claims about the “preponderance of the coverage”? Or are you just a fabulist, who speaks from ignorance and cares not about truth? Enquiring dog-catchers want to know!

Dumber than a Fifth Grader?
In her zeal to cover-up for the repulsive caught-on-tape behavior of ACORN, Ellen seems to have lost it. Her smears have become so transparent and juvenile they are embarrassing. She insists that one of the ACORN tapes is a “fake video”. How is the video fake? Oh the ACORN worker lied. Hey Ellen, that doesn’t make the video a fake. It makes the ACORN worker a fake. You do get the difference, don’t you? Then Brodsky starts ranting about the “lies” of Hannah Giles:

Giles falsely told Hannity, who hinted he knew better, that in every visit to an ACORN office where Giles appeared, pretending to be a prostitute, the organization had been willing to assist her proposed illegal activities….But the evidence indicates that at least one ACORN office kicked Giles and her partner out and then called the police. According to the Philadelphia Daily News: “When the phony pimp and prostitute tag team visited ACORN’s local office, on Broad Street near Parrish, on July 24, they were apparently shown the door. Philadelphia ACORN president Carol Hemingway said in a statement on Monday that ‘after causing a major disturbance, they were asked to leave the office, and a police report was filed.’ Hemingway e-mailed copies of the incident report to the news media”. Furthermore, ACORN has stated that the filmmakers’ efforts failed at five ACORN offices, including Philadelphia and San Diego…. Hannity undoubtedly knew these facts, or he should have.

Note: because ACORN made a statement, suddenly everything they said constitutes “facts” that Hannity should have known. Just their word becomes instant proof! It’s a shame they wasted all that money trying Scooter Libby. After all he said he was innocent. Why wasn’t Prosecutor Fitzgerald aware of that fact? By the way, did Ellen ever bother to read that police report from Philadelphia? Hannah Giles is nowhere mentioned in it. Brodsky called her a liar based on a police report that doesn’t even have her present, let alone thrown out!

But wait, there’s more:

A contact at ACORN confirmed my suspicion that the San Diego worker did not believe the ruse. According to ACORN, the man called the police as a result of Giles and O’Keefe’s visit.

An anonymous source from the organization under investigation says something, and once again, Brodsky’s Law applies: it’s automatically a true fact! Sadly, it was only hours later when ACORN fired the San Diego worker, after a closer examination of the tapes and a study of the fired worker’s self-contradictions. Say, wasn’t San Diego one of the cities where Ellen said the filmmakers “failed”? Is that yet Another Hound Lie?

Ad Hominem Ad Nauseam:
We laid out in last week’s report just how the newsmutts were turning their fire on the young undercover stingers. Because smearing them with ad hominem attacks makes the videos go away. Didn’t you know that? Well as often happens when such methods don’t work, ACORN employees get fired, and FNC ratings soar, why not just kick it up a notch? If smearing Hannah Giles isn’t enough, how about going after her parents?

Hannah Giles – Who’s Her Daddy?

Let’s start with some prurient innuendo:

It’s not her “pimp,” “independent filmmaker” and future model for Halloween pimp costumes, James O’Keefe – although they’ve been traveling around together…nah, they’re good Christian kids so it’s all very chaste…. I must say that Ms. Giles is quite convincing as a make a believe hooker.

Then go after the girl’s father, because that really will make the videos go away:

Giles is a manly man who, as noted above, is fighting that evil gay agenda….a similar radical Christian, Pastor Wiley Drake, is praying for Obama’s demise….

Do you like the reference to the “similar” Christian? Heh heh, you can link anybody to anybody that way–just say they’re “similar”. Brilliantly done! Finally to put the cap on this adventure, how about some more insinuendo, maybe about her upbringing. After all, that’s utter speculation and you can make up anything you like:

Growing up with a testosterone infused “God’s Warrior,” who is cross between Mancow and Ted Nugent, might explain Hannah Giles’ motivation which is certainly serving her well now.

The kennel-dwellers jumped right in:

• All I could think of was Ted Haggard and we all know how that ended. On some level, I feel sorry for Hannah and her mother.
• If her father is a RW whack job – so is she. Couldn’t be clearer.
• Some sites say he has been married 18 years, others say 20 yrs. As his daughter is 20 now, was dad married nine months before daughters birth?
• Her father is a total nut and really into male domination issues. I wonder what went on behind closed doors at the Giles household.

Just for the record, it was the same newspoodle, Priscilla, who wrote a scathing denouncement of Fox Nation–not an article mind you, but just a lone comment, that attacked…Obama’s father! Meanwhile she uses her website to bash not just people who appear on Fox, but their parents as well.

Finally, we would be remiss if we didn’t mention Brodsky’s latest example of “death threats” against Obama. In a Fox Nation thread discussing the CIA, one commenter wrote: “CIA? You have our permission to take this pres down!” Ellen sez:

Fox Nation moderators have approved another death threat to President Obama. Almost as disturbing as the moderators’ failure to weed out these comments is the fact that there is no way to contact Fox Nation and ask them to please be a little more careful in their moderating. Or is that deliberate? In any event, I reported the comment via the “report” button.” But there’s really no excuse for these kinds of comments to get through in the first place.

Now even though dictionary.com offers four definitions for the verb phrase “take down”–and none of them is any kind of death threat–we’ll play along with Ellen. The comment she noted was gone from Fox Nation as soon as we checked it out. But to be fair, we did spot another troublesome comment:

• Big mistake, very big mistake. Like quicksand, we’ll take him down.

Pretty disturbing, eh? This comment wasn’t quickly deleted like the other one. But then it isn’t on Fox Nation either. It’s a “death threat” against Bill O’Reilly, approved for posting by the newshounds over two years ago, and still there today. As Brodsky would say, there’s really no excuse for these kinds of comments to get through in the first place. But once they’re up, leave ‘em there for two years!

At least, if they want ot monitor Fox News or any other news organization, these people should tell the truth.

This comes form Johnny Dollar’s Place.    http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/blog/wll273368806.html

‘Family’ Values:
We begin our survey of Fox hater hypocrisy with an incident from The Fox Nation, brought to light in hysterical fashion by the mavens at Media Matters. Is the Obama Family Going to the Mattresses?, said the Fox Nation link, and MM fumed:

Fox Nation renews smear comparing Obama administration to organized crime

Naturally the echo chamber picked this up and ran with it. The News Corpse gang called it a “blatant association of Obama with a famous fictional crime family”, and promptly reposted their claim on Keith Olbermann’s blog of choice, the Daily Kos. And what Media Matters Fox attack isn’t parroted by the newshounds? This time Ellen did the echo chamber honors, cackling that this “demonizes” Democrats, and shows that “it’s OK to demean your opponent if he’s President Obama”.

But wait? Doesn’t something about this sound eerily familiar? It did to Chris Golas, who blogged about a similar comparison, when Keith Olbermann spent an entire segment of his show likening the Bush family to the Sopranos:

Hmm. Did Media Matters expose this “smear” comparing Bush to organized crime? Did the Daily Kos blast this “blatant association” of the President with a crime family? (Surely they would have had space to do so, even with the hundreds of references to the “Bush mafia” on their site.) And what of Ms Brodsky and the newspoodles? They too only seemed to object to this comparison when Fox did it.

Except of course that Fox didn’t make the comparison. The evil, reprehensible “going to the mattresses” quote? Not written by Fox Nation at all. It is from the New York Daily News, an article by Michael Goodwin that Fox Nation merely linked to:

We could call it doubling down on a mistake. Or drawing a partisan line in the sand. But this is Barack Obama and his favorite movie is – I’m not making this up – “The Godfather,” so let’s stick with the mob theme. The Obama Family is going to the mattresses.

Oddly, none of the above sites offered any denunciations of the Daily News or of Mr Goodwin for publishing the piece. Only of Fox for linking to it. Now why would that be?

We should add that this is nothing new for Media Matters. They have repeatedly gotten their panties in a bunch over any suggested association of the President with facism, particularly if it comes from Glenn Beck. And yet, it’s hard to get more blatant and direct then yelling at the President “You’re a fascist!”.

Yet not a word from Media Matters when Keith Olbermann does it. Why would that be?

Shaggy Dog Stories:
As we survey the front page of the newspooch blog, there are at least a half-dozen entries dealing with the boycott of Glenn Beck. The promotional push helpfully includes links, lists of sponsors, and encouraging comments like “our effort worked magnificently”. But something seems strangely awry. Somehow we thought the mastiffs didn’t hold boycotts in such high regard. Maybe we got that impression because they referred to boycotts in this fashion:

Hate is hate, no matter where it comes from.

And of course they have been quick to point out the harmful effects of a boycott:

his intended campaign to smear the state and boycott their products would hurt the hard working families living there.

So why are the newsmutts hyping the Beck boycott? Have they forgotten all they have written in the past? Well we’re pleased, and surprised, to say that one writer there is willing to show intellectual equilibrium. Melanie compares boycotts to censorship:

a fairly large segment of our citizenry believes that (l) one should never speak ill of the president – this particular president, that is, and (2) people who disagree with this particular president have no right to say so. One of the characteristics of fascism is to use violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.

At least one writer there is consistent, so we salute her for… Oh wait. That article is from 2005, and the President then was… um, well, never mind.

Speaking of double standards at the pound, we had to notice when Ms Brodsky got up in paws about Fox Nation:

It has removed its comments section for its leading story announcing the death of Senator Ted Kennedy. This despite the fact that comments on the site are moderated.

And yet, wasn’t it the newspooches who, on the death of Tony Snow, turned off comments on their own site? Yes it was, a fact that led to this amusing exchange amongst the kennel-dwellers:

• “Fox Nation turned off its comments…” Yeah, just like this site did when Tony Snow passed away. –Damail
• You’re a liar. I was here. I didn’t see anything like that.
• You’re wrong. Again.
• Damail, You my friend are a stinking sappy drooling liar!

Well, as we reported at the time, the hound thread (“Tony Snow has died”)–the only Tony Snow thread in all of July 2008–has zero comments. The comments were closed, and still are closed, with only a sham comment box that has cleverly kept the total comment count at zero no matter how many people think it actually functions.

O’Reilly Attacks Olbermann’s Deceased Mom, Blogosphere Erupts:
It was like setting a match to gasoline when Bill O’Reilly unwisely decided to drag Keith Olbermann’s deceased parent into his feud with the MSNBC host. The reaction was as incendiary as O’Reilly’s attack. The staid TV Newser asked in a headline: “Has O’Reilly Crossed the Line?” Media Matters produced an instant special investigative report detailing Mrs Olbermann’s saintly existence. Gawker called for O’Reilly to be fired, commenters on Daily Kos upped the ante with colorful description of how to “off” the Factor host, and the Huffington Post splashed huge red-type headlines across the page: “O’Reilly Smear of Olbermann Family: The Last Straw?” (The question mark was their nod to impartiality and fairness.) And the newshounds produced one “original” post for each of the above that they linked to and parroted.

Of course none of that happened, except maybe on Bizarro planet in an alternate universe. But the proposed reactions are not unlikely. For a nationally televised cable news personality to use his air time to attack personally one of his competitors and smear a family member in the process–that would be an act of unspeakable degeneracy. And yet, that did happen this week. Only it wasn’t Bill O’Reilly–who has steadfastly avoided personal attacks on Mr Olbermann or his family. No, it was Olbermann who, just before lying about his ratings, characterized Bill O’Reilly in this fashion:

In his nightly round of self-applause last night, designed to drown out the echo of daddy hitting him…

Does it surprise anyone that Olbermann’s diseased invective has passed almost unnoticed? Nothing from TV Newser. Nothing from Gawker. Nothing from Media Matters. Nothing from News Corpse, the newshounds, or The Daily Beast. Sites like these have posted hundreds of articles about the “feud”, yet none of them found this sick defamation newsworthy. A Google search shows a whopping nine references to Olbermann’s quote. Only one major media site noted the remark: a report from Steve Krakauer on mediaite (ironically run by MSNBC legal analyst Dan Abrams). To the rest of the blogosphere it was the dog that did not bark.

There was one noticeable exception, and in a further dose of irony it was an Olbermann fan site: The O Files. There JFein’s increasing discomfort with Olbermann’s ways reached a breaking point with Keith’s repellent attack. JFein’s piece was quickly deleted by the site’s administrator, but has been reposted by the author where it cannot be erased:

When you start it out by joking about a matter that is so serious (child abuse), you crossed the line with me and I have absolutely had it with him. It’s wrong, it’s DAMN WRONG! You don’t make that kind of reference, no matter how much you can’t stand someone. And the sad part is, there is not a damn person at MSNBC willing to do something about it.

When will the rest of the blogosphere treat this story as they would if it had been O’Reilly–or Glenn Beck–who had said it? Or will they simply allow their silence to imply approval?

            I feel like saying, “Let me get this straight, Hank. I’m
slow. Be patient. You want free money because of slavery,
right? I don’t blame you.” I’d like free money too. Tell you
what. I believe in justice. I’ll give you a million dollars
for every slave I own, and another million for every year
you were a slave. Fair enough? But tell me, how many slaves
do you suppose I have? In round numbers, I mean…say to the
nearest dozen. And how long were you a slave?

            Oh. In other words, I owe you reparations for something that
I didn’t do and didn’t happen to you. That makes sense. Like
lug nuts on a birthday cake.

            Personally, I think you owe me reparations for things you
didn’t do and never happened to me. I’ve never been coated
in Dutch chocolate and thrown from the Eiffel Tower. I’ll
bet you’ve never done it to anyone. I want reparations. Kind
of silly, isn’t it?

            But if we’re going to talk about reparations, that’s a
street that runs in two directions. You want money from me
for what some other whites did to some other blacks in
another century?’

            How about you guys paying whites reparations for current
expenses caused by blacks? Not long ago blacks burned down
half of Los Angeles, a city in my country. Cities are
expensive, Hank. Build one sometime and you’ll see what I
mean. Whites had to pay taxes to repair Los Angeles for you.
You can send me a check.

            Now, yes, I know you burned LA because you didn’t like the
verdict in the trial of those police officers. Well, I
didn’t like the verdict in the Simpson trial. But I didn’t
burn my house and loot Korean grocers, or burn down a city.

            Over the years blacks have burned a lot of American cities:
Newark, Detroit, Watts, on and on. Now add in the
fantastic cost over the years of welfare in all its forms,
the cost of all of those police calls people had to make,
for cells and jails and security systems in department
stores.

            I can’t live in the capital city of my own country
because of crime committed by blacks. Toss in the cultural
cost of lowering standards in everything for the benefit of
blacks. See what I mean?

            Now, I’d view things differently if you said to me, “Fred,
blacks can’t get anywhere in a modern country without
education. We know that. We need better schools, smarter
teachers, harder courses, books with smaller pictures and
bigger words. Can you help us?”

            I’d say, “Hallelujah! Hoo-ahh! Not just yes, but hell yes.
Let’s sell an aircraft carrier and get these folks some real
schools and get them into the economic main-stream.” I’d say
it partly because it would be the right thing to do, and
partly, because I’d like to add you guys to the tax base.

            The current custodial state is expensive. I’d just love for
blacks to study and learn to compete and stop burning
places. But is it going to happen? You may not believe it,
but I, and most whites, don’t like seeing blacks as
miserable and screwed up as they are.

            I spend a fair amount of time in the projects. Those places
are ugly. It’s no fun watching perfectly good kids turn into
semi-literate dope dealers who barely speak English. It just
plain ain’t right. But, Hank, what am I supposed to do about
it? I can’t do your children’s homework. At some point,
people have to do things for themselves, or they don’t get
done. Maybe it’s time.

            I’ll tell you what I see out in the world, Hank… I think
blacks are too accustomed to getting anything they want by
just demanding it. True, it has worked for over half a
century. Get a few hundred people in the street, implicitly
threaten to loot and burn, holler about slavery, and sadly,
the Great White Cash Spigot turns on.

            Thing is, whites don’t much buy it any longer. Most
recognize that what once was a civil-rights movement has
become a shakedown game. Few people still feel responsible
for the failings and inadequacies of blacks. Political
correctness keeps the lid on — but everyone knows the
score. Which scares me, Hank.

            On one hand, blacks hate whites and incline toward looting
and burning. (The whites you hate are the ones who marched
in the civil-rights movement. Ever think about that?)

            On the other hand, whites quietly grow wearier and wearier
of it. Not good Hank.

            On the third hand (allow me three hands, for rhetorical
convenience), blacks keep demanding things. As I write, you
demand reparations for slavery. Blacks in Oklahoma (I think
it was) want money for some ancient race riot. Other blacks
reject the Declaration of  Independence, blacks in New York
hint broadly at burning and looting over a trial, yet more
demand the elimination of the Confederate flag, and the
federal equal opportunity apparatus, which means blacks,
want to sue Silicon Valley for not hiring nonexistent black
engineers. That’s a lot of demanding for one month, Hank.

            What happens if whites ever say, “No”?

            Now, how about you? You’ve got a cushy job up there at
Harvard, and you can hoot and holler about what swine and
bandits whites are. I guess it’s lots of fun, and you get a
salary for it to boot. But don’t you think you might do
blacks more good if you told them to complain less and study
more?

            For example, if you want blacks to work in Silicon Gulch,
the best approach might be to find some really smart black
guys, and get them to study digital design ~ not Black
Studies (as you teach). That’s how everybody else does it.
It works. Then blacks wouldn’t feel left out, and racial
tensions would decline. Sound like a plan?

            Just out of curiosity, how many hours a week do professors
of Afro-American Studies spend in the projects, encouraging
poor black kids to study real life sho-nuf subjects?

Fred Reed was a police reporter
for one of the large Washington newspapers. He now writes a column which
can be googled “Fred on Everything.”

Fred published a weekly online column in which he got to say the things
his  editors would never, ever have let him write in the paper. His stuff
is iconoclastic and various articles have probably offended
everyone…regardless of political orientation.

1. Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.

2. If you want to know what liberals are up to, pay attention to what they accuse the conservatives of.

3. The amount of wealth in any given area is inversely proportional to the amount of Democrats running it.

4. Liberalism only succeeds when the public is scared into believing that it will not survive without it.

5. When liberalism conflicts with reality, reality must give way.

6. Facts are the enemy of liberalism.

7. Things are different when you are a Democrat [regarding his allegations of the media's ignorance towards Democratic scandals and misconduct]. [Look at all the tax cheats exposed in the Democratic leadership since Obama took office - Editor]

8. A Liberal is any person for whom two thousand years of human experience and history means nothing now that they are here.

9. To liberals, intentions are more significant than the outcomes they achieve.

10. Liberals never think what they are doing is wrong, they only think they haven’t done enough of it yet or it is underfunded.

11. Profiling is what groups call bigotry when they have a problem they don’t want to talk about.

12. Democrats and liberals do not engage in debate, they try to silence you. If they engaged in debate, they’d lose.

13. Democrats are political opportunists.

14. Liberalism is based on unproven and/or disproved theory.

15. Every culture is unquestionable except the West’s.

16. Liberals view the world the way they think it should be, not the way it is.

17. Being a liberal is the art of standing on ones own head and telling the rest of the world that they are upside down. 

Thanks to http://iusbvision.wordpress.com/quinns-laws/