Introduction. The way back home.

(Pages 1-5) The “mainstream” media in the United States are considered to be the old TV news outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC), plus CNN; the old influential newspapers (Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and so on); and the old news magazines (Newsweek, Time, U.S. News and World Report). I have a new name for these institutions, taken as a whole: the “paleo-media.” They’re deteriorating, they’re dying out, but worse, they’re biased and deceitful. They’re so dedicated to liberal ideology, they routinely fudge the facts, overlook pivotal points, and recklessly toss truth overboard. Liberalism is their god, and they spare nothing on its behalf. In 1950, Senator Joseph McCarthy began a campaign to rid the government of communists. The media didn’t like that because many of McCarthy’s targets were media darlings. So the big newspapers and magazines of the day began a blitz to discredit the Senator and portray him as vicious, unfair, and downright un-American. U.S. citizens, not hearing anything to refute the charges, bought into the smear, which was so successful, the word “McCarthyism” emerged, meaning someone engaging in contemptuous character assassination. How ironic indeed that McCarthy’s charges years later were validated, so the term better applies to the media leaders instead. The John Birch Society was founded in 1958 to fight what its founders considered the serious threat to this country posed by communism. Once again, the media, fondly disposed to many communist principles, began an effort to demonize JBS. I remember vividly the intense anger that was instilled in me – I was in my twenties at the time – by the media. Their shameful attack on the Birchers was a stunning success. In reporting “news” from Vietnam, the media slanted the coverage, intimating our armed forces were doing badly, when in fact they were winning battles and advancing on the enemy. After months of beating the drum of defeatism, they successfully convinced the American public the war was dishonorable and a lost cause. Walter Cronkite’s constant harangue beamed daily onto TV screens in living rooms across the country was particularly effective in selling our defeat. The U.S. military did not lose the Vietnam war; the media did. Dan Rather thought he could torpedo George Bush’s second run for the presidency by a carefully – but not quite carefully enough – planned scheme to show Bush doctored records and didn’t fulfill his Air Force commitment. Had this scandal occurred a decade or two before, it probably would have succeeded, but alternative sources of information were becoming available to the public, and the man in the street was growing ever more suspicious of the paleo-media. Quite quickly it was seen that the documents used by Rather for his hit piece were forged, and Rather and his cohorts took a bigger hit than did Bush. The paleo-media have been intent to turn Iraq into the second coming of Vietnam, in order to bedevil their hated foe: George W. Bush. The New York Times printed stories about Abu Ghraib on the front page of 32 successive issues. Yet, when news from Iraq turned favorable for the U.S. – dramatically favorable as a matter of fact – as a result of “The Surge,” the paper became amazingly quiet. No use allowing readers to give credit where credit is due, if the credit is due George Bush. In early 2008, a surprisingly short time after the New York Times endorsed John McCain as Republican candidate for President, the paper trotted out a story – reportedly months in development – that suggested McCain had been involved in an illicit affair with a lobbyist some eight years prior. Further, it was suggested the Senator had improperly peddled influence as a result of the affair. (What surprises me is that the paper didn’t wait until a month before election day to spring this trap.) The smear was quickly revealed for what it was, and the Times' reputation continued its downward tumble. An article in the March 24, 2008 issue of The Washington Times – National Weekly Edition, said, “Only 6 percent of the national press corps describe themselves as ‘conservative’ in a population that includes reporters, editors and producers from major television and radio networks, daily newspapers, news wires and online sources. [. . .] In contrast, 36 percent of the overall population generally consider themselves conservative. There are more conservatives in broadcast than print – 10 percent and 2 percent, respectively. Among online journalists the figure was 8 percent.” In their March 24 2008 news programs, ABC, NBC, and CBS all neglected to mention that indicted Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatric is a Democrat (“Double Standard Watch,” Washington Times – National Weekly Edition, March 31, 2008, page 16). A simple oversight? Perhaps. But then how do you explain that ABC, CBS, and NBC, in their morning and evening shows after the Senator David Vitter scandal and Senator Larry Craig scandal, all mentioned those two senators are Republicans? It wasn’t quite so bad with the Elliott Spitzer scandal. His affiliation (Democrat) was unmentioned in 80 percent of the network news programs. So it’s not at all difficult to see how the left colors the media’s message. Leftists are in charge. It’s a near monopoly. The other side of a story or issue remains hidden, because liberals prefer the public to be exposed only to the liberal point of view. Contained in this book are hundreds of quotations from well-known and not-so-well-known liberals. I think the reaction many readers will have to these comments is “I can’t believe you said that!” Indeed, that was my reaction as well! The quotations are well sourced – in many cases from several different publications or websites – but chances are you didn’t hear them from the paleo-media. Often, nowadays, “All the news that’s fit to print” does not include information harmful or embarrassing to the esteemed foot soldiers of the liberal army. On the other hand, thanks to the paleo-media, you’re exposed to endless repetition of embarrassing conservative statements. Even statements that are not embarrassing, but can be twisted or somehow construed to be improper or inappropriate, are given lavish coverage. For example, take the subject of racism. Rush Limbaugh commented that the media seemed anxious to overlook the faults of black quarterback Donovan McNabb, perhaps because he was black. He was summarily dismissed from his sports job. Paul Hornung remarked that Notre Dame may have lowered it’s academic standards to attract blacks. He, too, was axed. Fox TV broadcaster Steve Lyons made comments that might be considered inhospitable to Hispanics. Fired! Talk-show host Larry Krueger said Filipe Alou had “cream of wheat for brains.” Gone! Larry Summers, president of Harvard, referred to data suggesting fundamental differences between the sexes might help explain why so few women become scientists or engineers. He was bitterly criticized then promptly bounced out of office. But some racist remarks are welcomed with open arms. When Joe Morgan said the Houston Astros are too white, that was greeted with approval. Eric Dickerson said the position of running backs belongs to black men. Once again: approval. Bryant Gumbel commented that the Winter Olympics athletes – so many of whom are white – aren’t really athletes at all. The reaction: oh, how wise and observant. Charles Barkley suggested some whites in the NBA are there only because they’re white. A racist comment? Oh, my goodness, no. There were nodding heads all around. So the double standard is readily apparent. Conservatives are lambasted for racist, bigoted, xenophobic, outrageous remarks. Liberals get a pass. Their I-can’t-believe-you-said-that statements glide gracefully by without serious media scrutiny. And that’s why this book has been written: to demonstrate that not only is liberal speech laced with racism, bigotry, xenophobia, and selfishness, it’s also often sometimes downright foolish. If the paleo-media won’t focus on dumb statements from the left, I will in this book. A little history: Some ten years ago or so I wrote and published You Don't Say, which contains 76 surprising quotations from liberals. The motivation at the time was the same as for this book today; to highlight remarks that deserved attention but were largely ignored by the paleo-media (I called them the “Propaganda Machine” in that book). In order to promote the book I decided I needed to have a website, and I needed it to contain not only controversial liberals statements, but other entertaining and informative information as well. I’ve now maintained that site, titled “You Don’t Say,” since 1999, usually with weekly updates. The address: www.youdontsay.org. I think you’ll find it of interest. So, over all those years, I’ve been on the lookout for curious and crazy quotations to post on my website. And I’ve found them by the hundreds in books, magazines, newsletters, on TV, and on the Internet. Then it hit me: I’ve been doing research for a long time; why not organize the material and present it in book form. Thus the birth of I Can’t Believe You Said That. I’ve made extensive use of Internet resources in the collection of material for this book. I found additional sources for the quotations, I looked up titles and descriptions of those quoted (special thanks to Wikipedia, which on occasion proved invaluable), and I used photographs of individuals found on numerous websites (photographers not known). Since these materials are in the public domain and no copyright designations were observed, I assume use here is proper and does not infringe on any copyright protections. You’ll note I’ve taken the liberty of adding a few words of my own – in the shaded boxes. I just couldn’t let liberals have the last word.