Monday, December 22, 2003

Liberal Bias Is A Proven Fact

Since Mr. Finz “quoted” his grandmother in an earlier letter, I will “quote” mine: “You can lead a liberal to wisdom, but you can’t make him wise.” If I had known that the ICO would have allowed me more than 300 words for my letter, such as the over 400 words allowed Mr. Harry in his pointless “Hollow Argument” rebuttal, I would have included many more examples of studies documenting liberal bias in the media. Instead, I cited a web site, , that provides the results of many studies. I had hoped that open-minded truth seekers would go to the web site, there to learn for themselves the findings of liberal bias. Instead, Mr. Finz focused on just one of the findings I included, and didn’t even mention the others. Quoting myself:

“Also, a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that members of the media were four times as likely to identify themselves as ‘liberal’ than as ‘conservative.’

Over a 16-year period, the Republican presidential candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media’s vote.”

Another study found that 89 percent of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot.

I could go on and on, but the ICO will edit me for brevity at the 300-word point, so I trust interested readers will seek truth themselves. I did not make the findings up – the Los Angeles Times, Kaiser Family Foundation, Gallup Poll, Harris Poll, the American Association of Newspaper Editors, the U. S. New and World Report, the Freedom Forum, Editor & Publisher magazine, major colleges and universities, and many others are responsible.

As the studies found, most Americans (including liberals) believe there is a liberal bias in the media. Mr. Finz and Mr. Harry should challenge these studies with facts, rather than opinions.
My oldest son, Sgt Bruce Combs, arrived safely back from Iraq via Kuwait on December 5. Alice and I are very proud of him and all he served with, who are working hard to protect even the ignorant and ungrateful amongst us.

When Did Serbia Attack Us?


Since Mr. Finz determined not to waste any more time on an unworthy adversary such as myself, and unilaterally declared victory and an end to dead horse beating, I guess I will just have to find other simple amusements. Mr. Finz and Mr. Wasserman did not comment on any of the studies of liberal bias in the web site I referenced, and continued to write in their fact-free styles. They probably also will not read an excellent article, “War When we’re not attacked – Comparing Serbia with Iraq”, by Tom Campbell, who served five terms in Congress and was a member of the House International Relations Committee. Truth seekers can find the article in the Opinions section of the December 21, 2003 San Francisco Chronicle. Or go to and search for Campbell in Article - archive for December 21, 2003.

I will summarize the article: Serbia and Iraq are both instances of U.S. military action against a country that had not attacked us. Of the two, Iraq posed a greater threat to international peace, since Serbia had never attacked any of its neighbors, did not possess or use poison gas, and had not fired missiles into the territories of U. S. allies. Saddam Hussein gassed, shot, tortured and starved hundreds of thousands of his citizens, compared to the 2,000 killed by Milosevic in Kosovo. The occupation of Kosovo by NATO is in its fifth year. President Bush, contrary to Mr. Finz’s assertion that he directly defied the UN, had UN Security Council resolutions dating back to 1991 for authority, whereas President Clinton had nothing like that authority when he dropped the first bomb on Belgrade. President Clinton said Serbia posed a threat to NATO's security. President Bush said Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Campbell: “I can understand opposing (or supporting) U.S. action in both Iraq and Serbia. I can understand concluding that, on grounds of human rights, attacks on U.S. allies, international law and U.S. Constitutional law, the war in Iraq was a clearer case than the war in Serbia. To support the decision to attack Serbia, but not Iraq, however, is illogical.”

Mr. Campbell concludes: “It seems that it comes down to this: To some, President Bush can do no good, and President Clinton could do no wrong.”

Friday, December 19, 2003

California - Revenue Shortage, Spending Surplus


Your editorial, Junk Budget, December 12, 2003, was very amusing, since the ICO was not a critic of the Davis administration’s fiscal irresponsibility. When liberals bemoan reducing the regressive car tax just to criticize a Republican (a tax that hits the poor much harder than the rich, and then the rich take it as an itemized tax deduction, adding further salt to the wound!), it is true hypocrisy.

You are not alone in your liberal bias. The San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, and other willing accomplices of the Democratic majority that gave California the worst fiscal management of all fifty states (for details of the study that awarded California last place, see USA Today, June 23, 2003, Bad Moves, Not Economy, Behind Busted State Budgets, by Paul Overberg), also never editorialized against the spending that created the problem, but have been all over Governor Schwarzenegger for honoring his campaign promise to throw out the car tax increase. Good thing too, because that was one of the main promises that got him elected!

The problem in California can be summed up neatly. We did not have a shortage of revenue; we had an excess of spending. The only revenue shortage we experienced was due to our inflated expectations of taxes from the rich as they exercised stock options. California budget statistics show: 26% - Increase in state revenue from 1998-99 to 2002-03; 45% - Increase in total state spending from 1998-99 to 2002-03; 37% - Increase in just the General Fund portion of state spending from 1998-99 to 2002-03; and 37,000 - The number of new workers hired as of March 2003 in state government since the Governor's "hiring freeze" was imposed March 2002 (that's 37,000 new hires in ONE year!). Any questions?

Facts, not opinions.

Monday, November 10, 2003

The Last Word In Liberal Media Bias


Since Mr. Finz chose to attack both my intelligence and honesty concerning the media’s leftist bias, I would like to rub his nose in the following surveys by the American Association of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in 1988 and 1997. The most recent ASNE study surveyed 1,037 newspaper reporters found 61 percent identified themselves as/leaning "liberal/Democratic" compared to only 15 percent who identified themselves as/leaning "conservative/Republican."
Also, a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation survey found that members of the media were four times as likely to identify themselves as "liberal" than as "conservative."

Over a 16-year period, the Republican presidential candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media’s vote.

There are many more polls and surveys on this issue, but a good starting point is , which gives cites and links to each study.

There are also many quotes from news professionals admitting or pointing out the liberal bias in the news, but as always CBS News' Andy Rooney gets the last word. When discussing Bernard Goldberg's book Bias, which argues that the dominant media are biased in the liberal direction, on CNN's "Larry King Live" in June 2002: "There is just no question that I, among others [in the media], have a liberal bias. I mean, I'm consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think...Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that....But I think he should be more careful."

A postscript: This week we celebrated a man who made cutting taxes a defining moment of his presidency and boosted the U.S. economy to record heights. He also launched preemptive attacks against two brutal dictatorships. Today JFK would not be welcomed in his own party.

My oldest son, Sgt Bruce Combs, left Iraq for Kuwait and may be home in Las Vegas for Thanksgiving, we pray.

Thursday, April 10, 2003

Women In Black Get Fast Results!

Independent Coast Observer

This Friday the Women in Black demonstrated for an end to the war in their largest numbers yet. Friday evening I watched Coalition tanks cruising through Baghdad streets. Such fast results!

In a previous letter, I ended that the Iraqis would greet us by asking: “What took you so long?” As I watched TV news showing British soldiers liberating Basrah, and pictures of jubilant Iraqis thanking them and dancing on a British tank, they were shouting, “What took you so long!”

That the Iraqis are glad to see us is a mystery only to the Left. News that the Butcher of Baghdad has finally been overthrown has unleashed a torrent of eye witness accounts of atrocities his cruel regime inflicted on its own citizens: Iraqi death squads killing husbands and children in front of their wives and mothers; forcing civilians to be human shields while the Saddam loyalists attacked Coalition forces; and hiding military equipment in mosques and hospitals.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Saddam was responsible for the deaths of three million Iraqis and over a million Iranians. Along the way, Saddam gassed 5,000 Kurds, mostly women and children, in 1988.

In fact, Saddam is responsible for more Muslim deaths than any other person in history, including the total killed in all of the Crusades. Still, the Left stands up for Saddam, Osama, Yasser, and Fidel, and supports regime change only when discussing President Bush. The Left chants “no blood for oil,” but the French, Germans and Russians have profiteered selling armaments and building bunkers and palaces for Saddam with the oil money meant for sick and starving Iraqis.

I used to tell Leftists that “Saddam is no Boy Scout,” but I stopped saying that when I realized they thought I was complimenting Saddam.

Human Shields "Bug Out"


I'm glad Tom Cahill escaped from Iraq. Other human shields left Baghdad recently, and their experiences were reported by UPI and other news agencies. Two human shields were so shocked by Iraqi descriptions of atrocities committed by Saddam, that they switched from opposition to support of the war. Many other human shields left when they found the Iraqis wanted them to shield military targets.

Cahill's statement that human shields were specifically targeted seems as credible as the statements of Baghdad Bob, the Iraqi information officer who can say that there are no Coalition forces in Baghdad while a camera shot over his shoulder shows Coalition tanks roaming the banks of the Tigris.

During the phase of the war when shields would have been in transit, Coalition targeting was strategic, not tactical. Cahill is paranoid with delusions of grandeur to think that Coalition forces would, or ever could, identify and track the movements of inconsequential noncombatants.

If Cahill truly believes the stories, he was also a witness to a miracle: in fact, a double miracle, given the precision of Coalition missiles and bombs. Targeted buses? Dead human shields! The fact that they are not dead is proof in itself that they were not targeted and bombed.

Cahill will probably find many committed peace activists eager to repeat this story, and many others who lack the common sense to pick it apart. However, he should be careful not to expose the story to someone who can critically analyze it.

("Bug Out" - from the Korean War. When attacked by overwhelming forces, to "bug out" meant to throw your gun and gear away so the weight would not slow down your speedy departure!
"When the Chinese mortars begins to thuggin', the old Deuce Four begins to buggin' ")