Swooning WaPo cheers Savior-in-Chief: “There goes our journalistic objectivity”

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 15, 2009 06:38 PM


In the tank.

No reports of fainting, ogling, or drooling yet, but I will bet you there are cheering followers in the WaPo building who will not wash their hands for a week after greeting the Savior-in-Chief.

Howard Kurtz *Correction: David Nakamura* breathlessly reports:

Staff writers, photographers, editors and employees from other departments lined the hallway after word spread that the President-elect would be walking through the newroom.

At about 3:15 p.m., Obama entered through a back hallway and began shaking hands, as professional newsmen and women reached over to shake his hand and take pictures…

…Obama left the newsroom around 3:30 p.m.

“There goes our journalistic objectivity,” one reporter quipped, as people traded stories and pictures.

Oh, don’t worry, WaPo. Your “journalistic objectivity” went out the window a long, long time ago.

Mark this down as the first notorious Obamedia moment of 2009.

***

Flashback: Notorious Obamedia moments of 2008

Flashback: Seattle Times news editors cheered Rove resignation news

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

  1. ScoopThis.Org » Washington Post goes caca for cocoa puffs over Barack Obama!
  2. My Ode to Hope and Change « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
  3. “There goes our journalistic objectivity” « Wellsy’s World
  4. Michelle Malkin » AP’s final dig at President Bush
  5. Public Secrets
  6. B. Hussein Obama Coronation Invitation | Stuck On Stupid
  7. ButAsForMe! » Swooning WaPo cheers Savior-in-Chief: “There goes our journalistic objectivity”
  8. The Empty Center | America Needs Me
  9. Is The Liberal Media Kingdom Is Crumbling? « Bohicaville
  10. Is The Liberal Media Kingdom Crumbling? « Bohicaville
  11. Iklan Mudah Blog » Blog Archive » “There goes our journalistic objectivity” dont bastardtise. Malaysia cannot survive with or, as is the case here, a complicit press corps. The hard questions need to come before a disastrous policy decisio

Trackback URL

Comments


  1. #592393
    On January 15th, 2009 at 6:44 pm, TXGator said:

    The Barack Obey-Me Media.
    At least they’re running themselves out of business.

  2. #592395
    On January 15th, 2009 at 6:45 pm, JHSII said:

    “Journalistic integrity” will return to the Washington Post only when it files for bankruptcy and closes its doors.

  3. #592396
    On January 15th, 2009 at 6:45 pm, RTater said:

    There goes your what?

  4. #592409
    On January 15th, 2009 at 6:56 pm, zorro said:

    Oh, don’t worry, WaPo. Your “journalistic objectivity” went out the window a long, long time ago.

    To quote you Michelle, SNORT!

    WaPo = Losers.

  5. #592418
    On January 15th, 2009 at 7:03 pm, in_awe said:

    Clueless after all these years…

  6. #592425
    On January 15th, 2009 at 7:09 pm, genso said:

    All I want to know is if he flashed his man-boobs at the women reporters. Actually, I’m sure the WP has a few men that would have liked that, too. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    BTW…are we now supposed to capitalize His pronouns?

  7. #592429
    On January 15th, 2009 at 7:11 pm, FamilyMan said:

    will not wash their hands for a week after greeting the Savior-in-Chief.

    Thank GOD they didn’t hug the guy.

  8. #592440
    On January 15th, 2009 at 7:18 pm, DannoJyd said:

    Now they need to hire Joe the Plumber if they want to lay claim to any journalistic objectivity.

    As it appears they all had that tingle in their trousers they will probably hire Matthews instead.

  9. #592442
    On January 15th, 2009 at 7:18 pm, Trollman said:

    Obama was just thanking his staff for helping him win the election. Nothing to see here…

  10. #592444
    On January 15th, 2009 at 7:21 pm, right4life said:

    its nice to know journalists will be first in line for the mark of support for their new savior..

  11. #592454
    On January 15th, 2009 at 7:23 pm, Tennessee Dave said:

    Oh, don’t worry, WaPo. Your “journalistic objectivity” went out the window in the tank a long, long time ago.

    This picture was found of the WaPo reporters going to the inauguration.
    Enjoy.

  12. #592472
    On January 15th, 2009 at 7:48 pm, TooMuchTime said:

    “There goes our journalistic objectivity…”

    You cannot lose something you never had.

    BTW…are we now supposed to capitalize His pronouns?

    The Obamessiah has made it clear that, currently, he will not require the capitalization of personal pronouns related to him. He also has lifted the requirement of bowing, kneeling, or prostrating oneself in his presence.

    However, the following terms are “suggested” when referring to The One:

    Father of the Country
    The Expansionist
    Preserver of the Union
    Protector of the Working Man
    Man of the People
    The Sage of Monticello
    Honest Abe

    Comming to a national monument near you.

  13. #592475
    On January 15th, 2009 at 7:51 pm, docflash said:

    I don’t think they bother to put on knee pads anymore.

  14. #592479
    On January 15th, 2009 at 7:52 pm, FruNobulux said:

    Michelle, you simply must get over the idea that the “news” these days is anything but just entertainment. I tuned out of the mid-stream media (Keith, what’s urinalysis?) some time in the 1970’s because all it was even then was communist propaganda.

    The hotel lounge where I was having breakfast this morning had one of the crap broadcast shows blabbering on about the cold weather. Almost on cue, up came the disclaimer that the current cold snap doesn’t mean that global warming is off. What a bunch of rocket-polishers.

  15. #592487
    On January 15th, 2009 at 7:59 pm, genso said:

    Almost on cue, up came the disclaimer that the current cold snap doesn’t mean that global warming is off. What a bunch of rocket-polishers.

    I just can’t wait to see the details of Waxman’s “Save-the-Planet” bill.

  16. #592491
    On January 15th, 2009 at 8:06 pm, Texhoma said:

    Why do I expect nothing less from WaPo?

    When the Washington Times staff does this, then we can truly ‘kiss our butts goodbye’.

  17. #592508
    On January 15th, 2009 at 8:26 pm, Dimsdale said:

    For the majority of the media, WaPo and NYTimes in particular, “journalistic objectivity” is an oxymoron.

    This has to beat “postal service” out.

    I wonder how many won’t wash their hands after shaking the hand of the “messiah?”

  18. #592509
    On January 15th, 2009 at 8:27 pm, chapoutier said:

    Oh man…I can’t believe they were “cheering”! How could they do that?

    Oh yeah…they weren’t.

    Note to media-bashers: There was no standing ovation. Although one clerical employee was heard to shriek that he had shaken her hand.

    A joke in Cooper’s report quickly ricocheted to the Drudge Report. Surveying the scene on the street, she wrote that “around 100 people–Post reporters perhaps?–awaited PEOTUS’s arrival, cheering and bobbing their coffee cups.” For the record, eyewitnesses say these were just onlookers from nearby buildings. But Matt Drudge depicted it thusly in a red-ink headline: “‘CHEERING AT THE WASHINGTON POST FOR OBAMA ARRIVAL.”

    Cooper here is a NYT reporter, not exactly an objective source when it comes to their main rival. But of course, if its plastered on Drudge, it good enough.

    Journalistic integrity is INDEED important. I would say that extends to blog headings as well.

  19. #592521
    On January 15th, 2009 at 8:42 pm, Tom Blogical said:

    chapoutier:

    LMAO!!! Oh wait…you weren’t joking were you…oh well, LMAO anyway!

  20. #592526
    On January 15th, 2009 at 8:48 pm, dj said:

    How are they not embarrassed? What a bunch of idiots drooling over one of their own.

  21. #592527
    On January 15th, 2009 at 8:48 pm, BlameAmericaLast said:

    Washington Post? They’re still around?

  22. #592528
    On January 15th, 2009 at 8:49 pm, TooMuchTime said:

    Although one clerical employee was heard to shriek that he had shaken her hand.

    In 1964 when the Beatles were in New York, a reporter’s gloved hand brushed the back of Paul McCartney. Some girls in the crowd who saw what had happened, rushed the reporter and started kissing her hand. She had no idea what had happened and why the girls were kissing her hand.

    Kind of like this type of idol worship. Only much more disgusting. As the old saying goes – Never fall in love with a politician; you’ll get jilted every time.

    Can’t wait for the liberal media to start tearing down The B.O. when they disapprove.

  23. #592610
    On January 15th, 2009 at 9:40 pm, bjc said:

    *They may be on the down low with PEBO now, but after 1/20/2009, the beginning of an error, they will start scratching their collective heads as they see P-BO splashing around in the shallow end of the gene pool; I wish him well with my heart, but my head knows he is destined to fail; Failed idealogy leads to a failed presidency; The WaPo won’t have that as a headline in 2012, but you’ll likely catch it in the 26th and last paragraph, where they usually get around to the truth.

  24. #592618
    On January 15th, 2009 at 9:48 pm, Marc said:

    It would be hard to top ABC Obama groupie Charlie Gibson’s performance after the Obama “race speech” last March. Gibson began his postspeech interview with Obama by saying “You gave an extraordinary speech” and then the purring got worse after that. Gibson seemed positively libidinous.

  25. #592636
    On January 15th, 2009 at 10:02 pm, greenfairie said:

    Next time a liberal tries to convince you that left wing bias is a myth, point out this article.

  26. #592651
    On January 15th, 2009 at 10:11 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    MSM: Flounder, you can’t spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You f#$%^d up – you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can help.

  27. #592678
    On January 15th, 2009 at 10:28 pm, Ron said:

    It’s traditional for the plantation overseer to visit the slave quarters and check in on his investment. That’s about what The One was doing at WaPo.

  28. #592739
    On January 15th, 2009 at 11:11 pm, dadinseattle said:

    The Age of the Misleaders is upon us!
    Post,Times NBC,CBS etc. etc.
    Politicians and educators alike…all of them misleaders and out in front of them all the man from Kenya!

    Today my child’s high school had a mandatory assembly for Martin Luther King.
    It turned out to be a power point slide show and rally for…..you guessed it Barack Obama!
    There was only one slide of King and a video of Barack saying “I have a dream”!
    Here are some of the comments uttered by classmates in between the applause’s for change and hope:

    -”I just got my license and now that Obama is President gas will go down to .50 cents”!

    - “Now that a black man is president, everyone will get along”!

    -”Now Hillary and Barack are friends and will work to make the world peaceful”!

    -”Obama is going to cut everyone’s taxes and everyone will have a job”!

    I guess the futures so bright we have to wear shades!

    I don’t imagine the attitudes are much different at other schools across the nation.

    Tells me one thing for sure; all the misleaders are doing a first class number on our youth!!

    BTW-My child, felt angry, duped, and would have walked out and wanted to but would have lost credit for the class!

  29. #592804
    On January 16th, 2009 at 12:26 am, RhymesWithRight said:

    On the other hand, would it not be wonderful to see the President of the United States treated this way REGARDLESS of his party?

  30. #592874
    On January 16th, 2009 at 6:01 am, tpitman said:

    On January 15th, 2009 at 7:51 pm, docflash said:

    I don’t think they bother to put on knee pads anymore.

    They don’t need ‘em. They’ve got callouses on their knees like camels.

    I just can’t wait to see the details of Waxman’s “Save-the-Planet” bill.

    Speedos for Eskimos, to help them cope with the heat.

  31. #592899
    On January 16th, 2009 at 7:47 am, pianoman said:

    On January 15th, 2009 at 9:48 pm, Marc said:

    It would be hard to top ABC Obama groupie Charlie Gibson’s performance after the Obama “race speech” last March. Gibson began his postspeech interview with Obama by saying “You gave an extraordinary speech” and then the purring got worse after that. Gibson seemed positively libidinous.

    Gibson’s comment after Bush’s speech last night was telling also, something along the lines of “The President mentioned some mistakes he had made, and what he claimed were successes.” A digusting display. Again.

    On the other hand, I wish I had thought to invest in some personal-use “moist towelettes” for all the tingling, gushing media to clean themselves with at the inauguration. Limited edition, with the Messiah’s smiling face on them, of course.

    I’d have made a mint.

  32. #592900
    On January 16th, 2009 at 7:48 am, Omu said:

    Are journalists not allowed to like and dislike politicians any more?

    You have got ridiculous double standards, Michelle Malkin. You criticise the NY Times and WaPo for not being fair, then you support Fox News which is empirically a biased news organisation that masquerades as being fair and balanced. Why is it okay for Fox News to maintain a thin veneer of “fairness” while displaying egregious bias, but not okay for the NYTime and the WaPo to do it? Every time you criticise a “double standard”, there is a pronounced irony (though I’m beginning to doubt conservatives understand the concept) present.

  33. #592988
    On January 16th, 2009 at 9:37 am, Dave Turson said:

    As Obama made his way through the newsroom these queries were revealing: “Where’s the weather person? What’s Tuesday looking like?”
    Surely God would not allow snow or rain to fall on The One’s parade. Then again, if God is not on your side, the next best thing to have is the Fourth Estate.

  34. #593010
    On January 16th, 2009 at 9:58 am, L.N. Smithee said:

    Omu mooed:

    Are journalists not allowed to like and dislike politicians any more?

    They don’t have to be “allowed” to do anything. They have the right to their own opinions. What they aren’t supposed to do is let their personal biases effect their reporting of facts, and it’s clear that’s what has been happening for the past year in the case of Obama in particular and Democrats in general.

    You have got ridiculous double standards, Michelle Malkin. You criticise the NY Times and WaPo for not being fair, then you support Fox News which is empirically a biased news organisation that masquerades as being fair and balanced. Why is it okay for Fox News to maintain a thin veneer of “fairness” while displaying egregious bias, but not okay for the NYTimes and the WaPo to do it? Every time you criticise a “double standard”, there is a pronounced irony (though I’m beginning to doubt conservatives understand the concept) present.

    Omu, if you deny that the New York Times and Washed-up Post weren’t essentially house organs for Obama once it became clear that he would defeat Hillary, you’re just lying to yourself. But don’t believe me about the way the Times leans, believe the New York Times‘ own ombudsman. In its July 25, 2004 edition, the TimesDaniel Okrent answers the headline’s question “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” with these four words in the first paragraph:


    Of course it is.

    He goes on to write:

    Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right.

    Across the gutter, the Op-Ed page editors do an evenhanded job of representing a range of views in the essays from outsiders they publish – but you need an awfully heavy counterweight to balance a page that also bears the work of seven opinionated columnists, only two of whom could be classified as conservative (and, even then, of the conservative subspecies that supports legalization of gay unions and, in the case of William Safire, opposes some central provisions of the Patriot Act).

    Think the Post’s Dana Milbank — the guy who smeared Governor Palin with that “Kill him” crapola — will be spending the next four years taking note of every instance in which Barack Obama drops his “g’s” the way he did with Palin? I don’t know how old you are, Omu, but as a news junkie spanning four decades I can tell you leftward bias has never been more obvious and pervasive.

    Regarding Fox News Channel’s “egregious bias” — what are you measuring it against to arrive at that verdict? MSNBC? CNN? CBS, NBC, and ABC News? PBS? NPR? AP or Reuters? Are you suggesting that those organizations aren’t biased against Republicans and conservatives (and, for that matter, Israel)? Say what you will about FNC, but it never tried to fix an election using fake documents.

    Even after the vaunted universities that are the sources of all the polls, surveys, and experts they use like a bludgeon against all things right-wing tell them empirical studies show them to be unfair, the MSMers collectively put their hands over their ears and sing “La la la la la la.” They don’t have to address their own bias if they don’t want to, because they are the self-appointed arbiters of what news is and how it is reported.

    Educate yourself, Omu. Put down your glass of Fool-Aid and read CBS veteran Bernard Goldberg’s books Bias and Arrogance. Pre-order A Slobbering Love Affair, his upcoming book about Obama-worshipping reporters. Check out the NewsBusters sweet-16 tournament of Obama suckup coverage.

    Stop being so gullible.

  35. #593031
    On January 16th, 2009 at 10:14 am, lgm said:

    If you didn’t suffer from ODS, you would say Obama is restoring greatness to the office of the President. That’s what you said about Bush, comparing him to Churchill, and Lincoln, and FDR, and more or less anyone with a good reputation.

  36. #593034
    On January 16th, 2009 at 10:16 am, garydt said:

    OMU,, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out if the media had been objective in the beginning there would be no need of Fox News. With everyone else in the democratic camp, abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, msnbc, must you have all of them? I bet you are for diversity when it comes to skin color and power to the gay folks aren’t you? Why are you against diversity in thought? I was just wondering?

  37. #593063
    On January 16th, 2009 at 10:29 am, Socky said:

    Y’all are confusing OMU by bringing up those pesky little “fact” thingies.

  38. #593079
    On January 16th, 2009 at 10:46 am, DBNinKY said:

    On January 16th, 2009 at 10:14 am, lgm said:

    If you didn’t suffer from ODS, you would say Obama is restoring greatness to the office of the President.

    I completely disagree with your acronym, ODS – Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    According to every relevant, credible pundit around, Obama’s popularity is destined to nose-dive late this coming summer, when our worsening unemployment numbers kick up the public’s “misery factor” a couple of notches. That’s the point I beleive, BDS morphs from Bush Derangement Syndrome, to Barack Derangement Syndrome.

    In a tight economy, why waste three good letter?

    As for your inciting statement about B. Hussein Obama being a “good president,” well the evidence is stacking up mightily against that ever standing a chance of happening: just look at his picks for Treasury Sec and AG.

  39. #593092
    On January 16th, 2009 at 10:57 am, Salt said:

    On January 16th, 2009 at 10:14 am, lgm said:

    If you didn’t suffer from ODS, you would say Obama is restoring greatness to the office of the President.

    So, either you believe Obama is “restoring greatness” or you’re deranged? No middle ground at all there, eh?

    That’s what you said about Bush, comparing him to Churchill, and Lincoln, and FDR, and more or less anyone with a good reputation.

    When did Michelle make this comparison? I’d be happy to read a source.

    I’ll also note the irony of your mentioning comparisons to Lincoln.

  40. #593135
    On January 16th, 2009 at 11:22 am, Omu said:

    OMU,, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out if the media had been objective in the beginning there would be no need of Fox News. With everyone else in the democratic camp, abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, msnbc, must you have all of them? I bet you are for diversity when it comes to skin color and power to the gay folks aren’t you? Why are you against diversity in thought? I was just wondering?

    I never said the NY Times or WaPo or MSNBC weren’t biased. That’s not my point anyway. Michelle Malkin essentially posts put-down after put-down of the mainstream media on this blog, declaring them to be bias and expressing outrage over it. Yet she does not criticise Fox News, even though that channel is at the very least just as biased as the NY Times, with the distinction of it being biased to her side. Bias in media is either unacceptable or it’s ok. Malkin needs to make her mind up.

  41. #593154
    On January 16th, 2009 at 11:38 am, rplatt said:

    Herein lies a serious problem. The right is losing the media war. Obama and his leftist, mainstream media propaganda machines control the information flow to the populous and are essentially programming them to comply with Obama’s Marxist agendas. Until the right can find an effective channel to transmit a powerful counter information campaign this condition will persist. The bottom line is that if you tell the people something long enough and with great persistence, they will believe it and act accordingly. Let’s face it folks, two irreconcilable, competing ideologies are in a war to win the hearts and minds of the American people and so far the left controls the battlefield.

  42. #593167
    On January 16th, 2009 at 11:49 am, rplatt said:

    Omu said: I never said the NY Times or WaPo or MSNBC weren’t biased. That’s not my point anyway. Michelle Malkin essentially posts put-down after put-down of the mainstream media on this blog, declaring them to be bias and expressing outrage over it. Yet she does not criticise Fox News, even though that channel is at the very least just as biased as the NY Times, with the distinction of it being biased to her side. Bias in media is either unacceptable or it’s ok. Malkin needs to make her mind up.

    Now let’s see . . . the left is supported by the Washington Post, The New York Times, The Boston Herald, The Los Angeles Times, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Seattle Post – Intelligencer, The Seattle Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Public Radio and Public Television, etc., etc., etc., etc. Then on the other side we have that big bad bully FOX News. Come on “Omu” join the conscious world.

  43. #593217
    On January 16th, 2009 at 12:19 pm, tre said:

    On January 15th, 2009 at 7:11 pm, FamilyMan said:
    will not wash their hands for a week after greeting the Savior-in-Chief.
    Thank GOD they didn’t hug the guy.

    Family Man, do you suppose if they kissed him, then they wouldn’t brush their teeth anymore?

    EEEWWWW!

  44. #593247
    On January 16th, 2009 at 12:37 pm, dj said:

    On January 16th, 2009 at 11:22 am, Omu said: …Yet she does not criticise Fox News, even though that channel is at the very least just as biased as the NY Times, with the distinction of it being biased to her side.

    How sad for you, and for so many like you, that when a news source presents both sides of the spectrum, you think that shows bias towards the side you don’t agree with. The only reason libs think FOX News is biased is because it is the only outlet where the conservative point of view is shown at all. And, by the way, usually shown concurrently in contrast with the liberal point of view.

  45. #593390
    On January 16th, 2009 at 2:03 pm, Lan Astaslem said:

    On January 16th, 2009 at 11:22 am, Omu said: …Yet she does not criticise Fox News, even though that channel is at the very least just as biased as the NY Times, with the distinction of it being biased to her side.

    I wish I could find the article with the statistics, but I remember a study being done during the General Election that analyzed the campaign coverage (i.e. Positive / Negative stories on Obama / McCain). The MSM was overwhelmingly positive on Obama and Negative on McCain — while Fox News was evenly split on both candidates. Fair and Balanced, you might say. I’ll keep looking for the study, but here’s another little tidbit from Pew. I’ll save you some time and post the summary (actually from a HuffPoo link that I won’t link because I refuse to provide them any additional traffic):

    The study found that 51% of CNN’s regular viewers are Democrats, compared to 18% Republicans. Fox News’ audience leans Republican but is more balanced overall, with 39% of regular viewers declaring themselves Republicans compared to 33% declaring themselves Democrats. MSNBC’s regular audience is 45% Democrat and 18% Republican.

    Now, if the audience is overwhelmingly Dhimms — who do you cater to if you want to stay in business? Hmmm???

  46. #593643
    On January 16th, 2009 at 4:20 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Front-Page news story today:

    History, life lessons await honored Tar Heel teens

    Note how the invited students are as young as sixth grade,
    and parents are not allowed to attend:

    plenty of parents wanted to come as chaperones.

    “They said, ‘No, you’re not invited,’ ” said Michael’s father

    An “Obama Youth” inauguration indoctrination?

  47. #593805
    On January 16th, 2009 at 8:11 pm, dadinseattle said:

    I wish I could find the article with the statistics, but I remember a study being done during the General Election that analyzed the campaign coverage (i.e. Positive / Negative stories on Obama / McCain).

    Here’s one

  48. #593878
    On January 16th, 2009 at 10:23 pm, garydt said:

    For the record I believe OMU that Michelle Malkin never claimed to be objective. She flatly states out she is conservative at the beginning. Does your liberal media do that??. I doubt it and they always claim they are objective anyway,, especially Chris Mathews.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Connecting the “media justice” dots

November 3, 2009 01:50 PM by Michelle Malkin

18 Comments | 1 Trackback

Journo-rage: Fist fight in the Washington Post newsroom

November 2, 2009 05:56 PM by Michelle Malkin

43 Comments | 4 Trackbacks

Oh, the incivility!

MoveOn demands that Democrats stay off Fox News

October 20, 2009 02:36 PM by Michelle Malkin

138 Comments | 3 Trackbacks

Obama’s Fox News policy: Isolation over engagement

October 19, 2009 12:02 PM by Michelle Malkin

59 Comments | 5 Trackbacks

Plus: Anita Dunn on getting around the “filter.”

Who’s behind the White House war on Fox News?

October 14, 2009 05:06 AM by Michelle Malkin

130 Comments | 7 Trackbacks

Fox News Derangement Syndrome strikes again

October 13, 2009 08:29 AM by Michelle Malkin

136 Comments | 2 Trackbacks

All-whine zone.


Categories: Media Bias, Washington Post



Legal Insurrection

» NY Times Names Names

American Thinker

» The true cost of ObamaCare

HotAir GreenRoom