Why Conservatives hate CBS's 60 Minutes

Okay, CBS and all the other so-called MSM (Mainstream Media) are in the tank for the democrat party.  This is not news, has been the case for ever and blossomed after Walter Cronkite decided in the late '60's that it was okay for news reporters, stations and the networks to take sides in "important" political issues of the day.  Since that time the liberal bias of the media has flowered to the point we now see on display in this 60 Minutes interview of Obama by Steve Croft over the weekend.  Conservatives have a hard time getting their message and the truth out when all these media outlets are this blatantly in the tank for the opposition. In this interview, Obama, who along with Joe Biden has been running all over the country blaming the Bush Administration for the financial meltdown of '08, is not asked by Croft to account for the fact the legislation enabling the deregulation of derivatives and the like to take place occurred during the Clinton Administration -- not the Bush Administration -- with the full support of the congressional democrats.  So much for the veracity and truth seeking by these MSM reporters.  Like all liberals (and Communists, and Muslims, by the way) outright lying and the omission of the truth in the promotion of a greater good is morally acceptable and even desirable. This point is usually overlooked when accounting for media bias, however it is the primary reason why no liberal is trustworthy.  Some refer to this particular tactic as moral relativism, which is as good an explanation as any.

Who's behind the demonstrations

In answer to the anti Wall Street, anti capitalism demonstrators in lower Manhattan and around the country, the WSJ offers a logical, sensible, rational explanation here, essentially ending their piece by suggesting the demonstrators should move south 200 miles to find the real culprits in Washington.  But is there more to this whole movement than meets the eye?  A previous post provided some evidence that there is a serious plan behind the demonstrations that has direct and indirect links to the White House.  In view of Obama's past as a community organizer trained by Saul Alinsky, and in view of many of the radical connections of many of his czars and other appointees in his administration, these so-far tenuous links to the White House probably should be taken seriously.  In addition, one has to wonder about the timing of these demonstrations, alleged to be "spontaneous" while actually occurring 6 months  after Obama's  precipitously plummeting approval ratings in the polls and 6 months after Obama declared war on the plutocrats on Wall Street the wealthy in general.  Its almost as though the plan is for artillery bombardment to soften up the enemy as phase one to be followed by the assault of the ground troops as phase two.  Coincidence or planned event a la Alinsky?  Perhaps this line of thinking gives too much credence to conspiracists who too often cry "wolf".  On the other hand Obama's past associations and family (both parents socialists), his staff and political appointments(specifically Van Jones, a self avowed communist), his power moves to pass Obamacare, $800 billion stimulus,  driving up the cost of energy ( $4.00 gas at the pump) to push the socialists Green Revolution,  the EPA plan to dramatically increase regulations and add 200,000 more federal enforcers, his cozying up to dictators and authoritarian regimes (concomitantly stiffing allies), his unqualified support for unions (sent one-half the stimulus billions to bail out local community municipal workers unions), and last but far from least his campaign promise to be a transformational president, and one has the grounds for at least speculating about the "spontaneity" of this OWS "movement".