Sadly, NBC rejected an uplifting pro-life Super Bowl ad produced by CatholicVote.com. The excuse given is that NBC and the NFL are not interested in advertisements involving “political advocacy or issues.”

This ad is a project of the Fidelis Center for Law and Policy and represents the first release of a national media campaign. It is entitled “Life: Imagine the Potential” and you can watch it below.

Click here to view the embedded video.

There is no question that most of the mainstream media is swooning over President-Elect Barack Obama. I find it sad that so many of them can’t even muster a positive word about President Bush — remember, against stunning odds, he has successfully kept terrorists on the run for 7 years now. Meanwhile, the blame-Bush crowd has been filling the news with negative economic data and slanted stories in an attempt to bury him.

With this in mind, I offer the following prediction. Within 24 hours, I predict there will be a noticeable reduction in the amount of negative economic news reported. In fact, I expect we will actually see some positive headlines and success stories. I also predict that virtually all negative economic news that remains over the next few years will be wrongly associated with Bush. Meanwhile, sweeping parallels to FDR will be made of Obama (and, oddly enough, they may be warranted since FDR actually prolonged the Great Depression due to his tax and spending policies).

So, while I am hopeful of a good Presidency for Obama and wish him (not most of his policies) well personally, I am realistic in knowing this nation faces a liberal onslaught that will be unlike anything ever seen. An unrestrained Democratic Party majority is a recipe for disaster, I feel.

I will pray for Obama and support his efforts for what is good and right. Likewise, using my “of the people” rights as an American, I will oppose what is wrong.  I will continue to call for the protection of unborn babies (including helping their parents), the recognition of marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman only, and the right to keep and bear arms. On these there can be no compromise.

I recognize the historic nature of this election and tomorrow’s inauguration and rejoice in a nation that was able to overlook race. I never doubted that we would reach that place as a people. I am saddened, though, that in this historic process, as a people we also overlooked traditional moral values and expressed a willingness to trample on the weak among us.

Three Ways to Reverse that Trend

The news came out today that media conglomerate Tribune Co., the owner of the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times and other properties, filed for bankruptcy protection today. They are $13 billion in debt!

That news flash came about the same time as the New York Times Company’s announcement they are planning to borrow up to $225 million against their mid-Manhattan headquarters building. This new quest is in addition to their two revolving lines of credit with a whopping $400 million each.

As a business owner myself, I have a few suggestions to help these companies turn things around and avert disaster. Now admittedly, my company is nowhere near as large as these; however, there are a few axioms of business that apply to companies no matter what size. If these companies take my advice, I am confident they will become profitable again and reverse these trends.

Furthermore, I feel traditional media companies can improve their fortunes in the Internet Age which many (mostly incorrectly) blame for their downfall. Such an improvement, though, will require significant change and retooling. Unfortunately, for most long-standing traditional media companies, such change is not something they are willing to do. They have demonstrated this unwillingness by ignoring their shareholders and customers and allowing such staggering piles of debt to choke them to almost certain death.

Enough about the problem. Now for some solutions. Basically I see three major needs that have to be addressed as follows.

1. Cut expenses now.

It is unsustainable for any business of any size to continually spend more revenue than they earn. That has to stop now. Need I say more?

Doing this is hard but it forces a business to look at their priorities carefully. Re-examine everything and put a value on it. Start with what is essential and look for ways to reduce and economize that. With what is left after this step, look for ways to maximize the “bang for the buck” by carefully evaluating all expenditures. Don’t automatically roll over budgets, contracts and annual expenditures. Review. Evaluate. Re-negotiate. Look for alternatives. In short, shrink the need and live frugally within your means.

2. Produce a product that consumers want to buy.

Most traditional media companies are failing, in my opinion, because they are not producing a product the consumer wants. Instead, they are trying to sell the same thing to people who don’t want it anymore. That doesn’t work, isn’t working and is suicide.

I have two thoughts on this. First, most traditional media companies like the ones named above are very liberal. Most Americans are “center right” but most traditional media companies are left or even far left. As such, millions of customers have quit buying the editorials and news stories containing leading questions and slanted sources that produce a liberal outcome. These once loyal customers now have alternatives and they are running to them. This brings me to my second point — the Internet.

The Internet has forced the hand of traditional media companies by being able to deliver the same content faster and for less money. Think about this. Why spend (waste) all those resources printing and delivering newspapers when the customer can download the latest news and opinion faster and for less money? For consumers it’s a no-brainer what makes more sense.

But most newspapers haven’t innovated and migrated to the Internet properly. Many produce “mini newspapers” on the Internet instead of offering other more preferred formats. They should be looking for ways to replace paper by encouraging their content to be automatically downloaded to electronic devices and other venues used by customers.  The technology exists but the major movers aren’t moving in that direction. Instead they are locked in an old mindset of printing ads and delivering liberal papers to paying subscribers. Both of these models have to change or these companies are dead.

3. Stop doing what doesn’t work and do more of what does. Build a contingency fund.

Basically the first two points say it all but I added the third one to remind us that the above two steps are never-ending. It’s kind of like wash, rinse, repeat. In short, we should always cut costs and deliver products that people want to buy. When we identify something that doesn’t work or costs too much then stop it. It might be a good idea but just not right now or for this application. Revisit it later if you think it’s a good idea. When we find a strategy that works, we should look for ways to efficiently do more of it.

Similarly, every company should know that good times are not eternal and bad times are inevitable. Surpluses should be invested wisely for the slumps that invariably come. That’s wise management. Period. These investments or contingency funds provide resources to deal with future problems from a position of strength. After all, cash talks and opens doors in business.

My concepts are simple (some might argue simplistic) but they work every time they are tried. When is spending less than you earn and delivering products your customers want ever not a winning combination? It’s that basic.

The current system obviously is not working for traditional media companies. Any CEO or Board of Directors that allows their company to stack up such debt as referenced above is no friend of the company or the shareholders they serve. Instead of bonuses or promotions, they should be fired and replaced with competent leaders who will do what it takes to manage the company wisely. With new leaders who understand the challenges, traditional media companies can make the changes needed to properly serve their customers and turn a profit.

Compared to John McCain, we know very little about Barack Obama’s past. (For example, how many know that Obama has smoked cigarettes this year on the campaign trail? Watch his own admission.)  He seems to have simply burst upon the scene with a well-branded, well-funded and carefully honed message of change. It seems highly strange, though, that somebody could make it past the massive Clinton Machine and to the Democratic nomination without some kind of backing. Who is really behind Barack Obama and why do we know so little about him?

This collective ignorance is partly because he has refused to release his medical records, college transcripts, birth certificate and many other basic details that could clue us in on his character, experience and judgment. This collective ignorance is also because the mainstream media has been incredibly uninterested in Barack Obama’s past and has simply not investigated or even seemed interested. (They are very interested in Sarah Palin and ‘Joe the Plumber’ though and have dug and dug — in some cases perhaps illegally.)

Here are a few things we know about Barack Obama. I’m quoting from a report by Maxim Lott entitled “Obama’s Education Groups Funded Controversial Organizations in the ’90s, Tax Returns Show“:

The Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund of Chicago funded numerous controversial groups while Barack Obama served on their boards between 1995 and 2002, an analysis of their tax returns shows.

In 2001, when Obama was a part-time director of The Woods Fund of Chicago, it gave $75,000 to ACORN, the voter registration group now under investigation for voter fraud in 12 states.

The Woods Fund also gave $6,000 to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ, which Obama attended. The reason for the donation to the church is unclear — it is simply listed as “for special purposes” in the group’s IRS tax form.

It gave a further $60,000 to the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University, which was founded and run by Bernardine Dohrn, the wife of domestic terrorist William Ayers and, with her husband, a former member of the 1960s radical group the Weather Underground.

Other controversial donations that year included $50,000 to the Small Schools Network — which was founded by Ayers and run by Michael Klonsky, a friend of Ayers’ and the former chairman of the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), an offshoot of the 1960s radical group Students for a Democratic Society — and $40,000 to the Arab American Action Network, which critics have accused of being anti-Semitic.

There’s more:

When Obama co-chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which calls itself “a public-private partnership improving education for 1.5 million urban and rural public school students,” it gave to some of the same groups — partnering with ACORN to manage funding for schools and giving over $1 million to the Small Schools Network.

It also gave nearly $1 million to a group called the South Shore African Village Collaborative, whose goals, according to Annenberg’s archived Web site, are “to develop more collegial relationships between teachers and principals. Professional development topics include school leadership, team building, parent and community involvement, developing thematic units, instructional strategies, strategic planning, and distance learning and teleconferencing.”

But the group mentions other goals in its grant application to the Annenberg Challenge:

“Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us,” one page of the application reads.

You can read that application here (pdf document).

There’s more to the article quoted above but I highlighted the money trail. Remember, follow the money and you’ll find out who is behind something and why — people put money where their priorities are. I’m only scratching the surface but it doesn’t take long before some really ugly associations start to show up.

In short, the Barack Obama we don’t know seems to have lots of friends who fit into one or more of these categories: radicals, racists, anti-semites, communists, terrorists, and/or purveyors of election fraud. Will voters wake up and realize that Obama really is about change? I doubt Obama’s version of change is the kind of change most voters really want, though.

Recommended resources for learning more about the “real Obama”:

• Sean Hannity
• Obama2.com

As I noted in my polling post yesterday, we are witnessing an unprecedented amount of pro-Obama bias in the mainstream media. The bias is so widespread that in many circles it has become politically incorrect to even voice support for John McCain. This peculiar political scenario reminds me of the fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” by Danish poet Hans Christian Andersen.

As the story goes, the emperor cares about little more than clothing and always wants to wear the best in the land. One day he is approached by two swindlers who promise him the finest suit from the most beautiful and amazing fabric in the world. This fabric, the emperor is told, is visible to only the wise. In short, anyone who is either stupid or unfit will not be able to see the fabric.

The weak-minded emperor is flattered by the swindlers and, when shown the magical “fabric” does not want to admit he cannot see it. So, to not appear stupid or unfit as emperor, he vainly pretends the fabric is beautiful and authorizes the suit be made at once. Similarly, none of the emperor’s ministers want to appear unfit or stupid so they also pretend to see the fabric and proclaim their admiration.

After much supposed labor, the swindlers tell the emperor that the suit is finished. The emperor, still not admitting he cannot see a stitch of clothing, is “dressed” in the suit. Those around him applaud and gush over the tailors’ workmanship and how good it looks on the emperor. The emperor in his vanity enjoys the attention and proceeds to parade through the capital in a special procession to show off his new “clothes” that only the wise can see. Everyone in the kingdom succumbs to the pressure to not appear stupid. They lavish admiration for the beautiful “clothing” that is fit only for the emperor.

During the parade, however, a small child cries out, “But he has nothing on!” At that moment the crowd no longer withholds their better judgment and admits that the child told the truth — the emperor really is wearing no clothes! The emperor, though, not admitting his foolishness, holds his head high and continues to proceed through the town without clothing.

I feel this nearly 200-year old fairy tale fits our times very well. I offer the following analogy: The emperor is Barack Obama who has been swindled into thinking he is “the change we can believe in” and a few other foolish, empty campaign slogans.

The mainstream news media, much like the emperor’s ministers, don’t want to appear foolish in front of the emperor since he has a rock star-like following among the young and the elite. Instead of researching the fabric (and noting its flaws, including lack of executive experience, radical associations, ACORN fraud, “spread the wealth around” socialism, give 95% a tax cut when only 65% pay any income taxes lie, etc.), the media swoons over the emperor’s fabric and overlooks the obvious. Meanwhile, they busy themselves microscopically researching the fabric worn by John McCain, Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber and others not associated with the emperor.

The American people, not wanting to appear stupid, feel compelled to go along with the adoring ministers (mainstream media) and likewise admire the fabric. In droves they also overlook its obvious flaws and enthusiastically proclaim its greatness. When asked, however, few can explain why they like the fabric. Instead they loudly proclaim that we need the emperor because he talks so well and looks so good to the world. Besides, what he is wearing doesn’t matter.

The rest of this analogy will be written on November 4th. Hopefully a child will step forward and tell the voting crowds that the emperor has no clothes on. When the crowds hear that child will they open their self-imposed blinded eyes and admit that Obama is an empty suit and unfit to serve as President? Only then, when voters realize the emperor is naked, will it be politically correct to oppose Barack Obama.

There is such an incredible level of bias in most mainstream news media coverage in favor of Barack Obama that even the Clintons complained about not getting a fair shake during the Democratic Primary. You know it must be way out of balance when the smooth-talking Bill Clinton, the darling of the 1990s, is thrown under the bus in favor of somebody even more smooth-talking.

Howard Kurtz reported (Oct. 22) on a new study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism that showed that “media coverage of John McCain has been heavily unfavorable since the political conventions, more than three times as negative as the portrayal of Barack Obama.” In all, 57% of print and broadcast stories about John McCain were “decidedly negative” while only 14% were positive. Contrast that with Barack Obama’s coverage during that period: “36 percent of the stories clearly positive, 35 percent neutral or mixed and 29 percent negative.”

Kurtz continues:

The Wall Street meltdown appears to have been a turning point for both candidates. Thirty-four percent of the stories about Obama’s reaction to the crisis were positive, while 18 percent were negative. McCain’s coverage, though, went into a free fall after he initially declared that “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.” By the following week, more than half the stories about McCain were negative and only 11 percent positive, just as Obama’s coverage was turning positive by a margin of more than 5 to 1.

Kurtz’s concluding paragraph offers this statement:

While some will seize on these findings as evidence that the media are pro-Obama, the study says they actually contain “a strong suggestion that winning in politics begets winning coverage, thanks in part to the relentless tendency of the press to frame its coverage of national elections as running narratives about the relative position of the candidates in the polls . . .”

I will go a step further and state that many in the media are pro-Obama and clearly so. I feel that their pro-Obama enthusiasm carries over to the mechanics of polls and the interpretation of polling data.

Michael Barone wrote an intriguing article (Oct. 22) entitled “Are the Polls Accurate?” with a subtitle “Reading them right is more art than science.” Barone maintains that we can trust polls but “with qualifications.” He then points out several inherent imperfections in political polling that can cause under-representation for some candidates and over-representation for others. Sampling errors can be introduced by cell phone-only households, pollsters not calling back, and respondents refusing to answer questions. These factors can skew results. Also, it seems that during the Democratic Primary, some people didn’t want to admit they did not vote for the rock star-like Obama and so exit polling was higher than actual results.

That brings me to my final point in this article. Most people are probably familiar with the polls that show a large Obama lead over McCain; however, two polls (AP-Ipsos and AP-Gfk) released on October 22 suggest that the Presidential race is essentially tied with Obama at 44% and McCain at 43%. These polls showed that the race tightened after the third debate (which is something I predicted would happen).

Key takeaways from the AP-Ipsos poll are these:

Since the last AP-GfK survey in late September, McCain also has:

–Posted big gains among likely voters earning under $50,000 a year; he now trails Obama by just 4 percentage points compared with 26 earlier.

–Surged among rural voters; he has an 18-point advantage, up from 4.

–Doubled his advantage among whites who haven’t finished college and now leads by 20 points. McCain and Obama are running about even among white college graduates, no change from earlier.

–Made modest gains among whites of both genders, now leading by 22 points among white men and by 7 among white women.

–Improved slightly among whites who are married, now with a 24-point lead.

–Narrowed a gap among unmarried whites, though he still trails by 8 points.

McCain has cut into Obama’s advantage on the questions of whom voters trust to handle the economy and the financial crisis. On both, the Democrat now leads by just 6 points, compared with 15 in the previous survey.

Obama still has a larger advantage on other economic measures, with 44 percent saying they think the economy will have improved a year from now if he is elected compared with 34 percent for McCain.

Intensity has increased among McCain’s supporters.

A month ago, Obama had more strong supporters than McCain did. Now, the number of excited supporters is about even.

Eight of 10 Democrats are supporting Obama, while nine in 10 Republicans are backing McCain. Independents are about evenly split.

Some 24 percent of likely voters were deemed still persuadable, meaning they were either undecided or said they might switch candidates. Those up-for-grabs voters came about equally from the three categories: undecideds, McCain supporters and Obama backers.

So now there are polls, polls and more polls. Obviously all the polls released this week cannot be accurate since they yielded such inconsistent results. That inconsistency, coupled with blatant media bias, makes me wonder if we can trust any of the polls this election cycle.

On the other hand, the above results give the McCain camp something to be truly excited about since it suggests a surge of support could be emerging for him. I hope that is the case. What do you think?

US Weekly is in hot water over a misleading magazine cover about Sarah Palin titled “Babies, Lies & Scandal.” Megyn Kelly of FoxNews talks to senior US Weekly editor Bradley Jacobs about this story and why it sounds like an attack instead of a fair and balanced article. She asks him what “lies” they are talking about.  Watch and tell me if that’s now how a news reporter should hold a biased reporter’s feet to the fire. Way to go, Ms. Kelly!

Click here to view the embedded video.

It seems to me that there is no shortage of outrage over Michael Vick’s abuse of dogs. Everyday it seems that more people are coming out of the woodwork to add their voice to the uproar against him.

Frankly, I’m glad to see people outraged by wrong. However, I’d rather see this collective outrage focused on different areas of abuse right now. For example, why is there not massive outrage over terrorists who kill our soldiers in Iraq? Why is there not a public outpouring of outrage over child molesters and porn pushers? Why are people not outraged by abortion in general or partial birth abortion specifically?

It seems to me that people want to reserve the hottest part of Hell for Michael Vick while largely ignoring other far worse offenders. From everything I an tell, Michael Vick hurt animals but not people. Yes, he was cruel to dogs and was involved in illegal dogfighting and gambling and I have nothing positive to say about these actions. They were wrong. But to treat him like the scum of the earth when other more dangerous criminals are pampered is just wrong. (For example, where was the public outpouring of outrage over Scott Petersen who barbarically murdered his wife and baby? And there are dozens of other public examples.)

I’d like to see some of the public outrage currently being trained on Michael Vick refocused on bigger problems and bigger culprits. After we have properly addressed the murderous thugs, terrorists and abusers of children in the world, then we can turn our public anger on the Michael Vicks of the world without looking like hypocrites.

I’m frustrated that so much news coverage has been devoted to Paris Hilton and her jail experience. While I see merit in mentioning her case since she is famous and to give as an example that being rich doesn’t insulate one from legal consequences, I feel the amount of prime-time coverage is actually dangerous to our nation and culture for several reasons.

One reason why such a barrage of coverage is dangerous is that it feeds her ego and the warped ego of her family. They seem to be proud of her (lack of) accomplishments and bad deeds. I sometimes actually feel sorry for her to have been raised in such a spoiled household. Such an upbringing has made it much harder for her to amount to something productive and worthy of note in my opinion. Similarly, it is unwise to allow ourselves and our children to consume such ridiculous quantities of worthless drivel and gossip.

Second, I feel such coverage is dangerous because it takes away from truly life-threatening issues that we need to hear about. Take Iran, for instance. Iran is rapidly mastering the technologies needed to develop nuclear weapons. Furthermore, Iran is is developing and acquiring the delivery systems for such weapons as we pay attention to fluff like Paris Hilton. For years the international community has done little more than twiddle their thumbs as this threat has materialized in front of our eyes. And if this isn’t enough, there is ample evidence that Iran is arming insurgents and thugs who are killing American and British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. We rarely hear about these details and yet they have more impact on our daily lives than Paris Hilton does in a year.

It makes me sick to think of the real dangers in the world while we fill our minds with useless voyeuristic nonsense about the poor choices made by the likes of Paris Hilton and other unworthy “celebrities.” It’s time to wise up and think.