As a young liberal activist some time ago, I remember my ostentatious lampooning of something called “Fox News” and its moniker of “fair and balanced”. I iconized Fox to the point of a Satanic implement, an instrument of the all-encompassing shadow fascist apparatus dominating American politics from some abysmal catacomb under the Pentagon. A network that spewed only lies, managed by oil tycoons and Israeli bankers, a crusade against journalistic integrity and a menace to the public awareness; not to mention democracy itself.

I used to think this way, and most, if not all liberals still think this way. But I’ve grown up since then, I’ve finally come to understand why Fox’s slogan of “fair and balanced” is a poignant and legitimate one. Its not to annotate some sort of internal bias-balance within Fox; its a stringently conservative network and I don’t think anyone there will try to deny that. They’re fair and balanced because they attempt to equalize the playing field; a voice of conservatism in a nearly unsurmountable sea of liberal media.

It doesn’t take an in-depth analytical process to discern the overwhelming leftist spin of the mainstream media, some passing examples:

You’ve got Washington Post/MSNBC employee William Arkin suggesting that the troops should be spat on upon returning home.

Theres Keith Olbermann (a man whom I have since disengaged support from after his more vicious attacks on conservatives and anti-retreat adovcates) MSNBC’s eloquent sports-caster with an attitude seemingly categorizing everyone with a remotely non-liberal demeanour “Worst Person in the World”, most of whom are far more educated and knowledgable than himself. Olbermann’s crazed obsession with placing anyone with a right-wing tinge as the Worst Person in the World evidently suggests that they’re actually worse than the vast multitude of terrorists, fascist dictaros, and militants that scourge the planet daily; I guess Michael Crichton really is a worse person than Ayman al-Zawahiri. After all, no al-Qaida operative, Mahdi Army militant, or otherwise terrorist or dictatorial individual has ever been ranked Worst Person by Olbermann. The man must have very high standards.

Theres the NYT disclosing crucial counter-terrorism operations to the world, almost in a deliberate aide to al-Qaida, and most recently, seemingly the entirety of the leftist media claiming an upcoming war with Iran, based on essentially nothing. A move to protect Iran? Maybe. The list goes on and on and on.

And one thing they are all singularly unified on is a systeamatic campaign to to drill the idea that anything with a right-wing bias should be automatically disregarded. There are poorly composed, dishonest smear-jobs like Outfoxxed all over the place, thats why the average liberal college know-it-all hippie thinks the evil conservatives control the media. Thas why most people, without ever even watching his show, think Bill O’Reilly is some neo-fascist loon, that the Washington Times is an illegitimate newspaper, etc. On the contrary, O’Reilly is actually a very reasonable, if a bit loud, political commentator with some really legitimate criticisms of contemporary American culture, and the Washington Times is a fine alternative to the Post.

Its really actually quite brilliant on the part of Soros and his comrades, (not speaking metaphorically) whats the best way to disguise overwhelming liberal bias in the media? Make everyone think conservatives are out to get them, that the media is actually run by a vast right-wing conspiracy; when in reality the opposite is true.

I also blame the leftist bias in the news for the rampant media sensationalist commercialism that has overrun the networks; constant advertisements for global warming alarmism, stem-cell exaggeration, missing white girl alerts, celebrity divorces, the like. This is punctuated by the ThinkProgress statisitc that out of all the networks, Fox had the least references to Anna Nicole Smith and the most on Iraq. Is it because conservatives know there are more important things happening in the world? Probably.

I write this in hopes of solidifying the already strong faith in conservative broadcasting, and in hopes of awakening some young leftist activist from some toxic media daze, as I too was once trapped in. Its time to change the channel.

Its no secret that most libertarians, like liberals, advocate a staunchly pro-choice stance on abortion rights. Thats all well and good, but that doesn’t excuse the inexcusable folly of most libertarians and the entirety of the left; the ad nauseum upholding of Roe v. Wade. Why?

Because its un-American, and I’m not using the phrase lightly; I’m dead serious.

First, lets address the chief argument (also the only argument) of pro-abortion agitators, that its a woman’s “natural” right to mutilate her own body, even if this self-genocodic behavior results in the death of another human life. The fetus is parasitic, liberals argue, its an undeveloped blob, it has no rights. It is every woman’s innate, perennial right to have an abortion, nothing can ever impede on that.

Now, no comprehensive dissection of these assertions is necessary to perceive the absolute absurdity of such claims. Natural right to an abortion? Thats an almost Pythonian, absolutely ridiculous suggestion; no such right is mandated in either the Constitution or the Geneva Conventions declaratino of human rights. And are liberals really expecting us to believe that abortion was an inherent right endowed to the prehistoric homo-sapien, when the techinical sophistication and expertise to perform abortions as we know it didn’t even exist? This “right” is bogus, imaginary at best.

Moreover, I challenge any liberal to produce some sort of “natural right to control the life of others”. Sure, fetuses are symbiotic in nature, they depend on the mother for nourishment and overall survival; but they’re still living, functioning human beings. Theres a point in fact where a fetus can be cut out of the womb and survive; does this not equate abortion to the murder of offspring?

But thats a philosophical argument; and wholly impractical in today’s decadent society. As much as I revile the practice of abortions, their absolute banning would result in far more detriment that benefit; back-alley abortions and other spectacularly dangerous performances would increase exponentially.

However, this does not negate the regressive, anti-democratic moral fascism that is Roe v. Wade. The issue of abortion has been an intellectual schizm in this country for decades, a heatly debated element of the political discourse comprising of people with fervently opposing views on both sides; by what right did the activist judges of the Supreme Court have to impose thier own little take on it to the whole country? You call that democracy? You call that freedom?

And for shame every libertarian who believes that Roe v. Wade is intrinsically compatible with libertarian views. We’re supposed to argue for less government intervention; not absolute government encroachment, and especially not on such a divided issue. Roe v. Wade should be repealed and abortion rights should be subjected to state approval; let the people decide, not elitist activist judges. Most will undoubtably vote to maintain abortions in the first trimester; which is acceptable by my standards. Few will allow them in the second or third trimesters, which is all the better because such abortions are absolutely barbaric.

But whatever happens, the vox populi will have spoken; so be it. Let go of Roe v. Wade, liberals, allow the chief principle of democracy take its course; power to the people.