Chris Matthews Implies, 'Liberal is anti-American'? What? Did You Hear That Too?

As made clearly apparent within a recent post by Chris Cillizza, apparently Chris Matthews must think that to liberal is to be anti-American! I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't heard it myself.

During a recent interview with Minnesota Republican Rep. Michelle Bachmann, one I watched myself, Mr. Matthews developed this hypothesis by apparently leveraging the 'ol "2 + 2 equals" mathematics combined with her comments about how some of Barack Obama's associations were with extremely liberal, anti-American types.

Yes, even after Ms. Bachmann repeatedly provided examples of how very specific liberal Americans held anti-American sentiments, Mr. Matthews some how managed to derive the conclusion that all liberal Americans held anti-American sentiments. Besides failing even the most rudimentary test of a sound, logical argument, I think it's unprofessional. Typical; but unprofessional.

With all the ongoing discussions about whether or not bloggers should be considered on some level to be journalists -- for reasons ranging from professionalism to specific education -- it is from many of the card-carrying journalists I tend to see the most unprofessional acts of spin and misinformation.

I like both Senators McCain and Obama, and I am concerned about either becoming our next President -- for some of the same reasons, and for some different reasons.

Regardless, I don't believe either of them would appreciate seeing Ms. Bachmann's words twisted against her, nor would they like to see an otherwise great journalist mistakenly believe all liberals are anti-American.

I'm just say'in.

Liberal Approach to "Global Warming" Could Kill Us All

Once again we see evidence of how tree-hugging liberals are wrong -- wrong enough as proponents of the latest buzz-word not only linked to junk science, but a path to genocide. Strong words? Too strong? I don't know; perhaps; however, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a liberal, tree-hugging hater of carbon-based fuels that would claim anything less of those who happily fill their tanks with 92 Octane.

And even if you believe in the so-called "man's part in global warming," or in global warming at all, you have to laugh when you watch the liberal lemmings march down the path toward their own extinction.

One of their latest forays into junk science -- the fight against fossil fuels -- leads them, and now apparently us, right down such a path. For some time now, the cry has been, "... rid ourselves of this dependence on fossil fuels..." Their answer to this, of course, has been to support the world's switch to bio-fuels. To be perfectly honest, I don't have a problem with bio-fuels, especially if they can provide me with an inexpensive alternative to paying some radical, Muslims for their dinosaur squeezings. Frankly, if through the use of bio-fuels we could starve them out of existence, I'd be willing to pay more -- a small price to pay for such a large service to humanity.

Shocked; are we? Really? And what was it the tree-huggers have been saying all this time? Oh yes; I remember the slogan, "If you drive and SUV you're supporting terrorism..."

Then today I read a new study -- one that says that the production of these bio-fuel crops will in fact accelerate global warming by decreasing the land cover that, today, is responsible for balancing the production of these greenhouse gasses. But don't take my word for it, read for yourself.