Showing posts with label Protecting America. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Protecting America. Show all posts

Monday, January 16, 2012

TrendingRight is now...

...BadBlue.com.

The news aggregator TrendingRight.com has undergone a major transition. The name has changed to BadBlue (accessible via http://badblue.com or http://larwyn.com). There are many enhancements that should make it much more relevant and useful for discovering the hottest news stories of the hour.

A new algorithm levels the playing field for news sources of all sizes - the new link-finding algorithm allows a small blog to achieve front-page status by automatically adjusting the popularity of stories based upon Alexa traffic rankings. A story at a tiny blog, for instance, that gets re-tweeted 10 times, could be equivalent to 60 re-tweets of a story at a major newspaper. You'll notice that the current front page has links from blogs of all sizes.

New Drudge-style layout - rather than a single column of stories, there is a cleaner-looking, Drudge-style layout that should make it easier to read.

Pictures! - the new layout thumbnails images from stories to make it easier to figure out what a story is about.

Fresher news - links are refreshed more frequently.

Twitter and RSS support - unlike the prior version, you can follow BadBlue on Twitter (@BadBlueNews) or RSS.

Comment support - the permalink page for each story includes a comments section (with easy social network sign-on supported), so it's easy to make fun of left-wing hacks without visiting one of their sites.

In short, Biff Spackle is standing by in the comments section, waiting to hear your feedback: positive, negative or just, eh, it's okay. If you like it, remember to bookmark the website -- it should provide some of the freshest news stories you'll find anywhere.

So please check it out and let Biff know what you think. He's emotionally quite sensitive, so be gentle.


Marco Rubio's awesome letter to Barack Obama: America deserves honest leaders, i.e., not you

My gosh, this Marco Rubio is one impressive statesman.

We only need about 66 more senators like him and we'll be well on our way to saving this republic.


Thursday, January 12, 2012

Gallup: Conservatives Remain Largest Ideological Group in U.S.

How a center-right country elected one of the most radical leftists imaginable to the office of president remains one of the great mysteries of science.

Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives...

...The percentage of Americans calling themselves "moderate" has gradually diminished in the U.S. since it was 43% in 1992. That is the year Gallup started routinely measuring ideology with the current question. It fell to 39% in 2002 and has been 35% since 2010. At the same time, the country became more politically polarized, with the percentages of Americans calling themselves either "conservative" or "liberal" each increasing.

This chart helpfully breaks out those liberals into their various sub-segments.

No. No, I didn't. I never made any modifications to the chart.

Not that you know of.


Helpful Flowchart: Should I Vote for Barack Obama?

The Looking Spoon:

I also have a simpler flowchart that I use with drones Democrats. It's really just a "Yes/No" deal:

Q: Do you favor the current course of fiscal irresponsibility, which will bankrupt America and needlessly sentence future generations to poverty and misery?

If you answered "Yes", please vote for Barack Obama. If you answered "No", please support Rick Santorum for President.


Monday, January 09, 2012

Rick Santorum: How are those Romney-style "moderate" candidates like McCain and Dole working out for ya?

Mitt Romney, contrary to popular belief, would be the easiest of the Republican candidates for Barack Obama to defeat. Not to say I wouldn't support Romney if he were the nominee (after all, he's not a radical Alinsky-ite bent on destroying "transforming" the country). Hell, I'd vote for a Golden Retriever over Barack Obama... it would certainly do less damage.

But Romney's so-called "electability" is an ill-disguised myth. He can't attack Obama on the Democrats' biggest Achilles' Heel: Obamacare. His Wall Street background, as we have seen in recent days, is ripe for an attack from the populist angle, whether it's warranted or not. And, as Rick Santorum pointed out this evening, "moderate" GOP establishment candidates have a horrible track record in presidential elections.

Drawing an implicit contrast with Mitt Romney on the eve of the first-in-the-nation primary, Rick Santorum [reminded the crowd of] a centrist, establishment candidate... the 2008 Republican nominee, [and] the people of this small New Hampshire town bordering Maine wanted none of it.

“Let’s put up Bob Dole, because it’s his turn,” Santorum said ironically of the 1996 GOP nominee. “Let’s put up John McCain, because it’s his turn.”

Some in the crowd started booing, while others cried out “No!”

...“Give us an opportunity to be that conservative alternative, not just in this primary, but the conservative alternative that will draw clear contrast,” he said, “and be able to attract the votes and voters we need to win this election.”

I urge you to support a true Constitutional conservative for President.

I urge you to support Rick Santorum.


Sunday, January 08, 2012

Air Force Solving Problems [Papa B]

Papa B:

Air Force General: Mr. President, we've just invented an invisibility cloak for Air Force One.

Obama: No Way?

Air Force General: That's right, sir, the plane will be invisible. Will you be going along on its maiden flight?

Obama: Wouldn't miss it for the world.

Air Force General: Have a good trip, sir.

The Air Force: Solving Problems Since 1947!


I am so f-ing sick of these left-wing, old media hacks running GOP debates. I want a conservative bloggers' debate!

So the chief political operative for a disgraced, impeached ex-president is the right guy to moderate a Republican debate?

And with America's debt surpassing 100% of GDP -- which makes us, officially, a debtor nation; with Iran threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz; with China gearing up for war; with Islamists rising throughout the Middle East; with rating agencies threatening to further downgrade the United States; George Stephanapolous wants to discuss banning contraception? Really?

No, that's the perverted worldview of a manic progressive, attempting to tar Republicans as religious throwbacks through his interrogatories.

Here's a solution: we need a conservative bloggers' debate.

I nominate Ace of Spades, Andrew Breitbart, Ed Morrissey, Erick Erickson, Jim Hoft, John Hawkins, Michelle Malkin and Glenn Reynolds.

I can guaran-damn-tee that their combined audiences dwarf Stephanapolous' ratings.

So who do we have to sue to pull this off?


Erick Erickson: Mark Levin and Sarah Palin unable to gauge true conservatism

I usually resist the urge to engage in internecine warfare, but RedState's Erick Erickson's attacks on Rick Santorum have moved me to action. As Rick Perry has faded in the polls after some disastrous debate performances, Erickson has likewise thrashed about trying to pump up the candidate. And similarly with Newt Gingrich, who -- after a brief surge in the polls -- has faded. Believe me, I'll happily support either, but right now Rick Santorum appears to be the most conservative candidate with momentum.

Erickson has been left with the proverbial dead parrot returned to his store, and must resort to arguing that it's still alive.

Owner: Well, he's...he's, ah...probably pining for the fjords.

Mr. Praline: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

Dear Erick,

So you're saying Mark Levin, who is a personal friend of Santorum's and knows him as well as anyone (Santorum was an early campaigner for Reagan in 1980 in Pennsylvania with Levin) is wrong?

That Mark Freaking Levin is supporting a big-government Statist?

That Santorum's leadership work on the 1996 Welfare Reform Act -- arguably the most successful re-engineering of an existing entitlement program ever -- is not worth discussing, especially now?

That Santorum's obvious knowledge and support of national security is to be dismissed as China prepares for war and the Middle East boils over?

That Santorum's brave battle for a Balanced Budget Amendment was all a sham?

That cherry-picking a couple dozen from thousands upon thousands of votes that Santorum cast -- many of which were thrust upon the GOP caucus by the big-spending Bush 43 administration -- are somehow representative of his personal interests?

That because he lost an election in a disastrous year for Republicans nationally, a year that swept the Democrats into power, as the most conservative Senator from Pennsylvania in the last half-century?

Why, didn't Barack Obama lose a Democrat Primary to Bobby Rush just a decade ago by 31 points? Uhm, yes. Yes, he did.

No. I don't get it. So Mark Levin and Sarah Palin don't know that Santorum is really a big-government guy, that he's fooled them for all of these years.

All candidates are imperfect, some more so than others.

But tearing down good conservative candidates like Rick Santorum to me makes no sense, especially when other good candidates like Gingrich and Perry appear to be losing momentum.

Some introspection, I believe, is necessary.


Saturday, January 07, 2012

500,000 Military Layoffs Planned As Obama Argues for Federal Pay Hikes and Need for $103K/year "Invitations Coordinators"

"The then-press secretary Robert Gibbs was apparently often dispatched to placate Mrs Obama when limits were put on the amount she could spend on clothes or White House redecoration, as well as to explain why she could not take private holiday while on state visits." --Raf Sanchez

The Washington Post reported yesterday that President Obama has proposed pay increases for federal employees.

The White House effort comes despite reports in USA Today and other media outlets that the federal workforce -- which has grown substantially under the Obama administration -- is already grossly overpaid compared to the private sector. Please consider the following snippets of articles from USA Today:

Federal workers earning double their private counterparts: "At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn... Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis... The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year."

Federal workers starting at much higher pay than in past: "Newly hired federal workers are starting at much higher salaries than those who did the same jobs in the past, a lift that has elevated the salaries of scientists and custodians alike... A 20- to 24-year-old auto mechanic started at an average of $46,427 this year, up from $36,750 five years ago... A 30- to 34-year-old lawyer started at an average of $101,045 this year, up from $79,177 five years ago... And a mechanical engineer, age 25 to 29, started at $63,675, up from $51,746 in 2006..."

This sort of waste, fraud and abuse is exemplified by jobs like a $103,000-a-year Invitations Coordinator for the so-called "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau". The compensation package includes 10 paid holidays, 13 days of sick leave, and [up to] 26 days of vacation time each year (i.e., more than five weeks).

Furthermore, the Obama administration plans to lay off 500,000 military personnel.

The mighty American military machine that has for so long secured the country’s status as the world’s only superpower will have to be drastically reduced, Barack Obama warned yesterday as he set out a radical but more modest new set of priorities for the Pentagon over the next decade...

...Mr Obama’s blueprint for the military’s future acknowledged that America will no longer have the resources to conduct two such major operations simultaneously.

Instead, the US military will lose up to half a million troops and will focus on countering terrorism and meeting the new challenges of an emergent Asia dominated by China. America, the President said, was “turning the page on a decade of war” and now faced “a moment of transition”.

Why the egregious disconnect?

Why the abdication of the Commander-in-Chief's most important duty -- protecting the United States of America?

Because, my friends, federal bureaucrats pay union dues, which end up recycled into Obama's campaign coffers. Our Marines, Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen don't pay union dues, which helps explain why our critical national defense assets are being slashed as federal paper-pushers continue expanding their already ridiculous compensation packages and their unconstitutional control over every aspect of our lives.


Infographic: The Independent [UK].

Bumper Sticker o' the Day: Body Art

Found at Conservative Tree House, via iOwnTheWorld:

Friday, January 06, 2012

Oh, you progressives are really going to enjoy the next Republican president...

You Democrats are a short-sighted bunch.

But that goes without saying, I suppose, since your philosophy of Utopianism has failed every time it's been tried throughout all of human history. But, I digress.

The point is that Democrat Congressional leaders are allowing Barack Obama to absolutely shred Constitutional limits on the Executive Branch -- without so much as a whimper -- and it is destined to come back and haunt them.

Consider the following hypothetical situation: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has retired and a seat on the Supreme Court is open.

Late one night, President Santorum declares the Senate in recess. He appoints a new Supreme Court Justice who just happens to be Miguel Estrada, a wonderful originalist judge.

After all, the precedent has been set by Obama. He's declared that the Senate is in recess, when it clearly is not. But don't believe me. Check the Senate's website (which happens to be controlled by Democrats).

Without checks and balances in government, President Obama has established a de facto dictatorship. He's said as much himself.

...when Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them. (Applause.) I’ve got an obligation to act on behalf of the American people. And I’m not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people that we were elected to serve. (Applause.) Not with so much at stake, not at this make-or-break moment for middle-class Americans. We’re not going to let that happen.

In other words, Obama spits on separate-but-equal branches of government. He urinates on the Constitution. And he is quickly, inexorably, transforming this nation into a Banana Republic.

So, liberals: you're going to pay a serious price for your failure to stand up for American laws, traditions and ethics.

You will live to regret tolerating lawless, anti-American behavior that undermines the foundations of this Republic.

Worse yet, Obama's behavior -- and its approval by Congressional leaders like the deplorable Harry Reid and the despicable Nancy Pelosi -- represents a slap in the face of every Marine, Soldier, Sailor and Airman, who take an oath to uphold the Constitution -- and then put their lives on the line to follow through with their sworn oath.

The modern Democrat Party is a lawless bunch that must be removed from office in 2012. At every level of government.


Related: Support a true Constitutional Conservative for President in 2012

The Movie Event of 2012... [The Looking Spoon]

The Looking Spoon:

If you have some extra coin, I urge you to upport Rick Santorum for President.


Thursday, January 05, 2012

Is Rick Santorum Really a 'Big Government' Guy?

That's the line being spouted by the establishment Republicans in an effort to offer covering fire for Mitt Romney's, eh, schizophrenic policy positions.

So Rick Santorum's really a 'Big Government' guy?

Santorum has a legislative record. Check it out.

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)
Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)
Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar 1997)

Rated 25% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)
Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 81% by NTU, indicating a “Taxpayer’s Friend” on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

--Source: Issues 2000 Legislation Tracker

I'll say this:

Rick Santorum is a true, God-fearing, Constitutional conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan. If we are to begin repairing this country, we need him or someone like him as President. His speech on Tuesday night was truly inspirational. Almost Reagan-esque, if it's not too trite to say that.

He is opposed by the Beltway establishment -- who has pre-ordained a Mitt Romney/Barack Obama faceoff in 2012. But they don't get to say who the GOP candidate is. You and I do. I urge you to support Rick Santorum for President, who has built a successful campaign out of sheer will, character and faith.

Four years of Barack Obama will have seen roughly $6 trillion added to the national debt -- with $10 trillion more to come on this trajectory in short order. Based on these spending levels, the Congressional Budget Office told Paul Ryan that they could not run their computer models another 25 years because the models collapse. The amount of debt they project simply cannot be rolled over -- there isn't enough money in the world.

Are you or your kids going to be around in 25 years? If so, I'd recommend you support someone who is a true Conservative, who believes in a Balanced Budget Amendment, fair taxation rules for all, and the will -- the fight -- to strip away the federal leviathan that dictates how much water your toilet tank holds, what kinds of light bulbs you're allowed to buy, how much mileage your car must get, and what kind of health care you'll receive.

Or we can continue kicking the can down the road and wait until the last possible minute to try to fix things, right before the civil society unravels.

It's now or never, folks.

If you feel the same way, I urge you to support Rick Santorum today.


Others writing about Santorum: Marathon Pundit ("The real Santorum web site is RickSantorum.com"), Mental Recession ("Here's the Real Rick Santorum Website") and Fausta's Blog.

Tuesday, January 03, 2012

Google Trends: Rick Santorum Searches Explode

Someone alert the IPCC: here's a real hockey-stick graph. The latest Google Trends data shows an astonishing jump in searches for Rick Santorum (who, by the way, would make an excellent, excellent Republican candidate for president).

Santorum is a true Constitutional conservative and has the track record to prove it. And it appears he is quite close to winning the Iowa Caucuses.

If you can afford it, I would encourage you to support Santorum's campaign any way you can. It's time we elected a principled conservative -- in the mold of Ronald Reagan -- as opposed to a Beltway RINO.

There's nothing that would piss off the establishment GOP more, which tells me it's the right thing to do.


Update: Robert Stacy McCain has running updates on the Iowa Caucus.

Saturday, December 31, 2011

Here's something we can all get behind: House Speaker John Boehner faces primary challenger from Tea Party

The feckless RINO House Speaker -- a curiously perma-tanned man named John Boehner -- faces a primary challenger in Ohio.

House Speaker John Boehner will face a challenge in the GOP primary next year, Fox News has confirmed.

26-year-old David Lewis, who does not live in Boehner's Ohio district, has filed with the Butler County Board of Elections (in Boehner's home county) to challenge the speaker on March 6.

Lewis is a Tea Party loyalist who lives in Clermont County on the east side of Cincinnati.

Asked about the challenge, Boehner spokesman Cory Fritz said: "The Speaker is focusing on working for the people of the eighth district to cut wasteful Washington spending, eliminate excessive regulations and help create a better environment for jobs and long-term economic growth."

Boehner did not face a primary challenge last year, though Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones has flirted with previous bids.

Looking for something you can do?

Make a New Year's resolution to lend David Lewis a hand. It's time to start firing the big government RINO's who are either too incompetent or too ideologically blinkered to fight the destruction of our Republic.


Friday, December 30, 2011

Newt Gingrich just rang up a few extra points on my tally: says Palin would be a viable VP or Secretary of Energy

If swear to all that's holy that I would pay serious money to watch the reactions of the moonbats when President Gingrich and Vice President Palin are sworn in.

Newt Gingrich said that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would be among the candidates that he would consider when considering a potential running mate, adding that the former GOP vice presidential nominee would be an ideal candidate for secretary of Energy.

Gingrich, speaking Wednesday during a conference call with conservative voters hosted by Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition, was asked by one of the attendees whether he would consider Palin as a running mate.

"She is certainly one of the people you would look at. I am a great admirer of hers and she was a remarkable reform governor of Alaska, she’s somebody who I think brings a great deal to the possibility of helping in government and that would be one of the possibilities," Gingrich said...

I wonder how hard a Vice President Sarah Palin would kick Lisa Jackson's ample posterior (metaphorically speaking, of course)?


Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Report: China's new GPS system more accurate than U.S. military's

The People's Republic of China (PRC) is engaged in a stealth form of warfare with the United States. It has launched numerous cyber-warfare campaigns against American interests. It is engaged in a massive buildup of its military capabilities including "cruise missiles, fighter jets and [a] growing, modernizing army."

And now, it has created a new GPS system that reportedly trumps America's capabilities.

China is now one step closer to becoming the top economic and military superpower in the world: its Beidou geo-positioning system is now fully armed and operational...

...Beidou cuts China’s dependency of the American GPS system completely. It means that they would be able to launch any attack and move their forces around the world without any US interference. Right now, the United States can deactivate their Global Positioning System so nobody can use it in certain areas. That includes enemy armies. After Beidou, however, this will be impossible.

...China will be able to move their civilian transport ships and airplanes all over the world without being dependent on any other country. Their military would also use this system to direct their ships, combat airplanes, drones and land forces in battle... They would also be able to use Beidou to target any kind of weapons with great accuracy, including cruise missiles.

Those questioning the PRC's goals would do well to read "Discerning China’s Intentions a Challenge for U.S.".


Monday, December 26, 2011

ACTION ALERT: Virginia GOP Changed Ballot Access Rules Last Month; Here's How to Contact Them and Demand Changes

Based upon several reliable reports at RedState, it would appear that Virginia's GOP establishment changed the rules of ballot access just last month. Front-runner Newt Gingrich, for one, saw his campaign hurt badly by reports that it bungled the Virginia ballot process. He and Rick Perry were excluded despite each turning in over 10,000 signatures. But if the new reports are true, the state GOP has a hell of a lot to account for.

Moe Lane provides the introduction:

...the very short version is that the VA GOP only certified Mitt Romney and Ron Paul for its primary ballot. Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich both had too many signatures tossed; Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann didn’t even try. Of the seven candidates, one (Romney) had more than enough signatures (15K) to bypass the verification process entirely. All of this has caused a lot of agitation among Republicans following the primary process, of course; and not just from people who disapprove of what the VA GOP has done...

...There has been a good deal of defending of the outcome; and one argument heavily used in this defense has been that the campaigns all knew the rules and that previous Republican campaigns were able to get on the ballot, so clearly a competent current Republican campaign should have done so.

One small problem with that: as Winger argues, the rules were allegedly drastically changed. In November of this year.

So what changed?

...prior to the 2012 elections it was Republican party policy in Virginia to simply deem any candidate that brought in ten thousand raw signatures as having met the primary ballot requirements under Virginian state election law.

Under these rules, of course, both Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry would have qualified easily.

And why did the rules change?

...On October 24th independent state delegate candidate Michael Osborne filed suit against the Republican party of Virginia [challenging the signature review process and who performs it] ... according to Winger the VA GOP decided in response to bump up from 10K to 15K the threshold for simply deeming the requirements as being met.

...I think that John Fund’s general comment is correct: this is going to go to the courts. John was not discussing this specific wrinkle, but his larger point that Virginia’s ballot access policies have systemic problems gets a big boost when it turns out that the state party can effectively increase by fifty percent the practical threshold for ballot access – in a day, and in the middle of an existing campaign.

...If it is true that the Republican party of Virginia decided in November of 2011 to increase the threshold for automatic certification from 10K to 15K, then it is reasonable to suggest that this was a change that unfairly rewarded candidates who had previously run for President in Virginia.

Lane asserts that the state GOP has ultimate control of the ballot and could, if pressed, decide to certify Gingrich and Perry.

Either way, the issue is going to the courts.

And, either way, the Virginia GOP looks incompetent... or ill-intentioned against conservative candidates.

Action Alert: I urge you to contact the Virginia GOP and demand that they include Gingrich and Perry on the ballot. Be polite, but firm. There's no excuse for issuing new rules at the last minute that just happen to exclude the leading candidates. In fact, it's an outrage.

Email: Contact Form
Phone: 804-780-0111
Fax: 804-343-1060
Facebook: www.facebook.com/VirginiaGOP
Twitter: @va_gop

Make contact now. Time is growing short.


Tell us how you really feel

As seen from Highway 60-70-84, 5 miles east of Clovis, New Mexico:




Hat tip: Moonbattery.

Sunday, December 25, 2011

Report: Virginia GOP May Have Improperly Excluded Signatures From Perry, Gingrich

Tom White has an exclusive that could be an important development in Virginia's ongoing GOP soap opera:

I know that it is highly improbable that I am the only person in the country that has actually read the Code of Virginia on Presidential Primaries, but the requirement that signatures also include an address IS correct for a statewide election, but not for a Presidential Primary, though the number of signatures are identical.

Anyone know an election attorney available on Christmas?

###

Various reports have stated that the signatures turned in by Newt Gingrich included at least 2,000 that were invalidated because there was no address given with the signature.

If this were a Virginia Statewide office, that would be correct. But this is a Presidential Primary. And while the rules are similar, they are actually addressed in two separate sections of the Virginia Code.

There is a requirement in a Statewide General Election that the address be included, but there is no such requirement for a presidential primary. The number of signatures are the same, 10,000 and 400 per Congressional District. But the address requirements are different.

Tom suggests that Gingrich and Perry request that the signatures excluded for lack of address be reinstated and a recount be initiated.

If this report pans out, it could be another huge story attributed not to legacy media, but to what I like to call the new mainstream media.