If you were truly "independent" and not politically motivated I would spend some more time on your web site. The extreme left wing bias turns off those of us who are truly "in the middle". I didn't vote for Bush, but I also don't believe half of what you've written about him. To be credible (in my opinion) you must see both sides of the issue. Your web site clearly doesn't. I was born and raised in Albert Lea, MN and I've always taken pride that we Midwesterners are the most sensible people in this great country. Your website sobered me up to the fact that we still have some work to do here at home. Snap out of it, we have corruption going on in both parties and in every class of people in the USA. If you don't believe that you are truly delusional. The bartender that steals from the company he works for is crook....the CFO who steals from the company he works for is a crook. No, the bartender is not Robin Hook.....he's a crook, just the same as the CFO. Websites like yours will keep the Republicans in power for more decades to come. Thanks for nothing.

Thank you very much for contacting us with suggestions on how to improve our website.

in·de·pen·dent
adj.

1. Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing.
2. Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.
3. Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.
4. often Independent Affiliated with or loyal to no one political party or organization.


Since we accept no outside funding or guidance and have repeatedly refused funding from political parties and have refused requests to endorse political candidates, we are, in fact, independent in the truest sense of the word.

credibility
n.

1. The quality, capability, or power to elicit belief: "America's credibility must not be squandered, especially by its leaders" (Henry A. Kissinger).
2. A capacity for belief: a story that strained our credibility.

If you question our credibility please present information that we have presented which has been proven untrue and we will remove it from the website.

Additionally, you seem to state that by not focusing on the corruption of more democratic we are somehow empowering the republicans. That seems pretty silly. We focus on corporate and political corruption regardless of party affiliation. The republican party controls the courts, the senate, the congress, the executive, and have a very powerful media machine. It's only natural that they will be featured in the lion's share of news headlines. This isn't some nefarious plot by us to discredit a political party.That's just the nature of reality.


extreme left wing bias
n.

1. The quality or characteristics of being factual and making republicans uncomfortable.
2. Exposing corruption or abuse of power committed by republicans or those posing as conservative.

Again, as I stated before, if there is something that you have found on our website that is untrue, please let us know and we will remove it from the website immediately. Thank you very much for taking the time to help us improve the work that we do. It's support from readers like you who encourage us in our work.

"Since we accept no outside funding or guidance and have repeatedly refused funding from political parties and have refused requests to endorse political candidates, we are, in fact, independent in the truest sense of the word."

Respectfully that doesn't make you independent. If it did, Bill Gates would be considered "independent". I believe you and I would agree he's surely not. Lastly, because you've exposed
"truths" and have ignored the left wing lies and its hypocrisies doesn't give you more credibility....it gives you less. Could you in good conscience tell me your not "loyal to no one political party or organization"? That wouldn't be believable if you did.

Thanks for responding.

"Since we accept no outside funding or guidance and have repeatedly refused funding from political parties and have refused requests to endorse political candidates, we are, in fact, independent in the truest sense of the word."

Respectfully that doesn't make you independent.

Respectfully, it does. Independent. Lacking dependence. We have no dependence on any outside party or entity either financially or ideologically. That's the definition of independent.

If it did, Bill Gates would be considered "independent".

That's a strawman argument. Bill Gates founded microsoft. He's independently wealthy and what he does in his time is independent of this conversation.

Lastly, because you've exposed "truths" and have ignored the left wing lies and its hypocrisies doesn't give you more credibility....it gives you less.

If you have some newsworthy examples of corruption and graft coming from a democrat (I assume that's what you are getting at) that we have neglected to cover, please feel free to submit them for consideration. Be sure that it's a news story and not an opinion piece and sourced from a credible news organization. An opinion piece written by an employee of the Heritage Foundation regarding Nacy Pelosi's allegedly unreported campaign contributions will not qualify.

Could you in good conscience tell me your not "loyal to no one political party or organization"? That wouldn't be believable if you did.

Are you implying that because we operate an online news aggregator that focuses on corporate and government corruption, that in their personal lives, our staff should omit themselves from the democratic process and refuse to support candidates and causes that we believe would better serve the country we love? To the contrary, people who work in this field have a responsiblility to be more active in politics since they are more informed on the issues. The Project for the Old American Century takes no official stance, but I'm sure everyone here has a political leaning that represents their personal stance on the issues facing us today.

The sad truth of the matter is that the republican party is steeped in far more political and corporate corruption than the democratic party simply due to their numerical majority in government and the aftermath of such programs as the K street project and their marriage to business leadership.

Your problem is that we point that out. And you don't like it. And you want to accuse us of being partisan. Allow me to point something out to you. We have done several exclusive negative reports on John Kerry, the Clintons, the DLC, and several other democratic politicians. But we have never done any negative reporting on the satanic wing of the communist party. Using your defective logic, you would be better to accuse us of supporting devilworshipping commies through ommission rather than the democratic party.

Again, as I have stated before, if you feel that we have presented something that was untrue, present it to us and we'll remove it and put up a retraction. We've done it before and we'll do it again. What I'm politely trying to say is put up or shut up. You don't like the stories we publish, but you have nothing to bring to the table to remedy that.

Today Prosecutors charged a prominent GOP fundraiser in a 53-count indictment with theft and money laundering in an investigation that has embroiled Republicans in scandal during an election year. He already is charged in a separate case with illegally funnelling $45,000 to President Bush's re-election campaign.

If you have some example from the democrats that compares to that that I somehow missed in today's headlines, please present it to me. I'm love to have it.

in·de·pen·dent Audio pronunciation of "independent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nd-pndnt)
adj.

1. Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing.
2. Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.
3. Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.
4. often Independent Affiliated with or loyal to no one political party or organization.
5. Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity: an independent food store; an independent film.
6.
1. Not relying on others for support, care, or funds; self-supporting.
2. Providing or being sufficient income to enable one to live without working: a person of independent means.
7. Mathematics.
1. Not dependent on other variables.
2. Of or relating to a system of equations no one of which can be derived from another equation in the system.
8. Independent Of or relating to the 17th-century English Independents.

Number 4 is pretty basic. “loyal to no one political party or organization.” You are obviously loyal to the left. For crying out loud you’re practically hanging off the edge of the wing. It’s the “wordsmithing” that makes me dislike the right wing. Your doing the same with the left.

OK, so you got nothin'.

All you have left is "Oh yeah?! Well you're a dirty leftist! That is so last reich.

Nice TJ. That guy obviously doesnt even read your site. Maybe he just doesnt want to admit, the reason you seem to lean to the left is because there is so much weight of corruption on the right that it pushes you to appear that way, so to speak.

Oh my! TJ had his Wheaties this morning!

I think that when he was faced with all the facts, he basically says, "yeah, fuck you, you're a commie," when in fact POAC is pretty far from the far left where I exist.

Great job TJ.

The latest rage among right-wingers is to claim they are centrists or reformed liberals...

Honestly, I can't tell if the editors or at least the person who arranges the topics on the page are liberal, republicists (as in constitutional republic, not to be confused w/ republican), moderate Republicans, or hell, maybe even Communists. Judging from the available wallpapers, there is a strong Progressive ideology running through most, but I really haven't seen any thing actually negative of Communists yet. But they do appear to be fairly anti-Fascist.

Let's face it; if some one calls themselves a republican or democrat, or even a "liberal" or "conservative" you can pretty much tell that they really don't have a good grasp of *any* of America's major sociopolitical movements in the late-20th and early-21st centuries. I mean, a liberal is some one who tries to overtly further the redistribution of wealth (communism) while a conservative these days seems to be all about creating a Fuhrer. Together you get a nice synthesis of communal fascism which can appease the Proles while minimizing and enslaving the Bourgeoisie.

Really, if there's one "movement" we should all be united against, it's the Panopticon or prison w/o walls where the inmates self-police themselves, not out of fear but out of duty. The chief technological advancement that would make the Panopticon a reality would be massive dataveillance of all of our lives to the most intimate detail from three sources

1. dataveillance: collation of our habbits; from credit card usage to search engine queries (most valuable) to correspondence (email, IM, phone, etc.)
2. surveillance: what we do in public (and increasingly private)
3. souseveillance: The act of recording your actions; from myspace to friendster, even webcams; people are more and more offering surveillance of themselves and others ... without even thinking about the consequences.

Don't be fooled! These major global corporations (Google, Yahoo, MSN) aren't in China for purely economic incentives! NO! The technology they use to "comply" with fascistic policies such as censoring the web, turning in political independents, etc. is a perfecting ground for technologies they soon start using on Americans. Notice, I did not say "will use". Americans are being convicted of murder based solely upon Google queries.

In fact, since humans are by default identifiable after writing a mere 150 words, search engine results are pratically the best way ever developed to peer inside (mindread) a person. FutureCrime is upon us as ThoughtCrime creeps into statutes every day. A story I broke the other day to numerous large independent news sites is that the Government plans to replace ECHELON (which "merely" analyzed every phone conversation and email since the 80s) with ADVISE which aims to datamine every website, email, instant message, and phone conversation and *PREDICT* who will become a terrorist based upon some faulty algorithm (Future Thought Crime!).

And just as an example is something that happened to me yesterday — definately some part of the Panopticon emerging — Google changed my home page to this. Now, if they can gather that information from just my routine searching, what else do they know and whom all have or will they give it to?