Political candidates are nowhere until their ethics are challenged, their morals are questioned, or their character is assassinated. No one can be considered a viable candidate for elected office until they're targeted for destruction. Judging from this week's news, Herman Cain has arrived.
A story that began with two women alleging "inappropriate behavior" has grown to include a third woman, female staffers from a conservative talk radio show in Iowa, and hush money from the National Restaurant Association. Yet the details about what occurred, if anything, have thus far been silenced, if they're known at all. With each "revelation" the Cain saga seems more and more like Clarence Thomas' confirmation hearings.
If you'll recall, Anita Hill offered no credible evidence of "inappropriate behavior" on the part of Thomas. It was a case of "she said" so "he did." The seriousness of the charge trumped the nature of the evidence. But at least we knew the accusations against Thomas, and his accuser. All we know about Cain is that anonymous women once accused him of misconduct, which could mean anything from a passing compliment, to a wink, to a grope.
No claim against Cain has, as yet, become public. But the lack of details hasn't prevented the media -- namely Politico -- from running with the story. Funny how the public's need to know is quickly served whenever scandal descends on a conservative, especially when that conservative's popularity has been steadily rising.
The media had little interest in Bill Clinton's sordid and sundry escapades. Juanita Broaddrick was treated like a stalker, Paula Jones was dismissed as trailer trash, and media outlets had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Lewinsky affair. Reporters and anchors marveled at Clinton's uncanny aptitude for misrepresentation. The dominant media also ignored John Edwards, at least until the National Enquirer broke Edwards' sleazy story and it grew too big to cover-up.
Not even the civil rights activists will come to Cain's defense; he'll have to exercise his demons alone. If he were a proper black man, one firmly planted on the leftist plantation, he could play the race card. But as a black conservative, Cain isn't black enough to charge racism. He's fair game. Assassinating a conservative's character is always in season, regardless of their race.
I'm not necessarily defending Herman Cain's innocence or endorsing his candidacy. But he does exhibit some likable qualities. For example, he's a Washington outsider without political experience. We need another politician with experience in creating trillion dollar deficits and multi-trillion dollar debt like Eliot Spitzer needs a dose of Cialis.
Everyone has skeletons in their closet. A political candidate's skeletons are held in reserve until said candidate gains momentum. There's simply no need to waste time and effort demeaning an also-ran. The fact that Herman Cain is the eye of a media storm means he's now considered a viable candidate.
Showing posts with label media bias. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media bias. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
MSNBC attacks achievement
Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) might think twice before agreeing to another appearance on MSNBC. What's to be gained from discussing issues with an interviewer whose mind is the political equivalent of a black hole? Credit Fleming for trying, but he must realize that MSNBC is nothing more than an outlet for left-wing activism.
MSNBC's Chris Jansing scolded Rep. Fleming for opposing Democrat tax policy. Jansing asked Fleming to explain his own high income -- his business interests gross $6 million annually -- but paid no attention to his answer. Fleming took more than his "fair share" and that's all that mattered. The condescending Jansing continued to prod Rep. Fleming:
It's difficult to tolerate someone so arrogant in their ignorance as Chris Jansing. An honest interviewer would've at least listened to Rep. Fleming's explanation of how his gross receipts are dispersed, especially since she raised the issue. But not Chris Jansing; she heard from Fleming only what she wanted to hear. Like so many journalists she played the role of ideological puppet, as if the DNC had a hand in her back.
Sadly, Chris is partially correct. Too many Americans aren't sympathetic when a deceitful, immoral, and fiscally irresponsible ideology deploys government to steal their neighbor's earnings. And I can give her one big reason why. Look around your newsroom, Chris. Then look around the newsrooms at the vast majority of broadcast and print media. Finally, Chris, look in your own mirror.
Journalism sold out long ago. Rather than providing balanced information, journalists promote a vision in which one person's failure is the result of another's achievement. The predominant American media now serves an ideology bent on expanding the State, making it no different from the operatives at TASS and Pravda during the Soviet Union's heyday. You understand that, Chris?
Thinly veiled media attacks on achievement are common and predictable. Thus the question isn't how to reform the media, but how to undo the petty jealousies and animus toward achievement Democrats and their media apologists have created. As long as this mindset exists politicians will parlay class envy into electoral success, never fully explaining who the "greedy rich" are or what constitutes their "fair share."
Certainly Chris Jansing's brand of journalism is secure in the First Amendment, wherein she and her colleagues can compromise their profession to their heart's content. But there's a funny thing about freedom; it runs both ways. Those of us in the great unwashed are equally free to criticize media propagandists whenever they're encountered.
Achievement has its attackers. But let it be known this day, achievement has its defenders, too.
MSNBC's Chris Jansing scolded Rep. Fleming for opposing Democrat tax policy. Jansing asked Fleming to explain his own high income -- his business interests gross $6 million annually -- but paid no attention to his answer. Fleming took more than his "fair share" and that's all that mattered. The condescending Jansing continued to prod Rep. Fleming:
You do understand, congressman, that the average person out there who's making maybe 40, 50, $60,000 out there, when they hear you only have $400,000 left over, it's not exactly a sympathetic position. You understand that?
It's difficult to tolerate someone so arrogant in their ignorance as Chris Jansing. An honest interviewer would've at least listened to Rep. Fleming's explanation of how his gross receipts are dispersed, especially since she raised the issue. But not Chris Jansing; she heard from Fleming only what she wanted to hear. Like so many journalists she played the role of ideological puppet, as if the DNC had a hand in her back.
Sadly, Chris is partially correct. Too many Americans aren't sympathetic when a deceitful, immoral, and fiscally irresponsible ideology deploys government to steal their neighbor's earnings. And I can give her one big reason why. Look around your newsroom, Chris. Then look around the newsrooms at the vast majority of broadcast and print media. Finally, Chris, look in your own mirror.
Journalism sold out long ago. Rather than providing balanced information, journalists promote a vision in which one person's failure is the result of another's achievement. The predominant American media now serves an ideology bent on expanding the State, making it no different from the operatives at TASS and Pravda during the Soviet Union's heyday. You understand that, Chris?
Thinly veiled media attacks on achievement are common and predictable. Thus the question isn't how to reform the media, but how to undo the petty jealousies and animus toward achievement Democrats and their media apologists have created. As long as this mindset exists politicians will parlay class envy into electoral success, never fully explaining who the "greedy rich" are or what constitutes their "fair share."
Certainly Chris Jansing's brand of journalism is secure in the First Amendment, wherein she and her colleagues can compromise their profession to their heart's content. But there's a funny thing about freedom; it runs both ways. Those of us in the great unwashed are equally free to criticize media propagandists whenever they're encountered.
Achievement has its attackers. But let it be known this day, achievement has its defenders, too.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Liberals rise to a new low
The left wasted no time in spinning the attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ life for their political advantage. Uncivil dialogue, liberals argued, had prompted the attack. The fact that Giffords’ assailant was apolitical, or even leaning left, didn’t matter. Leftists heeded Rahm Emmanuel’s advice, capitalized on a crisis, and demanded political civility as they define the term.
Apparently, liberals believe any criticism toward them or their positions constitutes uncivil dialogue. However, a running discussion about raping conservative legislators -- and how in need of being raped they are -- represents cutting-edge political commentary, protected free speech. “Raped” may sound like a strong word. But how else can we define “hate” sex?
Former Air America “comedian” Marc Maron (henceforth, Marc Moron), said on HBO’s “Real Time” with Bill Maher, “I hope Marcus Bachman (Michelle Bachman’s husband) takes all that rage into the bedroom with her. I hope he f---s her angrily, because that’s how I would.” Fellow panelist Dan Savage chimed in about “f---ing the s--t out of Rick Santorum.”
Here’s the situation as it exists. When conservatives challenge liberals on their anti-freedom, big government, authoritarian policies we’re inciting violence. But when liberals snicker about the violent rape of conservative representatives it’s a legitimate avenue toward a political point. Marc Moron dismissed his perverted insanity in exactly that fashion. “It’s a political statement I’m trying to make,” Moron explained.
Citing Moron as an example of Air America’s vapid programming eliminates all doubt as to why the network failed. But one thing is certain, if he ever has sex -- hate or otherwise -- with Michelle Bachman he’ll have to use force. Rep. Bachman is an attractive, intelligent, successful woman. Moron is today’s prototypical liberal, a condescending, insufferable, sniveling little pervert. And Dan Savage is even worse. What more needs to be said about a “sex expert” who wistfully details the violent sodomy of a male congressman?
Imagine the left’s reaction had a conservative directed such a reprehensible “joke” toward a liberal legislator? What would leftists say if Rush Limbaugh talked about “hate sex” with Hillary Clinton? The DNC would demand Sean Hannity’s arrest if he said “let’s bone that Barney Frank boy” on national television, as Savage said about Santorum.
One point must be granted. It’s believable that a depraved little toad like Moron would fantasize about committing sadistic sex acts on Michelle Bachman, or Sarah Palin, or Nikki Haley. These prominent conservative women are physically attractive. Name a prominent liberal woman who induces even the most fleeting erotic thought? Anyone want a turn at Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, or Barbara Mikulski? Frankly, I would rather drink from a sewer pipe than have even consensual relations with one of those barking hags.
I would like to believe that Democrats and their media puppets wouldn’t condone the vile, near-criminal “hate sex” and homosexual puke Moron and Savage spewed on Maher’s freak show. But I’m not so naïve. In fact, neither the propaganda press nor the Obama White House -- both central figures in spinning the Tucson shooting -- have uttered a peep of censure toward Moron, Savage, or their equally slovenly host, Bill Maher. In fact, some leftist media outlets defend their debauchery.
Don’t think for a moment that these three stooges are fringe elements. Maher, Moron, and Savage personify liberalism’s core and represent the mainstream in Democrat policy. And the Democrat figureheads in Washington and the media have the gall to demand political civility and bipartisanship? Why would any human being, regardless their party affiliation, want to cooperate with such disgusting maniacs?
Dealing intelligently, morally, and maturely with stupid, wicked, and infantile adversaries is a fool’s errand. Honorable and ethical people have no common ground with contemporary liberalism (a.k.a. Regressives). Today’s liberals are psychotic liars, pathological degenerates, and detestable tyrants -- directing a legion of useful idiots -- whose greatest character strength is their filth and decadence.
Apparently, liberals believe any criticism toward them or their positions constitutes uncivil dialogue. However, a running discussion about raping conservative legislators -- and how in need of being raped they are -- represents cutting-edge political commentary, protected free speech. “Raped” may sound like a strong word. But how else can we define “hate” sex?
Former Air America “comedian” Marc Maron (henceforth, Marc Moron), said on HBO’s “Real Time” with Bill Maher, “I hope Marcus Bachman (Michelle Bachman’s husband) takes all that rage into the bedroom with her. I hope he f---s her angrily, because that’s how I would.” Fellow panelist Dan Savage chimed in about “f---ing the s--t out of Rick Santorum.”
Here’s the situation as it exists. When conservatives challenge liberals on their anti-freedom, big government, authoritarian policies we’re inciting violence. But when liberals snicker about the violent rape of conservative representatives it’s a legitimate avenue toward a political point. Marc Moron dismissed his perverted insanity in exactly that fashion. “It’s a political statement I’m trying to make,” Moron explained.
Citing Moron as an example of Air America’s vapid programming eliminates all doubt as to why the network failed. But one thing is certain, if he ever has sex -- hate or otherwise -- with Michelle Bachman he’ll have to use force. Rep. Bachman is an attractive, intelligent, successful woman. Moron is today’s prototypical liberal, a condescending, insufferable, sniveling little pervert. And Dan Savage is even worse. What more needs to be said about a “sex expert” who wistfully details the violent sodomy of a male congressman?
Imagine the left’s reaction had a conservative directed such a reprehensible “joke” toward a liberal legislator? What would leftists say if Rush Limbaugh talked about “hate sex” with Hillary Clinton? The DNC would demand Sean Hannity’s arrest if he said “let’s bone that Barney Frank boy” on national television, as Savage said about Santorum.
One point must be granted. It’s believable that a depraved little toad like Moron would fantasize about committing sadistic sex acts on Michelle Bachman, or Sarah Palin, or Nikki Haley. These prominent conservative women are physically attractive. Name a prominent liberal woman who induces even the most fleeting erotic thought? Anyone want a turn at Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, or Barbara Mikulski? Frankly, I would rather drink from a sewer pipe than have even consensual relations with one of those barking hags.
I would like to believe that Democrats and their media puppets wouldn’t condone the vile, near-criminal “hate sex” and homosexual puke Moron and Savage spewed on Maher’s freak show. But I’m not so naïve. In fact, neither the propaganda press nor the Obama White House -- both central figures in spinning the Tucson shooting -- have uttered a peep of censure toward Moron, Savage, or their equally slovenly host, Bill Maher. In fact, some leftist media outlets defend their debauchery.
Don’t think for a moment that these three stooges are fringe elements. Maher, Moron, and Savage personify liberalism’s core and represent the mainstream in Democrat policy. And the Democrat figureheads in Washington and the media have the gall to demand political civility and bipartisanship? Why would any human being, regardless their party affiliation, want to cooperate with such disgusting maniacs?
Dealing intelligently, morally, and maturely with stupid, wicked, and infantile adversaries is a fool’s errand. Honorable and ethical people have no common ground with contemporary liberalism (a.k.a. Regressives). Today’s liberals are psychotic liars, pathological degenerates, and detestable tyrants -- directing a legion of useful idiots -- whose greatest character strength is their filth and decadence.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Sarah Palin, the media, and the First Amendment
The Constitution’s First Amendment clearly and properly protects the press from government intrusion. However, does the First Amendment allow reporters to ignore laws, or guarantee their access to a citizen’s every move? Ask Sarah Palin.
Palin recently made news for reasons other than her unusual version of Paul Revere’s ride. The controversy centered on her One Nation Tour, whose bus drivers apparently didn’t win any safe driving awards. Palin’s drivers ran red lights, recklessly exceeded speed limits, and changed lanes without signaling.
Ignoring traffic laws isn’t best practice, but it’s hardly unique. Drive a mile on the nation’s highways and you’ll witness similar, or worse, disregard for traffic laws. The question is, why reporters are so familiar with the One Nation Tour’s driving habits? If you answered, “The reporters were doing the same things,” take a gold star.
Reporters committed the same traffic violations for which they criticized Palin’s troupe. Even while describing the experience as “harrowing,” reporters remained quite blind to their own role in creating dangerous situations. Even in today’s warped social climate, where traditional standards are deemed passé, two wrongs still won’t make a right. Reporters are no more immune from traffic laws than are Palin’s bus drivers.
However, reporters excused their part in creating a “rolling menace” as the price required for keeping pace with Palin. Palin’s advisors failed to divulge the tour’s schedule. Lacking the itinerary, reporters had no alternative but to trail the One Nation Tour at all cost. What a load of bull!
The lack of an itinerary provides no excuse for reporters to exacerbate the traffic dangers blamed on Palin. In fact, the media is just as guilty as the Palin entourage, if not more. The media’s zeal to cover Palin is predicated not on idealistic notions of journalistic integrity or public disclosure but on the hope she will commit an embarrassing faux pas. What’s more, the media has no right of access to Sarah Palin’s itinerary.
“But the fourth estate has an obligation to keep tabs on politicians, government figures, and candidates,” journalists may counter. I agree; that’s why the Constitution recognizes the free press. The media should scrutinize everyone who fills, or seeks to fill, public positions. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property.”
But Palin isn’t filling a public trust. She is no longer the Republican nominee for Vice President, the Governor of Alaska, or the Mayor of Wasilla. Sarah Palin hasn’t declared her interest in any public office either. She’s a media personality no doubt. But she isn’t a public official whose decisions can directly affect our liberty. Anyone who patronizes her does so voluntarily. Therefore, reporters have as much right to your local barber’s itinerary as they do Sarah Palin’s.
It’s truly amazing the lengths to which the media will go to cover every movement of a woman they routinely label as the world’s biggest idiot. If Sarah Palin is as dumb and irrelevant as the media claims, why cover her tour at all? Why not simply let her go her way in anonymity? Such an approach, if adopted, might cause reporters to miss an opportunity to portray Palin as the total loon they believe her to be. No wonder she didn’t grant journalists access to her itinerary.
Reporting on the whereabouts of celebrities -- and Palin is a celebrity -- isn’t the reason the First Amendment protects the free press. The media’s right to investigate politicians and bureaucrats who directly affect America’s liberty is unquestionable. Should Palin again seek or assume a public trust, she’ll become fair game. Until then the media enjoys no First Amendment access to her agenda and no right of any kind to mimic poor driving habits.
Palin recently made news for reasons other than her unusual version of Paul Revere’s ride. The controversy centered on her One Nation Tour, whose bus drivers apparently didn’t win any safe driving awards. Palin’s drivers ran red lights, recklessly exceeded speed limits, and changed lanes without signaling.
Ignoring traffic laws isn’t best practice, but it’s hardly unique. Drive a mile on the nation’s highways and you’ll witness similar, or worse, disregard for traffic laws. The question is, why reporters are so familiar with the One Nation Tour’s driving habits? If you answered, “The reporters were doing the same things,” take a gold star.
Reporters committed the same traffic violations for which they criticized Palin’s troupe. Even while describing the experience as “harrowing,” reporters remained quite blind to their own role in creating dangerous situations. Even in today’s warped social climate, where traditional standards are deemed passé, two wrongs still won’t make a right. Reporters are no more immune from traffic laws than are Palin’s bus drivers.
However, reporters excused their part in creating a “rolling menace” as the price required for keeping pace with Palin. Palin’s advisors failed to divulge the tour’s schedule. Lacking the itinerary, reporters had no alternative but to trail the One Nation Tour at all cost. What a load of bull!
The lack of an itinerary provides no excuse for reporters to exacerbate the traffic dangers blamed on Palin. In fact, the media is just as guilty as the Palin entourage, if not more. The media’s zeal to cover Palin is predicated not on idealistic notions of journalistic integrity or public disclosure but on the hope she will commit an embarrassing faux pas. What’s more, the media has no right of access to Sarah Palin’s itinerary.
“But the fourth estate has an obligation to keep tabs on politicians, government figures, and candidates,” journalists may counter. I agree; that’s why the Constitution recognizes the free press. The media should scrutinize everyone who fills, or seeks to fill, public positions. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property.”
But Palin isn’t filling a public trust. She is no longer the Republican nominee for Vice President, the Governor of Alaska, or the Mayor of Wasilla. Sarah Palin hasn’t declared her interest in any public office either. She’s a media personality no doubt. But she isn’t a public official whose decisions can directly affect our liberty. Anyone who patronizes her does so voluntarily. Therefore, reporters have as much right to your local barber’s itinerary as they do Sarah Palin’s.
It’s truly amazing the lengths to which the media will go to cover every movement of a woman they routinely label as the world’s biggest idiot. If Sarah Palin is as dumb and irrelevant as the media claims, why cover her tour at all? Why not simply let her go her way in anonymity? Such an approach, if adopted, might cause reporters to miss an opportunity to portray Palin as the total loon they believe her to be. No wonder she didn’t grant journalists access to her itinerary.
Reporting on the whereabouts of celebrities -- and Palin is a celebrity -- isn’t the reason the First Amendment protects the free press. The media’s right to investigate politicians and bureaucrats who directly affect America’s liberty is unquestionable. Should Palin again seek or assume a public trust, she’ll become fair game. Until then the media enjoys no First Amendment access to her agenda and no right of any kind to mimic poor driving habits.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Washington and the media spawned the “deathers”
More than a week ago Navy SEALs ushered Osama bin Laden to his everlasting calling. A rush of boots, the pop of small arms fire, and he was gone. Word has it that Osama remains dead. Or does he?
Conspiracies are popping up like lost relatives at a lottery winner’s doorstep, as are the attempts to discredit anyone asking questions about bin Laden’s demise. The situation is similar, in nature if not degree, to the "birther" movement. Osama conspiracists even have a nickname, "deathers."
Generally speaking, conspiracy theories combine overactive imaginations with the need to explain the unexplainable. However, the White House’s delay in producing Obama’s actual birth certificate prompted skepticism concerning his birthplace and his qualification for office. Thus "birthers" were born. Likewise for the White House account of bin Laden’s death. Just as a lack of White House transparency fueled the birthers it now fuels the "deathers," who can posit some interesting questions.
Why did finding bin Laden take so long? U.S. military and intelligence agencies possess satellite surveillance technology capable of determining the coin toss at next year’s Super Bowl, assuming there is one. Why couldn’t we find the world’s most infamous terrorist? Osama bin Laden’s prompt burial at sea did little to squelch the conspiracists, either. We saw photos of the dead Uday and Qusay Hussein, and of Saddam himself. Why not bin Laden?
Conspiracists can legitimately argue a captured bin Laden is more valuable than a dead bin Laden. A live al-Qaeda leader would be a wealth of intelligence information, ripe for the interrogating. The federal government could easily fake bin Laden’s death. Then he could be spirited to some remote corner of the globe for unencumbered questioning.
Would releasing photos of a deceased Osama bin Laden quell the conspiracies and satisfy the "deathers?" Probably not. Conspiracists will claim the pictures are forged products of the Photoshop age. Some may allege the bin Laden in the photos is a double, not the genuine article. Besides, releasing photos is of small benefit when the White House can’t so much as get its story straight.
We were told how bin Laden died during a fierce firefight while using his wife as a human shield. In one account bin Laden’s wife was wounded, in the next she wasn’t. Then she was shot, but only in the leg. Was she a human shield? Or did she charge SEAL Team Six? Osama bin Laden was armed; then he wasn’t. Was he reaching for his AK-47 when he was killed? Or, was he captured and summarily executed, which he richly deserved?
Considering the conflicting reports emanating from Washington, and dutifully parroted in the media, who can say with certainty what occurred in Abbottabad? Too much contradiction, too much swirl. No evidence, regardless its strength, will mollify the skeptics now. Photos and DNA tests can be faked while making each seem credible. Also, reports of Osama bin Laden’s death aren’t new; they began circulating within months of 9/11.
I believe bin Laden is dead. Does my opinion relegate the conspiracists to the far corners of Crackpotistan? Not entirely. When conspiracy theories become commonplace, the government and media are condemned more than the conspiracists. Contradictions and lies on the part of the federal government combined with a compliant media, over time, have fostered a public mistrust toward both parties. Frankly, neither entity is more credible than the tinfoil hat brigade.
Spin, swirl, and bias are par for the federal government and most media outlets. Phraseologies, like "quantitative easing" and "integrative complexity," breed distrust. Such phrasing is intended not to enlighten the public but to conceal an agenda the public would oppose, or worse, ridicule. Small wonder mainstream news reports and the federal government’s official statements create suspicion.
Whether people believe bin Laden died last week at the hands of Navy SEALs or ten years ago of natural causes is of little consequence. Good riddance to bad rubbish. And if he’s alive and under interrogation at a black ops center? Happy waterboarding! What’s truly shameful is how once-revered institutions have instilled such distrust in the population that every government action and media report spawns a conspiracy theory.
Are the "deathers" piloting black helicopters? Maybe so. But Washington and the "mainstream" media needn't point fingers. They birthed the "deather" movement.
Conspiracies are popping up like lost relatives at a lottery winner’s doorstep, as are the attempts to discredit anyone asking questions about bin Laden’s demise. The situation is similar, in nature if not degree, to the "birther" movement. Osama conspiracists even have a nickname, "deathers."
Generally speaking, conspiracy theories combine overactive imaginations with the need to explain the unexplainable. However, the White House’s delay in producing Obama’s actual birth certificate prompted skepticism concerning his birthplace and his qualification for office. Thus "birthers" were born. Likewise for the White House account of bin Laden’s death. Just as a lack of White House transparency fueled the birthers it now fuels the "deathers," who can posit some interesting questions.
Why did finding bin Laden take so long? U.S. military and intelligence agencies possess satellite surveillance technology capable of determining the coin toss at next year’s Super Bowl, assuming there is one. Why couldn’t we find the world’s most infamous terrorist? Osama bin Laden’s prompt burial at sea did little to squelch the conspiracists, either. We saw photos of the dead Uday and Qusay Hussein, and of Saddam himself. Why not bin Laden?
Conspiracists can legitimately argue a captured bin Laden is more valuable than a dead bin Laden. A live al-Qaeda leader would be a wealth of intelligence information, ripe for the interrogating. The federal government could easily fake bin Laden’s death. Then he could be spirited to some remote corner of the globe for unencumbered questioning.
Would releasing photos of a deceased Osama bin Laden quell the conspiracies and satisfy the "deathers?" Probably not. Conspiracists will claim the pictures are forged products of the Photoshop age. Some may allege the bin Laden in the photos is a double, not the genuine article. Besides, releasing photos is of small benefit when the White House can’t so much as get its story straight.
We were told how bin Laden died during a fierce firefight while using his wife as a human shield. In one account bin Laden’s wife was wounded, in the next she wasn’t. Then she was shot, but only in the leg. Was she a human shield? Or did she charge SEAL Team Six? Osama bin Laden was armed; then he wasn’t. Was he reaching for his AK-47 when he was killed? Or, was he captured and summarily executed, which he richly deserved?
Considering the conflicting reports emanating from Washington, and dutifully parroted in the media, who can say with certainty what occurred in Abbottabad? Too much contradiction, too much swirl. No evidence, regardless its strength, will mollify the skeptics now. Photos and DNA tests can be faked while making each seem credible. Also, reports of Osama bin Laden’s death aren’t new; they began circulating within months of 9/11.
I believe bin Laden is dead. Does my opinion relegate the conspiracists to the far corners of Crackpotistan? Not entirely. When conspiracy theories become commonplace, the government and media are condemned more than the conspiracists. Contradictions and lies on the part of the federal government combined with a compliant media, over time, have fostered a public mistrust toward both parties. Frankly, neither entity is more credible than the tinfoil hat brigade.
Spin, swirl, and bias are par for the federal government and most media outlets. Phraseologies, like "quantitative easing" and "integrative complexity," breed distrust. Such phrasing is intended not to enlighten the public but to conceal an agenda the public would oppose, or worse, ridicule. Small wonder mainstream news reports and the federal government’s official statements create suspicion.
Whether people believe bin Laden died last week at the hands of Navy SEALs or ten years ago of natural causes is of little consequence. Good riddance to bad rubbish. And if he’s alive and under interrogation at a black ops center? Happy waterboarding! What’s truly shameful is how once-revered institutions have instilled such distrust in the population that every government action and media report spawns a conspiracy theory.
Are the "deathers" piloting black helicopters? Maybe so. But Washington and the "mainstream" media needn't point fingers. They birthed the "deather" movement.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Obama's "gutsy" no-brainer
President Obama made the correct decision in sending Navy SEALs into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden. But was it the "gutsy call" the media, and the administration itself, has led us to believe? Logically and politically the President had no alternative.
Little courage is required to condemn a man directly responsible for the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. No man in recent history has deserved U.S. retribution more than Osama bin Laden. Once the al-Qaeda leader's whereabouts were confirmed there was no decision to make. Any post-9/11 President who held bin Laden in his crosshairs and failed to fire would instantly become the greatest failure in presidential history. Obama received an approval ratings bounce, as would be expected. But the decision that precipitated that bounce was a no-brainer. As more Americans examine the situation, especially in light of the conflicting accounts emanating from the White House, they will realize that Obama had no option aside from the course he chose.
Imagine the political fallout had Obama forsaken the opportunity to take bin Laden. News of such magnitude wouldn't have remained a secret, not even with a compliant media. Had Obama wavered on taking bin Laden his 2012 goose would've been cooked. His indecisiveness and tepidness would be confirmed. Furthermore, inaction would've fueled the Obama-is-a-Muslim theories. Had Obama knowingly allowed Osama bin Laden to escape he would've been lucky to carry the Haight-Ashbury and Greenwich Village precincts in his reelection bid.
Capturing bin Laden wasn't an option either. Obama couldn't send the al-Qaeda captain to Guantanamo, a black ops interrogation center, or subject him to anything other than normal criminal proceedings without expressing profound hypocrisy. Imagine Osama bin Laden on trial near Ground Zero, before a jury of Council on American-Islamic Relations peers, with an ACLU lawyer at his side. No, capture (though preferable in terms of intelligence) wasn't a political option. Osama had to die.
Make no mistake; President Obama issued the appropriate order. His decision to attack bin Laden directly, rather than with missiles or air strikes, would've been correct even if the mission had proved unsuccessful. But in reality, his order to kill Osama bin Laden was an easy call. Who among us wouldn't love to have issued the "Go!" command to SEAL Team Six?
A "gutsy" call? Only if you believe shooting down Admiral Yamamoto's plane during World War II was a difficult choice. "Gutsy" is the media's latest catchphrase, strategically repeated to promote an Obama foreign policy achievement. Frankly, his decision was one every American should expect from any President, regardless their party or ideology.
Recognize Obama for acting presidential. But "gutsy" describes Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan. "Gutsy" describes the Navy SEALs and pilots who entered Pakistan and made this mission work. They are the heroes worthy of high praise. Gutsiness comes easier when safe at the White House surrounded by the Secret Service.
Little courage is required to condemn a man directly responsible for the worst attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor. No man in recent history has deserved U.S. retribution more than Osama bin Laden. Once the al-Qaeda leader's whereabouts were confirmed there was no decision to make. Any post-9/11 President who held bin Laden in his crosshairs and failed to fire would instantly become the greatest failure in presidential history. Obama received an approval ratings bounce, as would be expected. But the decision that precipitated that bounce was a no-brainer. As more Americans examine the situation, especially in light of the conflicting accounts emanating from the White House, they will realize that Obama had no option aside from the course he chose.
Imagine the political fallout had Obama forsaken the opportunity to take bin Laden. News of such magnitude wouldn't have remained a secret, not even with a compliant media. Had Obama wavered on taking bin Laden his 2012 goose would've been cooked. His indecisiveness and tepidness would be confirmed. Furthermore, inaction would've fueled the Obama-is-a-Muslim theories. Had Obama knowingly allowed Osama bin Laden to escape he would've been lucky to carry the Haight-Ashbury and Greenwich Village precincts in his reelection bid.
Capturing bin Laden wasn't an option either. Obama couldn't send the al-Qaeda captain to Guantanamo, a black ops interrogation center, or subject him to anything other than normal criminal proceedings without expressing profound hypocrisy. Imagine Osama bin Laden on trial near Ground Zero, before a jury of Council on American-Islamic Relations peers, with an ACLU lawyer at his side. No, capture (though preferable in terms of intelligence) wasn't a political option. Osama had to die.
Make no mistake; President Obama issued the appropriate order. His decision to attack bin Laden directly, rather than with missiles or air strikes, would've been correct even if the mission had proved unsuccessful. But in reality, his order to kill Osama bin Laden was an easy call. Who among us wouldn't love to have issued the "Go!" command to SEAL Team Six?
A "gutsy" call? Only if you believe shooting down Admiral Yamamoto's plane during World War II was a difficult choice. "Gutsy" is the media's latest catchphrase, strategically repeated to promote an Obama foreign policy achievement. Frankly, his decision was one every American should expect from any President, regardless their party or ideology.
Recognize Obama for acting presidential. But "gutsy" describes Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb against Japan. "Gutsy" describes the Navy SEALs and pilots who entered Pakistan and made this mission work. They are the heroes worthy of high praise. Gutsiness comes easier when safe at the White House surrounded by the Secret Service.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Two lessons from Rev. Terry Jones
To say the United States faces problems is an understatement. The economy is stagnant. Congressional authors of $1.5 trillion budget deficits haggle over a few billion bucks as if that sum is significant. Lethargy is rewarded and productivity is demeaned. Number among those problems our inability to properly assign responsibility and to recognize enemies.
The case of the eccentric Reverend Terry Jones supports this theory. Jones and his diminutive flock put the Koran on trial, found it wanting and burned it at the stake. Call the mock trial a witch hunt if you like, but the actual burning was nothing more than symbolism. No one was injured and no property, except Jones' copy of the Koran, was damaged. Yet Jones' protest sent Afghanistan into a frenzy and America's intelligentsia scrambling for the nearest microphone, eager to blame Terry Jones for Afghanistan's violent reaction.
This may come as a shock, but the flame-throwing Terry Jones is absolutely correct in denying responsibility for Afghanistan's bloodshed. Yes, Jones burned the Koran with full knowledge his act was controversial and outrageous. However, does such desecration justify rioting, arson, and killing on the part of offended Muslims?
Bill O’Reilly and General David Petraeus think so, and they've joined voices with like minds to publicly denounce the otherwise obscure Terry Jones. Jones' one-book bonfire was hateful and intolerant, the critics charge, and endangered U.S. troops serving in Islamic lands. Their arguments ring hollow. Jihad has a long history of outrage against anything Western. Had Jones' mock trail exonerated the Koran, Islamic radicals would've invented another outrage to justify their hostility. Torching a Koran excuses Islamic riots no more than closing a Japanese restaurant validates the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Where Terry Jones is correct and his opponents are wrong is in assigning blame for the Afghan violence and in recognizing the deficient morals Islamic fundamentalism espouses. Jones rightly blames the Afghans themselves. They alone rioted, pillaged, and killed their countrymen. Yet America’s brightest minds refuse to blame Afghans for the carnage wrought in Islam’s name. Gen. Petraeus, in fact, believes the Afghan brutality may be justified. Why? Because an insignificant someone half a world away burned a book? Pardon me if the roiling “Muslim street” seems a mite oversensitive.
Are Muslims then bound to silence when their favored texts and shrines are marginalized or desecrated? Of course not. But when their outrage induces indiscriminate killings it says plenty about their ideology and the danger it poses to civilization worldwide. Were Islam the sole religion to suffer an insult Muslim anger might be understandable. But that scenario is as far removed from reality as the east is from the west.
Christians are offended when alleged artists submerge crucifixes in jars of urine and smear elephant dung on paintings of the Virgin Mary. Christians don’t, however, retaliate with arson and murder. Both Christians and Jews would be offended if an obscure imam burned the Bible or the Pentateuch. But would either Christians or Jews embark on a homicidal rampage? Hardly, for such a response contradicts the tenets of both doctrines. Yet within Islam violence follows offense as surely as dogs trail the butcher’s wagon. What’s more, violent overreaction is expected from Muslims. Otherwise, Western “leaders” wouldn’t be falling all over each other to placate Muslims with apologies for our intolerance.
Ample evidence exists to convince even the harshest skeptic that vicious responses to perceived injustices are harmonious to Islamic tradition. American cartoonist Molly Norris surrendered her career, and her very identity, after her work offended Islam. A fatwa forced Norris to become what George Orwell termed a “non-person.” Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses prompted the “religion of peace” to place a bounty on his head. Now there’s a bounty on Terry Jones’ head to the tune of $2.4 million.
Name a time when Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or Sikhs resorted to violence as readily as do Muslims. Under Islamic Law both non-Muslims and Muslim apostates can face stoning or decapitation for their heresy. And Terry Jones is labeled a militant? Tell me, has Rev. Jones commandeered an airliner in the name of Christ? Has he lopped the head from an unrepentant sinner? Has he convinced young men to don dynamite-laden vests and detonate at bus stops for the glory of God? Friends, violence was an Islamic hallmark long before Jones struck his first match.
Burning books is a vacant gesture that, of itself, accomplishes nothing. Even so, the pyromaniacal Terry Jones has granted America a genuine favor. His irreverent act reminds us of both the virulent intolerance common to Islamic fundamentalism and of our own tendency to lay blame on everyone except those responsible. Rather than condemnation, America should extend gratitude to Terry Jones for highlighting two more flaws we desperately need to correct.
The case of the eccentric Reverend Terry Jones supports this theory. Jones and his diminutive flock put the Koran on trial, found it wanting and burned it at the stake. Call the mock trial a witch hunt if you like, but the actual burning was nothing more than symbolism. No one was injured and no property, except Jones' copy of the Koran, was damaged. Yet Jones' protest sent Afghanistan into a frenzy and America's intelligentsia scrambling for the nearest microphone, eager to blame Terry Jones for Afghanistan's violent reaction.
This may come as a shock, but the flame-throwing Terry Jones is absolutely correct in denying responsibility for Afghanistan's bloodshed. Yes, Jones burned the Koran with full knowledge his act was controversial and outrageous. However, does such desecration justify rioting, arson, and killing on the part of offended Muslims?
Bill O’Reilly and General David Petraeus think so, and they've joined voices with like minds to publicly denounce the otherwise obscure Terry Jones. Jones' one-book bonfire was hateful and intolerant, the critics charge, and endangered U.S. troops serving in Islamic lands. Their arguments ring hollow. Jihad has a long history of outrage against anything Western. Had Jones' mock trail exonerated the Koran, Islamic radicals would've invented another outrage to justify their hostility. Torching a Koran excuses Islamic riots no more than closing a Japanese restaurant validates the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Where Terry Jones is correct and his opponents are wrong is in assigning blame for the Afghan violence and in recognizing the deficient morals Islamic fundamentalism espouses. Jones rightly blames the Afghans themselves. They alone rioted, pillaged, and killed their countrymen. Yet America’s brightest minds refuse to blame Afghans for the carnage wrought in Islam’s name. Gen. Petraeus, in fact, believes the Afghan brutality may be justified. Why? Because an insignificant someone half a world away burned a book? Pardon me if the roiling “Muslim street” seems a mite oversensitive.
Are Muslims then bound to silence when their favored texts and shrines are marginalized or desecrated? Of course not. But when their outrage induces indiscriminate killings it says plenty about their ideology and the danger it poses to civilization worldwide. Were Islam the sole religion to suffer an insult Muslim anger might be understandable. But that scenario is as far removed from reality as the east is from the west.
Christians are offended when alleged artists submerge crucifixes in jars of urine and smear elephant dung on paintings of the Virgin Mary. Christians don’t, however, retaliate with arson and murder. Both Christians and Jews would be offended if an obscure imam burned the Bible or the Pentateuch. But would either Christians or Jews embark on a homicidal rampage? Hardly, for such a response contradicts the tenets of both doctrines. Yet within Islam violence follows offense as surely as dogs trail the butcher’s wagon. What’s more, violent overreaction is expected from Muslims. Otherwise, Western “leaders” wouldn’t be falling all over each other to placate Muslims with apologies for our intolerance.
Ample evidence exists to convince even the harshest skeptic that vicious responses to perceived injustices are harmonious to Islamic tradition. American cartoonist Molly Norris surrendered her career, and her very identity, after her work offended Islam. A fatwa forced Norris to become what George Orwell termed a “non-person.” Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses prompted the “religion of peace” to place a bounty on his head. Now there’s a bounty on Terry Jones’ head to the tune of $2.4 million.
Name a time when Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or Sikhs resorted to violence as readily as do Muslims. Under Islamic Law both non-Muslims and Muslim apostates can face stoning or decapitation for their heresy. And Terry Jones is labeled a militant? Tell me, has Rev. Jones commandeered an airliner in the name of Christ? Has he lopped the head from an unrepentant sinner? Has he convinced young men to don dynamite-laden vests and detonate at bus stops for the glory of God? Friends, violence was an Islamic hallmark long before Jones struck his first match.
Burning books is a vacant gesture that, of itself, accomplishes nothing. Even so, the pyromaniacal Terry Jones has granted America a genuine favor. His irreverent act reminds us of both the virulent intolerance common to Islamic fundamentalism and of our own tendency to lay blame on everyone except those responsible. Rather than condemnation, America should extend gratitude to Terry Jones for highlighting two more flaws we desperately need to correct.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
What a difference a war can make
How times have changed! The United States isn’t the imperialistic, blood-for-oil war machine that it was just a few years ago. We’ve shed the “I ride alone” image and become acceptable in the world community. Every charge levied against the United States following the Iraq invasion is yesterday’s news and America can again wage a just war. All we needed was a change of party at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Remember the arguments against President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein? Those arguments aren’t heard today, now that a Democrat administration has led us to war in Libya. Oh, I know President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton don’t consider the Libyan no-fly zone a war, but it is a war. When bombs are dropping, missiles are launching, guns are firing, and people are dying, that’s a war. No question about it. Ask any Korea or Vietnam veteran to describe a “police action.”
While hardline pacifists are stridently against the administration’s “rush to war” in Libya they have gained little traction compared to their efforts to demonize the Iraq War. Dennis Kucinich, Code Pink, Michael Moore and the usual culprits are screaming. But few among the Democrat leadership and their media allies seem to care. The reason is that their opposition to the Iraq War was political, not principled. Now, to borrow from Jeremiah Wright, the Democrat’s chickens have come home to roost. Factually, George Bush was on much firmer ground with Iraq than Obama is with Libya.
Bush’s detractors accused him of rushing America to war with no clear objective. Actually, Bush’s agenda was quite clear. The United States would depose Saddam Hussein and then help Iraq hold elections and establish a constitution. Those goals were accomplished. Admittedly, not all subsequent events unfolded as planned. Iraq’s elections produced Shiite majorities, which is the same ideology that holds sway in Iran, and their constitution amounts to Sharia Law. But each goal was reached.
President Obama has no clear objective in Libya. First he said Col. Gaddafi must relinquish power. Then he said Gaddafi could remain in control if he promised to play according to Hoyle. Obama has since reversed course again, and Gaddafi must go. We’re unsure of our objective, if indeed we have one. Even identifying our enemy is harder than in Iraq. Gaddafi is a loon no doubt, an unpredictable despot with a terrorist history. But the rebel forces we aid in Libya are linked to al-Qaeda and could prove worse than Gaddafi.
For a proper perspective on our current alliance, look at World War II. What if America had fought Nazi Germany in Europe while joining forces with them on the Russian Front? The scenario sounds ridiculous. But that’s what we’re doing with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Libya.
Bush was accused of acting unilaterally in Iraq. But his coalition for the Iraq War included more countries than Obama’s coalition in Libya. What’s more, Bush built his allies. Obama joined a work in progress and is quite comfortable passing the leadership role to NATO.
Did Iraq attack America? According to Democrats and their media lapdogs Iraq did not. However, reality intercedes with their convenient fantasizing. Iraq did attack the United States and our interests. Hussein’s forces invaded Kuwait, a move outside their borders that threatened international trade shipping routes. Hussein agreed to cease-fire terms upon Iraq’s expulsion from Kuwait. He violated those terms flagrantly and, yes, attacked American forces directly. No-fly zones were established over Iraq as part of the cease-fire. Iraq, however, fired on American aircraft patrolling those zones, directly violating the agreement.
Gaddafi’s government hasn’t directly attacked U.S. interests in years. In fact, in the last ten years the Libyan government acknowledged responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and agreed to restitution for the victims, renounced terrorism (supposedly) and abandoned its nuclear and chemical weapons program. Furthermore, Bush’s critics charged him with involving America in Iraq’s civil war. So what’s happening in Libya? Vacation Bible School? Obama bears more guilt for interceding in a sovereign civil war than did Bush.
The Iraq War began without Congressional authorization. Or did it? Congress adopted a resolution granting President Bush the authority to use force, at his discretion, to combat terrorism wherever he determined it existed. And Congress authorized President Bush to use force directly against Iraq to ensure compliance with resolutions outlined in the Gulf War cease-fire pact.
The Obama administration simply began dropping bombs and firing missiles into Libya. No consent was sought from Congress. No strategy is evident and there’s no meaningful definition of victory. All we really know is that American forces are preventing a humanitarian disaster in Libya, where a mad dictator is killing his subjects. Wasn’t the same true in Iraq?
Does anyone honestly believe Saddam Hussein didn’t kill his own people? Tell that to the Kurds, upon whom he used chemical weapons. Tell that to the victims of the torture chambers U.S. troops uncovered after Hussein’s fall. What’s more, if humanitarianism serves as criterion for American air strikes, the bombs should soon fall on Sudan, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, North Korea, and a host of other unruly nations and authoritarian regimes.
The arguments used to implicate Bush as an international war criminal should also apply to Obama’s decision to bomb Libya. I’ll concede that America entered Iraq with some unrealistic expectations, but we weren’t meddling in their affairs. Hussein’s actions demanded our response. But even Robert Gates has found no compelling U.S. interest in warring with Libya.
Nothing mentioned thus far should promote sympathy for Muammar Gaddafi. He is a despot and an enemy of the United States. I’ll loose no sleep if he disappears beneath a Tomahawk missile. I also support our troops’ safety and their mission's success. Alas, there’s no appearance of a mission to support, no clear objective. The rebels receiving our support may be a worse enemy than Gaddafi; Obama has abandoned our military leadership role to NATO, bypassed Congress, and surrendered our sovereign authority to wage war to the United Nations.
The outrage that greeted the hawkish Bush has dissipated. The peace marchers who were the darlings of dissent when Bush was the target are today as irrelevant as Keith Olberman. Few people, if any, are denouncing American imperialism or Obama’s military-industrial complex. Obama hasn’t been labeled a Nazi and I’ve yet to see the first effigy go up in flames.
What a difference a war can make!
This article originally appeared on American Thinker.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Seeking humor in assassination
Blaming journalists for biased reporting isn’t unique. Adherents to all political ideologies accuse the media of aligning with their opponents. However, Washington Post syndicated columnist Esther Cepeda gives conservatives a leg-up in proving leftist favoritism in the "mainstream" media. Either that or she’s a total dunce.
Ms. Cepeda has issues with the audience at Rep. Paul Broun’s (R-GA) town hall meeting. Apparently, the audience laughed when one constituent asked, "Who’s going to shoot Obama?" In perfect media fashion Ms. Cepeda parlayed the incident, which the Secret Service investigated and deemed a poor joke, into a blanket hatred for Obama based on his race and a "perceived socialist slant to government" since he took office. What happened, she lamented, to the outrage against such incendiary language after Gabrielle Giffords was shot?
Esther Cepeda finds no humor in jokes about assassinating President Obama. I’ll second that motion. But where was she when jovial leftwing pranksters had George W. Bush all but in the grave? It would be naïve to think she suffers from poor memory. More likely she has selective memory, or she’s a prejudiced media stooge.
First, no one has forgotten about Rep. Giffords or her battle to recover from the Tucson shooting. It’s just that rational observers quickly realized that blaming the representative’s injuries on conservative speech was a media generated myth. Second, Ms. Cepeda should know that crude comments about presidential assassinations didn’t originate with Obama’s inauguration.
The left’s outrage over tasteless references to presidential assassination depends not on some newly discovered high moral plane but on who’s in the crosshairs. Remember how President Bush’s opponents treated him? He was labeled an international criminal and accused of single-handedly initiating a war Congress had authorized him to wage at his discretion. Yet Bush was an evil tyrant, a blood-thirsty liar and a despicable fraud. He was Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Kahn and Attila the Hun all rolled into one genocidal package. The left did more than joke about Bush’s death; they fantasized about it.
Review a photo gallery from an Iraq War protest march and you’ll find plenty of knee-slapping calls to punch Bush’s ticket to the Great Beyond. His opponents had no qualms with a movie depicting his death from a sniper’s bullet. In fact, Peter Dale broadcast such a film (Death of a President) on British television. Dale found the film "serious" and "thought-provoking," even defending the use of Bush’s likeness rather than a fictional president because "it’s absolutely legitimate to deal with contemporary named figures."
Ha! I get it! Quite the card that Peter Dale.
Amazingly, Dale’s attitude is tame compared to British columnist Rod Liddle. Liddle said the movie depicting Bush’s death would strike a popular chord in Britain and predicted the actor who played the assassin would drink free in any British pub. The movie’s theme, according to Liddle, was entirely reasonable.
What a jester! And the jocularity surrounding Bush’s demise wasn’t confined to crackpots at anti-war rallies and movie sets. It was available in printed form, too.
A novel titled Checkpoint also hinged on threatening Bush’s life. The main character, named Jay, pulled no punches with his hatred for George W. Bush or his desire to kill the president in a variety of torturous ways. "I’m going to kill the bastard," Jay railed at one point while promising Bush would be "one dead armadillo" at another.
How’s that for civility, Ms. Cepeda? Where was your outrage when Bush was the bull’s eye of death by a thousand jokes? Did you not care, or were you simply ignorant of this leftwing merriment? The latter is difficult to swallow.
I doubt Ms. Cepeda is a fan of the conservative media. Therefore it’s equally doubtful she would review such outlets to discover the left’s witty jabs at Bush. But she needn’t have soiled her hands with World Net Daily, Town Hall, or Newsmax to uncover the premise behind Death of a President and Checkpoint. She didn’t need to scour the archives at the Weekly Standard, National Review, the Limbaugh Letter, or (God forbid) Fox News.
The reactions to the previously mentioned movie and book appeared in the Washington Post, with nary a sign of condemnation from the writers, I might add. Yes, Ms. Cepeda, the same Washington Post that employs the cesspool of columnists in which you swim. Feeling slimy, Ms. Cepeda? Perhaps a bit foolish? You should! But I’ll bet the farm you don’t.
Ms. Cepeda’s outrage rings as hollow as Obama’s promise to wisely spend the public’s funds. Crass jokes about killing presidents aren’t new, they didn’t originate with Obama’s ascendancy, and they arise from all points of the political spectrum. Vitriol isn’t the "knuckle-dragging" conservative’s copyrighted material. Put aside your self-righteous indignation, Ms. Cepeda, and open your eyes to reality. The left is to spiteful venom what Fort Knox once was to gold bullion.
If Cepeda and her "progressive" media cohorts truly find no humor in joking about a president’s death the newspapers and airwaves should’ve been flush with condemnation when leftist cranks and nutcases openly advocated for Bush’s demise. Did it slip their minds? Or did they find more pressing matters to attend? Hardly! Most media outlets simply weren’t too concerned when Bush was the dead man walking. Maybe there is humor in assassination only when the president has an "R" beside his name.
This column first appeared at American Thinker.
Ms. Cepeda has issues with the audience at Rep. Paul Broun’s (R-GA) town hall meeting. Apparently, the audience laughed when one constituent asked, "Who’s going to shoot Obama?" In perfect media fashion Ms. Cepeda parlayed the incident, which the Secret Service investigated and deemed a poor joke, into a blanket hatred for Obama based on his race and a "perceived socialist slant to government" since he took office. What happened, she lamented, to the outrage against such incendiary language after Gabrielle Giffords was shot?
Esther Cepeda finds no humor in jokes about assassinating President Obama. I’ll second that motion. But where was she when jovial leftwing pranksters had George W. Bush all but in the grave? It would be naïve to think she suffers from poor memory. More likely she has selective memory, or she’s a prejudiced media stooge.
First, no one has forgotten about Rep. Giffords or her battle to recover from the Tucson shooting. It’s just that rational observers quickly realized that blaming the representative’s injuries on conservative speech was a media generated myth. Second, Ms. Cepeda should know that crude comments about presidential assassinations didn’t originate with Obama’s inauguration.
The left’s outrage over tasteless references to presidential assassination depends not on some newly discovered high moral plane but on who’s in the crosshairs. Remember how President Bush’s opponents treated him? He was labeled an international criminal and accused of single-handedly initiating a war Congress had authorized him to wage at his discretion. Yet Bush was an evil tyrant, a blood-thirsty liar and a despicable fraud. He was Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Kahn and Attila the Hun all rolled into one genocidal package. The left did more than joke about Bush’s death; they fantasized about it.
Review a photo gallery from an Iraq War protest march and you’ll find plenty of knee-slapping calls to punch Bush’s ticket to the Great Beyond. His opponents had no qualms with a movie depicting his death from a sniper’s bullet. In fact, Peter Dale broadcast such a film (Death of a President) on British television. Dale found the film "serious" and "thought-provoking," even defending the use of Bush’s likeness rather than a fictional president because "it’s absolutely legitimate to deal with contemporary named figures."
Ha! I get it! Quite the card that Peter Dale.
Amazingly, Dale’s attitude is tame compared to British columnist Rod Liddle. Liddle said the movie depicting Bush’s death would strike a popular chord in Britain and predicted the actor who played the assassin would drink free in any British pub. The movie’s theme, according to Liddle, was entirely reasonable.
What a jester! And the jocularity surrounding Bush’s demise wasn’t confined to crackpots at anti-war rallies and movie sets. It was available in printed form, too.
A novel titled Checkpoint also hinged on threatening Bush’s life. The main character, named Jay, pulled no punches with his hatred for George W. Bush or his desire to kill the president in a variety of torturous ways. "I’m going to kill the bastard," Jay railed at one point while promising Bush would be "one dead armadillo" at another.
How’s that for civility, Ms. Cepeda? Where was your outrage when Bush was the bull’s eye of death by a thousand jokes? Did you not care, or were you simply ignorant of this leftwing merriment? The latter is difficult to swallow.
I doubt Ms. Cepeda is a fan of the conservative media. Therefore it’s equally doubtful she would review such outlets to discover the left’s witty jabs at Bush. But she needn’t have soiled her hands with World Net Daily, Town Hall, or Newsmax to uncover the premise behind Death of a President and Checkpoint. She didn’t need to scour the archives at the Weekly Standard, National Review, the Limbaugh Letter, or (God forbid) Fox News.
The reactions to the previously mentioned movie and book appeared in the Washington Post, with nary a sign of condemnation from the writers, I might add. Yes, Ms. Cepeda, the same Washington Post that employs the cesspool of columnists in which you swim. Feeling slimy, Ms. Cepeda? Perhaps a bit foolish? You should! But I’ll bet the farm you don’t.
Ms. Cepeda’s outrage rings as hollow as Obama’s promise to wisely spend the public’s funds. Crass jokes about killing presidents aren’t new, they didn’t originate with Obama’s ascendancy, and they arise from all points of the political spectrum. Vitriol isn’t the "knuckle-dragging" conservative’s copyrighted material. Put aside your self-righteous indignation, Ms. Cepeda, and open your eyes to reality. The left is to spiteful venom what Fort Knox once was to gold bullion.
If Cepeda and her "progressive" media cohorts truly find no humor in joking about a president’s death the newspapers and airwaves should’ve been flush with condemnation when leftist cranks and nutcases openly advocated for Bush’s demise. Did it slip their minds? Or did they find more pressing matters to attend? Hardly! Most media outlets simply weren’t too concerned when Bush was the dead man walking. Maybe there is humor in assassination only when the president has an "R" beside his name.
This column first appeared at American Thinker.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Jared Loughner: Timothy McVeigh reincarnated
The similarities between the 2010 election results and those in 1994 are evident. In 1994 frustrated voters vented their disgust with a Democrat administration’s leftist direction and gave Republicans control of Congress for the first time in decades. What happened in 2010? The American people again rejected a hard-left push from the Democrat Party and Republicans won overwhelmingly. Within months of each election the Left used an unspeakably violent act to falsely portray conservatives as vicious, unstable cranks.
It was Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. It’s Jared Loughner and the Arizona shooting in 2011.
Before anyone concludes that I’m launching a conspiracy theory let me state that I don’t believe the Left orchestrated either the Oklahoma City Bombing or the Arizona shooting. But their reactions to both tragedies prove that they’ve learned Rahm Emmanuel’s lesson quite well: a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Arizona, like Oklahoma City before, has fueled a left-wing crusade the sole intent of which is to denigrate and silence political opposition.
To the Left, human suffering equals political opportunity. It was so with Oklahoma City, and with Hurricane Katrina, and with the Jena Six. They demagogued the massacres in Stockton (CA), Killeen (TX), Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois. Now they’re demagoguing the Arizona shooting. It’s shameless, and it’s time to call the Left on their duplicity.
Democrats and their media allies seized the moment when Timothy McVeigh struck, just like they’re doing now. Before the rubble had cooled at the Alfred Murrah Building they had blamed everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Before Arizona’s first victim was eulogized the Left was blaming Sarah Palin, talk radio and the “new media” for pushing Jared Loughner over the edge.
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) went so far as to blame the Arizona rampage on the First Amendment. He thinks there are just too many media outlets and too much information available to those of us in the great unwashed. We simply lack the intelligence to distinguish his truth from our concocted fantasies. The accusation is perfectly clear. Conservatives are half-cocked knuckle-draggers ready to go off at the slightest provocation. We must be led on a government leash.
The prevailing media sings the chorus with equal intensity. Leftist commentators and journalists dissected the influence that conservative discourse played in driving Loughner’s rage. Their conclusion: Anyone espousing conservative thought, debate, or activism shares culpability for Loughner’s massacre. Even after acknowledging that no evidence exists to link Loughner to conservative positions or personalities, the Left continued to promote the connection.
Democrat strategists used the Oklahoma bombing to silence conservatives and quell the support for a smaller federal government that existed in 1994. There was no factual basis for their argument. McVeigh himself was something of a loner and neo-Nazi sympathizer--not a constitutional conservative. But the accusations had an affect. The game plan is the same with the Arizona shootings and Jared Loughner now. The similarities between the Left’s manipulation of Oklahoma City and Arizona cannot be dismissed, nor can they be allowed to flourish.
Little information has been verified concerning Jared Loughner’s political inclinations. The most credible evidence paints Loughner as a mentally unstable recluse motivated more by occult interests than a political agenda of any stripe. And nary shred of evidence has been presented to link Jared Loughner to conservative causes or right-wing rhetoric. Ironically, there is more hearsay evidence to link Loughner to left-wing radicalism than to right-wing conservatism.
Yet leftists continue to spin the Arizona tragedy for political advantage. It is they who are using incendiary language to divide our nation. It is they who exploit duped followers with blatant lies about political opponents. This time, unlike the spring of 1995, conservatives must hold the line against the Left’s baseless attacks.
Democrats aren’t appalled by the so-called “inflammatory rhetoric” coming from conservative politicians, talk radio hosts, or the TEA Party. They fear the substance behind the arguments. Therefore those voices must be marginalized by whatever means necessary. This time conservatives must stand their ground. History may repeat. But the end result must be changed.
It was Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. It’s Jared Loughner and the Arizona shooting in 2011.
Before anyone concludes that I’m launching a conspiracy theory let me state that I don’t believe the Left orchestrated either the Oklahoma City Bombing or the Arizona shooting. But their reactions to both tragedies prove that they’ve learned Rahm Emmanuel’s lesson quite well: a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Arizona, like Oklahoma City before, has fueled a left-wing crusade the sole intent of which is to denigrate and silence political opposition.
To the Left, human suffering equals political opportunity. It was so with Oklahoma City, and with Hurricane Katrina, and with the Jena Six. They demagogued the massacres in Stockton (CA), Killeen (TX), Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois. Now they’re demagoguing the Arizona shooting. It’s shameless, and it’s time to call the Left on their duplicity.
Democrats and their media allies seized the moment when Timothy McVeigh struck, just like they’re doing now. Before the rubble had cooled at the Alfred Murrah Building they had blamed everyone from Rush Limbaugh to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Before Arizona’s first victim was eulogized the Left was blaming Sarah Palin, talk radio and the “new media” for pushing Jared Loughner over the edge.
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) went so far as to blame the Arizona rampage on the First Amendment. He thinks there are just too many media outlets and too much information available to those of us in the great unwashed. We simply lack the intelligence to distinguish his truth from our concocted fantasies. The accusation is perfectly clear. Conservatives are half-cocked knuckle-draggers ready to go off at the slightest provocation. We must be led on a government leash.
The prevailing media sings the chorus with equal intensity. Leftist commentators and journalists dissected the influence that conservative discourse played in driving Loughner’s rage. Their conclusion: Anyone espousing conservative thought, debate, or activism shares culpability for Loughner’s massacre. Even after acknowledging that no evidence exists to link Loughner to conservative positions or personalities, the Left continued to promote the connection.
Democrat strategists used the Oklahoma bombing to silence conservatives and quell the support for a smaller federal government that existed in 1994. There was no factual basis for their argument. McVeigh himself was something of a loner and neo-Nazi sympathizer--not a constitutional conservative. But the accusations had an affect. The game plan is the same with the Arizona shootings and Jared Loughner now. The similarities between the Left’s manipulation of Oklahoma City and Arizona cannot be dismissed, nor can they be allowed to flourish.
Little information has been verified concerning Jared Loughner’s political inclinations. The most credible evidence paints Loughner as a mentally unstable recluse motivated more by occult interests than a political agenda of any stripe. And nary shred of evidence has been presented to link Jared Loughner to conservative causes or right-wing rhetoric. Ironically, there is more hearsay evidence to link Loughner to left-wing radicalism than to right-wing conservatism.
Yet leftists continue to spin the Arizona tragedy for political advantage. It is they who are using incendiary language to divide our nation. It is they who exploit duped followers with blatant lies about political opponents. This time, unlike the spring of 1995, conservatives must hold the line against the Left’s baseless attacks.
Democrats aren’t appalled by the so-called “inflammatory rhetoric” coming from conservative politicians, talk radio hosts, or the TEA Party. They fear the substance behind the arguments. Therefore those voices must be marginalized by whatever means necessary. This time conservatives must stand their ground. History may repeat. But the end result must be changed.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
A five-step program for the Republican majority
The mid-term elections are over. Republicans celebrate their victory while Democrats chase their tails, apparently in a state of denial. The GOP won 239 House seats and control 46 Senate seats with the Alaska race still undecided. Even if Lisa Murkowski prevails she is a Republican who will be at least as dependable as Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.
Republicans also hold 29 governorships and a majority of statehouses, which means they will redraw the congressional districts following this census year. If Republicans have the fortitude they can align congressional districts to favor conservative candidates for the next decade.
Even seat counts don’t tell the whole story of the Republican’s November 2nd dominance. No Republican incumbent lost their Senate seat while Democrats struggled to hold serve in Regressive heavy Washington and Colorado. House Democrats lost one seat in which their candidate was a prohibitive favorite and five where they were expected to win with ease. Republicans lost nary a House race they were favored to win. Republicans won 30 tossup races, unseating Democrat incumbents in 29 of them. Democrats won only 12 such elections. Democrats unseated just three sitting Republican representatives, and one of those was in Hawaii where a Democrat victory is about as rare as spotting a corn stalk in Illinois.
What happens now? Winning elections is one thing; wielding power is quite another. How should the GOP proceed? Where should they flex their newfound muscle? What must Republicans do to prove they are a genuine conservative alternative to the defeated Democrats? Follow the five-step program.
First, Republicans must realize that America voted for conservatism, not liberalism. When a confident football team intercepts a pass or recovers a fumble they try to capitalize immediately on the momentum shift. The GOP’s strategy should be similar. Why allow the losers to define the debate? Introduce legislation to repeal Obamacare. It’s won’t pass the Senate, although some Senate Democrats--like Joe Manchin (WV)--may buck their party and the administration. If repeal does survive the Senate the President will certainly veto it, which Republicans can’t override. So what? Introduce the bill again and again and again. Force the Democrats to defend their collectivist programs.
Second, avoid appeasement; it offers nothing for Republicans. Losing doesn’t equal defeat in the Regressive’s dictionary. In fact, Democrats are likely to be aggressive in defeat. What do they have to lose? Meet the lame duck Democrats with a hefty dose of obstructionism and gridlock. Republicans hold enough Senate seats right now to stonewall Democrats until the 112th Congress is seated. Just do it!
Third, ignore the Democrat’s character assassinations and obtuse rhetoric. Any conservative knows, or should know, that these tactics are the first options for Regressives and their media allies. Deal with it; it’s as common to politics as sand to the Mohave Desert. Conservatives have few friends in the media and none in the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Cabal. Why try to impress them? Cater to the people who’ve granted the GOP a second chance at governing, not the Washington elitists. Their agenda is the one you were elected to stop.
Fourth, forget about bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake. There’s no compromise with Regressive Democrats. If the electorate wanted the snake oil Democrats have been peddling they wouldn’t have swept them from power. Obama himself has said that elections have consequences and that victors set the tone. Go for their jugular; don’t give them a hand up. Let the Regressives “reach across the aisle” for a change.
Fifth, the Republican Party must remember where their new lease on life came from. Conservatives are wary and watching for signs of betrayal. If Republicans promote big government, as past Republican Congresses have done, voters have no reason to trust them in 2012.
Republicans aren’t as devoted to statism as are Democrats. But the slow boat to socialism eventually docks in the same harbor. The GOP has a chance to prove that they aren’t a watered-down version of the Regressive Movement. They better make a good showing.
Republicans also hold 29 governorships and a majority of statehouses, which means they will redraw the congressional districts following this census year. If Republicans have the fortitude they can align congressional districts to favor conservative candidates for the next decade.
Even seat counts don’t tell the whole story of the Republican’s November 2nd dominance. No Republican incumbent lost their Senate seat while Democrats struggled to hold serve in Regressive heavy Washington and Colorado. House Democrats lost one seat in which their candidate was a prohibitive favorite and five where they were expected to win with ease. Republicans lost nary a House race they were favored to win. Republicans won 30 tossup races, unseating Democrat incumbents in 29 of them. Democrats won only 12 such elections. Democrats unseated just three sitting Republican representatives, and one of those was in Hawaii where a Democrat victory is about as rare as spotting a corn stalk in Illinois.
What happens now? Winning elections is one thing; wielding power is quite another. How should the GOP proceed? Where should they flex their newfound muscle? What must Republicans do to prove they are a genuine conservative alternative to the defeated Democrats? Follow the five-step program.
First, Republicans must realize that America voted for conservatism, not liberalism. When a confident football team intercepts a pass or recovers a fumble they try to capitalize immediately on the momentum shift. The GOP’s strategy should be similar. Why allow the losers to define the debate? Introduce legislation to repeal Obamacare. It’s won’t pass the Senate, although some Senate Democrats--like Joe Manchin (WV)--may buck their party and the administration. If repeal does survive the Senate the President will certainly veto it, which Republicans can’t override. So what? Introduce the bill again and again and again. Force the Democrats to defend their collectivist programs.
Second, avoid appeasement; it offers nothing for Republicans. Losing doesn’t equal defeat in the Regressive’s dictionary. In fact, Democrats are likely to be aggressive in defeat. What do they have to lose? Meet the lame duck Democrats with a hefty dose of obstructionism and gridlock. Republicans hold enough Senate seats right now to stonewall Democrats until the 112th Congress is seated. Just do it!
Third, ignore the Democrat’s character assassinations and obtuse rhetoric. Any conservative knows, or should know, that these tactics are the first options for Regressives and their media allies. Deal with it; it’s as common to politics as sand to the Mohave Desert. Conservatives have few friends in the media and none in the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Cabal. Why try to impress them? Cater to the people who’ve granted the GOP a second chance at governing, not the Washington elitists. Their agenda is the one you were elected to stop.
Fourth, forget about bipartisanship for bipartisanship’s sake. There’s no compromise with Regressive Democrats. If the electorate wanted the snake oil Democrats have been peddling they wouldn’t have swept them from power. Obama himself has said that elections have consequences and that victors set the tone. Go for their jugular; don’t give them a hand up. Let the Regressives “reach across the aisle” for a change.
Fifth, the Republican Party must remember where their new lease on life came from. Conservatives are wary and watching for signs of betrayal. If Republicans promote big government, as past Republican Congresses have done, voters have no reason to trust them in 2012.
Republicans aren’t as devoted to statism as are Democrats. But the slow boat to socialism eventually docks in the same harbor. The GOP has a chance to prove that they aren’t a watered-down version of the Regressive Movement. They better make a good showing.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The five myths of Regressive politics #1: Conservatives are racist.
Whenever conservatives comment on racial issues they’re immediately compared to the Grand Dragons of the Ku Klux Klan. Such an accusation would be laughable if it weren’t so egregious. In reality conservatives are the colorblind idealists. Since all that’s rightly promised to free people is an opportunity to use their talents for their own benefit, conservatives recognize that preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity are themselves discriminatory. Quotas aren’t necessary for success, nor are head starts required.
In reality, applying quota and preference programs to people of color is condescending. Racial quota systems promote the idea that minorities are inferior and needful of preferential treatment. Conservatives recognize the duplicitous fallacy in this argument. Therefore, under conservatism, people are evaluated on their merits, with financial compensation and cultural status reflecting each individual’s contribution to society.
In conservative thought equality means a known starting point, no more. No one is elevated or relegated based on race and no preference is given beyond that which is due to the skills and attitudes a person presents.
The left is correct in one thing; racism does endure in America. However, its home is on the political left. Liberals have no faith in minorities regardless of the preening and crowing they do on behalf of the disenfranchised. Minorities cannot succeed without the left-wing do-gooder’s social justice activism and government assistance. Success can result from welfare and entitlement programs, hiring quotas, college admission preferences, or some other means. But success must be attributable to government.
The true crime of political racism is perpetrated daily on the left. Liberal politicians work diligently to convince minorities that life is worthless and unlivable without expansive government programs, thereby maintaining their grip on power. The fact that these programs are a proven snare, trapping recipients in an endless stream of dependence is immaterial. All that matters is the electoral power that can be attained and the governmental control that can be expanded.
In reality, applying quota and preference programs to people of color is condescending. Racial quota systems promote the idea that minorities are inferior and needful of preferential treatment. Conservatives recognize the duplicitous fallacy in this argument. Therefore, under conservatism, people are evaluated on their merits, with financial compensation and cultural status reflecting each individual’s contribution to society.
In conservative thought equality means a known starting point, no more. No one is elevated or relegated based on race and no preference is given beyond that which is due to the skills and attitudes a person presents.
The left is correct in one thing; racism does endure in America. However, its home is on the political left. Liberals have no faith in minorities regardless of the preening and crowing they do on behalf of the disenfranchised. Minorities cannot succeed without the left-wing do-gooder’s social justice activism and government assistance. Success can result from welfare and entitlement programs, hiring quotas, college admission preferences, or some other means. But success must be attributable to government.
The true crime of political racism is perpetrated daily on the left. Liberal politicians work diligently to convince minorities that life is worthless and unlivable without expansive government programs, thereby maintaining their grip on power. The fact that these programs are a proven snare, trapping recipients in an endless stream of dependence is immaterial. All that matters is the electoral power that can be attained and the governmental control that can be expanded.
Monday, September 27, 2010
With Republicans like Powell, who needs Democrats?
Why Colin Powell remains a favored interview on Republican electoral strategy is inexplicable. Powell’s personal achievements are indeed exemplary. But his conservative credentials expired long ago. He continually proves that he--like too many Republicans--is a small “d” Democrat with an “R” beside his name.
Powell’s inside Washington philosophies were apparent during a recent appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press. He criticized conservative ideas, projecting instead the mindset that has transformed the GOP into Democrats Light.
Powell instructed Republicans to support immigration. “We’ve got to find a way to bring these people out of the darkness and give them some kind of status,” the General declared. His comment raises two points of contention.
First, Powell is assuming that conservative Republicans oppose immigration lock, stock and barrel. Not so. According to a Rasmussen poll Republicans favor a welcoming immigration policy more than do Democrats. Legal immigration is not a problem for conservatives.
Gen. Powell, the people you say need “some kind of status” have a status now. It’s called “illegal alien.” Those are the so-called “immigrants” conservative Republicans oppose. Illegal aliens and legal immigrants are synonymous and no one need pretend that they are. Such a comparison disparages legal migrants in favor of aliens who’ve shown contempt for our laws, borders, sovereignty and culture. That’s no winning strategy.
The Tea Party is a question mark for Gen. Powell, too. He thinks the movement will dissipate, having become too entrenched in ideological discourse. The Tea Party will lose its momentum because it offers nothing voters can see, touch, or believe in. Too much time is spent promoting ideas like fiscal sanity and constitutional government. Such a thought wouldn’t raise an eyebrow if it came from Rahm Emmanuel, but it’s appalling coming from a Republican.
Where, Gen. Powell, would you have Americans place their faith if not in fiscal responsibility and constitutional principles? Federal spending is a case study in how not to manage a budget. Washington’s “success” stories, Social Security and Medicare, are train wrecks hurtling toward derailment. Budget deficits are ballooning under Obama’s “change.” The national debt consumes nearly a year’s worth of GDP and unfunded entitlements stretch from here to Alpha Centauri.
Budgetary sanity and fiscal discipline better be winning issues, Gen. Powell. That is, if America’s future is to exceed its past.
Let’s also remember that adherence to the Constitution is a federal representative’s prime duty. Elected officials swear no oath to provide cradle-to-grave public assistance. They have neither duty nor authority to subsidize individual retirement or medical needs. However, representatives do swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution restrains the central government and safeguards our liberty and sovereignty. When it’s ignored, as the ruling class routinely does, Americans lose. Adhering to the Constitution is an idea that everyone should believe in. If not, let us fold our tents; this experiment in self-government has failed.
If disciplined, constitutionally responsible government and national sovereignty aren’t priorities for Gen. Powell, what direction does he prefer? Should we support amnesty for illegal aliens and oppose lower taxation? Would Powell’s ideal Republican, one Americans “can believe in,” sacrifice conservative ideals to attain bipartisan cooperation? Republicans fielded such a candidate in the 2008 presidential race. Powell promptly shunned that candidate, John McCain, and endorsed the Democrat opposition.
Republicans were once the voice for fiscal restraint, personal responsibility, liberty and Constitutional principles. But the blind guides within the Beltway hierarchy have too long driven the party platform. Thus the GOP has adopted big government philosophies, only to a slighter degree than do Democrats. Healing the GOP means rejecting the advice of pundits, like Powell, who see legislation and bureaucracy as a cure-all.
Colin Powell rose from humble beginnings to craft a successful life. Let’s admire his tenacity and work ethic. Let’s certainly respect his extensive military service. But he places far too much faith in government to suit the cause of liberty. From that standpoint he has outlived his usefulness as a Republican strategist.
Powell’s inside Washington philosophies were apparent during a recent appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press. He criticized conservative ideas, projecting instead the mindset that has transformed the GOP into Democrats Light.
Powell instructed Republicans to support immigration. “We’ve got to find a way to bring these people out of the darkness and give them some kind of status,” the General declared. His comment raises two points of contention.
First, Powell is assuming that conservative Republicans oppose immigration lock, stock and barrel. Not so. According to a Rasmussen poll Republicans favor a welcoming immigration policy more than do Democrats. Legal immigration is not a problem for conservatives.
Gen. Powell, the people you say need “some kind of status” have a status now. It’s called “illegal alien.” Those are the so-called “immigrants” conservative Republicans oppose. Illegal aliens and legal immigrants are synonymous and no one need pretend that they are. Such a comparison disparages legal migrants in favor of aliens who’ve shown contempt for our laws, borders, sovereignty and culture. That’s no winning strategy.
The Tea Party is a question mark for Gen. Powell, too. He thinks the movement will dissipate, having become too entrenched in ideological discourse. The Tea Party will lose its momentum because it offers nothing voters can see, touch, or believe in. Too much time is spent promoting ideas like fiscal sanity and constitutional government. Such a thought wouldn’t raise an eyebrow if it came from Rahm Emmanuel, but it’s appalling coming from a Republican.
Where, Gen. Powell, would you have Americans place their faith if not in fiscal responsibility and constitutional principles? Federal spending is a case study in how not to manage a budget. Washington’s “success” stories, Social Security and Medicare, are train wrecks hurtling toward derailment. Budget deficits are ballooning under Obama’s “change.” The national debt consumes nearly a year’s worth of GDP and unfunded entitlements stretch from here to Alpha Centauri.
Budgetary sanity and fiscal discipline better be winning issues, Gen. Powell. That is, if America’s future is to exceed its past.
Let’s also remember that adherence to the Constitution is a federal representative’s prime duty. Elected officials swear no oath to provide cradle-to-grave public assistance. They have neither duty nor authority to subsidize individual retirement or medical needs. However, representatives do swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
The Constitution restrains the central government and safeguards our liberty and sovereignty. When it’s ignored, as the ruling class routinely does, Americans lose. Adhering to the Constitution is an idea that everyone should believe in. If not, let us fold our tents; this experiment in self-government has failed.
If disciplined, constitutionally responsible government and national sovereignty aren’t priorities for Gen. Powell, what direction does he prefer? Should we support amnesty for illegal aliens and oppose lower taxation? Would Powell’s ideal Republican, one Americans “can believe in,” sacrifice conservative ideals to attain bipartisan cooperation? Republicans fielded such a candidate in the 2008 presidential race. Powell promptly shunned that candidate, John McCain, and endorsed the Democrat opposition.
Republicans were once the voice for fiscal restraint, personal responsibility, liberty and Constitutional principles. But the blind guides within the Beltway hierarchy have too long driven the party platform. Thus the GOP has adopted big government philosophies, only to a slighter degree than do Democrats. Healing the GOP means rejecting the advice of pundits, like Powell, who see legislation and bureaucracy as a cure-all.
Colin Powell rose from humble beginnings to craft a successful life. Let’s admire his tenacity and work ethic. Let’s certainly respect his extensive military service. But he places far too much faith in government to suit the cause of liberty. From that standpoint he has outlived his usefulness as a Republican strategist.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
How to save media news? A bailout, of course.
The most equitable way to determine successes and failures is a free market. Free markets reward efforts that meet or exceed the customer’s need. But in a socialized market goods and services are taxed and regulated until producers can no longer compete with the subsidized competition.
A producer’s funds are confiscated and used to prop up failing industries that have long since stopped pleasing their customers. Success is forced to relinquish its return so failure can receive reward. Furthermore, customers who won’t willingly patronize the failing industries are forced to subsidize them, too.
There’s nothing fair or equitable about it. Subsidies allow the government to choose winners that would lose if let to their own devices. It’s an utterly corrupt process.
Nowhere is the failure to please customers better exemplified than in the national news media, where the industry leaders have little more than contempt for their customers. So far the news media hasn’t been subsidized, if you don’t count public broadcasting. That could soon change.
Dan Rather has become a cheerleader for a subsidized media. It’s his view that the government should create a commission to establish innovative media business plans and preserve journalism jobs. This is necessary, according to Rather, because a free and independent press is the heartbeat of freedom. He has unwittingly revealed a fundamental reason for the public’s waning interest in his profession.
Hasn’t it occurred to Dan Rather that government involvement in the media is the antithesis of a free press? The purpose of the free press, as constitutionally protected, is to monitor government. When government is involved with the press, via subsidies or otherwise, the press is no longer a guardian of freedom but a tool of tyranny.
Thus far, President Obama has expressed some interest in a media bailout, at least for the print portion. But a bailout for one segment of the media would invariably lead to a bailout for all.
Not only would government subsidies force certain news customers to pay for a service they now reject, it would also be a deal with the devil for the media itself. Media personalities have their biases, which are apparent even when concealment is attempted. How much worse once government is funding the enterprise? The “free” press would become an overt tool for swaying public opinion, which would further disintegrate the public’s waning confidence in journalism. Ironically, Rather’s biases were instrumental in cultivating the public’s distrust for the media.
I respect a person’s right to their beliefs. But an opinion is just that, an opinion. When opinion comes packaged as unbiased reporting, well, news viewers and readers aren’t as stupid as media potentates seem to believe.
When will Dan Rather--and Katie Couric, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Andrea Mitchell for that matter--recognize the public’s weariness of left-wing puppets disguised as news anchors, reporters and journalists? There’s just so much mind-numbing propaganda that a reasonable person can take.
Similar bias is standard fare on the print media’s buffet as well. Small wonder Americans are turning to British newspapers while the domestic media wallows in sanctimonious denial and loathsome self-pity. News customers are speaking with their remote controls and subscription payments, and in a free market they are rejecting the media status quo.
The news media--whether broadcast, print, or electronic--doesn’t need to further prostitute itself to Washington in order to survive. The profession need only stop presenting spin as news. The majority of America really isn’t as stupid as the high-minded media pundits believe. Indoctrination and reeducation isn’t needed. Just report the news and spare us the alleged civics lessons. The First Amendment, journalism, media customers, and the prospects for a free republic will all benefit.
A producer’s funds are confiscated and used to prop up failing industries that have long since stopped pleasing their customers. Success is forced to relinquish its return so failure can receive reward. Furthermore, customers who won’t willingly patronize the failing industries are forced to subsidize them, too.
There’s nothing fair or equitable about it. Subsidies allow the government to choose winners that would lose if let to their own devices. It’s an utterly corrupt process.
Nowhere is the failure to please customers better exemplified than in the national news media, where the industry leaders have little more than contempt for their customers. So far the news media hasn’t been subsidized, if you don’t count public broadcasting. That could soon change.
Dan Rather has become a cheerleader for a subsidized media. It’s his view that the government should create a commission to establish innovative media business plans and preserve journalism jobs. This is necessary, according to Rather, because a free and independent press is the heartbeat of freedom. He has unwittingly revealed a fundamental reason for the public’s waning interest in his profession.
Hasn’t it occurred to Dan Rather that government involvement in the media is the antithesis of a free press? The purpose of the free press, as constitutionally protected, is to monitor government. When government is involved with the press, via subsidies or otherwise, the press is no longer a guardian of freedom but a tool of tyranny.
Thus far, President Obama has expressed some interest in a media bailout, at least for the print portion. But a bailout for one segment of the media would invariably lead to a bailout for all.
Not only would government subsidies force certain news customers to pay for a service they now reject, it would also be a deal with the devil for the media itself. Media personalities have their biases, which are apparent even when concealment is attempted. How much worse once government is funding the enterprise? The “free” press would become an overt tool for swaying public opinion, which would further disintegrate the public’s waning confidence in journalism. Ironically, Rather’s biases were instrumental in cultivating the public’s distrust for the media.
I respect a person’s right to their beliefs. But an opinion is just that, an opinion. When opinion comes packaged as unbiased reporting, well, news viewers and readers aren’t as stupid as media potentates seem to believe.
When will Dan Rather--and Katie Couric, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Andrea Mitchell for that matter--recognize the public’s weariness of left-wing puppets disguised as news anchors, reporters and journalists? There’s just so much mind-numbing propaganda that a reasonable person can take.
Similar bias is standard fare on the print media’s buffet as well. Small wonder Americans are turning to British newspapers while the domestic media wallows in sanctimonious denial and loathsome self-pity. News customers are speaking with their remote controls and subscription payments, and in a free market they are rejecting the media status quo.
The news media--whether broadcast, print, or electronic--doesn’t need to further prostitute itself to Washington in order to survive. The profession need only stop presenting spin as news. The majority of America really isn’t as stupid as the high-minded media pundits believe. Indoctrination and reeducation isn’t needed. Just report the news and spare us the alleged civics lessons. The First Amendment, journalism, media customers, and the prospects for a free republic will all benefit.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Act and consequence apply, even to homosexual parents
Robert Bork wrote about our society’s moral decay in a book titled Slouching Toward Gomorrah. That slouch has become a dead run.
Eric Mongerson is a divorced man who wasn’t allowed to share his children’s visitations with his new love. Eric’s “new love” is a man. Okay, big surprise, right? It goes farther. Eric dumped his 20-year marriage and his four children to pursue his homosexuality. And it wasn’t the first time he had engaged in such relationships.
During the divorce the wife argued--with apparent success--that Mongerson had engaged in adulterous homosexual affairs on several occasions. It was also argued that he and his partner had exposed the four children to inappropriate behavior during a trip across state lines. Thus the court prohibited him from sharing his visitations with his partner.
That has changed, thanks to a Georgia Supreme Court ruling. And the Associated Press account of the ruling sounds like it was written by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance. It was nothing short of an endorsement of the “gay rights” movement, which makes great use of false bigotry allegations to force society into accepting unnatural attractions.
The AP story lamented how Mongerson was unable to take his kids to his home while his boyfriend was there, even though the wife once brought her boyfriend to his daughter’s concert.
Friends, there’s quite a difference between a heterosexual couple taking children to a public area, such as a concert, and a homosexual couple taking them to a private area, such as a home. If you can’t make that distinction you might as well stop reading now. You’re too blinded by your heterophobic bigotry to see the big picture.
Also note the phrase, “his daughter’s concert.” It’s as if the wife doesn’t exist. Excuse me, but I believe the correct phrase is “their daughter’s concert.” It’s doubtful that the AP’s wording is accidental.
Fact is, Eric Mongerson made his bed. If he was so concerned with spending time with his kids why did he ditch his family? His visitation problems were the direct result of his choices. Yet moral issues are but a part of the equation. There are several interesting aspects of this tale that are worth examination.
Let’s concede--for sake of illustration only--that Eric Mongerson was born homosexual, as gay advocates regularly argue. He spent 20 years in a matrimonial, sexual, relationship with a woman--a woman to whom he had no attraction. He was, as activists claim, living the lie.
Under these circumstances it is logical to question why he wants to see his kids at all. Their presence resurrects his experiences within a heterosexual relationship. Each time he sees their faces he is confronted with the intimate moments he spent with their mother. Logically speaking, why wouldn’t he avoid those children and the constant reminder of heterosexual relations they represent?
Another question is why this matter is such big news? What if the shoe were on the other foot? If it were a straight man in a visitation dispute with an ex-wife concerning his activities with a girlfriend there would’ve been no bold headline and little media attention. But since it involves homosexuality it fits the approved news template. It fit’s the politically correct narrative. It advances the agenda-driven propaganda that much of today’s “free” press embodies.
Lastly, the Mongerson situation is indicative of how we’ve compromised both the natural law and common morality. It shows that we may not be slouching toward Gomorrah, as Bork wrote, but charging there full tilt.
This case shouldn’t have been debated much less adjudicated. Should Eric Mongerson have visitation rights? Sure he should. No government has authority to separate a parent from a child sans a criminal offense. Eric helped make those kids whether he enjoyed it or not.
However, that doesn’t necessarily grant him the right to include his homosexual friends. When moral lines are blurred to the extent they’ve been blurred in our society, situations like this are bound to arise.
Actions have consequences. It was Eric Mongerson who walked out on his family to be with another man. He made that choice knowing full well it would hinder his relationship with his children. It’s obvious from his actions that his homosexual interests meant more to him than anything else.
There’s no discrimination when someone makes a free choice. Unless his preference is now bisexual, Eric Mongerson can’t have it both ways.
Eric Mongerson is a divorced man who wasn’t allowed to share his children’s visitations with his new love. Eric’s “new love” is a man. Okay, big surprise, right? It goes farther. Eric dumped his 20-year marriage and his four children to pursue his homosexuality. And it wasn’t the first time he had engaged in such relationships.
During the divorce the wife argued--with apparent success--that Mongerson had engaged in adulterous homosexual affairs on several occasions. It was also argued that he and his partner had exposed the four children to inappropriate behavior during a trip across state lines. Thus the court prohibited him from sharing his visitations with his partner.
That has changed, thanks to a Georgia Supreme Court ruling. And the Associated Press account of the ruling sounds like it was written by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance. It was nothing short of an endorsement of the “gay rights” movement, which makes great use of false bigotry allegations to force society into accepting unnatural attractions.
The AP story lamented how Mongerson was unable to take his kids to his home while his boyfriend was there, even though the wife once brought her boyfriend to his daughter’s concert.
Friends, there’s quite a difference between a heterosexual couple taking children to a public area, such as a concert, and a homosexual couple taking them to a private area, such as a home. If you can’t make that distinction you might as well stop reading now. You’re too blinded by your heterophobic bigotry to see the big picture.
Also note the phrase, “his daughter’s concert.” It’s as if the wife doesn’t exist. Excuse me, but I believe the correct phrase is “their daughter’s concert.” It’s doubtful that the AP’s wording is accidental.
Fact is, Eric Mongerson made his bed. If he was so concerned with spending time with his kids why did he ditch his family? His visitation problems were the direct result of his choices. Yet moral issues are but a part of the equation. There are several interesting aspects of this tale that are worth examination.
Let’s concede--for sake of illustration only--that Eric Mongerson was born homosexual, as gay advocates regularly argue. He spent 20 years in a matrimonial, sexual, relationship with a woman--a woman to whom he had no attraction. He was, as activists claim, living the lie.
Under these circumstances it is logical to question why he wants to see his kids at all. Their presence resurrects his experiences within a heterosexual relationship. Each time he sees their faces he is confronted with the intimate moments he spent with their mother. Logically speaking, why wouldn’t he avoid those children and the constant reminder of heterosexual relations they represent?
Another question is why this matter is such big news? What if the shoe were on the other foot? If it were a straight man in a visitation dispute with an ex-wife concerning his activities with a girlfriend there would’ve been no bold headline and little media attention. But since it involves homosexuality it fits the approved news template. It fit’s the politically correct narrative. It advances the agenda-driven propaganda that much of today’s “free” press embodies.
Lastly, the Mongerson situation is indicative of how we’ve compromised both the natural law and common morality. It shows that we may not be slouching toward Gomorrah, as Bork wrote, but charging there full tilt.
This case shouldn’t have been debated much less adjudicated. Should Eric Mongerson have visitation rights? Sure he should. No government has authority to separate a parent from a child sans a criminal offense. Eric helped make those kids whether he enjoyed it or not.
However, that doesn’t necessarily grant him the right to include his homosexual friends. When moral lines are blurred to the extent they’ve been blurred in our society, situations like this are bound to arise.
Actions have consequences. It was Eric Mongerson who walked out on his family to be with another man. He made that choice knowing full well it would hinder his relationship with his children. It’s obvious from his actions that his homosexual interests meant more to him than anything else.
There’s no discrimination when someone makes a free choice. Unless his preference is now bisexual, Eric Mongerson can’t have it both ways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
