Maoist in the White House – Media Is Silent

A current White House official explicitly endorses one of the greatest tyrannical butchers in the history of the world, and the main stream media is silent (surprise, surprise).  I think we had better move that moral doomsday clock forward.

It is now 11:57:00.

Maoist in the White House – George Reisman – Mises Institute.

Peter Schiff was right, so why is he being shunned by the media?

Peter Schiff was literally laughed at by other analysts in 2006 for his dire economic predictions.  Of course, he was right.  So why is the media giving him less air time now?  This interview of Peter Schiff by Time Magazine explores that question. 

The leftist anti-war movement is MIA. Wars in Middle East continue unabated.

Where in the world is the anti-war movement?  Where are the protests?  Where are the silent vigils?  Are we still counting civilian casualties?  Where are the placards and bumper stickers?  For that matter, where is the media coverage of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?  We are not out of Iraq, and in fact we have been promised a long term presence there.  We have been told more troops will be sent to Afghanistan.  The nation-building, police-of-the-world rhetoric has not changed.   Has war become the answer?  What happened to Obama’s change?  Where are the “Obama lied, thousands are still dying”  bumper stickers?  And where are the Move-ons of the world who all but set themselves on fire during the campaigns?  As David Boaz of CATO points out:

But meanwhile, where’s the antiwar movement? President Obama rose to power on the basis of his early opposition to the Iraq war and his promise to end it. Now he has doubled down on the war in Afghanistan and has promised to keep the war in Iraq going for another 19 months, after which we will have 50,000 American troops in Iraq for as far as the eye can see. If McCain had proposed this sort of minor tweaking of the Bush policy, I think we’d see antiwar rallies in 300 cities. Calling the antiwar movement!

I have an idea where they are.  They are counting their money and revelling in their new power, laughing at me for believing they were really anti-war.

Thanks to Jesse at C4L for the link.

Can the media really be this clueless about the Tea Parties?

I watched the video posted here of the Rachel Maddow show–a piece from MSNBC, and I was amazed at how apparently clueless these ladies were about the ideas behind the tea parties.  They revealed a slight amount of knowlege in linking them to Ron Paul’s supporters, but other wise they appeared to have no idea what they were all about.  There are two possibilites:  either these ladies are too lazy to simply pull up the reteaparty.com website, or they are purposely trying to confuse people and misrepresent the movement.   Their strange fixation/obsession  on the word teabagging was a notable.  Journalism is truly dead.

They also engaged in the standard “crazy ideas” assessment of Ron Paul and his movement.  I believe it may seem crazy to them.  As Carabini writes in his new book:

 

I have often wondered why those with strong opinions about social affairs are always attracted toward one of two opposing poles. There are those inclined to liberty—freedom of the individual to live his or her life in any peaceful way. And there are those who are inclined to mastery—permitting others to live their lives only as another sees fit. 

 

 

 

 

Ron Paul Tea Party? « America’s Independence Day Tea Party.

 

More admissions of election coverage bias from media…

Now that the elections is over, more “journalists” (including a Time editor and Washington Post ombudsman) are admitting and bemoaning the bias of the media toward Barack Obama. 

Last week, Time magazine’s Mark Halperin called the media’s performance during the campaign simply “disgusting.”

 

Halperin told a panel of media analysts at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election, “It’s the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war.”

 

He added, “It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.”

Of course it is safe for them to admit it now.  And maybe they think that “coming clean” will restore the trust of the American people.  Don’t worry, all of you media elite, the “people” never doubted you, nor will they.  The “people” are far beyond any ability to question you.  You and the public school system made sure of that long ago.

Journalism is dead.

Of course it’s not the end of the pretense of journalism, there will still be a TV set lighting up the living room of most American homes every evening.  There will still be hood-winked Americans glued to the set, hanging on the words of the oracle.

But journalism is dead, at least in the main stream media.  I know this is old news, but it’s important.

Scarborough’s exchange with Matthews Thursday [11/6] morning:

Matthews: “I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work.”

Scarborough: “Is that your job? You just talked about your being a journalist.”

Matthews: “Yeah, that’s my job. My job is to help this country.”

Scarborough: “So your job as a journalist is to make this presidency work?”

Matthews: “To make this work successfully, because this country needs a successful presidency, more than anything right now.”

Moments later, Time magazine editor Richard Stengel took exception to Matthews’ description of his role as a journalist.

“Walter Cronkite once famously said that journalists are skeptical so the public doesn’t become cynical,” Stengel said. “As Americans, we want of course Barack Obama to succeed and we want the country to thrive.

“As journalists, we have to hold his feet to the fire. That is our responsibility. Frankly, I think that’s our constitutional responsibility. That is why the press is protected in the Constitution.”

Matthews is also thinking about running for senator.

How can we believe a word these guys say?

PS:  To Stengel:  Is this what you guys did with Obama during the campaign, “hold his feet to the fire”?  No.

Schumer’s irrational defense of the “Fairness” Doctrine

In a recent interview, Charles Schumer irrationally defended the so-called “Fairness” Doctrine.  From Newsmax:

Democratic Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine regarding talk radio, telling Fox News: “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

I don’t know, Mr. Schumer, what do you think?  Do you think ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN were fair and balanced during the presidential campaigns?  Did you hear Dan Rather’s comments on the subject?  Have you heard the statistics on the subject?  Have you read Goldberg’s book?  My goodness, all you have to do is listen to NPR.  I wonder if that taxpayer-funded radio program always makes sure to have a conservative experts on to balance the liberal ones?  Not that I have ever heard (of course, I stopped listening to that slanted propaganda a long time ago).

Is it “fair and balanced” for a newspaper to endorse a candidate?

Mr. Schumer, are you proposing that all of these news outlets give equal time to all points of view?

Of course not.  And with the exception of NPR, which is government funded, we should not force the networks to be “fair and balanced”.  They are private businesses.  If they want to air Obama more than they do McCain, then let them do it.  I am not forced to watch (yet), and I do not.  On what moral basis do you believe that you have the right to force businesses to present viewpoints that they oppose?  Must a business present the disadvantages of its product, or the advantages of their competitor’s product?  Must a radio station give equal time to positions it believes to be false?

If I am a doctor, and I believe that my friend has cancer, but another doctor does not, must I give equal emphasis to the opposing viewpoint when urging him to get treatment?  Is it immoral for me not to do so?

And what do you mean by “we should all” be fair and balanced?  Do you plan to force individuals to always equally represent both sides when they are speaking to other people?  Is this what you do, Mr. Schumer?

I will grant that it is immoral to knowingly deceive, but to simply present a viewpoint you believe to be correct, is that immoral?  On the contrary, if I believe something of great moral or practical significance to be true, and yet when I am speaking to another person about it I do not reveal my own beliefs, but equally present both sides, then I am engaging in morally questionable behavior.  Do I not have the responsibility to tell what I believe to be the truth?

The Fairness Doctrine, repealed during the Ronald Reagan administration, would require radio stations to balance conservative talk hosts with liberal ones.

In a Fox interview Tuesday morning, the senator from New York was asked if he supported telling radio stations what their content should be.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air,” Schumer said.

“I am for that . . . But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

First of all, perhaps we should not regulate pornography on the air.  But making sure that a six year old does not turn on the radio and hear people having sex on the air is not the same thing as making sure they don’t turn on the radio and hear Rush Limbaugh.  If we apply Schumer’s “fairness” rule to porn, I suppose we should allow porn on the air as long as we balance it with abstinence education radio programs.

The six year old who accidentally hears Rush Limbaugh will not be harmed any more than he will be by listening to Obama’s left-leaning speeches.  Do we need to balance every Obama speech by with a conservative speech? 

In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, told The Hill newspaper: “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Of course.  It is always wise to hear both sides of the story, but who are you, our parents?  let me interpret Durbin’s doublespeak for you:

“It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that Americans cannot think for themselves.”

Unfortunately, judging by the outcome of the recent election, Durbin may be right.  But even that does not give the government the right to force private businesses to air anything, much less unprofitable and unpopular liberal talk radio programs.

And of course, they will not apply this doctrine to the liberal media, only to radio, because their motive is to silence the conservatives.  This is standard operating procedure for socialists:  silence the opposition.  ”Oh yes,”  they proclaim, “we love freedom of thought and speech…  as long as it does not threaten our power.”

No doubt they will claim that the conservative hosts are “deceitful” or ”harmful”.  They will claim that these conservative viewpoints have were disproven by economists and scientists ages ago, and so they cannot be allowed to deceive the public.  That is what they will say.  But they lie. 

They lie, but they are right about one thing:  The American people have lost the ability to reason, and I do not doubt that the majority will not oppose the “Fairness” Doctrine.  Like the serfs they have become, they will whine for their government lords to protect them from the conservative “lies.”

The effort to silence Joe the plumber: The Obama gestapo at work.

An Ohio official has admitted approving investigations into the personal files of Joe the plumber.  From NewsMax:

Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS), admitted that she approved a check on Wurzelbacher’s child support papers. Joe maintains he is not involved in a child support case.

The agency “also checked Wurzelbacher in its computer systems to determine whether he was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes,” the Columbus Dispatch reported.

Jones-Kelley is an Obama supporter and contributed the maximum amount to his presidential campaign…

In addition to Jones-Kelley, investigators have found other suspicious uses of state computer resources to access information on Wurzelbacher.

Toledo police records clerk Julie McConnell has been charged with gross misconduct for accessing the Law Enforcement Automated Date System to retrieve Wurzelbacher’s address as a favor to a reporter, according to Malkin.

Officials in Ohio also say the Cuyahoga County social service office was compromised and an outside contractor with access to data belonging to the state attorney general “similarly searched Wurzelbacher’s data,” Malkin noted.

“Moreover, his driver’ license and vehicle registration information were obtained from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.”

My goodness.  Is Obama a presidential candidate or a Mafia Don?  One individual speaks his mind and Obama sends out the gestapo.  I’m telling you, this is another indication of the censorship of ideas that will take place under an Obama regime.  The liberals cannot allow the opposition to be heard.  It’s just like the Soviet Regime, there was only one way for them to hold power.  The Fairness Doctrine, Hate Crimes legislation, character assassination…  we’ll see it all and more.

Does the Heritage Foundation support Obama?

Apparently an Obama ad claims the conservative Heritage Foundation believes Obama’s tax plan will help the middle class.  The problem is, the quote the ad shows was not from the Heritage Foundation or any of it’s analysts.  In fact, the foundation recently sent a letter to the Obama campaign stating:

The print ad on your Web site, as well as your ad entitled “Try This,” reference a quote from policy analyst Rea Hederman. In fact, Mr. Hederman never said what is quoted there. Rather, the words you quote are from a New York Sun reporter who interviewed Mr. Hederman and summarized his views erroneously.

 

That the reporter’s summary is erroneous is evident from the actual quotes from Mr. Hederman presented in the article, which make it quite clear that Mr. Hederman believes your tax plan would be bad not only for the country, but for the middle class. By omitting the direct quotes from Heritage that are contained in the article and attributing to Heritage a conflicting statement not made by its analyst, the advertisement appears to be an intentional attempt to mislead.

 

Surely there can be no doubt within your campaign as to how Heritage truly views your tax plan. When one of your economic advisors, Jeffrey Liebman, made this same misrepresentation in a September 4, 2008 letter to The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Hederman promptly sent a corrective and very public letter. It appeared in the September 16 issue of The Wall Street Journal under the title: “A Bad Plan That Is Less Bad Is Still Not A Very Good Plan.” In it, Mr. Hederman strenuously decried Mr. Liebman’s blatant misrepresentation and set the record straight.

In addition to it’s deceitfulness, the Obama ad is disgusting.  Apparently no one cares if they receive money that is taken from others.  It’s not as if he plans to reduce spending so that he can cut taxes.  Instead, he will shift the tax burden around to redistribute the wealth, and people love it.  “How much will I get from those bourgeoispigs?,”  they squeal as they click on Obama’s fancy calculator.   I shudder to think what this nation will look like in another ten years.  Will it be France under Robespierre, Cambodia under Pol Pot, or Russia under Stalin?

Obama official rapes the truth in interview

This interview is excellent.  Obama’s man accuses Fox of bias and ignores the bias of all of the other networks.  It amazes me that he can imply, with a straight face, that Obama has to spend obscene amounts on ads because McCain gets free advertising from FoxNews’ biased reporting!  It is more amazing in the face of the research cited by the interviewer that shows that the rest of the networks are biased towards Obama!  I am sickened by the Obama-man’s doublespeak:  He uses words, but they have no real meaning.  He strips the words of their meaning by speaking them in the face of proof of their falsity.  He has no interest in the truth, only in saying the words that will produce the desired outcome.  This is typical of the rape of the truth that is occurring in political and media circles today.  And I am amused by his “I can’t hear you, I can’t hear you”  tactics.