Even though Hillary Clinton lied about Benghazi the Press is more Interested in Bridgegate
The Senate Intelligence Committee released its report on the 2012 attacks in Benghazi. Surprisingly, or perhaps not surprisingly, actually more of a stating of the obvious, at least for those without their heads up their backsides in blind adoration of President Obama, those who can find no fault with him or his administration no matter how many scandals and lies we catch them in, as their heads are up their aforementioned backsides, the report does not agree with the Obama administration version of what caused this tragedy (see Senate report: Attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi could have been prevented by Adam Goldman and Anne Gearan posted 1/15/2014 on The Washington Post).
A long-delayed Senate Intelligence Committee report released Wednesday faulted both the State Department and the intelligence community for not preventing attacks on two outposts in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, in 2012.
The bipartisan report laid out more than a dozen findings regarding the assaults on a diplomatic compound and a CIA annex in the city. It said the State Department failed to increase security at its mission despite warnings, and blamed intelligence agencies for not sharing information about the existence of the CIA outpost with the U.S. military…
The document contains only one mention of then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton…
President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and UN Ambassador Rice all stated publically that the attack in Benghazi was caused by a spontaneous protest over an obscure YouTube video. They didn’t say it once. They said it again and again. It was the YouTube video. Period. Which can’t be true if the State Department could have prevented this attack. For the only way that could have happened was if there were in fact identified security issues that were promptly ignored by the Obama administration. Not an unknown and unexpected spontaneous protest out of nowhere one day. So they all lied. It was planned and coordinated. And had nothing to do with that obscure YouTube video.
And yet they only mentioned Secretary Clinton once in their report. Odd considering she failed to do everything she could to protect her people and then lied about it. You’d think that would warrant more than one mention. This is big news. At least you’d think it would be. But other than a few newspapers and Fox News the media isn’t talking about how Secretary Clinton lied. Instead they are more interested if another politician lied. A governor. In New Jersey. Who the polls show is the greatest threat against a Hillary Clinton presidency. They want to know what Chris Christie knew. When he knew it. And if he lied about knowing it.
Hillary Clinton’s Incompetence and Indifference to Americans dying doesn’t Interest the Press
They call it Bridgegate. A play on Watergate. Something a young Hillary Clinton went after Richard Nixon like a hyena tearing away at the entrails of a fallen prey. Because Nixon lied. He knew about a rank amateur burglary after the fact. And then used the power of the executive branch to try and cover it up. Much like the Obama administration has done often. Only Nixon didn’t have a complicit press that would do whatever they could for their dear leader. But I digress.
Apparently the mayor of Fort Lee, N.J., didn’t endorse Governor Christie in his reelection campaign. And as payback a couple of Christie’s staffers closed some traffic lanes on the George Washington Bridge to cause the mother of all traffic backups in Fort Lee. No one died like in Benghazi. But this is what the press and the Democrats (even the Democrats outside of the press) want to know about. And some are even using the ‘I’ word. Impeachment (see Subpoenas Expected for Chris Christie Aides Over Bridge Scandal by GILLIAN MOHNEY posted 1/12/2014 on ABC News).
Legislative subpoenas could be served to the aides of New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as early as Monday sources told ABC News today.
Christie has been under intense political scrutiny after it was revealed that some of his top political aides shut down key traffic lanes on the George Washington Bridge — the busiest bridge in the world — in September for what appear to be politically motivated reasons…
Some Democratic lawmakers are saying that Christie could face impeachment hearings if it turns out he knew about the lane closures and authorized them.
Wow. Completely different from the approach in getting answers from Secretary Clinton. Where when she finally appeared before Congress the Democrats spent more time puckering up and kissing her backside. And when she said “what difference does it make” if it was her incompetence and indifference to Americans dying or if it was some spontaneous protest where average ordinary Muslims pulled rocket propelled grenades and mortars out of their wallets and purses to storm the American mission in a military assault they applauded her moxy. Saying, “You go, girl.” Figuratively, of course.
Without an Independent and Free Press you can’t keep Government Honest
It’s not so much a double standard as it is a biased press. Much of the mainstream media today is more an extension of the Democrat Party than a free press. Who spend more time writing propaganda for the left. Democrats. Elitists who think like they think. And know as they know that they are better, wiser and more enlightened than the ignorant masses. This is why they are foaming at the mouth over Bridgegate. And ignore Secretary Clinton’s incompetence and indifference over the attack in Benghazi. She who criticized candidate Barack Obama and his lack of experience. Saying he wouldn’t know what to do if he got that 3 AM call like she would. “There’s trouble brewing in Benghazi as we approach the anniversary of 9/11? Well, what do you want me to do about it?” Or, perhaps, it was something more like this. “Tell it to someone who gives a damn.” Of course it should be noted that this trouble did not start with a 3 AM telephone call. It was a gradual buildup of trouble that she responded to with incompetence and indifference.
It’s sad what the American press has come to. Even Britain with her socialist tendencies following World War II at least still has a fierce free press. That will speak truth to power. Put their country first instead of puckering up and kissing the backsides of those in the political party they favor. Ignoring their lies, crimes and misdemeanors. Such as letting Americans die so as not to spoil the campaign narrative. Al Qaeda was reeling and in retreat. And they couldn’t allow security concerns in Libya to upset that message. So they abandoned the Americans in Benghazi. And hoped the resurgence of al Qaeda in Libya wouldn’t hurt President Obama’s reelection chances. And counted on their friends in the media not to question and disseminate the lie about the YouTube video causing a spontaneous protest that caused average Muslims to pull out rocket propelled grenades and mortars from their wallets and purses to wage war. Now contrast the sycophant American press to the British press (see David Cameron says British Press plays ‘vital’ role in democracy by Matthew Holehouse posted 1/17/2014 on The Telegraph).
“At its best, the British Press, the political Press, have a vital role to play in our country.
“Yes: rowdy, tenacious, sceptical, uncontrollable, often uncomfortable for our politicians. But British political reporting is deservedly respected around the world, for the way it probes, it inquires, it scrutinises, and these things are linchpins of our democracy…”
Mr Cameron spoke movingly of a trip he made, accompanied by political reporters including from the Daily Telegraph, to a newspaper office in northern Sri Lanka, where journalists had been murdered after criticising the government.
“It was an incredibly powerful moment. It was a reminder of just how fortunate we are in this country to have a Press that is free, that is open, that is able to stand up to the powerful.”
Without an independent and free press how do you keep government honest? How do you protect the American people from the lies, crimes and misdemeanors of government? You can’t. Instead you get propaganda that helps the powerful grow more powerful. And it eventually gets to the point that politicians no longer debate in the arena of ideas. They just look for opportunities to destroy their enemies. Challengers to their power. Like Chris Christie. Who polls better against Hillary Clinton than any other potential Republican candidate. So they attack Christies over Bridgegate. To destroy him. And they circle the wagons around Hillary Clinton to protect her from her incompetence and indifference over Benghazigate. While never worrying what their helping the powerful to become more powerful could do one day.
Tags: Al Qaeda, Benghazi, Benghazigate, Bridgegate, Chris Christie, Christie, Clinton, crimes, Democrat, Democrat Party, free press, George Washington Bridge, Hillary Clinton, impeachment, incompetence, indifference, Libya, lies, media, misdemeanors, mortars, Nixon, Obama administration, President Obama, press, propaganda, rocket propelled grenades, Secretary Clinton, spontaneous protest, State Department, video, Watergate, YouTube video
The History of Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army and the English Civil War were not that Distant
Benjamin Franklin said the first responsibility of every citizen is to question authority. That was kind of America’s thing. Giving the finger to the governing authority. Figuratively. And sometimes literally. Starting with King George III. One of our earliest flags said, “Don’t tread on me.” This flag had a coiled rattle snake on it. Franklin thought the rattle snake was a good symbol of the American people. If the British left us alone this snake would cause no harm. If you get too close this snake will warn you to back off by shaking its rattle. If you don’t heed this warning and threaten this snake it will strike you with lethal force.
This problem with authority almost lost the Revolutionary War for us. At first American soldiers didn’t like following orders. For if they could rebel against their king they could just as easily rebel against a commanding officer. George Washington stopped that. But this mistrust of authority was systemic. The state governments did not trust the Continental Congress. That distant central power. Anymore than they trusted that other distant central power. The British monarchy.
So the Continental Congress was woefully underfunded throughout the Revolutionary War. Finding it very difficult to supply the Continental Army. Or pay her soldiers. Something else the states didn’t trust. A standing army. For the history of Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army and the English Civil War were not that distant. Or the peace that followed. Where that army helped keep the new government in power. And unleashed great woe and suffering to the Catholics in Ireland and Scotland.
Kings don’t suffer Personal Attacks in the Newspapers like an Elected President Does
So the Americans stood up to that distant power. And to her ministers in the American colonies. Not afraid to speak truth to power. To speak out about the abuses of King George in the colonies. Which Thomas Jefferson summarized in the Declaration of Independence. They spoke contemptuously of the ruling British authorities. When they won their independence they transferred this contempt to the new federal government. The states trusted the new central authority in the United States little more than they trusted the one on the far side of the Atlantic. And many fought as passionately against it as they fought against King George.
Even those in the new central government didn’t trust each other. Political parties formed. Alexander Hamilton led the Federalists. Who wanted a strong central government. And Thomas Jefferson led the Republicans. Who wanted a weak central government. Keeping the power in the states. Hamilton and Jefferson hated each other. Despised each other. Believed that the other was everything that was wrong in the new nation. And they attacked each other viciously in the newspapers through their surrogates. Which were extensions of these political parties. So if you wanted fair and balanced news all you had to do was read at least two newspapers. Weigh the vitriol and lies in each to arrive at the truth. Which was somewhere in between.
And these papers were pretty nasty. Even attacking the most beloved man in the country. George Washington. Calling him old and senile. Secretly British. A mere puppet controlled by that evil puppet master Alexander Hamilton. George Washington could have been king with the blessings of the American people. Instead he chose to keep the United States a republic. And suffered horribly for it. For kings don’t suffer the personal attacks in the newspapers like an elected president does. This was representative government. Where the people are sovereign. And the president is a servant of the people. Not the other way around. Like in a monarchy.
You can call LBJ and George W. Bush Murderers but you can’t ask President Obama Questions he doesn’t want to Answer
People marveled at how George Washington stepped down from power after his second term as president. Even King George said that if he did that he would be the greatest man in the world. And he did. Proving the American system. But while others marveled about how he could give up power after so short a time in office Washington more likely marveled about how long he was able to stay in office. For he hated the politics. And the newspaper attacks. He was anxious to step down. He was giddy during the transfer of power. Happy to be going home. While poor John Adams had to deal with all the politics. The newspaper attacks. And the lies.
Contrast this to President Obama. Who gets treated by the media with kid gloves. Who don’t question him at all. Or his administration. It being more like a monarchy than a republic. After 4 Americans died in Benghazi the president offered no explanation. And the media did not pressure him for one. When Congress finally got to question the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, they asked her who was responsible for the failure to provide for the security for our diplomats in Benghazi? Who was responsible for not coming to their aid while they were under attack? And who was responsible for the lie about it being a spontaneous uprising in response to a YouTube video? She only yelled “what difference does it make?” And that was that. The media reported that the Republicans were mean to her. And never pressed her for answers. Or President Obama.
Even the people aren’t demanding answers. Which is sad. For once upon a time the people chanted, “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” Making the political pressure of the Vietnam War so unbearable that he refused to run for a second term. But where is this outrage over President Obama’s use of drones to kill terrorists as well as the innocent civilians and children around them? Or the targeting of American citizens without any due process? We hear nothing from the people. Or the media. The same people and media who wanted to try the 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in a U.S. court not far from Ground Zero during the Bush Administration.
Why the double standard? Why was it okay to question authority in the Sixties and Seventies? No matter who was in power. But after that it was only permissible to question authority when Republicans were in power? Why is it you can call LBJ and George W. Bush murderers but you can’t ask President Obama questions he doesn’t want to answer? When Dr. Benjamin Carson spoke truth to power at the National Prayer Breakfast criticizing Obamacare and the president’s economic policies the Left attacked him for not showing deference to the president. How dare he exercise free speech in a public setting they asked? A far cry from “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?” No. This president we’re supposed to show deference to. As if he was a king. Why? Apparently now that the anti-establishment types are running government we are no longer to question authority but embrace it. So they can do whatever they want to do. And change the country however they want to change it. While that whole questioning authority thing was okay when they were on the outside looking in. But now that they are on the inside looking out we need to question less and obey more.
Tags: Alexander Hamilton, anti-establishment, Benghazi, Benjamin Franklin, central authority, central government, central power, Continental Congress, English Civil War, federal government, Federalists, George W. Bush, George Washington, Jefferson, King George III, LBJ, media, monarchy, New Model Army, newspaper, Oliver Cromwell, President Obama, problem with authority, question authority, Republicans, Revolutionary War, speak truth to power, Thomas Jefferson
Dirty Journalists keep Politicians Clean
Poor Rupert Murdoch. He’s getting no love from the British Establishment over the phone hacking scandal. Those who once courted the “feral beast” (British tabloids) are turning against it. Probably because the other political party wooed them more successfully. And if you’re in politics, you want them on your side. Because they’re good at their jobs (see In Defense of Hacks by Toby Harnden posted 7/21/2011 on Foreign Policy).
Whereas our American counterparts have long viewed themselves as comparable to lawyers and doctors, we British hacks still see ourselves as practitioners of a grubbing craft rather than members of an upstanding profession. (The public, which views us as on a par with real estate agents, prostitutes and perhaps even criminals, tends to agree.)
Yes, they’re less Walter Cronkite and more Louie De Palma (a character on the American sitcom Taxi). For a good journalist knows how to get dirty. Like Louie, a good journalist is born dirty.
While the American press has certainly had its share of similar disgraces, it is true that American newspaper articles are in the main more accurate and better-researched than British ones; the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal was not wrong when it ventured that Fleet Street has “long had a well-earned global reputation for the blind-quote, single-sourced story that may or may not be true.” But stories in the American press also tend to be tedious, overly long, and academic, written for the benefit of po-faced editors and Pulitzer panels rather than readers. There’s a reason a country with a population one-fifth the size of that of the United States buys millions more newspapers each week.
For all their faults, British “rags” are more vibrant, entertaining, opinionated, and competitive than American newspapers. We break more stories, upset more people, and have greater political impact.
That’s the way American journalism was before the Political Class co-opted it. And why ordinary Americans once read newspapers. To keep an eye on the scoundrels we put into elected office. It was one of the few things that kept our elected officials somewhat honest. Or, at least, honest enough not to lose the next election.
In fact, for the British press, the most damaging revelation of the phone-hacking scandal is the degree to which it shows that journalists — or, to be more precise, News International executives — breached the inner sanctums of the British Establishment. A breed that had always taken pride in being made up of grubby outsiders was allowed in and made the most of the opportunity.
In the United States, journalists are already on the inside: Witness President Barack Obama’s private chats with op-ed columnists, the Washington Post and Time magazine types who effortlessly segue into White House press secretaries and the cozy consensus of Washington’s political-journalism-industrial complex. All too often, American editors, perhaps mindful of their future cocktail party invitations, would prefer their reporters stroke rather than stick it to authority. British journalistic excesses can rightly be condemned, but the American media could use a few more of them. It took the National Enquirer to bring Senator John Edwards to book — and Fleet Street would not have stood for the credulous U.S. reporting on the Bush administration that characterized the run-up to the Iraq war.
That’s the last thing you want. Your journalists getting all warm and cozy with the people they’re supposed to keep honest. You don’t want the media to be an adjunct of one party, following orders to advance an agenda while launching personal attacks on the other party. A good journalist should hate all political authority equally. And show no favoritism when destroying political careers.
It is the very politicians who used every opportunity to ingratiate themselves with Murdoch and his acolytes who are now those calling for News International to be broken up — and for the media as a whole to be called to account. Their aim? A regulation system — probably headed up by new a government-appointed “independent” body — that produces a neutered press close to the American model. Having visited Washington and seen reporters stand up when the American president enters the room (British hacks do no such thing for the prime minister) and ask respectful, earnest three-part questions, no wonder our politicians would want more of the same.
The danger of the fevered atmosphere in Britain — where justified outrage over tabloid tactics is fast leading to a hasty public inquisition, with 10 official inquiries or investigations underway at last count — is that what Prime Minister Tony Blair once termed the “feral beast” of the media might be tamed and muzzled. Perhaps the worst outcome of all would be for it to be turned into an American-style lapdog.
If you want to learn about American politics (or journalism) read a British newspaper. The British Establishment hates and fears them. Because they do their job. Whereas in America, the Political Class only hates and fears FOX NEWS and talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.). Which tells you where to go to get your news. Because if you want objective reporting, you have to go where they dare to be unflattering. Unlike the sycophants in the ‘mainstream’ media. For an unneutered feral beast is the only thing that will go for the political jugular. And restrain the excess of our elected scoundrels. I mean representatives.
And sometimes you need to get dirty. Because getting dirty is sometimes the only way to keep politicians clean.
Good Journalism is more Reporting and less Stroke
If you watch FOX NEWS or listen to talk radio you’ll hear a different ‘version’ of the news than that on the mainstream media. For example, the mainstream media has reported repeatedly polls citing that Americans want the Republicans to stop being intransigent and raise taxes already so the budget deal to raise the debt limit can move ahead. Interesting how that ‘report’ meshes perfectly with the Obama administration policy agenda. And yet Rasmussen reports a completely contrary poll finding (see Most Voters Fear Debt Deal Will Raise Taxes Too Much, Cut Spending Too Little posted 7/22/2011 on Rasmussen Reports).
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 62% of Likely U.S. Voters are worried more that Congress and President Obama will raise taxes too much rather than too little in any deal to end the debt ceiling debate. Just 26% fear they’ll raise taxes too little. Twelve percent (12%) aren’t sure. (To see survey question wording, click here…)
There’s a wide difference of opinion, however, between the Political Class and Mainstream voters. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of the Political Class is worried the deal will cut spending too much, while 63% of Mainstream voters fear it won’t cut spending enough. Those in the Mainstream worry more than Political Class voters by a near two-to-one margin – 70% to 37% – that the debt deal also will raise taxes too much.
It sounds like ordinary Americans don’t want higher taxes and more spending. In fact, they are worried that any deal may raise taxes too much or cut spending too little. Now this opposes the Obama administration policy agenda. So I wonder which journalism is more reporting and less stroke? And which is truer?
Entitlement Spending is the Cause of all our Budget Woes
Americans should be worried about raising taxes instead of cutting spending. Because there is a much bigger problem out there (see Missing the Debt by Yuval Levin posted 7/21/2011 on The Corner).
…starting in the 2050s, CBO projects that health-care spending will be greater than all other non-interest spending combined, and the federal government will basically be a health insurer with some unusual side ventures like an army and a navy.
…health-care entitlement spending is basically 100 percent of our medium and long-term debt problem.
That thing that Obama and the Democrats refuse to put on the table? Entitlement reform? Especially all the health care programs (Medicare, Medicaid and now Obamacare)? They’re the cause of all our budget woes. Ignoring this fact makes the budget debate pointless. It’s just political theatre. Fiddling while America burns. Pity we don’t have an unneutered feral beast to put this issue front and center. Besides FOX NEWS and talk radio, that is.
FOX NEWS will Report what the Political Class rather you not Hear
Interestingly, FOX NEWS is part of the Rupert Murdoch Empire. And those on the left viciously belittle it as not being ‘real’ news. But they sure incur the wrath of the Political Class. Which should tell you a thing or two. Because when it comes to news organizations, they only hate those who report things they’d rather you not hear.
Of course there is a chance that the FOX NEWS isn’t a legitimate news organization. And that they are only reporting inflammatory pieces to make a buck. And that the Political Class is pure and innocent as the winter’s snow. That everything they do is for our own best interests. Being the honest public servants that they are.
Yeah, right. Pull the other.
Tags: advance an agenda, agenda, American, British Establishment, British tabloids, budget, budget deal, budget debate, budget woes, cut spending, debt limit, Democrats, entitlement reform, entitlement spending, feral beast, FOX News, journalism, journalist, journalists, lapdog, mainstream media, media, neutered, news, newspapers, Obama, phone hacking scandal, Political Class, politicians, politics, raise taxes, reporting, Republicans, Rupert Murdoch, spending, talk radio, taxes
Class warfare is a different kind of warfare. During the English Civil War, the Protestants and the Catholics were trying to kill each other. They didn’t want to have anything to do with each other. Protestants didn’t want to be Catholic. Catholics didn’t want to be Protestant. But in class warfare, it’s a little different. The poor want to be rich.
The poor hate the rich because they have it so much better than the poor. But they don’t hate the idea of being rich per se. Just who gets to be rich. Because, given half the chance, they’d choose to be rich if they could. Why? Because the rich typically don’t go wanting for food, shelter or clothes. They also get to have all the neat toys to play with. And they wear some nice bling.
So the poor don’t really hate the rich. It’s just money envy. After a child grows up he or she may notice that they like money. They see they have no money of their own. So they want their mother’s or father’s money. Because there are limits, and sometimes outright rejection, they seek money elsewhere. As they grow up, they may get a job. Sell drugs. Prostitute themselves to conventioneers. Marry into it. Steal it. Become a ward of the state. Or play the lotto.
Whose Money is it Anyway?
During this phase in their life, politicians, college professors and the media bombard them with messages of income redistribution. Fair share sacrifice. Taxes on the rich. And all around fairness. It all sounds good. And right. Those damn rich people. How dare they? Why them? Why not me?
Well, some inherited their money. Like the Kennedys. Some married into it. Like John Kerry. They live like rich royalty from days of old. When there was a true aristocratic class that could actually own people. But they are there, fighting for you. Liberals. Taking away other people’s money and giving it to the more deserving. And the poor are all for that.
A luxury tax? Yeah, stick it to them. An inheritance tax? Sounds good to me. How about taxing their assets? Their net wealth? Because some of those rich bastards don’t even work. They invest their money. Sure, they pay a confiscatory capital gains tax on their earnings, but their earnings pale in comparison to their overall wealth. We need to go after that pile of wealth. Redistribute it. Along egalitarian principles. Level the playing field. Close the gap between the rich and the poor. The way the liberals look at it, it’s the government’s money anyway. So the government can spread it around as they damn well please.
Poor/Rich – It’s All Relative
Most of these rich bastards are not Kennedys or John Kerrys, though. Most are self-made. Through hard work. And personal sacrifice. Most are small business owners. They borrowed everything they could. They mortgaged their homes. They risked their children’s college funds. And they made something. A small business. Created jobs. They hired people. Something the Kennedys and the John Kerrys of the world don’t do.
Most of these small business owners are ‘S’ corporations. They aren’t big corporations with corporate officers. No finance or a legal department. They’re just people who work 80+ hours a week. They may never see a million in annual revenue. But they’ll probably make more than $250,000. And, being an ‘S’ corporation, that makes them rich. Even if they leave the money in their business to grow it. But the IRS still taxes them like they’re rich fat cats lighting their cigars with $20 bills.
Yes, they’re small business owners. But they’re still pretty much middle class people. Do the poor hate them, too? Sort of. Simply because they have more than they do. And the politicians, college professors and the media point out how wrong that is.
Congratulations. And Thank You
And then one day you buy a lotto ticket and, overnight, you become rich. Congratulations. It’s nice to have another rich person to tax.
Yes, you won the lotto and now you’re rich. How does that feel? Are you looking forward to redistributing your winnings? For egalitarian principles? Help close that gap between rich and poor? Or have you become a greedy rich bastard? Like all those others you used to hate until you became one of them?
Whether you do or not doesn’t matter. For the IRS will be coming after you. With their hand out. For their share, a sizeable chunk of your winnings. Your windfall will push you into the highest tax brackets. And, guess what? If you don’t pay your ‘fair share of taxes’ willingly, they’ll come after you. Or seize your wealth. And as sad as that may be, few will pity you. Just as you did not pity those before you were rich.
Be Careful What You Vote For
Class warfare is good for politics. Because there are always more poor people than rich. And poor people are useful to someone running for public office.
But they don’t like you. They don’t really care about you. They care about only one thing. To keep you poor. For should you win the lotto, the chances of you voting for high taxes and income redistribution are slim to none. Your egalitarian principles will fly out the window. Which won’t help them. So should you become rich, they will vilify you. Come after you with a vengeance. To take your wealth. And return it to the rightful owners. Themselves. The government. So they can use it as they please. To buy votes.
And how will you feel then? You might want to think about this ‘what if’. Because you could win the lotto one day. Inherit wealth. Marry into it. Or even earn it. I mean, be careful what you vote for while in college. One day you might make something of that education. You may very well become rich one day.
Tags: class warfare, college professors, created jobs, egalitarian, English Civil War, fair share sacrifice, gap between the rich and the poor, income redistribution, IRS, John Kerry, Kennedy, liberals, lotto, media, middle class, money, money envy, other people's money, politicians, politics, poor, rich, rich fat cats, small business, small business owners, sticking it to the rich, tax, taxes, taxes on the rich, wealth
CENSORSHIP BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL CENSORSHIP
When an oppressive, totalitarian regime seizes power, they shut down the radio and television stations. It’s at the top of their ‘to do’ list. Because it’s the fastest media. Then they turn to the newspapers. Once they control the content they open for business again. We call it censorship. The people only hear what they want the people to hear. And they kill/imprison those who persist in trying to distribute anything other than the state’s propaganda.
When you control the media, you can tell any lie. You can report the state has increased food protection while millions die from famine. You can report the great economic success of the Five Year Plan while people wait in lines for hours to get their rations of soap and toilet paper. You can report the success of your Keynesian economic policies while record numbers of people go unemployed. If you have control of the media you can tell any lie. And prevent the telling of any truth.
When government pursues policies that are not popular, the telling of lies and the controlling of truths becomes policy. Enter the Fairness Doctrine. JFK used it to muzzle the Right when they debated the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. LBJ used it to muzzle conservative radio stations (who were attacking his Great Society policies, not the Vietnam War). Nixon tried to use it to silence his enemies (it doesn’t work, though, when your enemies are liberal media outlets).
Ronald Reagan, a supporter of First Amendment rights, revoked the doctrine during his administration. And the Left has been trying to bring it back ever since. (They even want to extend it to the Internet – another medium the Left does not control. But that’s another story for another time.)
FAIR IS NOT FAIR
The liberals say it’s not fair that a Rush Limbaugh can go on the air for 3 hours a day 5 days a week without an opposing viewpoint to ‘balance’ his views. Bill Clinton said it’s not fair because there is no ‘truth detector’ to separate fact from fiction (he said that before he was impeached for perjury). When they talk about ‘fairness’ it’s code for censorship. What they want is to silence these alternate viewpoints.
If you want to talk about being fair, let’s be fair. Do conservatives have an unfair advantage in media? The Culture and Media Institute (a Division of the Media Research Center) published a special report for the Media Research Center titled Unmasking the Myths Behind the Fairness Doctrine. It’s 30 pages but well worth your time in reading it. On page 5 of this report they cite audience reach and circulation statistics for the top 5 sources of information liberals and conservatives use:
Broadcast TV news, millions/day Liberal 42.1 Conservative 0.0
Top 25 newspapers, millions/day Liberal 11.7 Conservative 1.3
Cable TV news, millions/month Liberal 182.8 Conservative 61.6
Top talk radio, millions/week Liberal 24.5 Conservative 87.0
Newsweeklies, millions/week Liberal 8.5 Conservative 0.0
When you look at these numbers, you see a dominance of liberal sources. In fact, talk radio is the only source in the list where conservatives make up a larger percentage of the audience than liberals. And yet talk radio is the only source that liberals cite as needing a fairness doctrine. What does that tell you? The only bias that exists in the media is against conservatives.
FOLLOW THE MONEY
Air America, the all-liberal national radio network (now there’s fairness), went belly up. Chapter 7 (liquidation). They tried Chapter 11 (reorganization) earlier but the reorganized business couldn’t make any money either. By contrast, Rush Limbaugh has been on the air since the late 1980s. And, according to him, he has never had a down year or had to lay off a single employee. Why?
Radio is free. To us. The listeners. Others pay so we can listen free. Advertisers. Do they do this out of altruism? No. They do it out of greed. They advertise to increase their sales revenue. It’s a win-win. They promote their products and services. We listen for free. And broadcasters make enough money to cover their bills and earn a profit. (Well, I guess that’s more of a win-win-win. There’re three winners. But I belabor the point.) It’s really a simple formula. There’s only one catch. Advertisers only want to advertise where people are actually listening.
And that was the problem with Air America. No one was listening. Weak ratings equal weak advertising sales. Liberals can exist in the realm of National Public Radio (publicly funded no matter how few people listen), but if their revenue is tied to their popularity, they’re screwed.
LIKE READING BOOKS
FOX paired liberal Alan Colmes with conservative Sean Hannity on Hannity and Colmes. The show had a successful run. Sean Hannity still has that timeslot. Alone. As well as the #2 radio program behind Rush Limbaugh. Colmes has not gone on to such bigger or better things.
Colmes blamed the failure of Air America on unfair treatment. The conservatives got the best stations and time slots. So Air America never had a chance. Despite having big on-air talent like Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo. But it wasn’t unfair treatment that favored conservatives. It was advertising revenue that favored conservatives. If the liberals could have delivered the ratings conservatives did, they’d be on the best stations in the best time slots. But they couldn’t. So they weren’t.
Liberals like to be entertained. They’ll tune into SNL and The Daily Show. For they love a good personal attack on a conservative. They’ll watch the network news that is full of entertainment news. They’ll buy The New York Times and read the Arts section. They’ll tune in and listen to the shock jocks on FM and satellite radio. But they don’t like thinking about serious issues. To them listening to talk radio is like reading a book. And where’s the fun in that?
FARTS ARE FUNNY
Liberal talk radio will never have the numbers conservative talk radio has. Not in a center-right country. The intelligentsia (liberals in the media, college professors, etc.) is a very small minority. The other liberals are just children who haven’t grown up yet. And how many children do you know that eat their vegetables? Wash behind their ears? Read a book? Or engage in deep, philosophical thought? I don’t know any. The kids I know think fart jokes are funny. Think about that the next time someone laughs at a fart joke on TV. I’ll bet you it’s a child that’s laughing. Or a liberal.
Tags: Air America, Al Franken, Alan Colmes, alternate viewpoints, bias, Bill Clinton, censorship, center-right country, conservative talk radio, conservatives, control the media, fairness, Fairness Doctrine, farts are funny, First Amendment rights, FOX, Great Society, Hannity and Colmes, intelligentsia, Janeane Garofalo, JFK, LBJ, liberal, liberal media outlets, liberal talk radio, liberals, liberals like to be entertained, like reading a book, media, Media Research Center, muzzle conservative radio stations, muzzle the right, National Public Radio, Nixon, Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, opposing viewpoint, personal attack on a conservative, radio is free, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, shock jocks, SNL, talk radio, tell any lie, The Culture and Media Institute, The Daily Show, the Left, The New York Times, totalitarian regime, truth detector, unfair treatment, Unmasking the Myths Behind the Fairness Doctrine
THOMAS JEFFERSON HATED Alexander Hamilton. So much so he hired Philip Freneau as a translator in his State Department in George Washington’s administration. You see, Jefferson did not like confrontation. So he needed a way to slander Hamilton, his policies and the Washington administration without getting his own hands dirty. And that was what Freneau was supposed to do with the money he earned while working in the State Department. Publish a newspaper (National Gazette) and attack Hamilton, his policies and the Washington administration. Papers then were partisan. More so than today. Then, lies and libel were tools of the trade. And they knew how to dig up the dirt. Or make it up.
Another scandalmonger, James Callender, was slinging dirt for Jefferson. And he hit pay dirt. Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds of Philadelphia had a lucrative business. They were blackmailing Alexander Hamilton. Mr. Reynolds had his wife seduce Hamilton. Which she did. And did well. They had an affair. And Mr. Reynolds then blackmailed him. Jefferson pounced. Or, rather, Callender did. To keep Jefferson’s hands clean. Hamilton, Callender said, was using his position at the Treasury Department for personal gain. He was using public funds to pay the blackmailer. They found no proof of this. And they did look for it. Hard. But when they came up empty, Jefferson said that it just proved what a good thief Hamilton was. He was so good that he didn’t leave any traces of his treachery behind.
Of course, when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. And Jefferson’s association with Callender would come back and bite him in the ass. In a big way. Upset because Jefferson didn’t appropriately compensate him for all his loyal dirt slinging (he wanted the postmaster’s job in Richmond), he publicized the Sally Hemings rumors. And after breaking the true story of the Hamilton affair, many would believe this scoop. That Jefferson was having an affair with one of his slaves. It was a dark cloud that would forever hang over Jefferson. And his legacy.
Hamilton admitted to his affair. Jefferson admitted to no affair. Hamilton would never hold public office again and would later die in a duel with Jefferson’s one-time toady, Aaron Burr. This duel resulted because Hamilton was doing whatever he could to keep the amoral and unscrupulous Burr from public office (in this case, it was the governorship of New York). When the election of 1800 resulted in a tie between Jefferson and Burr, Hamilton urged the House to vote for Jefferson, his archenemy. Despite what had appeared in the press, Hamilton did have morals and scruples. Unlike some. Speaking of which, Jefferson would go on to serve 2 terms as president. And all of that angst about Hamiltonian policies? They all went out the window with the Louisiana Purchase (which was unconstitutional, Big Government and Big Finance).
RONALD REAGAN WAS routinely called old, senile and out of touch by the entertainment community, the media and his political foes. But he bested Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union, something Jimmy Carter never did. He said ‘no’ at Reykjavik because he told the American people that he wouldn’t give up the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). He knew the Soviet Union was bleeding. Communism was a farce. It inhibited human capital. And impoverished her people. SDI may have been science fiction in the 1980s, but capitalism wasn’t. It could do it all. Including SDI. The Soviet Union was on the ropes and Reagan would give no quarter. The days of living in fear of the mushroom cloud were over. And capitalism would deliver the knockout punch.
Reaganomics, of course, made this all possible. Supply-side economics. Which follows the Austrian school. Say’s Law. ‘Supply creates demand’. You don’t stimulate the economy by taxing one group of people so another group can spend. You stimulate it by creating incentives for risk takers to take risks. And when they do, they create jobs. And wealth.
Tax and spend is a failed Keynesian, zero-sum economic policy. When you take from the earners and give to the non-earners, we just transfer purchasing power. We don’t create it. For some to spend more, others must spend less. Hence, zero-sum. The net some of goods and services people are purchasing remains the same. Different people are just doing the purchasing.
When Apple invented the Macintosh personal computer (PC), few were demanding a PC with a graphical user interface (GUI). But Apple was innovative. They created something they thought the people would want. And they did. They took a risk. And the Macintosh with its mouse and GUI took off. Apple manufacturing increased and added jobs. Retail outlets for the Macintosh expanded and created jobs. Software firms hired more engineers to write code. And other firms hired more people to engineer and manufacture PC accessories. There was a net increase in jobs and wealth. Just as Say’s Law predicts. Supply-side economics works.
Of course, the Left hates Reagan and attacked Reaganomics with a vengeance. They attacked Reagan for being pro-rich. For not caring about the poor. And they revised history. They say the only thing the Reagan tax cuts gave us were record deficits. Of course, what those tax cuts gave us were record tax receipts. The government never collected more money. The House of Representatives (who spends the money), awash in cash, just spent that money faster than the treasury collected it. The record shows Reaganomics worked. Lower tax rates spurred economic activity. More activity generated more jobs and more personal wealth. Which resulted in more people paying more taxes. More people paying taxes at a lower rate equaled more tax revenue in the aggregate. It works. And it works every time people try it.
Because Reaganomics worked and showed the Left’s policies were failures, they had to attack Reagan. To discredit him. They had to destroy the man. Except when they’re running for elected office. Then they strive to show how much more Reagan-like they are than their conservative opponents. Because they know Reaganomics worked. And they know that we know Reaganomics worked.
GEORGE W. BUSH was routinely called an ‘idiot’ by the entertainment community, the media and his political foes. Yet this ‘idiot’ seems to have outwitted the elite of the liberal Left time and time again. I mean, if their policies were winning, they would be no reason to have attacked Bush in the first place. The Left hated him with such vitriol that they said he blew up the Twin Towers on 9/11 as a justification for invading Iraq for her oil. It was Big Oil’s lust for profit, after all, that was driving this Texan’s Big Oil policies. And taking Iraq’s oil would increase Big Oil’s sales and give her even more obscene profits.
If Bush was an idiot, he must have been an idiot genius to come up with a plan like that. Then again, gasoline prices crept to $4/gallon following the Iraq War. Had all that oil gone on the market according to plan, that wouldn’t have happened. Unless the plan was to keep that oil OFF of the market, thus, by rules of supply and demand, the price of oil (and the gasoline we make from it) would go up thus enriching Big Oil through higher prices resulting from a lower sales volume. My god, what evil genius. For an idiot. Of course, gas taxes, numerous summer gas blends (required by the government’s environmental policies), an aging and over-taxed pipeline infrastructure and insufficient refinery capacity (the government’s environmental policies make it too punishing even to consider building a new refinery) to meet increasing demand (soaring in India and China) had nothing to do with the rise in gas prices.
IS THE POLITICAL Left evil? Probably not. Just amoral. They have an agenda. They survive on political spoils and patronage. Old time politics. Enrich themselves through cronyism. If tribute is paid they’ll extend favorable treatment. If tribute is not paid, they will release their wrath via hostile regulation, litigation, Congressional investigation and punitive taxation. Just like they did to Big Tobacco (and, no, it wasn’t about our health. They could have just made tobacco illegal. But they didn’t. Why? It just brings in way too much money to the government. Via sin taxes. And federal lawsuits. And with it being addictive, it’s a frickin cash piñata for them.)
They know few agree with their philosophy. But they don’t care. It’s not about national prosperity. It’s about power. And they want it. That’s why they can’t debate the issues. They know they can’t win. So they attack the messenger. Not the message. If you don’t believe that, you can ask Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and just about any other Republican. Well, you can’t ask Lincoln or Reagan. But you can guess what they would say.
Tags: $4/gallon, 1980s, 9/11, Aaron Burr, Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, Apple, attack the messenger, Austrian school, Big Government, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, capitalism, cash piñata, character assassination, Communism, Congressional investigation, conservative, cronyism, deficits, economic activity, election of 1800, environmental policies, evil genius, federal lawsuits, gasoline, George W. Bush, George Washington, goods and services, graphical user interface, GUI, Hamiltonian, House of Representatives, human capital, incentives, Iraq, Iraq War, James Callender, Jimmy Carter, jobs, Keynesian, libel, liberal Left, litigation, Louisiana Purchase, Macintosh, media, Mikhail Gorbachev, Mr. Reynolds, Mrs. Reynolds, mushroom cloud, National Gazette, national prosperity, obscene profits, oil, Old time politics, PC, personal computer, Philip Freneau, philosophy, pipeline infrastructure, political foes, political patronage, political spoils, punitive taxation, purchasing power, Reagan tax cuts, Reagan-like, Reaganomics, record deficits, refinery capacity, regulation, Republican, Reykjavik, risk takers, Ronald Reagan, Sally Hemings, Sarah Palin, Say's Law, SDI, sin taxes, Soviet Union, stimulate the economy, Strategic Defense Initiative, summer gas blends, supply and demand, Supply creates demand, Supply-side economics, Tax and spend, tax cuts, tax receipts, taxation, the Left, Thomas Jefferson, tribute, Twin Towers, Washington administration, wealth, zero-sum economic policy