The folloowing information is circulating on the Internet

POWs' LAWSUIT COULD FORCE KERRY TO COME
CLEAN ON VIETNAM 'WAR CRIMES' CHARGES


When John Kerry slandered an entire generation of men who fought in Vietnam he branded them as "war criminals." Today, much of the same thing is being said about our young men and women in Iraq.

Now, a lawsuit filed in Philadelphia's Court of Common Pleas will test the very foundation of Kerry's anti-war persona for the first time. It isn't dubious medals or Kerry's disputed service record in Vietnam that is being called into question. This time Kerry may finally be forced to answer for the events that launched his public career, one that made him an anti-war hero for many American liberals and a turncoat for millions of Vietnam veterans.

The lawsuit (Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, et al. v. Kenneth Campbell, et al.) challenges the basis, the factual accuracy of then Lt. (j.g.) Kerry's acrimonious testimony before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. It was there Kerry's public career was catapulted with his now ubiquitous portrayal of American soldiers as murderers, rapists and torturers "who ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam . . . [and] razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

For the anti-war, anti-American protesters, the American soldiers are the "terrorists," and the enemies are the victims of a barbaric U.S. military which tortures and murders defenseless civilians.

That false premise, one of the most vicious and enduring smears spawned by Kerry 35 years ago, will also be put to the test once Kerry's true "Band of Brothers" are put under oath in a Philadelphia courtroom.

The background to this lawsuit is long and complex, but even a condensed version is rich in irony and poetic justice.

It had it roots in 2004 with the documentary Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal. Many may recall the film, although it is probably best known for not being seen, suppressed after Sinclair Broadcasting Company courageously announced it was going to air the documentary in its entirety. Thanks to Kerry and his liberal colleagues in the Senate and their enablers in the mainstream media, Sinclair was browbeaten into withdrawing the film, its broadcast license threatened by a Kerry campaign manager in 2004. The film's producer, Carlton Sherwood, a Pulitzer Prize and Peabody Award-winning investigative reporter, interviewed former POWs for the documentary.

I was among those whom Sherwood, a decorated Marine combat veteran himself, asked to participate in Stolen Honor. I was a POW for nearly six years, held in North Vietnam prison camps, including the notorious Hanoi Hilton, a place of unimaginable horrors -- torture, beatings, starvation and mind-numbing isolation. When Kerry branded us "war criminals," he handed our captors all the justification they needed to carry out their threats to execute us. Thanks to Kerry, Jane Fonda and their comrades in the anti-war movement, our captivity was prolonged by years. The communists in Hanoi and Moscow couldn't have had a better press agent to spread their anti-American propaganda.

To guarantee Stolen Honor would never be seen by anyone -- not even theatre-goers -- the producer was slapped with a libel and defamation lawsuit.

The POWs and the wives of POWs who participated in Stolen Honor refused to abandon the facts conveyed in the film. For some of us, it was the first time since our release by the Communists in 1973 that we were able to have our voices publicly heard, to tell our stories about the consequences of Kerry's treachery. In 2005, we formed a nonprofit organization, the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation (VVLF), to gather records, documents and other materials to form a fact-based, educational repository for students and scholars of Vietnam history and to tell the true story of the American soldiers in Vietnam. The VVLF's mission is "to set the record straight, factually, about Vietnam and those who fought there."

For our efforts, we were promptly sued by Campbell and another long-time anti-war Kerry follower and VVAW member, Dr. Jon Bjornson. It was clear that Kerry not only wanted to punish us for Stolen Honor; he intended to use surrogates to sue us into permanent silence and financial ruin.

Forced to spend huge sums to defend ourselves from these frivolous lawsuits, we have filed a countersuit against these Kerry surrogates and intend to reveal the truth about the lawsuits and their sponsors. We believe that we can prove that the purpose of nearly two years of litigation was to cover up for Kerry's treachery, to drain us financially and spiritually, and to prevent us from setting the record straight.

At stake is ultimately nothing less than the integrity of the American military in Vietnam, the honor of the men who served their country, the nobility of those who gave their lives, and the truth of America's history in Vietnam. Until or unless we do correct the existing record, the American military may never be free of the myths and smears of Vietnam, its honor and integrity cleansed as it fights to defend freedom at home and around the world.

Our mission is hardly over. We hope you will join us in fighting this battle . . . for our soldiers, then and now. For more information about Vietnam, the foregoing litigation, or to make a donation, please access the VVLF website now.

Col. George E. "Bud" Day
Director and President,
Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation

Col. George E. "Bud" Day, USAF (Ret.,) was a POW in North Vietnam for five years, seven months and 13 days. He served in three wars (WWII, Korea, and Vietnam) and earned the Medal of Honor. He is the Air Force's most decorated living veteran. He is the Director and President of the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, Inc., an organization created to better educate and inform the public about the Vietnam War, its events, its history, and the men and women who sacrificed to serve their country. Please go here to read Col. Day's statement in its entirety.

This request for support is not addressed or available to legal residents of Mississippi, Minnesota, Washington (state), and Utah.

Politics as Usual
By Sara Pentz

Today Democrat presidental nominee John Edwards told the world that politics was more important than his wife's health. He announced that his wife is battling incurable cancer. But that will not stop him from continuing his political campaigning. The press conference at which Edwards appeared with his wife ,was hastily called and there was much speculation that Edwards would end his campaigning.

With a kind of public crassness that dominates politics today, Edwards who is a doctor, announced his priorities to the public and the nation in this elaborate public display. At the same time, he said: "Any time, any place I need to be with Elizabeth I will be there - period."

Well, wouldn't that be all the time?

The New Individualist, Atlas Society in Pittsburgh Paper

The March 16th issue of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review featured a column based on the latest efforts of The Atlas Society. The piece was also posted on the RealClearPolit ics website.

In the piece entitled "Saving a divided GOP soul," writer Dimitri Vassilaros highlights the insights made by New Individualist editor Robert Bidinotto and Atlas Society executive director Edward Hudgins in the March issue of the magazine and in a new collection of articles entitled Straight Talk About the Soul of the Republican Party. This book includes pieces by Ed and Robert from earlier issues of the magazine plus pieces by other Atlas writers. Bidinotto, who comes from Pennsylvania, was interviewed for the Pittsburgh paper piece.

Copies of the Straight Talk book have been sent to all New Individualist subscribers, Atlas Society members and others who have attended Atlas events. (Extra copies can be purchased at the Objectivism Store.) The book was prepared for this year's Conservative Political Action Conference. Five thousand copies of the book, along with copies of the magazine and the new TAS brochure, were passed out to conference attendees to challenge the GOP and confused conservatives who vacillate between supporting individual liberty and demanding government micro- management of individual morality. You can read about the Atlas efforts at CPAC on the TAS website.

------------

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Saving a divided GOP soul

By Dimitri Vassilaros
Friday, March 16, 2007

Robert Bidinotto cannot say the Republican Party lost so badly on Election Day because it had lost its soul. Mr. Bidinotto, a New Castle native and editor-in-chief of The New Individualist, is unsure if this party had a soul. But he is sure it doesn't have a core philosophy. He believes the GOP can recover -- if it's the advocate of the individual.

"Conservatives never dared to fully embrace individualism," says Bidinotto, who studied economics at Grove City College in Mercer. "Conservatism has no central defining principle. Conservatives cannot make up their minds if they are champions of the individual and his rights, or of society and its traditions." Such as, how many conservatives believe an adult has the right to read, view or hear anything society labels as obscene?

The New Individualist is published by The Atlas Society, a Washington think tank. The magazine champions reason, individualism and freedom inspired by author and philosopher Ayn Rand. It co- sponsored the Conservative Political Action Conference in March, offering libertarian principle to the intellectually bankrupt.

If the GOP has a soul, it is a blackened and divided one, he says. "It's a soul divided against itself with too many competing ideas and values to have any notion of identity."

Exhibit A is President George W. Bush's oxymoronic "compassionate conservatism" -- "We are using an active government to promote self- government." Active government (in the former Soviet Union, Cuba or FDR's) doesn't seem to lead to much self-government.

It's a perfect example of throwing out constitutional limitations on government intervention to service a values agenda, Bidinotto says.

Cultural (social) conservatives believe we should accept ideas and values merely because our ancestors did, he says. "They confuse tradition with truth. By saying freedom only can be grounded in faith and tradition, conservatives are saying there is no rational case for human liberty. That's very important because when arguing with secular liberals, conservatives only can point backward to their ancestors."

In "Straight Talk About the Soul of the Republican Party," a book published by The Atlas Society, many so-called conservatives who talk like liberals are quoted. Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said, "This whole idea of personal autonomy -- I don't think that most conservatives hold that point of view." Santorum also rejected the idea that government should stay out of the economy and bedroom when he criticized the "libertarianish right."

The Leave Us Alone Coalition created by conservative/libertarian Grover Norquist tries to unite libertarian and social conservative Republicans by a common desire to limit government intervention.

The government you may run one day can turn around and support values and ideas you loathe the next when the other side wins, Bidinotto says. "(Social conservatives) would do well to seek private ways to promote their values rather than grant to government the power over values."

The GOP could rise again, he says. But it would have to believe in this JFK-esque motto:

"Ask not what government is doing for you; ask what it's doing to you."

Make that Ronald Reagan-esque.

-------

(Dimitri Vassilaros can be reached at dvassilaros@tribweb.comThe Atlas Society and The Objectivist Center
email: toc@objectivistcenter.org
phone: 202 296-7263
web: http://www.objectivistcenter.org
Thank you for Dimitri Vassilaros for allowing us to post his article on this blog.

The Roots of Censorship

By Sara Pentz

It begins small; often on the local level. Then it mushrooms. And, next the bandwagon begins. That’s why it is critical to stop bad ideas at their roots.

One of the latest bad ideas to take root has done so in North Carolina where state Sen. Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, has called for “…the government to review (movie) scripts before cameras start rolling in North Carolina.” While Sen. Berger, nor anyone writing about this proposal, has mentioned the big “C” word, censorship is what underlies Berger’s call to action, even though he says that his ‘system’ would only apply to those films seeking the state’s filmmaker incentive program that allows as much as 15 percent of what is spent on filming in North Carolina to be refunded to the production company.

The ‘system’ of Sen. Berger’s is a potential mushroom clouding the meaning and intent of his lawmaking activities. Beware the bandwagon.

North Carolina was the locale last summer for the filming of the controversial film, Hounddog, starring12-year old Dakota Fanning. The Fanning film, which was introduced at the often controversial Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah (2007), has been a flashpoint of controversy since it was filmed on locations in North Carolina’s New Hanover and Brunswick counties last summer (2006).

Fanning's role as Lewellen is an incest and rape victim in the 1950s Southern Bayou country. In the film, Fanning’s character gyrates in her underwear, wakes up as her naked father climbs into her bed, demands that a pre-pubescent boy expose himself to her in exchange for a kiss, and finally, is raped by a teenager with the promise of Elvis Presley tickets.

According to published reports only Fanning’s face and shoulders are seen throughout the rape scene. North Carolina Catholic activist Bill Donahue has, however, called for a federal investigation into the film for its theme which he described as child abuse, and went so far as to call for a boycott of the film. Leave it to a Catholic to tell us what we can and cannot watch. Do you see the mushroom growing?

North Carolina state law denies this particular tax incentive to films that are obscene––defined as anything depicting sexual conduct presented in an offensive way. Offensive is defined as something that appeals to our prurient interest, lacks any serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and “is not free speech as protected by the state or federal constitutions.”

This state law includes a reference to free speech in a most peculiar manner. It presupposes that films produced in North Carolina are not free speech; thus allowing the lawmakers to circumvent any accusations that they are infringing on the free speech guarantee.

Meanwhile Sen. Berger is preparing legislation drafts which will not allow films to receive the North Carolina incentive if the content of the script are found “objectionable.” While most of us would certainly consider the childish antics in the Hounddog film more than “objectionable,” there are always choices involved in movie going. They include the choice to watch the film, not to watch the film, to exit the movie theatre that is playing an “objectionable” film, to write a review of the film to the local newspaper, and to spread the word about your opinion of the film.

In fact, the film has received very bad reviews, not because of the rape scene, but because reviewers seem to agree that the film’s content is meandering, the film production is of poor quality and that the acting is considered bad.

The Sundance Film Festival has often taken on controversial independent films which, when promoted, give this Festival and its founder Robert Redford some degree of dubious publicity. While Redford is surely at the opposite end of the spectrum from both the aforementioned Berger and Donahue, the so-called artistic standards used to qualify films for the Festival have often been questionable in terms of taste and artistic value.

Since it’s founding in l981, those standards have fallen even further with the film entry this year (2007) of something called Zoo. This entry is about zoophiles who are apparently humans who like to have sex with animals. The documentary explores the activities of a group of men in the Pacific Northwest who engaged in bestiality. To be precise, they engaged in sex with Arabian stallions––or they did until one man died from a perforated colon in 2005, according to one published review.

Despite Redford’s debatable taste in films, he still has the right to include any kind of film in his festival that he chooses.

In the meantime, state Sen. Berger and Catholic activist Donahue have jumped on the bandwagon to promote censorship of film scripts before they go to production. This is seriously incompatible with our rules of law. We do not allow governments to abridge our freedom of speech. Sen. Berger and Mr. Donahue are engaging in a very bad idea. It needs to be exposed for what it is––the roots of censorship.

Written Sunday, January 28, 2007

November 2006 - Journalism is Not About The Facts Anymore

Journalism is Not About The Facts Anymore

By Sara Pentz

Journalism is not about the facts anymore. There is little respect for the sanctity of truth. The media has one agenda: to instill the liberal philosophy of the Left and the religious philosophy of the Right into our lives. The practices used to do so are intentional. Without understanding the mechanics of how biased journalists work, they will lead us down the slippery slope to totalitarianism because they represent the classic clash against reason, individualism and freedom.

This blog will demonstrate how propaganda in the news media–––primarily from the elitist Left, but also including all spectrums of political discourse–––is infecting the communication of information as seen across all media. Slanted journalism is the ‘big lie’ and it must be understood and stopped.

The blog will analyze how headlines often do not reflect the information contained in the news report in the hope that the reader will skip the story and absorb the headline. This column will look at loaded words and distorted ideas to demonstrate how they are used to deny or avoid information that conflicts with the liberal point of view. It will explain the way, for example, that polls are taken (mostly by liberals of liberals), and how and why the results are used to influence the pubic. All of these techniques are used to send a message other than the truth or the facts of the news story.

Biased journalists give distorted accounts of the facts through various methods. They are selective in what they report about a story. They rely on anecdotal material that supports their own conclusions. They create quotes and attribute them to anonymous sources. They seek out the disgruntled to illustrate issues that affirm their premises. They use mike-in-the-face snippets from everyday people who are coached to say what the story demands. It’s all in the way the questions are asked.

Those who deny their bias are corrupt and deceitful. Some admit it openly. In 2002, 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney said on CNN's Larry King Live: "There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I'm consistently liberal in my opinions.”

ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin admits the problem in an interview on the Hugh Hewett radio show recently, “…well over 70 percent of the people working on his network's political coverage are liberal, and would vote Democratic. Further he said, “…that the preponderance of liberal thought in media organizations is an endemic problem and for 40 years conservatives have rightly felt that we did not give them a fair shake.”

Some journalists merely equivocate. ABC’s Charles Gibson said on ABC’s The View recently: "...there is no such thing as objectivity, there is just lesser degrees of subjectivity...And you have to, all the time, say to yourself, are we being fair? Are we being down the middle, as we can? And I simply can tell you that is something which, which I try to implant on everybody at World News."

Other journalists demonstrate the arrogance of their powerful position. ABC News Reporter Bill Blakemore speaking at a journalist conference in Vermont recently: “I don’t like the word ‘balance’ much at all. After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate on global warming.” Blakemore continued to boast, “Excuse me, this is going to be my assessment of where the scientific assessment is.” “I am a professional journalist; don’t tell me how to do my job.”

Ted Kavanau, founding Senior Producer of CNN and founding President, CNN Headline News, explains, “The big Democratic cities have always had a stranglehold on what is the most significant news story of the day. The concentration of liberal thinking at the heart of those cities has had an effect on hiring within the major media community, as well as the creation of an attitude toward what was acceptable thinking within that media group. That attitude constituted a disdain for objectivity and a need for acceptance by the liberal media establishment, by those who shared the liberal point of view. If anyone breached the liberal agenda, they faced an expulsion that could and did have serious economic effects.”

We need to point the finger at those in the media who have personal and professional agendas other than objectivity. While it is inappropriate to call for censorship of dishonest journalism, it is critical to identify it as editorial propaganda. It is not news reporting. Journalists who dispense propaganda instead of the facts of a news event should be fired in much the same way as those who literally fabricate the truth–––and there have been plenty of those on the staff at the New York Times.

LIST OF DESCRIPTIVE WORDS CULLED FROM A SERIES OF ARTICLES ABOUT THE CLINTONs

All these words have been used in legitimate articles about the 2008 elections; specifically to describe the character, personality, morality of Bill and Hillary. These are not my words. They were used by journalists, commentators and politicos.

Self-important
Smarmy
Duplicitous
A slippery pair
Low-life street fighters
Liars
Pathological
Egocentric
Low-road hitters
Pustules on the American body politic
race-baiting
snarling
finger-waving
press-bashing partisan
attack dog
his thirst for big bucks
bold recklessness
his arrogance
questionable financial deals
partners with inappropriate businesses
ignores blatant conflicts of interest
extremely unbecoming for an ex-president
To rewrite his legacy, he’ll do anything
enflamed racial tensions
trashing your character
merciless masters of misinformation
grotesque red-faced tirades assaulting you and distorting your record
Jerry Springer tactics
carnivorous female
seething, red-faced former president
eruptions of a furious, unexpected, and uncontrollable rage, often accompanied by loud cursing and occasionally, even physical violence
suddenness and intensity of his fury
shrieking screeching blind rages tantrums
volcanic outburst
the real Bill boiling with rage
blowing his top red-faced
finger-pointing performance
flip-flops

(To be continued...)

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

No person shall be elected to the office of the President who is the spouse of a person who is ineligible for the Presidency under the Twenty-Second Amendment to this Constitution.

List of The Clinton Scandals

Source: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/pol/545515579.html

Bill Clinton:
Bill Clinton will probably be remembered as the most corrupt president in American history. Aside from being the ONLY popular elected president ever impeached, Bill Clinton's legacy extends to little more than widespread rococco corruption. On this page we look at the great events (scandals) of the Clinton presidency and what they involve.

The Scandals:
Whitewater
Cattlegate
Nannygate
Helicoptergate
Travelgate
Gennifer Flowersgate
Filegate
Vince Fostergate
I wonder where those Whitewater billing records came fromgate
Paula Jonesgate
Federal Building campaign phone callgate
Lincoln bedroomgate
White House coffeegate
Donations from convicted drug and weapons dealersgate
Buddhist Templegate
Web Hubbell hush moneygate
Lippogate
Chinese commiegate - Clinton was practically endorsed by red China Update!
Let's blame Kenneth Starrgate
Zippergate/interngate - the Lewinsky affair itself
Perjury and jobs for Lewinskygate - the aftermath
Willeygate
Web Hubbell prison phone callgate
Selling Military Technology to the Chinese Commiesgate
Coverup for our Russian Comrades as Wellgate
Wag-the-Dog-gate
Jaunita Broaddrick gate
PBS-gate
Email-gate
Vandalgate
Lootergate
Pardongate
Bonus: Humorgate: some mishaps and mysteries around the Clintons. This is just humor in a serious scandal page.
Haircutgate
Hillary talks with Eleanor Rooseveltgate
Burgergate
Joycelyn Elders
Is this Administration Shameless?
The Bill Clinton Tiananmen Peace Tour Vacation
The Lewinsky Speech

LA Times Editorial: Beneath Contempt
By Sara Pentz

The 'editorial' written January 21, 2007, by the LA Times writer Paul Whitefield (who supervises the editorial pages' copy desk), entitled "Apocalypse Again..." is an insult to all Americans and all mankind. His article is corrupt and vindictive. It is mean-spirited, shocking and beneath contempt.

See the article here:

Apocalypse again -- call up the Vietnam vets

Where else can Bush get 21,500 trained soldiers for his 'surge'?
By Paul Whitefield, PAUL WHITEFIELD supervises the editorial pages' copy desk.
January 21, 2007

LISTENING TO President Bush's speech on Iraq earlier this month, my first thought was: "Where the heck are we going to get 21,500 more soldiers to send to Iraq?" Our Reserves are depleted, our National Guard is worn out, our Army and Marine Corps are stretched to the limit.

Then it hit me: Re-up our Vietnam War veterans and send them.

They're trained. They're battle-hardened. Many already have post-traumatic stress disorder. Also, some have their own vehicles - Harleys mostly, which are cheap to run, make small targets and are highly mobile. I'll even bet that lots of these guys still have guns (you know, just in case).

OK, some vets are a bit long in the tooth (or don't have teeth - because of Agent Orange?). Or their eyesight isn't what it was. Or their reflexes have slowed. But with today's modern weaponry, how well do you have to see?

Too out of shape, you say? Listen, if Rocky Balboa can step back into the ring at age 60, all these Vietnam War vets need is a little boot-camp magic and they'll be good to go. I mean, who doesn't want to drop a few pounds?

Don't want geezers fighting for us? Well, let's face it, our young people have greater value right here. Most of us want to retire and collect our hard-earned Social Security, and we need those youngsters here, working and paying taxes - lots of taxes.

Finally, these Vietnam War guys are hungry for revenge. After all, they fought in the only war the U.S. ever lost. And they didn't even get a parade. So this is their chance. We can throw them that big parade when they come marching home.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-modestproposal21jan21,0,1717035.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Mr. Whitefield, who holds a very important position at the LA Times, chooses to betray the memory of soldiers who fought without choice and so bravely in Viet Nam. They died for their country. Mr. Whitefield mocks them. He insults them. He abuses them.

He writes that they must still have guns as though owning a gun was somehow vulgar and offensive. He insultingly calls them “long in the tooth (or don’t have teeth),” he says, citing Agent Orange as if it were the culprit for the mere act of aging. He calls them out of shape geezers hungry for revenge - another ugly slur.

He throws every insult he can at the American soldier under the pretense that he has found the solutions for President George Bush’s Iraqi ‘surge’ plan. It is obvious that Mr. Whitefield has some kind of bitter hatred toward this President and he has chosen to take it out on him in a very mysterious way because his vindictive is so far out of proportion to the issues involved.

Mr. Whitefield betrays his rage. His article is not funny and it is not satire. It is rude and blasphemous, and revealing of a deeply twisted psyche. Perhaps he would be well advised to seek a counselor instead of writing vengeful articles for a newspaper which is speedily descending into a mockery of journalism.

To choose to write in the LA Times about the Viet Nam veterans in this manner is beyond comprehension. It is irresponsible and sacrilegious. He has gone over the line in this article by using his position of power in the media to attack those who have the courage to fight for American values and principles. It is easy for him to vent his spleen, unlike those who go to battle for Mr. Whitefield's freedom to slander them.

His article is currently (1/23/07) making the rounds on the Internet with negative comments - as it should. The collective response is that this kind of editorial by the LA Times is the reason why so many people refuse to read the newspaper.

Shame on Mr. Whitefield. Greater shame on the LA Times for allowing this article to be published.

It is beneath contempt.

The following article was written by Gen LaGreca and can be seen as it was originally published on George Reisman's Blog on Economics, Politics, Society, and Culture at www.georgereisman.com/blog

The following article was written by Gen LaGreca and can be seen as it was originally published on George Reisman's Blog on Economics, Politics, Society, and Culture at www.georgereisman.com/blog

(Dr. Reismans' blog is a commentary on contemporary business, politics, economics, society, and culture, based on the values of Reason, Rational Self-Interest, and Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Its intellectual foundations are Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and the theory of the Austrian and British Classical schools of economics as expressed in the writings of Mises, Böhm-Bawerk, Menger, Ricardo, Smith, James and John Stuart Mill, Bastiat, and Hazlitt, and in my own writings.)

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE 2007
By Gen LaGreca

[Here is a bucket of pearls. Please overlook the fact that the author asks your help in casting them before a herd of swine. They are pearls nonetheless.—GR.]


With a new Congress convening, it’s time to recall the ideals of America as expressed by Thomas Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence. The following is a new version of the Declaration, updated to reflect the current usurpations and threats we face. It is an urgent call for our newly elected representatives to fulfill the promise of America envisioned by our Founders and for We, The People, to insist that they do.

When in the course of human events, a people find it necessary to rid themselves of a government that has abandoned the sound principles upon which it was founded and that increasingly threatens their lives and liberties, reason requires them to declare the causes of their discontent.

We hold these truths to be certain and immutable, that all men by their nature possess unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness; that to protect these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just and limited powers from the consent of the governed; that individuals show respect for each other’s rights by associating with one another through voluntary consent; that an act of force against a person violates his rights; and that it is the sole, legitimate purpose of government to ban the initiation of force in society by retaliating with force against it—through the police and courts to apprehend and punish domestic criminals, the military to defend against foreign invaders, and the civil courts to settle disputes among men—thereby insuring the peace and safety of a free and civilized people.

That whenever a government becomes destructive of these ends, when it becomes the very instrument of coercion it is supposed to protect against, it is the right and duty of the people to alter it and institute new government that will protect their safety and freedom. The history of the present government of the United States—with state and local governments following suit—is one of a dangerous, unchecked growth of powers leading to the ultimate perversion in which it is the government that holds the reins and the citizens that are saddled, bridled, and spurred to do its bidding. To prove this, let facts be submitted to reasonable minds.

The government has violated our right to property and seized our wealth through onerous taxation that totals over 40 percent of the national income, taxing our salaries, investments, homes, businesses, purchases, etc., so that we cannot even buy a toothbrush without paying a tribute.

It has transformed a nation of self-reliant, self-supporting individuals into a swarm of special interest groups—workers, farmers, seniors, unions, corporations, etc.—each clamoring for favors and handouts at the expense of others, so that the young are taxed to support the old, the rich to support the poor, the people in the mountains to support flood victims at the shores; and the louder the demands, the more a group receives.

It has made us dependent on its largess for our vital needs, such as our retirement income and medical care, which no longer depend on our individual choices and actions but on the promises of politicians whose costly, ill-conceived programs are fast approaching bankruptcy.

It has appointed itself as the supreme master who decides for all what foods, medicines, products are safe to use—even mandating how our televisions must be made, our cereal boxes labeled, our toilets flushed—bombarding us with countless agencies that misuse our money, harass us, fine us, and violate our freedom to control our own lives.

It has, in order to gain votes and power bases, usurped the role of private charity, giving food, housing, and other provisions to special groups, removing incentives for them to improve their own lives, and creating an uncharitable, unchosen, and unjust financial burden on others to support them.

It has vilified our industries, seized their profits, hampered free trade, prevented mergers, dictated every detail of employment and operation—controlling pay, hours, benefits, prices, hiring, firing, production, profits—even setting safety standards for swivel chairs in the workplace—thereby violating the rights of employers, employees, and customers to deal with each other on their own terms.

It has created endless ways to cripple businesses, so that if a company is deemed too large, anti-trust laws force it to divide; if it is deemed to pay wages that are too low, labor laws force it to offer more; all at the whim of public officials who create no wealth and live off money extorted from taxpayers, yet issue televised tongue-lashings and punishments to businesspeople for not running their enterprises to better suit the politicians’ favored groups.

It has, for political advantage, doled out subsidies, invoked protective tariffs, created monopolies, bestowed grants and privileges—including paying farmers not to produce any crops—giving unfair advantage to some businesses at the expense of others and creating chaos in the marketplace.

It has failed to protect the people’s rights, but instead protects snail darters, caribou, and the wilderness, in order to pander to aberrant environmentalists who use energy in every aspect of their lives—in their cars, planes, computers, lawn mowers, toasters, microphones—while instigating laws to severely hamper energy production.

It has stifled domestic exploration for oil with onerous regulation, which has made oil scarcer and more expensive and thus enriched foreign oil-producing countries such as Iran, whose revenues support the brainwashing schools, training camps, and militias of ruthless savages who plot to annihilate us.

It has imposed oppressive taxes, yet the huge sums it extracts still cannot quench its thirst for more reckless spending, plunging the country deeper into debt and, if unchecked, into bankruptcy.

It has seized so much power that kickbacks from contractors, bribes from lobbyists, favors exchanged for votes, and other scandals in its ranks are rampant.

It has corrupted the morals of the people, who see that they can vote themselves the taxpayers’ money, so they abandon personal responsibility and self-reliance to clamor for more handouts, perpetuating their own dependence and their representatives’ corruption.

It has created a welfare state not only within our borders, but throughout the world, squandering huge sums on foreign aid that bails out the failing regimes of despotic rulers, feeds the very enemies who arm to destroy us—such as North Korea and many others over the years—and creates a global entitlement mentality that demands a bite of the already ravaged carcass of the American taxpayer.

It has financed and supported the corrupt United Nations, an organization allegedly dedicated to world peace that grants the worst tyrannies equal moral standing with free countries and provides a forum for the bloodiest dictatorships to condemn us.

It has shamefully failed in its constitutional duty to protect us from deadly threats abroad, allowing repeated attacks on us to go unpunished and emboldening our enemies to wreak unprecedented death and destruction on our own soil.

It has left us vulnerable to a ruthless enemy because of its endless appeasement, its perverse desire not to offend anyone, its need for approval from hostile countries, its concern for our decorum over our victory—in short, its moral cowardice in defending America.

These and other usurpations and failings now weigh heavily on us.

By the laws of nature and our Constitution, we declare ourselves a free people with sovereignty over ourselves. We demand an end to the creeping tyranny that strangles us. We demand the dismantling of government in all areas of usurped powers never granted it by the Constitution. We demand that our elected representatives act on the ideals of liberty to reverse our self-destructive course.

We will never forget that we are Americans. We forged a continent not with public aid but with the shining vision of a better life and the self-reliance to attain it. We created wealth, progress, and achievement on an unprecedented scale. No government fed our pioneers, inspected their wagons for safety, certified their chickens, subjected their homes to endless building permits, meddled in their businesses, looted their wealth. No government built the breathtaking skylines of our majestic cities, the proud monuments to free minds and free commerce. The government’s fingerprints are found only on the shattered shells of public housing that wound our cities, a grim reminder of the failed welfare state. The time has come to reclaim our country from the meddlers, do-gooders, and would-be dictators seeking to nourish their craving for power with our lifeblood. We will restore America as the proud haven of liberty. To this we pledge our sacred honor.


If you agree with this declaration, send it to your representatives. Tell them that you intend to support people who offer a return to limited government and the freedoms guaranteed us by the Constitution.

Genevieve (Gen) LaGreca is the author of “Noble Vision” a novel about liberty and a ForeWord magazine Book of the Year Award winner. She may be contacted at glagreca@wingedvictorypress.com.

Copyright © 2007 by Genevieve LaGreca

Technorati Profile

THEIR DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS -- Part I
By Sara Pentz

Democrats like to tell us they are longing for ideas to support––that they are losing elections because they have lost their way. They appear to be honest, searching and idealistic. DNC Chairman Howard Dean, in his own particularly glaring style, declares this message. Other somewhat more sophisticated Democrats write about the problem with wide–eyed dismay and perpetual hope. It is the topic du jour.

Democrats like to talk about the problem because it gives them something to discuss. It makes them look like they are desperately searching for ideals. It makes them appear innocent and hopeful. It harkens them back to the good old days of the 60s and 70s when their core fought against nuclear proliferation and the Vietnam War––in the days when the media would call them idealistic, and they would march as a collective with a pretense of moral courage as they shouted banal slogans of love and peace.

It is now, as it always has been, the Big Lie…an attempt to cover up the truth. In fact, the liberal Democrats know exactly the nature of their convictions and values. But they don’t, won’t and can’t name them because the philosophy upon which they are based is repugnant––and it is their dirty little secret.

Their core ideas are based on anti–Americanism, anti–capitalism and anti–individual rights. Their basic intent, whether it is conscious or subconscious, is to tear up the U.S. Constitution and tear down this country, its patriotism, its loyalists, its entrepreneurs and its basic standing in the world. The liberal media that dominates newspapers and magazines around the world supports them. They have set an agenda that is permeating the culture of this country in a very dangerous way.

In fact, most Democrats are basically socialists––some have communist underpinnings. Others simply have no principles and are looking only for political power. Of course, they will deny these labels. They will shout like crazy about being called unpatriotic. But when they burn flags, call the president of the United States a Nazi with such vile hysterical hatred, allow fraudulent class action suits against often blameless businesses that benefit only the lawyers, and write laws confiscating private property for the sake of raising taxes––it’s hard to argue that they have a great love of this country.

The fact that people from all over the world are rushing to enter the United States––legally and illegally belies their message. Those who rush here choose to live here. They are not being forced to come here. Of course, some who come here do so because they can benefit without citizenship from the causes created by the Liberals––free medical care, free food and free education––the inevitable free ride propounded by socialists. Many of those here illegally vote for these Liberals, which is certainly an overwhelming reason why Liberals, like Hillary Clinton, want to give those people the right to vote them into power so they can get more free handouts––and the Liberals can have more power and money to change America into a socialist welfare state.

Notice that there was no great rush by those Liberals to flee this country and move to Canada after George W. Bush was elected to his second term as president––as they had promised and we had hoped. Remember how fearful and angry they were at the chance he would be re-elected. These are the hypocrites who hate America but stay here to enjoy all the privileges of the economy and the U.S. Constitution they wish to destroy.

Of course, there are many political Republicans and Independents who also don’t have strong and consistent convictions about this country. In fact, most people have mixed beliefs. They are inconsistent and conflicted, especially when it comes to politics. This is one reason Liberals get away with their arguments and intentions.

On June 1, 2005, columnist David Limbaugh wrote the following:

“If candidates of a major party truly don't have core beliefs and "don't know their underlying values," is there really any point to their participation, other than the raw acquisition of power? The reality is that Democrats do know what they believe, they just don't know if they can afford to "stand for" those things in an election for national office. They do know their underlying values, but they don't know whether they can be completely open about them without risking an electoral bloodbath. So on some issues they vacillate, saying one thing to certain people – their rabid left-wing constituency groups – and different things to others. Whether it's foreign policy, social issues or economic ones, Democrats have a tough time unmasking themselves.”

However, sometimes they are easily unmasked. For example, they are adamantly opposed to Social Security private accounts. Why? Because these accounts would allow individuals to determine the purpose and use of their own money––to the extent that the government allows. Listen to the strident protests of the Liberal leaders. They say they will “…never ever ever ever…” allow private accounts in the Social Security Reform Act––at least according to Rep. Nancy Polosi. Why do they protest so vehemently?––because they want to control the money, and they don’t think we are wise enough to save or invest our own money.

Let’s name these Democrats who are covering up their fundamental socialist philosophies. They are Sen. Ted Kennedy (D–MA), Sen. John Kerry (D–MA), Sen. Harry Reid (D–NV), Sen. Christopher Dodd (D–CT), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–CA), Sen. Patrick Leahy (D–VT), Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D–NY). Listen to them talk. Listen to their message. Ask what do they really mean when they make their 30–second sound bites.

In a July 16, 2005 NewsMax article, for example, witness two liberal Democrats:

“New York's two senators, Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer - who have been complaining since the London bombing attacks that the federal government hasn't done enough to protect the U.S. from terrorists - voted against legislation to enhance border security on Thursday.”

“Clinton and Schumer turned thumbs down on two amendments to a Department of Homeland Security spending bill, which, according to the Washington Times, would have funded plans for 2,000 new Border Patrol agents and more than 5,000 new detention beds to house illegal aliens.”

According to the www.nation.com, Senator Ted Kennedy argues, “…that the reason the Democrats lost so many elections was that they had compromised too much and shed their distinct identity. "If the Democrats run for cover, if we become pale carbon copies of the opposition, we will lose--and deserve to lose. The last thing this country needs is two Republican parties."

According to www.enterstageright.com, “Kennedy's record reflects decades of appeasement toward Communism. He was an early and vocal supporter of admission of Red China to the UN. He was a consistent supporter of unilateral disarmament and nuclear freeze. He advocated negotiation with the Vietcong which he claimed "could lead to a confederation of North and South Vietnam under a truly neutral government." He supported the "rules of engagement" policy which protected North Vietnam from military action while American and South Vietnamese casualties were mounting. Finally, he voted to stop President Ford's aid package to South Vietnam in the year before it was crushed by the Communist North.” (New Republic 9/10/70 p14)

An article by Charles A. Morse web posted July 24, 2000, at www.enterstageright.com,
explains:

“Like so many other rich leftists, Kennedy often treats the law as something that applies to others not himself. Laws and taxes, in Kennedy's galaxy, exist as weapons against enemies or as a means of obtaining power. Increasingly concentrated power will, allegedly, be used to help the disadvantaged. The result is more power and our taxpayer money in the hands of an ever-widening number of bureaucrats. Whatever crumbs not consumed by the bloated bureaucracy will be passed on to the "disadvantaged" who will be expected to repay the favor with their votes.”

In his book, Unholy Alliance, author David Horowitz names the heart of the American Left:

“In their hearts, these leftists hate America, and they want any enemy, even if it's as horrible an enemy as Zarqawi, to triumph over us. And they will use all manner of sophistry to excuse and defend their position and say, “Oh yes, we’re critical of this and that in terms of what they do. We didn't actually like them blowing up the World Trade Center, because that gave a propaganda victory to the United States, and we don't like Zarqawi beheading people, because that makes it harder for us to sell their cause.” But these are minor points for them, that pale beside the fact that America is Nazi Germany. The clear allegiance of leftists… is with the enemy and against the United States. And this is true of hundreds of thousands of American leftists who get a pass, of course, from our media, because our media is so predisposed to support them.”

Horowitz is not talking about the hard American Leftists. He is speaking to those who incorporate their accusations into mainstream thought––the American media, grade schools and universities. This thought–control by the Left reminds us of George Orwell’s book “1984”. It will come back to haunt them––one way or another––in another future.

Isn’t it time we aired their dirty little secrets?

###

THEIR DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS –– Part II
By Sara Pentz

As I wrote in Part I of this article, the liberal Democrats know exactly the nature of their convictions and values. But they don’t, won’t and can’t name them because the philosophy upon which they are based is repugnant––and it is their dirty little secret.

They urge judges to legislate morality from the bench and weaken the U.S. Constitution. They were amazingly silent about the Supreme Court ruling, for example, that allowed private property to be taken from an owner for the sake of their getting more of your taxes to spend––see Kelo v. City of New London. This 5 to 4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is an outright repudiation of the most basic American principle guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution––the protection for life, liberty and property. Its sole purpose is to raise taxes. Without the right to own property, there is no protection of life and liberty. Could this be exactly what the Leftists want?

Liberal Democrats devise legislation to hamstring the free enterprise system––a system that has made our country the strongest, most efficient and elegantly freest country in the world. They manhandle and embarrass corporate executives in trumped up hearings on the Senate floor. Their anger, resentment and hatred for the free enterprise system is at the core of their very being. Many of them support the extremist environmentalists and animal rights terrorists––two such causes dedicated to destroying capitalism. They deny they are in favor of violence of any nature, but their actions defy that denial.

Here is columnist David Limbaugh on the subject of how Liberals view taxes:

“Even on tax policy, they are less than candid about their underlying philosophy. They candy coat their position by patronizingly peddling taxes as "contributions" and government expenditures as "investments." They shroud their socialistic proclivities to redistribute wealth by portraying confiscatory tax hikes on major producers as a refund of money that properly belongs to government. Similarly, they shamelessly depict across-the-board tax-rate reductions as gifts to the rich.”

These Democrats undercut their country whenever possible. They are unwilling to support the president’s goals with his war on terror. "The President,” Ted Kennedy says, “argues that we need to take the fight to the enemy in Baghdad so we do not have to fight them here at home. But the President cannot escape responsibility for the fact that this decision to go to war in Iraq has made it even more likely -- not less likely -- that we will fight the terrorists in America.”

Whether the terrorists invade this country once again or not, the real issue is that Ted Kennedy––in this time of crisis and uncertainty––is only intent upon tearing down President Bush. He is putting his country at risk with his spurious statements. He spews his carefully worded tirades at the administration to make quotable headlines. Where are his ideas for saving America from the terrorists? Look at his record on Vietnam to understand his basic views about fighting for freedom.

Democrats like Kennedy foster racism by supporting people like Jesse Jackson who divide for the sake of power. In his book "Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America," Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson reports that “…increasing numbers of Americans have come to regard Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other establishment "black leaders" as con artists, gaining money and power by promoting racial tension and class warfare.”

Peterson shows “…how the civil-rights establishment has made a lucrative career out of keeping racial strife alive in America.” He reveals how “…establishment black leaders endlessly promise solutions to the problems of America's inner cities, but deliver only ineffective Band-Aids…from the dismal failure of the welfare system, to the farce of the slavery-reparations movement, to the problems within black churches and the hypocrisy and corruption of current black leaders…”

Democrats actually support programs that foster poverty by increasing give-away programs that only tax us more and promote irresponsibility. They fight to raise taxes on the rich not merely to redistribute wealth––a communist concept––but to ham–string those who generate the wealth through their own individual productivity.

Victor Davis Hanson, military historian and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, writes about Osama Bin Laden that he embodies much of what the Leftists in the Western World do:

“He harbored a deep-seated contempt for Western values, even though he was eaten within by uncontrolled envy...” “That is the dominant narrative of the Western Left and at times it finds its way into mainstream Democratic-party thinking.” “For the hard Left there is no absolute right and wrong since amorality is defined arbitrarily and only by those in power.”

Hanson is a moralist. He digs right in and names the issue at the heart of the liberal Democrats. He writes that they will not concede there is a right or wrong precisely because they do not want to play by those rules. They want to have their cake and eat it. It is the morality of an immature child:

“These tenets in various forms are not merely found in the womb of the universities, but filter down into our popular culture, grade schools, and national political discourse — and make it hard to fight a war against stealthy enemies who proclaim constant and shifting grievances. If at times these doctrines are proven bankrupt by the evidence it matters little, because such beliefs are near religious in nature — a secular creed that will brook no empirical challenge. These articles of faith apparently fill a deep psychological need for millions of Westerners, guilty over their privilege, free to do anything without constraints or repercussions, and convinced that their own culture has made them spectacularly rich and leisured only at the expense of others.”

But it is a mistake for Americans to take this blame. It is unearned and it is a dangerous stance. Because if we give in to the concept––that we are to blame for the flaws, evils and jealousies of the rest of the world––then we are doomed to relinquish our truths and principles, and the logical conclusion is that we will lose ourselves and our country to those who make us feel guilty.

We must not allow that. That is why it is so crucial to reveal the dirty little secrets of the leftist liberal Democrats––whose fundamental cause is to tear down ourselves, our country, our capitalistic society and our United States Constitution.

###

Media Brain Washers Determine the Facts

That’s Why News Is Not News

By Sara Pentz

Most people say the news is depressing. It is a major complaint about the business since the 1960s when television with its highly provocative visual images brought these pictures into our living rooms. The arrival of those images impacted our lives as much as it impacted the lives of those who were the subject of war zone reports––from Viet Nam and Afghanistan, from the streets of Newark, East Las Angeles, Harlem and New Orleans.

The complaint about no good news can be properly translated. It really means that the news produced by the brain washers is one–sided. It does not represent the total story.

Instead it was all bad news. It was selected editorial choices by producers, reporters and network executives who determined what we saw and heard. No one questioned these choices.

Now, it’s a different story. Many journalists are fed up with the editorial slant of the news pictures seen on the screen…and they’re not going to take it anymore. They are a new breed. They have formed outlets to challenge the current mainstream media––blogs, e–zines, and websites––to counterattack the mainstream media brain washers.

The agenda in news reports, then as today, is the same. It can’t be news if it is good news, say the producers and their lackeys. They don’t state that out loud. Instead that ugly little practice is simply part of their souls––part of their mantle––part of their being––their total existence. Anyone who does not believe this is certainly not a good or respected journalist––or human being, they say. In fact, they say that out loud as a criticism––with insulting phrases and angry faces and an intimidating manner.

These journalists believe it is their duty to change the world. They are not merely interested in gathering facts. They are bent on being pro–active. Their leaders and their peers expect this of them. They are devoted to the exposure of the oppression of the various groups that have been, they say, the West's victims. That is their anti–Americanism. Women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, and others that have been officially designated as oppressed groups. This is the so-called "diversity" ideology to which every network president, executive, producer and reporter pledges obedience and devotion.

They blame it on capitalism. That is why you don’t see many CEOs, industrialists or even small business owners as part of a news story. They can’t be trusted, say journalists, to tell the truth. They have the profit motive behind them. Ergo, they are not news and they will be boycotted.

But this is slowly changing…certainly not in the mainstream media. Instead if you hunt hard enough you will find interesting and newsworthy stories about good news––and even about American values and the exemplar deeds of capitalists.

The Good News

Writing for the Free Market Project, www.freemarketproject.org, Amy Menefee demonstrates the anti–capitalist bias of the media.

“U.S. oil companies, drug companies and Wal-Mart have been among the most generous contributors to the relief effort - a fact the print media included. The Washington Post reported on September 4 that oil companies had given at least $15.5 million. Wal-Mart donated $17 million and the Walton Family Foundation another $15 million, the Associated Press reported on September 6. Drug companies have pledged more than $25 million, according to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
But these contributions – from companies regularly vilified in the media – received little or no attention in the last week on ABC, NBC and CBS news shows. Past media reports have attacked Wal-Mart for “low wages” and “anti-unionism” and have chided drug companies for “spending less than they make in profits.”
The oil companies have attracted similar coverage, especially through the summer’s high gas prices. NBC’s Katie Couric said on the August 17 “Today,” “As we pay through the nose, someone has to be smelling some pretty big profits.” Out of those profits, however, came charitable donations to hurricane relief. The Post’s September 4 report said that Exxon Mobil had pledged $7 million; ConocoPhillips and Shell Oil Co., $3 million each; Marathon Oil Corp. $1.5 million; and the BP Foundation, $1 million.”

Also writing for Writing for the Free Market Project, www.freemarketproject.org, Herman Cain refers to the bias of pollsters referring to a September 2 ABC News/Washington Post poll.

“The pollsters were so blinded by their bias that all they could see was the federal government’s response in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Their questions focused on placing blame on President Bush and asked people whether the government’s response left them “angry; proud; ashamed; hopeful; or shocked.” (Emphasis added.)

Let us be very clear here…the bias of the poll is in the wording of the question. It is focused on the government’s response to the disaster. The poll does not ask if people were angry or proud about what corporate America and many citizens were doing––because corporations represented good news––like contributing $90 million in three days.

Mr. Cain raised that very issue in the remainder of his column: what capitalism is doing in a positive way. He points out that most of the media focused on how so–called greedy companies were making a profit because of Hurricane Katrina. Mr. Cain’s view is exactly the opposite. He demonstrates how capitalism was at work in a positive way.
“A hallmark of our free market economic system is that when individuals

work on pursuing their dreams, in this case rebuilding cities and states, the positive effects ripple throughout the economy. Together, those dreams lift a society.

It’s been widely reported that Home Depot’s stock value rose with the floodwaters. But the story behind that is exactly what USA Today reported on September 1: the company’s massive effort to stock stores in the devastated region and to prepare for a speedy response. As USA Today’s Julie Schmit wrote, “Plywood makers are cranking up production. Contractors and laborers are lining up to enter the area. Retailers are redirecting products from as far as Wisconsin to the Gulf region.
Without a free economic market, the companies that can help the most wouldn’t have the incentive to hurry to the scene. They know their products and services will be needed – so they’re doing all they can to assist those who want to begin the rebuilding process.”

Although Herman Cain is the former president and CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, Inc. and the National Chairman of the Media Research Center’s Free Market Project, don’t expect to see his writings published on the front page of the NY Times.

The Bad News

(Taken from and annals of the Media Research Center)

CBS News Sunday Morning "contributor" Nancy Giles, charged that "if the majority of the hardest hit victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans were white people, they would not have gone for days without food and water" and insisted that "the real war is not in Iraq, but right here in America. It's the War on Poverty, and it's a war that's been ignored and lost."

CNN's Wolf Blitzer repeatedly prodded reluctant Congressional Black Caucus member Elijah Cummings to blame racism for delays in rescuing hurricane victims in New Orleans. When Cummings demurred from such a blanket accusation, Blitzer wouldn't give up: "There are some critics who are saying, and I don't know if you're among those, but people have said to me, had this happened in a predominantly white community, the federal government would have responded much more quickly. Do you believe that?"

CNN's Aaron Brown took up the same agenda with Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, lecturing her: "Now, look, here's the question, okay? And then we'll end this. Do you think the reason that they're not there or the food is not there or the cruise ships aren't there or all this stuff that you believe should be there, isn't this a matter of race and/or class?"

ABC's Ted Koppel charged on Nightline "the slow response to the victims of Hurricane Katrina has led to questions about race, poverty and a seemingly indifferent government."

ABC's Terry Moran put politics at the forefront in hurricane disaster coverage when, on a storm-ravaged Biloxi street, he confronted President Bush about how "one of the things you hear is people saying 'there's a lot of resources being devoted to Iraq. Now this country needs them.' And they're frustrated about that. What do you say to the people who say there's too much money being spent on Iraq and it's time to bring it home?"

NPR and ABC reporter Nina Totenberg charged that National Guard equipment deployed to Iraq is supposedly impairing rescue efforts, that "for years, we have cut our taxes, cut our taxes and let the infrastructure throughout the country go and this is just the first of a number of other crumbling things that are going to happen to us." An astounded Charles Krauthammer pleaded: "You must be kidding here." But Totenberg reaffirmed: "I'm not kidding."

Each one of these anecdotes is an example of media bias––of reporters arguing for their agenda. They are supposed to be reporters asking questions that elicit information…not commentators pushing interviewees to confirm their agenda.

Here’s a rundown in an article by Ben Johnson from www.frontpagemag.com of how the media focused on the Liberals and far out socialists in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

“It's official: the American Left now believes George W. Bush is God. Bellowing leftists such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cindy Sheehan have blamed Hurricane Katrina - something insurance companies classify as an act of God - on President Bush's "killing policies”... Former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal…chalking up the flood to the Bush administration's having cut one item in the Army Corps of Engineers' annual budget. (snip) DNC Chair Howard Dean weighed in by demeaning Bush's trip to the disaster area, calling it "just another callous political move crafted by Karl Rove.”

“In addition to claiming Bush somehow fed the phantom of "global warming" to rain death upon his own citizens, the Left has alleged "racism" in his handling of this disaster. Jesse Jackson quipped post-Hurricane New Orleans looks like "the hull of a slave ship.” Director Michael Moore played the race card in an open letter to Bush on his website. They found an echo in the "Reverend" Al Sharpton, who told MSNBC's abysmal Keith Olbermann, "I feel that, if it was in another area, with another economic strata and racial makeup, that President Bush would have run out of Crawford a lot quicker and FEMA would have found its way in a lot sooner.”

“Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV,… has proposed a 9/11-style commission to probe the feds' response to Hurricane Katrina. (After all, the original 9/11 Commission proved so exemplary.)

In summary Johnson adds:

“Despite these transparent attempts to claw political advantage from the suffering of the downtrodden - after the National Guard forgeries, Plamegate, and conspiratorial ravings about the Federalist Society won them no traction - a Washington Post poll revealed 55 percent of Americans do not blame President Bush for the debacle in the Big Easy.”

Does anyone really think the Liberal Washington Post would design an objective, fair and balanced survey? That is not the way they see the facts.

While the media brain washers pander their doctrinaire message, it appears from this survey, at least, that most of the American public are bright enough to take the brain washers talk as simply another boring bad news media rant. Good for them.

###

The Media Brainwashing Machine
Small Robots Are In Charge

By Sara Pentz

From the files of the Media Research Center – www.mediaresearch.org.

“On Tuesday night (September 20, 2005), without identifying the Union of Concerned Scientists as a far-left group, CBS's Bill Whitaker relayed how a spokesman for the group charged that damage to Louisiana's barrier islands is being "made worse...by global warming, as ice caps melt and oceans rise."

Robert Bazell on Wednesday's NBC Nightly News acknowledged,"...scientists say that one season, even like this one, cannot indicate anything about climate change."Yet he went on to showcase a fear mongering sound bite from a Stanford scientist: "At the moment, we've only warmed up one [degree]. What happens when we warm up three or five, which is projected in the next several decades to the end of the century?"

Bazell ominously concluded: "Warming that many experts say results partly from humans releasing greenhouse gases possibly creating even more violent storms in the future.”

In order to understand this paragraph from the Media Research Center’s analysis of this CBS and NBC reports, one must ask and answer certain questions. These questions never occur to news reporters or their producers or their network executives. That is the flaw of the profession and one that will sink the left wing journalists––eventually.

More importantly, these questions must occur to the viewing public if they are to be well informed. Furthermore, they must occur if we are to identify the wayward journalist and insist that they tell us the news in a fair and balanced manner.

But first…

The Questions: Why did CBS reporter Bill Whitaker fail to correctly identify the Union of Concerned Scientists as a far–left group? Why did he select only this group to feature as the major spokes group of this story? Why didn’t Whitaker quote those who disagree with the UCS group, i.e., the other side of the story? Why did NBC News’ Robert Bazell feature the ‘fear–mongering’ sound bite in his news the story? And why was Bazell allowed to editorialize as part of his news report? Aren’t editorials separate from news reports?

The Answers: If CBS and NBC were actually to ask and answer these questions they would be forced to admit their bias. They would be forced to admit that is was bad journalism to refrain from identifying the group as left wing. That it is a basic principle of journalism to identify the group’s entire position. Not to do so would be wrong. Next they would be forced to admit that there is another side of the story. NBC would be forced to admit that they had allowed the blatantly biased editorializing by newsman Bazell. And, they would have to acknowledge that there are many scientists and meteorologists who disagree with the UCS group. This chain of logic (basic Socratic thinking) would tie them in knots. These newsmen and their producers simply could not allow themselves to ask and answer these questions because, if they did, their motives and their agenda would be exposed. And they would be forced––by logical reasoning––to admit that this report is an example of their bias.

When news reporters tell us that they are not biased (as per Dan Rather), be sure to ask yourself if they are being honest.

The specific news segments are a blatant example of unfair and unbalanced reporting. It is therefore fundamentally an example of the elitist media’s brain washing machine––totally consistent with their left wing ideological agenda. At its roots, that ideology is both anti-American and anti-capitalist.

And that is the problem at the heart of the news media.

The Machinations of the Brain Washing Machine

Skewing news reports to fit a left wing agenda has become ‘normal’ in the elitist media––as well as in the universities and their journals; in TV shows, films, popular music, books and magazines.

Explains James Piereson of The Weekly Standard in a recent article on the “Left University.” His analysis, in general, cites the same issues that apply to the left media.

“The left university, according to its self-understanding, is devoted to the exposure of the oppression of the various groups that have been the West's victims--women, blacks, Hispanics, gays, and others that have been officially designated as oppressed groups--and to those groups' representation. This is the so-called "diversity" ideology to which every academic dean, provost, and president must pledge obedience and devotion.”

“The university, moreover, has formed an informal political alliance with the other liberal and left-wing institutions in our society: Hollywood, public sector labor unions, large charitable foundations, the news media, and, of course, the Democratic Party. All are driven by the same doctrine of diversity. These institutions have provided political protection and encouragement for the academy as it has moved steadily leftward.”

Most reporters do not comprehend why they are criticized for this agenda. They do not view their thinking process as an agenda. In fact, since their thinking is skewed to the left and they are ingrained with this view of reality, they are left dismayed at the idea that they are criticized for not being factual in their reports.

They cannot and are unwilling to think outside that left wing box. For most of them, this is a frightening idea…to consider the ‘other’ side of the story. It is alien to them. It makes them feel uncomfortable and uncertain. It is inconsistent with their view of what is morally right and wrong.

If they were forced to ponder their bias they would have to see the ‘other’ side of the story. They call that other side ‘immoral’––no not blatantly, but that is what they feel. They consider their ideology as good for society. In other words, they see America and capitalism as bad for people. Of course, they cannot admit this because the conclusion would be far too black and white for them. What they really don’t like is the moral certainty of the economics of capitalism and the philosophy of the American way of life.

Capitalism is by its nature judgmental. It rewards those who work and punishes those who do not. The original U.S. Constitution called on people to be responsible for their life and their happiness. Most journalists do not like that view of America. It is not ‘forgiving’ enough for them. They are unable to see themselves as ‘forgiving’ in this sense, and therefore are unwilling to acknowledge that, in fact, this is what makes a society work. They prefer to believe that we cannot take care of ourselves, and that we have been harmed by society, or that our peers for one reason or another have ostracized us.

They Call It News; It Is Not

They call their reporting ‘news.’ It is not. It is lopsided editorializing with the intent to indoctrinate. That is why they reports can be identified as a mechanical––because it is in lock step with their ideology.

Most reporters are not beholden to facts or critical analysis. They are like little robots that plod along without thinking capabilities. Since the l960s this plodding has become a stampede. And like any out–of–control behavior it must be stopped.

The next time you turn on your TV or pick up your newspaper, look for the obvious––the bias ingrained in those “news” reports. This is the first step in critical thinking about the bias in the left wing media.