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.

THE SHAMEFUL LEGACY OF THREE TV ANCHORS
Rather, Brokaw and Jennings
By Sara Pentz

In a nine month period between the end of 2004 and the middle of 2005, all three of the major networks ‘lost’ their star news anchors––Tom Brokow (November 2004), Dan Rather (March 2005), and Peter Jennings (August 7, 2005). Tom Brokaw of NBC chose to retire. Dan Rather ‘resigned’ in disgrace from CBS after he orchestrated one of the most biased reports every produced for a television network. Peter Jennings died at 67 years.

Each of these men leaves a shameful legacy on the face of American journalism. They led their networks into a shocking wave of politically biased reporting and did absolutely nothing to rebuke those who indulged in it––because, it was their agenda, too. They knew exactly what they were doing. Each is responsible for the blackening tarnish that covers all journalists today because of their partisan politics.

Others of their ilk fill me with disgust over the praise of these men. I know what they did to American journalism. I was there as a TV news journalist in New York City in those early days when television news might have had a chance to be honorable. I knew Peter personally and watched as his career developed. I saw him build his own brand of arrogance as the young upstart and hope of ABC News.

After Rather left the anchor slot, hordes of journalists praised him and touted his place in history. They didn’t mean that his place in history was his deliberate attempt to bring down President George W. Bush for which he almost apologized. No, they praised him as a great newsman whose work distinguished him among all others. They gave him awards–– some of which were the highest in the news business. They did all this knowing that he had almost single–handedly wrecked CBS and clearly toppled the networks ratings and credibility.

Tom Brokaw’s network saluted him with documentaries and feted him with award dinners. He was praised for being a real reporter––that is to say––for being like a print reporter––which signifies to insiders that he knew his job was actually looking for facts. The rest of the words describing him sounded like all the other tributes pronounced when people retire or die. But there was betrayal behind those words. Brokow never stood up to the charges of bias in the news media, either.

Already the same simple–minded saccharine tributes are playing widespread across broadcast TV, cable and broadband for the recently deceased Peter Jennings. Even President Bush shamelessly praised the biased anti–American anchorman. "Peter Jennings had a long and distinguished career as a news journalist. He covered many important events, events that helped define the world, as we know it today. A lot of Americans relied upon Peter Jennings for their news. He became a part of the life of a lot of our fellow citizens, and he will be missed," he said.

Brokaw, who might have had the most integrity of the three, stood by in a glazed stupor throughout his career as those around him twisted the facts to suit their agenda. Rather was in such denial about his own bias that he seemed to be slightly demented.

But Jennings was the most insidious of them all. He clearly knew what he was doing with his anti–American innuendos. He used his slick façade and glib intellect to ad lib strings of sentences that sounded like history and perspective but were actually hype and harangue.

About bias in the media Peter said: “I think there is a mainstream media. CNN is mainstream media, and the main, ABC, CBS, NBC are mainstream media. And I think it’s just essentially to make the point that we are largely in the center without particular axes to grind, without ideologies which are represented in our daily coverage, at least certainly not on purpose.” — CNN’s Larry King Live, May 15, 2001.

The prestigious Media Research Center says about Peter Jennings:

While his bias during the recent Iraq war was obvious, it is only the latest example of the ABC anchor’s bias. Jennings has been a reliable proponent of new European-style social welfare spending even while he has shown skepticism toward new defense spending and tax cuts. As Jennings framed it, communism was more a phantom menace than a serious threat, and he similarly whitewashed the despicable record of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, whose bombings killed more than 300 Americans in the 1980s. On the home front, he resented covering the Clinton scandals, portraying them as tedious sideshows. He billed Republicans as destructive and mean-spirited and used his newscast to tout the virtues of liberals...

After the September 11th terrorist attacks, all of the anchors gave viewers fair and even-handed coverage, but Jennings was the first to revert to liberal form: adversarial coverage of U.S. actions and U.S. policies, and less judgmental coverage of tyrants and terrorists. During the war in Afghanistan, World News Tonight gave far more airtime than the other broadcast networks to Taliban claims of massive civilian casualties that Jennings and his team could not verify, and which ABC reporter Jim Wooten later commendably debunked as inflated enemy propaganda.

Jennings displayed an antagonistic attitude towards’ Bush’s Iraq policies for months prior to the actual start of the second Gulf War in March 2003. Even after the rapid collapse of the Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship, Jennings — more than any other news anchor — highlighted setbacks and scolded the military for its mistakes, leading to at least one embarrassing retraction.

The 1994 mid term elections gave Republicans a majority in both houses of Congress for the first time since the 1950s. Jennings reacted by demeaning the voters, casting the policies of the new Congress as destructive and mean-spirited, and commiserating with Bill Clinton about the public’s lack of regard for his liberal policies. He continued to rail against GOP policies, especially tax cuts, for years.

In l968, early in his career, Peter Jennings established the first American television news bureau in the Arab world when he served as ABC News' bureau chief for Beirut, Lebanon, a position he held for seven years. Thereafter his ties with the Arab world were reflected in his coverage of the massacre at the Munich Olympics in l972 and, henceforth, on every story he covered regarding Israel and Palestine.

In 2001 Martin Peretz, publisher of The New Republic, wrote the following.

"I first saw Jennings on ABC when, as a young TV journalist, he reported from the Munich Olympics. And I was filled with disgust that his subsequent career has only deepened. At Munich -- I still remember it, 30 years later -- Jennings tried to explain away the abductions and massacre of the young Israeli athletes. His theme: The Palestinians were helpless and desperate. Ipso facto, they were
driven to murder. That's life..."

“In Sept. 2002, when ABC News aired a retrospective on the Olympic Massacre, Jennings unabashedly said that Israel should stop regarding the Palestinians as terrorists as a result of the Olympic Massacre of three decades ago. Jennings dismissed the continual barrage of thousands of Palestinian terror attacks against Israelis, not only before, but also since the’ 72 Olympics.”

”Thus set the stage for a lifetime of pro-PLO bias.”

In response to the 9/11 tragedy, television critic Tom Shales wrote in the Washington Post (Sept. 17, 2001):

"[Jennings] hosted what looked like a little intercontinental tea party for alleged experts on the Middle East, one of whom was professional Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi, whom Jennings hailed as 'widely known in the United States.’ Also widely disliked. Jennings and Ashrawi greeted each other like old pals, with broad smiles and warm greetings.

"Jennings wanted to know, he said, how anyone could hate America so much that they would launch this kind of vicious, calamitous attack. Ashrawi blamed U.S. foreign policy (for having 'fought Arab nationalism') and, predictably for her, Israel. Ashrawi complained that 'Israel is given preferential treatment, treated as a country above the law, as part of her condemnation. Jennings deferred to Ashrawi, as usual, and let her filibuster. It was a nauseating display...”

In a critique of the same Jennings broadcast, TVspy.com reported (Sept. 20, 2001):

"It's no surprise that ABC News anchor Peter Jennings allowed Palestinian proselytizer Hanan Ashrawi to peddle propaganda on his program -- she used to be his girlfriend. U.S. News World Report noted in 1991: 'In the early 1970s, when he was single and head of the ABC bureau in Beirut, Jennings dated Ashrawi, who at the time was also single and a graduate student in literature at the American University in the Lebanese capital.”

"In 1995, Denver Rocky Mountain News international editor Holger Jensen... [wrote] about staying at the Commodore Hotel in Beirut while covering events in war-torn Lebanon. Jensen recalled that Jennings stayed there as well, 'courting a long succession of Palestinian lovelies including Hanan Ashrawi.”

Peter had been married four times and was in and out of relationships throughout his marriages.

He had been a long time smoker, but quit the habit some 20 years before his death. During his coverage of the 9/11 tragedy he resumed smoking. It is, perhaps, ironic that he did this at this time in his news career when the murderers responsible for the terrible 9/11 tragedy were fighting for a cause Peter had crusaded for throughout his biased reporting career.

###

Peter Jennings –– SIDEBAR

Here are some of the MRC’s anecdotes to verify Peter’s bias.

“Tonight we have put the best child care system in the world on the American Agenda. That is to say, the system which is acknowledged to be the best outside the home. It’s in Sweden. The Swedish system is run and paid for by the Swedish government, something many Americans would like to see the U.S. government do as well.”
— World News Tonight, November 22, 1989.

“The person we have chosen this week has continued his life with distinction, considerable grace, and with a very strong commitment to peace and justice....In the public’s mind, the scales were never balanced. [Former President Jimmy] Carter’s success in foreign affairs — peace between Egypt and Israel, renewed respect for the United States in Latin America — have always been outweighed in the public mind by the hostage crisis.”
— World News Tonight’s “Person of the Week,” May 12, 1989

“Medical care was once for the privileged few. Today it is available to every Cuban and it is free. Some of Cuba’s health care is world class. In heart disease, for example, in brain surgery. Health and education are the revolution’s great success stories.”
— World News Tonight, April 3, 1989.

“When you get close to the poor, you recognize right away that very often the level of assistance which they get from government doesn’t lift them up to the legal poverty line, let alone above it, which seems to say your congressmen and your state legislators have failed to recognize that children and families in poverty are a national disaster.”
— World News Tonight, June 20, 1991.

“Well, it helps to know this about a flat tax. It’s a very radical notion, and it’s not nearly so simple as it sounds....It is supposed to encourage savings and investment because profits would be tax-free. But will plumbers be hurt more than plutocrats?... Certainly the rich would do better than the middle class....No Western country has ever tried to make such a seismic shift. How big will a flat tax need to be to raise the money which the government needs to run the country?”
— World News Tonight, January 15, 1996

“Finally this evening, part history and part myth. It was 50 years ago this week that the People’s Republic of China came into being, Mao Tse-Tung its founding father. China’s going all out to celebrate the triumphs of the communist revolution and ignore its failures. And all the ceremony will also ignore the fact that China, today, is hardly a communist country.”
— World News Tonight, September 29, 1999.

“In Miami today, immigration officials met with the Miami relatives of Elian Gonzalez again, and once again the government has failed to get the kind of cooperation from the relatives that might allow the case of this young boy to end in a civilized manner that is best for him.”
— World News Tonight, March 28, 2000.

“By the way, ‘No blood for oil,’ from many people who are opposed to the war is, is not complicated at all. They believe the United States wishes to occupy Iraq in the long term to have the oil. Just so we understand why they wear those little buttons, ‘No blood for oil.’”
— World News Tonight, March 20, 2003.

That Hillary Book
Her Past––Our Future

By Sara Pentz

The truth about reading the book, “The Truth About Hillary,” by Edward Klein, is that one can see with crystal clarity the duplicitous nature of this woman––a person who would do anything to gain power and then use that power to promote her dangerous socialist ideas. The entire tenor of the 305–page book is vastly unsettling precisely because it exposes the New York senator in anecdotes, stories, quotes from associates who knew her, and highly researched documentation––all revealing her repeatedly as ruthlessly ambitious. The book demonstrates that this is a woman who would stop at nothing to claim a second Clinton administration––with her as president.

Klein wrote this book to expose Hillary Clinton. It was his intention and his warning to us. He claims to be an Independent…but he also talks about “how Hillary made him a Republican.”

The book is a must–read for everyone who cherishes the presidency of the United States. If we are to maintain the basic principles upon which this country was founded, we must understand her philosophy; her motives and behavior; her danger and her intentions to rule on our future. In fact, there are some who predict that the woman is on a fast track race to become Queen Hillary.

About The Book

Author Ed Klein explores and documents Senator Clinton’s contradictions and deceptions. He produces secret documents and stunning evidence from sources close to Hillary to demonstrate just how much she has been willing to lie, bully, cheat, deceive and manipulate people in her quest for power. He He writes that she reveals a pattern of chronic bad behavior during decades of efforts to become America’s first woman president––no matter what the cost.

“The Truth About Hillary” contains accounts of key moments in Hillary’s private and political life, giving readers a rare opportunity to assess the true character behind her public mask. Klein addresses such issues in the book as: How the culture of lesbianism at Wellesley College shaped Hillary’s politics. How she covered up the political scandals of John Kennedy’s presidency. How she acted as a secret partisan agent for Ted Kennedy during the Nixon impeachment. How her image makeover as a moderate senator is a sham.

Klein's book shows Hillary's mindset since she was a little girl growing up in Park Ridge, Ill. “She actually believes she is entitled to become president,” he writes. “The only way she could be denied would be through some kind of fraud or chicanery. It's truly frightening to think someone like this could actually achieve her megalomaniacal ambitions in America today.”

The Author Speaks

Edward Klein is a journalist and the author of “The Kennedy Curse,” “Farewell, Jackie,” and several other New York Times bestsellers. He is former editor of the New York Times Magazine and former top editor at Newsweek. He was a media favorite until this biography.

In a lengthy interview with National Review Online, Klein offered these comments about his book.

“I interviewed nearly 100 people who know Hillary, including classmates from high school, college, and law school; Democratic activists and party officials; White House support staff, speechwriters, and military aides; Cabinet officers, senators and congressmen; and other intimates of the Clintons. I have had more than 40 years of experience as a serious journalist dealing with sources, both Left and Right, on and off the record. And while writing “The Truth About Hillary,” I scrupulously checked all my sources for fairness and accuracy.

Hillary is not a victim (not of sexism, not of her husband, and certainly not of this book); she’s not a moderate (despite her effort to re-brand herself in the Senate). Even my sources on the Left admit she’s positioning herself as a victim and moderate in order to win the White House.

Hillary acts as though she is chosen by God, and that gives her the right to use any means to justify her ends. If she becomes president, it’s going to be deja Clinton all over again.

Hillary has tried to position herself as a moderate. But she has been a woman of the ultra-Left ever since she entered Wellesley College 40 years ago this year. She’s been consistently anti-military (despite her recent votes) and pro-nationalized health care.”

Klein has 30 pages of notes at the end of his book documenting his information. His index includes eight pages of references to people quoted and topics included in the book.

His Jihad Muggers

Even prior to the publication of the book, the Liberal media were gearing up to smear the author and the book. Calling Klein’s material salacious, this cabal of leftist journalists and commentators attempted to paint Klein as an incompetent who deals in gossip, inaccuracies, rumor and innuendo. It’s called smearing the opposition.

They have collectively pounced on the only aspect of the book that could cause Klein some harm. The work is not an intellectual treatise. In fact, Klein is not an intellectual writer; he is a journalist used to writing for the masses. His format is simple and clear, more like an extended in–depth magazine article. The Liberals––always looking for dirt to soil their opponents––are creating a non–issue in an attempt to deflect the content and real message of Klein’s book from being known. It is a cover–up doomed to failure.

Fox news commentator Bill O'Reilly refers to The New York Times’ vitriolic attacks on Klein as a ‘jihad.' He has said that he has little doubt the New York Times is out to destroy author Edward Klein. Leftist political commentator Sidney Blumenthal described Klein's book as a "wretched little piece of sewage." Insightful, isn’t he? He stoops to attack because he cannot destroy the facts. That’s only one of the attacks made by one of The Times favorite commentators. Brent Bozell, founder and president of the Media Research Center, points out that the media has imposed a virtual boycott on coverage of the book. "Ed Klein is persona non grata," he says.

At the heart of the mire is the accusation that Klein used anonymous sources, misrepresented the facts and only regurgitated information that was already known. Yes, in fact, Klein did use unnamed sources…in exactly the same way that Woodward and Bernstein did in their articles for The Washington Post in the early ‘70s about the Watergate break–in. It would have been better if Klein had named all of his sources, but sometimes people are too frightened to go on the record. But he also quoted many sources directly and annotates them in the index . No, Klein did not misrepresent the facts––no matter how many times his detractors try to demonstrate that he did. And, yes, he did use––in a few cases––material that had already been known––but mostly only to Washington insiders. He put all that known material in perspective in an easy to read overview of Hillary Clinton.

The Content

Klein writes that just a year out of law school, Hillary Clinton got an expert education in the political art of damage control working for the House Watergate Committee, where her job was to keep President Nixon's lawyers from introducing even worse abuses of power committed by President Kennedy.

“Hillary Diane Rodham was assigned to come up with regulations that the
president and his lawyers could not cross-examine any witnesses, thereby stopping Nixon from proving that whatever abuses he did were no worse than JFK's."

House Watergate Committee counsel John Doar - a Kennedy ally - put Hillary in charge of a group of historians who were researching the protocols of impeachment to see whether any previous president had committed worse crimes than Nixon.

"In fact, they found that [past presidents] had. And Hillary was ordered to suppress that report." What had JFK done that was worse than Watergate? "Kennedy had used the assassination of foreign leaders as an instrument of foreign policy. Doar ordered Hillary to deep-six her report, to "lock it in a safe and never show anybody, including the chairman of the judiciary committee in the House," whom Doar was supposed to be working for.

As with extraneous evidence uncovered by her husband's impeachment probers 24 years later, Hillary's report on the crimes of the Kennedy administration was ordered sealed for 50 years until 2024.”

Klein devotes a huge chunk of his book to disproving Hillary’s assertions of what she knew about Bill’s plentiful affairs over the years and when she knew about Monica Lewinsky. Here’s how Klein puts it:

“In her memoir Living History…Hillary wrote that on the morning of August 15 [1998], her husband woke her up and “told me for the first time that there had been an inappropriate intimacy” with Monica Lewinsky. “I could hardly breathe,” she wrote. “Gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him.”

But her version of events was not credible. Months before, Hillary had taken charge of the White House’s damage-control operations. She ran the meetings that prepped Bill Clinton for his grand jury testimony. She asked Robert Shrum, the highly regarded Democratic wordsmith, to write a mea culpa speech for the President to deliver on national television. She then vetoed Shrum’s speech, because she found it too conciliatory, and instead urged her husband to “come out and hammer Ken Starr.”

She saw the headline in The New York Times of August 13 — two days before her husband’s alleged bedside confession to her about Monica — that said: PRESIDENT WEIGHS ADMITTING HE HAD SEXUAL CONTACTS.

The fact of the matter was, Hillary knew everything — and she knew of it before anybody else.”

Early in the book Klein says: “All presidents live inside a bubble, but Hillary's bubble was unique, because it was designed to conceal her moral imperfections… Hillary’s bubble was an effective political tool. It camouflaged the moral decay in the Clinton White House...”

Hillary, charges Klein, has a flagrant disregard for the law. As for Hillary’s crony Vince Foster, Klein says: “As the person she trusted most in the world, Hillary often assigned Vince the sensitive task of cleaning up the political messes created by her careless and corrupt husband.” ”Vince fell into a suicidal depression once he realized that Hillary, as first lady, could no longer be his intimate friend, and that he, in turn, could no longer protect her from scandal and her flagrant disregard for the law.”

Klein quotes conservative columnist/author Barbara Olson: “Hillary learned about private investigators in her work (while at Yale Law School) on behalf of the Black Panthers and the Communist apologists Robert Treuhaft and Jessica Mitford.” Adds Olson, “If Hillary gets elected, not only will we once again have the advice of the smartest politician in the party––Bill Clinton––but Harold Ickes, Susan Thomases, James Carville, Stan Greenberg, and Mandy Grunwald.” “The culture of concealment and deception that had infected the American presidency during the years of Bill Clinton's administration would be back in full swing." Ickes, Thomases, Carville, Greenberg, and Grunwald are behind–the–scenes leftist operatives in the Democrat Party, known elitists who slither and slink to influence a desired outcome.

Supportive Documentation

The book “Hillary Clinton and the Racial Left” by conservative commentator David Horowitz is a brilliant analysis of Hillary’s mindset. The author is editor-in-chief of FrontPagemag.com and president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. In this excerpt from his book, he writes about former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan’s description of Hillary in her book “The Case Against Hillary Clinton.”

"In their way of thinking," Noonan observes of the Clintons, "America is an important place, but not a thing of primary importance. America is the platform for the Clintons' ambitions, not the focus of them.”

They have "behaved as though they are justified in using any tactic in pursuit of their goals including illegality, deception, libel, threats and ruining the lives of perceived enemies . . .”

“They believe… they are justified in using any means to achieve their ends for a simple and uncomplicated reason. It is that they are superior individuals whose gifts and backgrounds entitle them to leadership.”

“Peggy Noonan is right explains Horowitz. The focus of Hillary Clinton's ambition is not her country. But it is not just herself either. It is also a place that does not exist. It is the vision of a world that can only be achieved when the Chosen accumulate enough power to change this one.”

“Hillary (and Bill) Clinton…see themselves as having the power to redeem the world from evil. It is that terrifyingly exalted ambition that fuels their spiritual arrogance and justifies their sordid and, if necessary, criminal means.”

Hillary’s Makeover

In late May 1995, NewsMax.com and the Associated Press reported the following (in italics). This article chronicles the woman’s intentions and demonstrates her two–faced, double–dealing nature. It is worth dissecting this one report in order to understand her presidential intentions.

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is cementing her ties to moderate voters, reaching out to centrists that some of her backers argue Clinton never really abandoned.

FACT: Hillary is basically a socialist in favor of big government and an increased welfare state. She is not, never has been, and never will be a so–called moderate––whatever that means.

Activists gathered for the meeting were talking tough on fighting terrorism, calling for a larger Army...

FACT: Hillary has consistently been an anti–war agent in favor of disarmament. She lobbied desperately to become a member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee only to ‘show off’ her so–called patriotism, supporting the troops––but not the war. It is a double standard that does not hold up to scrutiny. It is a shallow attempt to be on the ‘right’ side of every issue––it demonstrates her deceit and rush for political gain.

In January she used an appearance before abortion-rights advocates to call for "common ground" on the issue.

FACT: Hillary is a pro–abortion rights activist and could or would never side with the pro–life advocates. Calling for a ‘common ground’ is a meaningless statement designed to give the appearance that she is soft on abortion. It is a gimmick that will backfire when she is pressed to explain…if and when the media decide they should ask her some straight questions.

In addition, Clinton joined with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to push for health care legislation like a single system for medical billing that all insurers and providers would use to save time and money.

FACT: Hillary used once–respected Republican Gingrich to advocate national health care under the guise of saving time and money. It is the first step toward her goal of nationalizing health care. Gingrich’s motives for appearing with her on stage give rise to his own political ambitions.

Clinton has also taken a tough stand against violence in video games and on television, and against illegal immigration.

FACT: Hillary rides every popular cultural malady to demonstrate her concern––it is a ploy. She has said she is against illegal immigration at the same time she is for the rights of non–citizens––it demonstrates her dishonesty. It makes sense. She is currying votes. To curry favor: To seek or gain favor by fawning or flattery.

The Good News

Ed Klein’s book is hitting its target with a greater effect than the liberal/socialists who support Hillary Clinton could have imagined. Despite the refusal of the morning and late night talk shows and others to interview him––his book has remained on the New York Times bestseller list for seven weeks as of August 7, 2005. The liberals are in denial––par for the course for them on issues with which they disagree. They keep saying no one is reading the book. The fact is "The Truth About Hillary" is a smashing success.

Furthermore, the book debuted the week of July 11, 2005, on the Publisher's Weekly best-seller list in the No. 4 slot. Now that must give the Liberal literary elitists a serious heart attack. In addition, The Times has refused to review Klein’s book. It must be galling for the editors to know that despite their attempts to deny access to the book, it remains on their printed list, and was authored by a former ‘member of the clan.’

"My book's staying power on The Times list is testimony to the power of the Internet and conservative talk radio," Klein told NewsMax. "The mainstream liberal media no longer have a monopoly on what's news and what isn't, and that's a healthy thing for America."

Edward Klein’s book about Hillary has had a far greater impact on our world then merely as an exposé of this would–be political despot. It has demonstrated the ever–widening crack in the Liberal/leftist/socialist control over America’s past and future. Peek inside and you’ll see the tyrannical values these people are selling. It seems we are beginning to do so. The next step is for us to reject them.

###

The Manifest Destiny of President George W. Bush

A Worldwide Freedom Fighter Reversing a Pattern of Military Compromise – Guided by Principle

By Sara Pentz

In 1845, John O'Sullivan, editor of the influential publication, Democratic Review, coined the phrase Manifest Destiny to describe this vision of a United States stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The phrase was used at that time to explain a revitalized sense of ‘mission’ or a national destiny for Americans. It was our destiny, Sullivan wrote, to spread the idea of freedom and, therefore, take the opportunities made from that freedom to increase one’s wealth, self-sufficiency and self-advancement.

One hundred sixty years later, President George W. Bush has taken the soul of that document and made it a reality. He has led the world in the spread of freedom to Afghanistan, Iraq, and now into an emerging democracy in the Middle East. It is a tribute to his understanding of justice and liberty that he understands that sacred document and has made it his own.

In his January 20, 2005 inaugural address, President Bush spoke to this issue:

“The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value…. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.

So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

Of course, it is critical to understand that President Bush believed, based on intelligence sources, that there were weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussain possessed. His decision was based on that premise.

Many attribute the early successes of his secondary mission into Iraq to the principled leadership of President Ronald Reagan in the l980s or to the success of Newt Gingrich’s ‘Contract with America’ in the l990s. Certainly, by standing steadfastly for democracy, freedom and the rights of man, President Reagan was instrumental in the demise of communism in the Soviet Union. That achievement opened much of Eastern Europe to freedom––making possible the right to own property and speak freely––each concept today’s political leftists loath.

Mr. Gingrich led the Republican House of Representatives in a promise of fiscal responsibility, cuts in social spending, a focus on personal responsibility, legal reform, greater national security, and the so-called restoration of the ‘American Dream’ for the people of this nation. While not all of this has become a reality, at least, Mr. Gingrich brought the issues to the attention of an American public that––for the most part––longed for such reforms. More concepts loathed by political leftists.

In fact, these two leaders––Reagan and Gingrich––were simply advocating the principles of Ancient Greece, as outlined by Victor David Hanson in an April 2005 article published at National Review Online. Because, he writes, it was in Greece where economic freedom and consensual government had taken root. Freedom grew through the centuries wherever these concepts were alive. “The revolution that started in 1776, we sometimes forget,” explains Hanson, “was possible because of nearly two prior centuries of English relatively liberal colonial rule, under which small landowners and shopkeepers enjoyed property rights and participated in local councils despite a distant king.”

But more than anything, it was the concept of Manifest Destiny that confirmed the commitment by Mr. Bush to take the lead in opening new and dark frontiers to democracy. The Manifest Destiny document eloquently states the inherent right of man to spread the destiny of freedom around the world:

“It is so destined, because the principle upon which a nation is organized fixes its destiny, and that of equality is perfect, is universal.

…the self-evident dictates of morality…accurately define the duty of man to man, and consequently man's rights as man. Besides, the truthful annals of any nation furnish abundant evidence, that its happiness, its greatness, its duration, were always proportionate to the democratic equality in its system of government…

Yes, we are the nation of progress, of individual freedom, of universal enfranchisement. Equality of rights is the cynosure of our union of States, the grand exemplar of the correlative equality of individuals; and while truth sheds its effulgence, we cannot retrograde, without dissolving the one and subverting the other.”

No other leader in this country’s history has furthered the concept of Manifest Destiny than the 43^rd President. After September 11, 2001, in which terrorists from the Arab Middle East unilaterally and with no provocation attacked this country, it was incumbent upon President Bush to demonstrate with force that this county would not tolerate such an infringement upon the rights of man as the death and destruction caused by these horrendous attackers. It was his duty to defend America. There can be no disagreement about this fact. Even Democrats agree––reluctantly.

Mr. Bush, however, retaliated not so much for the sake of revenge as for the principle that freedom is the correct and only foundation for humanity. Retaliation to this initiation of force was our right. Mr. Hanson, a military historian and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, makes this clear in that same article:

“… the dilemma was an exclusively autocratic Arab Middle East. It was a mess where every bankrupt and murderous notion — Soviet-style Communism, crack-pot Baathism, radical pan-Arabism, lunatic Khadafism, "moderate" monarchy, old-style dictatorship, and eighth-century theocracy — had been tried and had failed, with terrible consequences well before September 11.

Only democracy was new. And only democracy — and its twin of open-market capitalism — offered any hope to end the plague of tribalism, gender apartheid, human-rights abuses, religious fanaticism, and patriarchy that so flourished within such closed societies.”

In a brilliant article by Jamie Glazov for FrontPageMagazine.com, April 8, 2005, Mr. Glazov outlines how President Bush differs from other leaders who throughout history were reluctant to fight inexorably for freedom:

“In the Vietnam War the United States had undertaken to support a dictatorship in South Vietnam on the grounds that the dictatorship was also anti-Communist, and therefore a lesser evil than a unified Communist Vietnam. Some on the left supported the Communist totalitarians. But many “New Leftists” were self-declared “anti-totalitarians” who believed that Communism was a flawed attempt to create just societies. Moreover, they did not believe that the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam was a Communist pawn (as it was) but a quasi independent socialist and/or nationalist force. Their argument for opposing the United States defense of the South Vietnamese regime was that a victory for the NLF would mean the emergence of an independent Vietnam committed to the principles of equality and justice. This was an incentive to see that America was defeated. And this indeed is the delusional vision that motivated people like Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda and other anti-war activists, who worked to cut off all aid to the regime in South Vietnam (and Cambodia as well) that was fighting for its life against the Communists.

But in Iraq, America did not set out to defend a dictatorship for whatever reasons. It set out to overthrow one. In Iraq the United States overthrew a monster regime, and liberated women and Iraq’s minorities -- and the left did everything in its power to prevent this. The practical actions of the left were to save the regime of Saddam Hussein. But what could saving Saddam Hussein mean but more corpses shoveled into mass graves, more human beings stuffed into plastic shredders, more terror for the Iraqi people, and further deferment of the rights of women and other minorities.

Even after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the left’s agendas were primarily to bring down the Bush Administration, not to help American forces to consolidate the peace or establish an Iraqi democratic state.”

Even in the Korean War politicians refused to allow a clear cut military victory over the North Korean and Chinese communists––a plan that would have overpowered the communists and ended in a victory. They chose to protect a corrupt regime in South Korea in the same way that those in political power supported the corrupt regime in South Vietnam. And by cooperating with corruption in both military instances, the concept of ‘winning’ a war––and ‘defeating’ dictators––was impossible. And the leftists won a political victory by default.

However, the leftists are not winning a philosophical battle in Iraq. Mr. Bush’s crystal clear goal to eradicate the horrors of Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq should be applauded––even if for solid reasons we do not agree with many of his other international, domestic, religious and political policies and practices. These flaws do not undermine his military successes and political courage.

Mr. Bush’s principled leadership in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan will not be lost in history––despite strident criticism from his enemies, name-calling by miscreants, shrill attacks by apologists, compromisers, bureaucratic career diplomats, politically motivated leftists, and the bashing diatribes of effete university and self-professed intellectuals who are bent on coloring future historical documents with the cloud of their partisanship.

For President Bush the commitment is to freedom and individual rights. These are the principles that are manifest in the victories of Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether there are confusions in other areas of his presidency or not, he deserves the kudos of his brethren––both friend and foe. Even now a very small number of his avowed enemies are coming forth with cautious acknowledgement of his successes––while eating lightly baked crow at the same time, most assuredly.

Leave it to a TV game show host to make the following point. Political commentator Pat Sajak has written an article for Human Events opining about a few prominent, decidedly leftwing pundits who are now beginning to accept Mr. Bush’s initial successes in the Middle East:

“It’s difficult to pin down the exact genesis of epochal world events such as the demise of The Soviet Union. It’s harder still to look at small, isolated events and accurately predict they will lead to major developments. But an extraordinary column by Martin Peretz, the Editor-in-Chief of The New Republic may be one of those small events which could lead to a major shift in American political discourse.

The New Republic is a Liberal magazine which has been tough on Conservatives in general and George W. Bush in particular. And, yet, here comes Mr. Peretz with an article for the April 11 issue of his magazine… in which he thoroughly and thoughtfully looks at events in the Middle East and judges them to be positive and, what’s more, gives full and ungrudging credit to President Bush.

At the same time he chides Democrats for their unrelenting negativity and suggests they had better stop ignoring the tides of history out of distaste for the President. (Indeed, the article is called The Politics of Churlishness.) As Mr. Peretz puts it, “If George W. Bush were to discover a cure for cancer, his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others.”

Martin Peretz is leading the pact toward an acknowledgement of President Bush’s successes in Iraq. Whether or not other Liberals and Democrats ever acknowledge what Mr. Peretz so boldly states is not the issue. They may be too steeped in their belief that America is wrong––no matter what. Despite all their anti-Bush speechifying, the rest of the country is acknowledging that this president is a freedom fighter––as he continues to draw his personalized map for manifest destiny throughout the world.

This article was written April 2005.

Term Limits to Quell Corrupt Career Politicians
Are They a Solution?

By Sara Pentz

When novelist Vince Flynn wrote his best-selling book “Term Limits” he captured the essence of one of the stickiest issues in the American electoral process. Essentially, his story centers around three powerful and unscrupulous politicians who are brutally murdered by a group of assassins in a new twist on the concept of term limits. A seemingly rogue band of US patriots threatens to take down the US government one politician at a time unless the government stops politics as usual.

Flynn’s solution is, naturally, dramatized in exaggerated fashion in order to make his point that without term limits politicians can become professionals without scruples, hopeless fools, power mongers and dangerous demagogues. His theme demonstrates the reality that much of the frustration with Washington politics today is the power elected officials hold without being obligated to the principles of limited government as outlined in the US Constitution.

Certainly, no one would call for Mr. Flynn’s chilling plot to become a reality, but it strikes a nerve that has been under discussion for many years. That there is waste and corruption at the highest levels of government; that politicians too often make and then break campaign promises for the expediency of reelection; that they often ignore moral principles; that they use relationships to advance their own agendas; that they spend the taxpayers money on programs that curry special-interest favor; that they certainly ignore the mandate of the US Constitution about a limited government; and that there are gross inconsistencies in the politics exhibited by many of them.

Many blame a system that - they say - has no way to stop the bloating of government by these elected officials who have become obligated to the special interests that make possible their continued election to Congress. And so they opt for term limits.

One example of the enormous betrayal by politicians is the behavior of Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay who has been embroiled in accusations left and right about his ethics, and his use of power and money to influence. In a Wall Street Journal Online article, March 28, 2005, the editors write about this.

“By now you have surely read about House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ethics

troubles. Probably, too, you aren't entirely clear as to what those troubles are--something to do with questionable junkets, Indian casino money, funny business on the House Ethics Committee, stuff down in Texas.”

In summary, Mr. Delay has allegedly endorsed candidates providing they vote his way. He has participated in junkets allegedly violating House rules about who pays for such expenses. And he is battling the Democrat Texas Attorney General regarding some campaign finance issues and indictments of his associates - although, take note, the Attorney General is a Democrat who has an ongoing battle with Sen. DeLay.

The Wall Street Journals editors write:

“Taken separately, and on present evidence, none of the latest charges directly touch Mr. DeLay; at worst, they paint a picture of a man who makes enemies by playing political hardball and loses admirers by resorting to politics-as-usual.”

“The problem… is that Mr. DeLay, who rode to power in 1994 on a wave of

revulsion at the everyday ways of big government, has become the living exemplar of some of its worst habits.”

“Whether Mr. DeLay violated the small print of House Ethics or campaign-finance rules is thus largely beside the point. His real fault lies in betraying the broader set of principles that brought him into office, and which, if he continues as before, sooner or later will sweep him out.”

Term Limits or Not

Some 22 states have adopted term limits. US Senators and members of the House of Representatives do not have term limits, while the President of the United States does. The US Constitution does not call for term limits, in part, because the authors, those gentlemen who had left behind government tyrannies, could not fathom the idea of a career politician. They opted for what they called rotation in the service of government. It was a gentleman’s agreement.

Those who favor term limits believe that restricting congressional terms would create more competitive elections and increase the diversity of those who are elected. They believe that so-called fresh blood would enliven and even shake up the bureaucracies of a bloated government structure. Most important, they maintain, term limits would end politics as a career goal.

The question remains for those who believe in term limits: Why would any newly elected novice, by virtue of his ‘newness,’ be any more or less intelligent or courageous than an incumbent in addressing such problems as protecting individual rights and property ownership? These are matters of principle that are stuck hard and fast into the structure of the Constitution upon which our government is based.

Those not in favor of term limits say such a law would force many good men out of office solely because of their longevity. These men are thought to be wise to the workings of government and understanding of the processes. Novices to elected offices, they say, are generally less informed. They would push to reinstitute the idea of citizen-legislators who would come to and go from the seat of government voluntarily. They also contend that free elections are the better way to rid Congress of ineffective and immoral politicians. And that to force an elected official out of office based on an artificial standard (of four or six years) is to eliminate free choice by the citizens who elected him.

Of course, this philosophy means that some people will choose a politician to return to Washington whom others think should not be reelected. But that’s the consequence of free choice - another principle upon which our country was founded.

The actual issue at the heart of the squabble over term limits is that the purpose of government has been lost in the squishy redefinition of the institution. Truth be said that many elected officials, today, no longer share the core values of our Founding Fathers; those of honesty, integrity, pride, responsibility, dignity, honor, justice, truth and patriotism. Furthermore, they are no longer guided by the principles of life, liberty, economic freedom and the pursuit of happiness as outlined in the US Constitution.

At the heart of this is the question: Is the purpose of government to be a caretaker or is the purpose to protect our rights as citizens? There is no doubt that the question is at odds in the halls of Congress.

The fundamental issue, of course, is whether one should accept the Constitution as a valid document or allow men to rewrite it over time according to their political interpretations, and the whims and uncertainties of the moment. The answer would seem self-evident if it weren’t for the erratic behavior of so many politicians in Washington.

A Minor Miracle

On March 17, 2005, an editorial in The Wall Street Journal Online, referencing the 2006 budget process in Congress, made note of an unusual occurrence in the House of Representatives that may shed some light on the issue of term limits and the rotation of gentlemen politicians.

The article explains that the current Congressional budget process was designed by Democrats…expressly to disguise how much Congress spends.

“An annual budget resolution is passed each spring but it lacks the force of law and the Members routinely exceed it when they pass individual spending bills.”

“Republicans deplored all of this when they were in the minority, and "budget process reform" was a rallying cry through the 1980s. But now that they're running the asylum, they don't want spending accountability either. Last year they exceeded their budget limit by $500 million, and the leadership bitterly fought any reform.”

“Mark it down as a minor miracle: Congress has finally agreed to a little enforcement discipline against runaway spending, thanks to a band of Republican House Members who stared down their leadership.”

“They wanted some guarantee that the spending limits they approve at the beginning of the year -- which are announced with great fanfare -- will be enforced at the end when fewer Americans are watching.”

These 25 Republicans are young conservative backbenchers who have less power than other representatives. They are generally newly elected and thus are not thought to be knowledgeable players. But in this particular case they stood nose to nose with their ‘elders’ and their ‘elders’ blinked. They actually demanded that members of their own party, i.e., other Republicans, should mean what they say when they pass a budget. Said one young leader: "This is precisely the time to institutionalize the discipline that they have only begun to practice."

It was a courageous encounter. And it might just be the first clear demonstration that new blood in Congress could stem the tide of those who dictate - according to their own political prejudices - the law, the battles and the ideology of the country.

But more important than their high noon victory, these young Republicans are conservatives who, for the most part, stand for stopping a special interest-controlled Congress. And if they are encouraged by their successes, and they continue to be strong and determined, the future of politics may focus once again on principles rather than politics -- and term limits will not be necessary.

Clarifying The Geneva Conventions
Torture, As An Issue of Politics

By Sara Pentz

There has been much said in the past few weeks—and for several years before that—about the roll of torture in modern day warfare. This issue was publicly resurrected in the January 2005 Senate confirmation hearings for Albert Gonzales as President George W. Bush’s nominee for attorney general. It was clear from the beginning that Senate Democrats planed to turn the confirmation hearings into an attack on President Bush and his nominee. In fact, they were quite specific about their intentions even prior to the hearings—as was reported in some of the media.

It was the liberal Democrats’ political agenda to allege that President Bush conspired with his former legal counsel, Mr. Gonzales, to rewrite the Geneva Contentions—a document adopted in August 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War. Their intent was to attack both the President and Mr. Gonzales for trying to clarify the concept of torture as defined in The Conventions.

For their purposes the Democrats consider the Geneva Conventions sacrosanct and tamper-proof. While, ironically, they do not consider the Constitution of the United States as such. Nevertheless, they took this stand because they were determined to slur the character of Mr. Gonzoles and President Bush. This and this alone constituted their goals and tactics throughout the hearings.

The Democrats focused on two memos written by Mr. Gonzales each of which sought to clarify the Conventions’ concept of prisoner interrogation with regard to the changing modes of contemporary warfare. One memo written by Gonzales in January 2002 asserted that terrorists captured overseas by Americans do not merit the protections of the Geneva Conventions. The other, addressed to him in August 2002, argued for a more narrow definition of torture as "excruciating and agonizing pain."

Henry Mark Holzer, a constitutional and appellate lawyer, and Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn Law School, www.henrymarkholzer.com, addresses this subject in his recent article “In Defense of Torture.” Observe his reasoning:

Some of the commentators, in their analysis and discussion of the phenomenon of torture, admit being deeply troubled by how a democracy deals with the question of torture generally, let alone in the extreme example of the so-called “ticking time bomb” situation.

Until recently the question was hypothetical. It no longer is. There are variations on the ticking time bomb situation, but the essence is in this plausible scenario: A known terrorist in FBI custody, whose information is credible, won’t disclose where in Washington, DC, he has secreted a “weapon of mass destruction” – a nuclear bomb – set to detonate in two hours. The Bureau is certain that the terrorist will never voluntarily reveal the bomb’s location. In two hours our nation’s capital could be wiped from the face of the earth, our government decimated, surrounding areas irredeemably contaminated, and the United States laid defenseless to unimaginable predation by our enemies.

What to do?

Accepting these facts for the sake of argument, we have only two choices. Do nothing, and suffer the unimaginable consequences, or torture the information out of the terrorist.

There are many people among us – Jimmy Carter-like pacifists and Ramsey Clark-type America haters come to mind – who would probably stand by idly and endure an atomic holocaust. But most people would doubtless opt for torture, albeit reluctantly. These realists would be correct. They would be entitled to be free of even a scintilla of moral guilt, because torture – of whatever kind, and no matter how brutal – in defense of legitimate self-preservation is not only not immoral, it is a moral imperative. (Emphasis added)

In this last sentence, Mr. Holzer, speaks to the justification for torture as used in a war setting. His examination of the issue is thorough, logical, legally documented and perfectly crafted.

The Democrat’s Real Purpose

The Democrats used smear tactics to create the big lie about Mr. Gonzalez’s motives, actions and behavior. They sought to divert attention from the real issue—the necessity of reexamining the morality of torture. They hoped to profit from these tactics. They wanted to increase their political currency and decrease the good will of Mr. Gonzales and President Bush. But, this kind of twisted political maneuvering did not work because Mr. Gonzales was confirmed as Attorney General on February 3, 2005. In fact, it was openly stated that his confirmation was assured prior to the hearings. Clearly the hearings were prolonged as a disguise for attacking the President.

Liberals use these tactics whenever they can, no matter what the context, in order to punish Mr. Bush and whomever he nominates for a position in the government—even when those nominated are imminently qualified beyond question.

Witness the harangue they generated throughout the confirmation hearings for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who was vilified for her so-called false reasoning involving the U.S. in the Iraq. Her patriotism, her judgment, her loyalty, her intellect were all attacked with impunity. It was a sordid circus. This behavior from less than honorable, politically partisan people like Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Senator John Kerry, defeated presidential candidate, and Sen. Ted Kennedy, was shameful. Their defamatory wailings do not sit well in the once revered institution of the United State Senate. They only do damage to themselves.

When we evaluate the actions and behavior of people we must look at the motives, as best we can determine them. When the motives seem unclear or confusing we can look outside the circumstances to a broader cause or reason. It is always circumspect when people scream, call others nasty names, change the subject, use flawed logic or run away from the issue. That’s when we must question their motives. If these same people refuse to discuss logically the reason for their ideas, thoughts, values, behavior and actions, it is time to stop talking to them.

Why is it Important to reevaluate The Geneva Conventions?

The Geneva Conventions document was written specifically to address the issue of prisoners of war and their status in a conventional war. It was a civilized and appropriate document for its time. However, it applied only to conventional warfare in which armies were dressed in military uniforms and fought in the open—one side against another in a declared war.

The Iraqi war has changed the way men of opposite ideas fight each other. The terrorists’ purpose is to deliberately kill civilians and cause havoc. The terrorist does not value life in principle. The sole intent of these terrorists is to wipe out the American way of life. Their purpose is to destroy democracy and freedom—the foundations of a civilized life. Human life is not sacrosanct for them—anyone’s life, the enemy’s or even their own.

We act on the principle that even the terrorists have a right to live a life of their choosing. We do not force people to behave contrary to their wishes. We are fighting in Iraq for everyone’s freedom. The terrorists are fighting to deny freedom to all.

The Geneva Conventions must be clarified to define terrorists outside the concept of prisoner of war protection. We must re-codify in what way terrorists can be held incommunicado and how they can be tortured during interrogation. The Conventions must include some carefully written steps that would legally and morally allow men of honor to obtain information that will protect us from the chaos inflicted by terrorists. As Mr. Holzer clearly states: “…(torture) in defense of legitimate self-preservation … is a moral imperative.”

This is the kind of morality to which noble men aspire. The next time you see the mutilated body of an 18 year-old U.S. Marine carried to his grave—the victim of a terrorist bomb—or watch his parents weep at his coffin, think carefully about whether you want these terrorist sipping tea at Guantanamo after a nap in the sun—while plotting the ruination for the rest of the world.

The article was written February 4, 2005.

The Mechanics of The Media
Our Responsibility To Question and Object

By Sara Pentz

“Maureen Dowd at the New York Times opines, "when you combine limited government with incompetent government, lethal stuff happens."

The Washington Post's Harold Meyerson belches, "more than anything else," it is the president's "economic libertarianism . . . that has transformed a great city into an immense morgue."”

Will Wilkinson, The Cato Institute

Mr. Wilkinson identifies these remarks as leftist diatribes. He understands the need to point the finger at those in the media who have a Liberal mantra they sing like an atonal refrain. That kind of journalism from the two largest newspapers in the country is disgraceful. It is stacked with loaded words––phrases that can only be called propaganda.

While it is inappropriate to call for censorship of this kind of journalism, it is critical for readers to name it as editorializing. It is not news reporting. That’s the distinction.

While it is your choice to read these writers, the consequences will be left wing indoctrination. If you do not want to be blinded by Liberal rhetoric you need to ask and answer the kinds of questions that allow you to understand how the elitist media is manipulating the news.

There are certain rules in journalism that mandates the writing of news. These rules are being flagrantly disregarded. It’s time that is changed.

Let the Public Beware

The media brainwashing machine is so much a part of the elitist media that most people do not know they are being feed propaganda. Even if they did recognize the bias, they do not know where or how to find a rebuttal. It takes a massive amount of research and a major allegiance to truth, to identify what and how this media machine automatically feeds us biased news.

There are many ways to get to the facts of the news. The most important way is to know that the major media outlets are manipulating information. If you understand this premise, it is incumbent upon you to find a way to refute the assertions and premises that are part and parcel of today’s news reports.

One way to do this is to search through the Internet where there are multitudes of places to find alternative options to left wing bias. By the way, this is one of the reasons bureaucrats want to hobble and tax the Internet. Another, of course, is slapping a tax on this new technology to raise more money for government projects.

Observe the collectivist countries that do not allow their citizens free access to the Internet––China, Iran, etc. Exam their fear of this tool. Ask why some journalists who are faced with transgressions call Internet bloggers derogatory names such as––pajama clad (fill in the blank)––see Dan Rather, formerly anchor of CBS News. It was just such bloggers who searched for the truth, found it and revealed the facts of Rather’s forgery fraud. It was they who caused the ruination of Rather.

Furthermore, it is precisely the bloggers on the Internet who have set the scene for challenges to misinformation. They dig for the facts and come up with scoops the elitist print and network media do not choose to report––or even identify as news. These bloggers have caught politicians in contradictions (see Hillary Clinton on immigration), exposed and uncovered liars, cheats and disreputable men. They are the budding journalists of the 21^st Century. Go to the Internet for information you will never find on the nightly news.

Here are some places to venture: www.mediaresearch.org, www.freemarketproject.org, www.capmag.com, www.honestreporting.com, http://frontpagemag.com, http://nationalreview.com, www.weeklystandard.com, www.hermancain.com, www.theconservativevoice.com, and www.fed-soc.org, to name only a few. There are scores more. At any one of these websites one can find another facts that contradict the left wing media.

One of the most visited websites is The Drudge Report. Here you can find news stories and writers who represent all aspects of our society. A recent story reported by Matt Drudge is one very good example why Americans interested in fact–based news turn to the Internet.

CNN PRODUCERS TOLD ON-AIR GUESTS: GET ANGRY
Mon Sep 12 2005 12:42:11 ET www.drudgereport.com

“After weeks of intense Katrina coverage from the main press, LA TIMES guru and former CNN host Michael Kinsley divulges that CNN was coaching guests to artificially enhance emotions!

“Kinsley writes: "The TV news networks, which only a few months ago were piously suppressing emotional fireworks by their pundits, are now piously encouraging their news anchors to break out of the emotional straitjackets and express outrage. A Los Angeles Times colleague of mine, appearing on CNN last week to talk about Katrina, was told by a producer to 'get angry.'"

If you find these unethical manipulations by CNN are shocking, you are naïve. I can personally attest to admonitions by a television news directors years ago, ‘get them to cry on camera, Sara.’ This is precisely the mind think of the mechanics that are in charge of the media today.

Identifying Media Mind Think

Take a look at your TV screen and watch the misfortunes of those who suffered from such disasters as Hurricane Katrina. Most sound bits featured them tearing–up or haranguing on camera. Of course, their pain was understandable. But where were the sound bites from people who weathered the storm with great heroism? What about those success stories? Surely these people are as much a part of the news story or those who suffered.

Those good news sound bites are not in evidence because most news producers think them boring or non–essential to the story. It is a mind think that is repulsive and lopsided. It is not the total news picture.

www.newsmax.com, a respected Internet magazine, recently reported an astonishing fact. Add this to your opinion of the mainstream media. This revealing report about how the NY Times fabricated news is worth reading in its entirety in order to understand the mechanics of the media.

Sunday, Sept. 25, 2005 10:45 a.m. EDT

NY Times Admits Fabricating News - Again

“The mainstream media's newspaper of record admitted late Saturday that one of its reporters fabricated part of a news story on Hurricane Katrina relief.

Saying his paper "flunked" the test of basic journalistic fairness, New York Times public editor Byron Calame said Alessandra Stanley's Sept. 5 report claiming that the Fox News Channel's Geraldo Rivera "nudged" an Air Force relief worker out of the way so he could film himself rescuing a Katrina victim had been made up out of whole cloth.

"Since Ms. Stanley based her comments on what she saw on the screen Sept. 4, the videotape of that segment means everyone involved is looking at exactly the same evidence," Calame noted.

"My viewings of the videotape - at least a dozen times, including one time frame by frame - simply doesn't show me any 'nudge' of any Air Force rescuer by Mr. Rivera," the Times internal watchdog said, adding, "Ms. Stanley declined my invitation to watch the tape with me."

Times editor Bill Keller, however, is still standing by Ms. Stanley's bogus report. He told Calame that she was "writing as a critic, with the license that title brings - [and] was within bounds in her judgment."

"Ms. Stanley's point was that Mr. Rivera was show-boating - that he was being pushy, if not literally pushing - and I think an impartial viewer of the footage will see it that way," Keller insisted.

But Calame countered: "Ms. Stanley certainly would have been entitled to opine that Mr. Rivera's actions were showboating or pushy. But a 'nudge' is a fact, not an opinion. And even critics need to keep facts distinct from opinions."

Stanley's bogus report continues a pattern at the Old Gray Lady of making up the news.

Two weeks ago, columnist Paul Krugman was forced to admit that he falsely claimed media recounts in Florida showed Al Gore winning the 2000 presidential election.

In August, a Times profile of Hillary Clinton changed a quote first reported by NewsMax where Clinton said she was "adamantly opposed to illegal immigrants." In the toned down Times version, Clinton's opposition was to "illegal immigration" rather than the immigrants themselves.”

Notice that when The Times’ own public editor, the internal Times watchdog, identified the forgeries, The Times editor refused to admit the sham. In the face of the facts, the editor arbitrarily changed Ms. Stanley’s status as journalist from news reporter to critic––after the publication of her story. The dishonesty of this act is undeniable. And, the very act identifies him as a newsman with no respect for facts. It is a flagrant act of evasion of his duties as a chief journalist at ‘the most respected newspaper in the world’. He apparently feels that no one will notice. But we did.

Take note, this is not a one–time example of the left wing mainstream media. It is, in fact, the rule not the exception. And, it is our responsibility to make note and fight for truth in our media.

###