Views on the News
January 15, 2011
Views on the News*
The leftist predisposition towards irresponsibly blaming every act of violence with political connotations on the "climate of bigotry" created by right-wingers speaks volumes about the ideology of liberalism. After the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the murder and injury of several others, the liberal media commenced their annual "Let's Silence Conservatives" campaign. The deranged gunman, Jared Loughner, was deeply disturbed, not politically astute. Preposterously, liberal journalists decided to pen uninformed pieces attacking Sarah Palin as being responsible for the shooting due to the "assassination rhetoric" that she engaged in during the midterm election. Interesting enough Loughner has been found to be obsessed with Giffords since at least 2007, long before Sarah Palin was even introduced on the national stage, and the mainstream media is downplaying this fact. Incidentally there is not a shred of evidence that he ever listened to talk radio or was politically active which completely invalidates any accusations. At a time when people should be prayerfully considering the victims of the attack and having important debates about how politicians need to be protected from the few homicidal crazies in a country with hundreds of millions of people, liberals see nothing indecorous about instantaneously using the dead bodies of victims as expedient agitprop to silence the voices of their ideological opponents. Leftist conveniently forget that American political lexicon consists almost entirely of references to war:
· We talk about “battleground states” and “attacks,” “trenches,” “blitzes,” “war rooms,” “showdowns,” “target-rich environments” and “firestorms.”
· Even the word “campaign” is a term of warfare.
· We watch political television shows with names like “Crossfire,” “Frontline,” “Hardfire,” and “The Firing Line.”
· “The Situation Room” mildly implies warfare, whereas more direct references come in politics with candidates who “blast” one another, commit “political suicide,” and engage in the sort of “murder-suicide attacks” that make Kerry’s 2004 nomination possible.
· Every stump speech threatens violence in some subtle way, as when President Obama promised to “fight” 19 times in one speech, and as his remark from the 2008 campaign should suggest: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
The worst example of spinning this shooting for partisan advantage was, our delusional Secretary of State in Dubai, Hillary Clinton, equating this lone deranged gunman with the army of the Islamo-fascist terrorists in the Middle East. There are three fundamental points about liberalism that one can extrapolate from the liberal media's reaction to this tragedy:
· Firstly, that liberalism is a worldview that is devoid of rationality, impervious to facts, and operates with the assumption that truth is subjective.
· The second point about liberalism is that its core contains two things: trenchant hypocrisy and irrepressible intolerance.
· The last thing we learn about liberalism is that the insidious notion of collective culpability is an integral part of the ideology; the leftist "cult of collective culpability."
Liberals are known to project their own shortcomings onto their opponents to deflect their inadequacies, knowing full well that the mainstream media will rarely correct these inaccuracies once they are adequately vetted and found to be patently false. Also lost in this discussion is the fact that extremist leftists, such as the President’s neighbors and friends, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who as Weathermen proudly embraced violence and blew up police stations and recruiting stations. The mainstream media has lost credibility as a CBS News poll finds Americans strongly rejecting the notion that the political climate played a role in Saturday's shooting. President Obama delivered a powerful speech at the Tucson political rally / Astroturf memorial service, when he deftly told liberals: “Enough! The partisan blame game is unjustified by the facts and does a disservice to the victims.” Jared Lee Loughner is responsible for the killing, not the right wing, and to use this tragedy for political advantage is flagrantly irresponsible, but certainly not surprising!
(“Yglesias and Left smear Palin and Bachman in Giffords shooting” by John R. Guardiano dated January 8, 2011 published by The Daily Caller at http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/08/matthew-yglesias-disgustingly-and-inaccurately-tries-to-politicize-the-giffords-shooting/
“Murders, Lies, and Liberal Fantasies of Conservatives” by Chidike Okeem dated January 10, 2011 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/murders_lies_and_liberal_fanta.html
“Hillary Clinton’s Jared Loughner Illusions” dated January 12, 2011 published by Front Page Magazine at http://frontpagemag.com/2011/01/12/hillary-clinton%E2%80%99s-jared-loughner-illusions/ )
Democrats have never let facts interfere with their partisan narrative, and are quick to place blame as a tactic long employed to set the compliant media message. The Democrats and the Left have a long tradition of vile insinuation and slander:
· The Democrats blamed John Kennedy’s assassination on Right Wing Extremists - until they found out that Lee Harvey Oswald was a Marxist operative who supported Castro. Still, they persisted to blast the Right until they finally punted the football to weird folks (like Oliver Stone) who now like to blame the CIA.
· The Democrats blamed Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination on Right Wing Extremists - until the killer was identified as Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian Anti-Semite who hated RFK’s support of Israel.
· The Democrats blamed Martin Luther King’s assassination on Right Wing Extremists – until they discovered that James Earl Ray was a convicted felon who had twice escaped from prisons, who was also a white supremacist, who hated Blacks and saw MLK as a threat. It was proven Ray acted alone.
· The Democrats blamed John Lennon’s assassination on Right Wing Extremists – until they found that Mark David Chapman was a result of a disturbed and unbalanced mind.
In contrast the Republicans and the Right have not rushed to judgment, but instead waited until facts were known:
· When President Gerald Ford survived two separate assassination attempts in 1975 - there was no big rush to judgment by Republicans. First Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, a dangerous member from the Anarchist Manson Family and a part of the militant environmentalist movement, threatened Ford with a .45 caliber M1911 pistol. Seventeen days later, Sarah Jane Moore shot at Ford with an illegally procured firearm. There was no GOP clamor to blame Democrats or the Environmentalist Movement.
· When John Hinckley tried to kill President Ronald Reagan, there was no rush by the GOP to look for a Left-wing Conspiracy. Reagan recovered, but never sought extra measures to protect himself as a result of the attack, restrict free speech, or to limit gun rights.
After all of this tragedy in Tucson Arizona, you would think the Democrats would have the decency to shut up, let families bury their dead and focus on Representative Gifford’s and others’ recovery. Instead the Democrats persist in falsely comparing the Tea Party to terrorists. They continue to blame [with their very own hate-filled diatribes] Talk Radio, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly, and as a constant theme, they call for restrictions of Free Speech, and our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It is time for We the People to say, “Enough!” We have been assured by Liberals for years that choice is good. We have the choice to turn off TV, and to boycott bad films. Both are viable choices. One might also watch sports, or listen to Talk Radio instead, as many of us do. Maybe it is time for a bottoms-up approach to change, with each individual empowered to read what they want, watch what they want, and think what they want… without government interference or censorship.
(“Modern Liberalism’s Natural Consequences” by William R. Mann dated January 11, 2011 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/32038 )
Why does anyone continue to purchase and read the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time Magazine, and other mainstream publications which have replaced accurate reporting with faux news accounts rising to the level of outright lies? Why does anyone waste time watching "news" programs anchored and/or reported by the likes of Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Christiane Amanpour, and others on MSNBC, CNN, the BBC, and the like? Granted, the print publications to which I refer are all going bankrupt, and the cable news channels, along with their pathetic hosts, have the lowest ratings in cable television, but still why is there even a modicum of viewership that keeps these outlets on life support? What will it take for the "average" American to finally reach a breaking point with mainstream media outlets and simply say, "Enough! Report the news accurately in an unbiased fashion or I will terminate my subscription. Fire the sneering, lying ignoramuses over at MSNBC or I will no longer turn on any television show remotely associated with it, including NBC's network programming? The mainstream media reached a new low with their coverage of the Tucson shooting spree by a deranged "left-wing pothead." It seemed that with each attempted terrorist attack on our soil by a Muslim extremist, the journalistic community's refusal to call a spade a spade and identify and report to the public the reality of a very pervasive and genuine threat to national security was a symptom of political correctness run amok. However, the Arizona shooting proved that the real issue with news outlets is that their reporting is guided not by politically correct standards, but rather by biases so pervasive that there is no longer a moral compass involved in the reporting of world events. Editors and producers either do not care to or are no longer able to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, victim and attacker. While the political rhetoric from various politicians is disappointing and vile, we have sadly come to expect partisan politics from these individuals. What the public should not be subject to, however, is political spin from purportedly unbiased media outlets. Media reporting of news events across the globe are no longer reliable. Meanwhile I will keep waiting for Americans to finally take a stand and stop supporting the left-wing rags that have lost their moral compass and who, through their dishonesty, fail to show respect for our freedoms.
(“Separation of Journalism and Politics” by Lauri B. Regan dated January 11, 2011 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/separation_of_journalism_and_p.html )
Has America become the land of the double standard? We all support the Constitution, but only when it supports our political ideology; we still have freedom of speech, but only if we are being politically correct; if we lie to the Congress, it's a felony and if the Congress lies to us it’s just politics; if you protest against President Obama's policies you're a terrorist, but if you burned an American flag or George Bush in effigy it was your 1st Amendment right; if we dislike a black man, we're racist and if a black man dislikes whites, it’s their 1st Amendment right; parenting has been replaced with Ritalin and video games; in public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK, but you better not use the word God in the process; you can have pornography on TV or the internet, but you better not put a nativity scene in a public park during Christmas; you can kill an unborn child, but it is wrong to execute a mass murderer; we can use a human fetus for medical research, but it is wrong to use an animal; we don't burn books in America, we now rewrite them; the government spends millions to rehabilitate criminals and they do almost nothing for the victims; we have eliminated all criminals in America, they are now called sick people; the land of opportunity is now the land of hand outs; we take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't want to work; how do we handle a major crisis today: the government appoints a committee to determine who's at fault, then threatens them, passes a law, raises our taxes; and tells us the problem is solved so they can get back to their reelection campaign; we are unable to close our border with Mexico, but have no problem protecting the 38th parallel in Korea; and we got rid of communist and socialist threats by renaming them progressives. What has happened to the land of the free and home of the brave?
(“What has America become?” by Ken Huber dated http://www.usacarry.com/forums/politics/14344-what-has-america-become-ken-huber.html )
A “constitution” is a foundational, secular writ establishing the unchallengeable precepts which all other laws of the realm must follow, which in the case of America, our Constitution is an explicit statement of fundamental law, drawn from the Natural Law tradition. It asserts proper government is fundamentally circumscribed in scope and power. Our Constitution is such a covenant, outlining the structure of the government and the powers held therein. It is a claim of timeless truth for how properly to limit the might and authority of any one person or group, in a social compact, so as best to protect society as a whole, in this fallen world. Properly understood, an American suggesting the Constitution is not our unbreakable legal foundation is the biblical equivalent of turning the Ten Commandments into “Ten Suggestions.” It is a hallmark of Marxist ideology no law exists above human law (i.e. Natural Law). A disdain for the Constitution translates into a disdain for the limits of power. It is the ultimate warning sign of tyranny on the horizon. The comprehensive aim of the Constitution was to define the structure of government in order to maintain a balance between rights and responsibilities, powers and freedoms, and the branches of government and the people. The US Constitution cannot be “updated” because it is generally accurate, built from true facts about human nature and our universe, based on Natural Law logic. Proof of its veracity is demonstrated by its unmitigated success in building a better society for all persons. Further, to dismantle or ignore the Constitution means liberals cannot admit this is a uniquely good and effective political compact. The Constitution carries a world-view that presumes man has a sinful nature, cannot be perfected, and must not be given unchecked power. John Locke is the intellectual father of our Constitution and his writings distill civil religion, being timelessly true precepts about man and society drawn from various sources, but especially the Bible. America has the first written Constitution in history. The history of constitutionalism is prefaced by many sources, such as the unwritten constitutions of ancient Rome and England. The attack on the Constitution is an attack on law. The supreme law is what stands between those in power and the people, between the tyrant of the pen and the clerk of the chain, and the free man and woman who refuse to bow to government. The left accuses us of worshiping the Constitution, when it is they who demand that we bow at the altar of government and acknowledge the absolute wisdom of their haloed politicians. The Constitution is our sword and shield upraised against the tyranny of the powerful and the Constitution says that those who would make law should fear law, and it is those who would be tyrants who above all else want us to forget the law.
(“Zealots Against US Constitution & Free Speech Must be Shamed from Public Life” by Kelly O’Connell dated January 9, 2011 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/31939
“Who Needs the Constitution Anyway?” by Daniel Greenfield dated January 9, 2011 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/31942 )
No one is happy about our $14 trillion national debt and voter rebellion in November was driven largely by the perception of runaway spending and government expansion. The debt-ceiling vote isn’t about what will be done in the future; it is about the integrity of America’s commitment to support the bonds we issue. Both Standard & Poor's and Moody's Investors Service warned that U.S. debts are piling up so fast that our precious AAA rating is at risk, which will cause us to pay more to borrow money. Elected officials have an obligation to maintain that integrity, regardless of whether they voted for the programs that required the borrowing in the first place. A default would trigger panic selling, skyrocketing interest rates, and damage to our credit markets that would dwarf the crisis of 2008. Despite rhetoric about foreign ownership, the vast majority of Treasury bonds are held by American pensions, retirement plans, financial institutions, and local governments. President Obama as Senator voted against raising the limit once, and missed similar votes twice. The House used the “Gephardt rule’’ for years to avoid voting altogether; the ceiling was raised automatically when the budget conference report was approved. How many years in a row must the Congress raise the debt ceiling, yet never fallow through with spending cuts to avoid having to come again the next year with hat in hand? Unfortunately the 111th Congress never produced a budget or appropriations bills to fund the government last year, so the Gephardt rule was never executed. The only rational course now is to get the job done quickly and transparently, while making the best of a difficult situation:
· First, the floor debate should be used to explain why legislation to raise the limit is necessary. Over the long term, if we wish to avoid raising the limit, we can take more from taxpayers or spend less.
· Second, Congressional leadership can use the need to pass a bill as leverage to begin addressing the growing deficits. More realistically, Congress could return unspent stimulus funds, set a firm cap on next year’s spending, or even adopt modest portions of the Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction plan. Passing a financial down payment alongside the debt limit sends the right message to the public, and gives members of Congress greater comfort, or cover, depending on your perspective.
· Finally, Congress needs to bite the bullet and raise the limit. In an ideal world, it would be a bipartisan effort, but in the world of Congress, precedent has always been that the party controlling the chamber produces the votes.
In 2006, Obama said on the Senate floor: "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit." Americans are so enamored of spending cuts that the Rasmussen Poll says that they even regard them as more important than balancing the federal budget by a margin of 57-34. Neither party wants a government shutdown due to a debt ceiling impasse, but leverage to ensure spending cuts is good politics to guarantee the beginning of long overdue corrections in spending patterns.
(“Debt default is no laughing matter” by John E. Sununu dated January 10, 2011 published by The Boston Globe at http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/01/10/debt_default_is_no_laughing_matter/
“A Price for Raising the Debt Ceiling” by Arthur B. Laffer dated January 13, 2011 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576076353486266330.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
“Has the Fed Lit the Inflation Fuse?” dated January 13, 2011 published by the Investor’s Business Daily at http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/559842/201101131842/Has-The-Fed-Lit-Inflation-Fuse-.htm
“Tea Party Won’t Stand for Debt Limit Expansion Without Concessions” by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann dated January 13, 2011 published by News Max at http://www.newsmax.com/Morris/tea-party-debt-limit/2011/01/13/id/382798 )
As the Fed feeds more and more money into the credit markets, one unforeseen consequence is the rise in the price of commodities in general and oil in particular, which inadvertently punishes the world economy for U.S. government intervention. The spike in global oil prices that preceded the Great Recession is being repeated. Just three years ago, the price of oil futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange hit $100 per barrel for the first time, bringing dire warnings about looming economic hardship. Sure enough, the world economy entered its worst downturn since the Depression just months after oil prices peaked at a record $147 per barrel in July 2008. Now the doomsayers are back, as oil futures crept above $92 per barrel this week, their highest level since 2008. The 2008 price surge was explained by simple supply and demand: not enough oil was being pumped to meet the voracious appetite of Asian economies, particularly China and India, whose high-speed expansion oil suppliers had failed to anticipate. Today, however, there is enough spare oil warehoused, and demand remains relatively weak after two years of recession. Even if supplies tighten, some specialists believe that more oil could be brought to the surface fairly quickly. Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest producer and the powerhouse of OPEC, which produces about 40% of the world's oil, is pumping well below its capacity. The current spike in oil futures is a product of excess supply, of speculative dollars, billions of which are flowing into U.S. commodities markets. Investors feel that when the U.S. recovers, there will be a strong demand and a tightness in oil supplies, and can also be a hedge against potentially high price inflation. Commodities investments in general have soared since August, when Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke announced the quantitative-easing program to boost the supply of investment capital. The U.S. Fed is injecting about a trillion dollars into the economy in six months, and that liquidity has to go somewhere and some of it has gone into commodities. A combination of rising food and energy prices could ignite a repeat of the food riots that spread across the world in 2007 and 2008, provoking violent clashes from Haiti to Cameroon to Bangladesh. Rising oil prices are already causing major problems in some countries. In times of economic uncertainty, coupled with large bouts of new money-creation, investors aren’t sure where to turn. The stock market is risky, because of the weak economy which many fear could collapse again. Bonds are also are risky, in the eyes of investors who expect rising inflation and interest rates down the road. And the real estate market is hard to read as well, as it is on government life support. In this environment, many flee to commodities as the least dangerous storehouse of “real” wealth. Markets are very complex, and of course there are millions of factors ultimately determining the price of crude oil, but surely Ben Bernanke’s injection of more than $1 trillion into the credit markets is playing a large role in the recent rise.
(“Is the Fed to Blame for Soaring Global Oil Prices?” by Vivienne Walt dated January 7, 2011 published by Time Magazine at http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2041139,00.html
“Time Story Reaffirms Fed’s Role in Oil Spike” by Institute for Energy Research dated January 10, 2011 published by Canada Free Press at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/32000 )
It's long overdue for Congress to stop the racket of bringing pregnant women into this country to give birth, receive free medical care and then call their babies U.S. citizens entitled to all American rights and privileges plus generous handouts. Between 300,000 and 400,000 babies are born to illegal aliens in the United States every year, at least 10% of all births. We have tolerated an entire industry called "birth tourism," offering "birth packages" costing thousands of dollars, to import pregnant women from all over the world, Korea to Turkey (12,000 U.S.-born Turkish babies have been arranged since 2003). The advantages of birthright citizenship are immense. The babies get Medicaid covering including birth costs, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and food stamps. Obviously, the baby shares his goodies with his family. As soon as the child becomes an adult, he can legalize his parents, and bring into the U.S. a foreign-born spouse and any foreign-born siblings. They all can then bring in their own extended families, a policy called chain migration. Foreign nationals with family ties to American citizens and green-card holders accounted for about two-thirds (748,000) of the total 1.1 million individuals who were granted legal permanent residency status by the U.S. government in 2009. There is a bill, H.R. 140, to define citizenship that states that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment means a baby born in the United States only if one parent is a U.S. citizen, or a lawfully admitted resident alien, or an alien on active duty in the U.S. armed services. This bill is not trying to amend the Constitution, but is simply using the 14th Amendment's Section 5, which gives Congress (not the judiciary, not the executive branch) the power to enforce the citizenship clause. Bills to limit birthright citizenship to children of U.S. citizens and of aliens who are legal residents have been introduced by other members of Congress every year since 1993. The amnesty crowd tries to tell us that the 14th Amendment makes automatic citizens out of "all persons" born in the United States, but they conveniently ignore the rest of the sentence that states you can claim citizenship only if you are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Babies born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are clearly citizens of their mother's country, so granting U.S. citizenship creates the possibility of dual citizenship, which the United States has never recognized as valid. To become a U.S. citizen, immigrants are required by our law not only to swear allegiance to the United States but also to absolutely renounce any and all allegiance to the nation from which they came. Any naturalized U.S. citizen who claims dual citizenship with his native country betrays his solemn oath. If anchor babies have citizenship in their parents' country, they should not have U.S. citizenship. 58% of American people favor terminating the anchor-baby racket, and 14 states unveiled state legislation to clarify who is and who isn't a citizen in those states.
(“Detaching the Anchor from Anchor Babies” by Phyllis Schlafly dated January 11, 2011 published by Town Hall at http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2011/01/11/detaching_the_anchor_from_anchor_babies
“CBO: 748,000 Foreign National Granted U.S. Permanent Residency Status in 2009 Because They Had Immediate Family Legally Living in America” by Edwin Mora dated January 11, 2011 published by Cybercast News Service at )
* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news. I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning. Updates have been made this week to the following issue sections: