Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

Democrats, Obama Admit Veracity of Wikileaks

December 31, 2016

President Obama, the Democrat Party and their underling “news” media have been playing up, for days, an alleged Russian computer hack claiming it tilted the election toward Trump. Their evidence is summarized in a document released by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI about current Russian hacking. Hat tip to Slashdot News, my source of the story about the 13 page document which outlines redsquare_saintbasile_pixinn-netRussian computer exploits in 2015 and 2016, including breaking into the systems of a US political party and into one or more individual computer accounts as late as November of 2016.

That document is very vague on important details such as which political party was hacked, which individuals were compromised and if the hack has any connection with the Wikileaks release before the election that got Conservatives and some Republicans up in arms over the nefarious activities of the Democrat party and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

So, we don’t know if the FBI report is referring to the Democrat Party, Hillary’s campaign manager, John Podesta (who’s emails went public thanks to Wikileaks) or Wikileaks itself. In addition, the legacy media swept the Wikileaks revelations under the rug, so the only people who knew about them were mostly Conservatives and others who patronized talk radio and new media and who were likely Trump voters anyway.

The public has, in my opinion, been manipulated by the media, through association, into assuming some false and some unproven claims. They include that, somehow, the Russians hacked voting machines (considered dubious to impossible)  or that the Russians were the source of the Wikileaks documents. That assumption has been denied by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Finally, the media would have you believe that the Wikileaks release or the equally unreported Project Veritas investigation of the Hillary campaign made a difference anyway.

However, neither President Obama, nor the Democrat Party, nor the Clinton Campaign, none of them, have questioned the accuracy or honesty of the Wikileaks release or the Project Veritas video evidence. The video evidence is pretty hard to dispute. But I think the reason they have not disputed the veracity of the Wikileaks information is the fear that a whistleblower will come forward to confirm it, so why even try. Assange has said he got the information from a Democrat insider concerned about a Hillary Presidency. There are suspicions that insider has been silenced. But there may be others.

Look at the bright side: The Democrats, 25 years after the end of the cold war, finally admit the Russians may be a threat. Democrats, after vehiment denials for several years, admit there could be election fraud. Democrats and the President, by focusing on “hacking” are admitting that the damning content of the Wikileaks release is truthful. That content points to a completely corrupt, malicious and dishonest Democrat Party.


Why is Big Brother Watching?

December 4, 2013

Perhaps you are having trouble keeping up, as I am, with the Obama scandals, from the Black Panthers to Fast and Furious to Benghazi to the IRS targeting of conservative groups and the crony relationships and failures of Obamacare.

Obama-big-brother2 copyThis may seem like old news but of particular interest to me is the NSA surveillance program, the one exposed by Edward Snowden. I’ve been wanting to write about it for some time but we were so awash in scandals I couldn’t fit this in before. The most recent revelation came Dec 4th with the report that the NSA is capturing cell phone locations worldwide. That piles on to the story about the NSA spying on foreign allies including the accusation that Obama knew about the spying.

In the last couple months we’ve learned about the security flaws that compromise personal data at and a rumor that data gathering engine behind that Obamacare web site starts collecting data off your computer as soon as you go to the site, before you even sign up.

Conservatives, including Republican Senators and others, such as Larry Kudlow and the editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal have defended the NSA program as a necessary part of the War on Terror. The Wall Street Journal editorial reads:

“The regulatory agencies claim—and use—the power to seize property and control individual conduct. The very administration of the entitlement state depends on tracking (Social Security numbers), data-processing (Medicare benefits) and individual scrutiny (tax audits). The IRS knows far more about American citizens than the NSA does…”

They go on to say,

“The Fourth Amendment restricts unreasonable searches on individuals but imposes few limits on collection and analysis, and technologies have no privacy rights. The NSA is screening the data system in general for conduct that threatens the security of the system, not targeting any particular individual or group using the system. The right comparison is a cop on a beat who patrols public spaces. He’s not investigating a crime or enforcing a law; he’s watching for suspicious behavior. “

This is completely and utterly wrong-headed. First of all, The Wall Street Journal has NO idea about how the NSA program works. They base their editorial on the text of the Patriot Act and the claims of NSA and other Administration officials. But, from Fast and Furious to Benghazi to the State Department prostitution scandals and HHS insider trading and IRS misdeeds we know the Administration is filled with liars and cheats. So why would we take their word on the NHS data collection activities?

Second, the Patriot Act authorized cell phone monitoring only when a known foreign agent was being contacted. What law, what act of Congress authorizes wide-spread data-mining of domestic phone records and credit-card transactions? Larry Kudlow, on his radio show, repeated the claim that the NSA data-mining operation didn’t identify us as individuals or listen to our phone calls. Instead, they simply looked at phone numbers and call durations for suspicious patterns of behavior. And, it is claimed, that this surveillance stopped terror attacks.

How can any of that be true? What computer algorithm identifies suspicious behavior unless the parties in the conversation are identified and cross correlated with another data base containing names of known terrorists or other criminals? What pattern of phone calls is suspicious? Is it that I called the same number every evening for a week? Is it that my call lasted an hour and a half? Is it that I did a lot of conference calling? I call the “suspicious behavior” claim baloney! Moreover, my phone number, especially my cell phone number, IS my identity.  So the claim that individuals are not being identified is false on the face of it. They might as well say, “We are not identifying you as an individual. We are just looking at Social Security Numbers.”

Third, because the Administration has made the claim that they are just looking at phone records for suspicious behavior, we see they have at least admitted that there is wide-spread domestic data mining. But since the claim that they are looking at phone numbers and not identifying individuals is a self-contradiction, we know they are also lying about the program. So why should I believe the claim that they are not eavesdropping on conversations or anything else they say? What is the purpose of the NSA data center project in Utah if they are only looking at meta-data? And if they cut 90 per cent of administrators to assure us that their spy system was secure, isn’t that an admission that your confidential information has been potentially compromised already?

Fourth, The Wall Street Journal, Larry Kudlow and the rest of the Conservative gang gloss over one, very important, detail of the NHS program. They just assume the NHS has the right to run your phone records and credit card transactions through some super computer. But your records are the property of your phone company and your credit card company. What gives any government the right to analyze them any more than your neighbor down the street has a right to analyze them? You might say that your records are already being analyzed by marketing wizards and sold to third parties so they can spam you with offers for kitchen appliances. But Amazon and eBay and and AT&T do not have armies and they can’t put you in jail. The Federal Government can make your life a living hell because you made an anti-Muslim video or spoke out against Obama. Just as there is supposed to be a separation between church and State, there should be a wall of separation between our private transactions and law enforcement.

Fifth, it’s claimed that the NHS program has stopped terror plots. I know that the original Bush program has stopped terror plots because it linked domestic phone calls with known overseas terrorists.  But, the Obama program did not stop the Boston bombers. In fact, Russia warned us about these guys and we still didn’t stop them. I would give the program a pass except for that part about the Russian warnings. I’m told there are 12 million illegal immigrants “operating in the shadows” that we have to identify by legalizing them. Why can’t we identify them through this sophisticated phone surveillance system?

Finally, The Wall Street Journal point out, quite correctly, that the Federal Government already has a ton of information about you thanks to the IRS, the Social Security Administration the Post Office and on and on. And so, this NHS program is only a slightly larger intrusion.

And THAT observation key. But not in the way The Wall Street Journal intends. Let’s add all this together, accepting that some of our assumptions or facts may be mistaken. Here we go:

  1. The Obama Administration is not bound by law (see GM bailout, Black Panthers, interim appointments etc.)
  2. The Obama Administration uses the power of the State to punish political enemies (see IRS, EPA that waived fees from Freedom of Information Act requests by Leftist groups but not for Conservative ones).
  3. The Obama Administration considers their agenda more important than the lives of Americans (see Fast and Furious, Benghazi).
  4. The Obama Administration lies (see Benghazi coverup and all of the above, etc.).
  5. The Obama Administration security analysis failed multiple times (Ft. Hood, Benghazi, Boston, Egypt, etc.) (A debatable point, admittedly.)
  6. Obamacare will add all of your medical records to the existing data dossier on you and may collect non-medical data on you as well.
  7. US agents have been told to cover up the sources of their information and the extent of their spying.
  8. Obama continues to fund-raise even though he is not running for office.

What can we conclude? First and foremost, the Administration can’t be trusted to tell us the truth about domestic spying nor can they be trusted to confine themselves to legal and Constitutional activities. There is enough suspicious behavior, such as denying there is spying and then admitting it and then admitting it is bigger than they said at first and building data center facilities much larger than necessary if they were telling the truth.

My second conclusion is more of a hypothesis or a thought experiment. What if all this spying and data collection by the NSA, IRS, Obamacare and the rest isn’t about terrorism at all? What if it’s about political power? That would explain the ineffectiveness in stopping the Boston bombers or the Ft. Hood attack. What if this is the real purpose?:

Breaking News – Space Aliens Invade Cleveland

August 4, 2013

My parents did not have television or the Internet. When they were kids, if they were lucky, they listened to the radio in the evening and went to a movie on the weekend. Before them, their parents didn’t have movies or radio and had to rely on making their own music, reading a book or going to a dance for entertainment.

Today we are immersed in a media culture almost every waking moment. And although, like our great grandparents, we learn from personal experience, unlike them, a very large percentage of what we think we know comes from the media culture, TV, radio, newspapers, the Internet, film and commercial music.

Saucer AttackSo, what would happen if President Obama gave a speech, at 10 am when he started his day, and told us that Cleveland had been invaded by space aliens? And what if every major media outlet from the New York Times to ABC and Reuters, repeated that Cleveland had been invaded by Space Aliens?

Most of us would be forced to treat that as the truth since the President and supposedly reputable news sources confirmed that, indeed, Cleveland had been invaded by space aliens. Well, Perhaps a caller to the Rush Limbaugh show would say that he lives in Cleveland and he sees no sign of space aliens. And perhaps a Fox News reporter could tell Obama’s Press Secretary, Jay Carney, about the Limbaugh caller. What would happen? Jay Carney would simply say that any reports about there being no invasion were mistaken or falsehoods planted by an evil, racist, homophobic TEA Party who’s agenda is to see a Black President and Savior fail.

And that would be that. Years could go by and so long as the media kept up the full court press narrative about space aliens, that fabrication would serve as your reality. How could you know any differently? Sure, you might believe Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity when they told you the story was fabricated. But then some credentialed professor or other would come on TV and solemnly tell you that Rush and Sean and the rest were anti-intellectual and racist with an agenda of seeing a Black President and Savior fail. Jay Leno would make jokes about the space alien deniers who didn’t accept the Cleveland invasion as fact and documentary movies would be made about the invasion. TV sit coms would be made about living next door to space aliens.

I know the example is a bit silly. Or is it? Have you heard the story about the George Zimmerman juror who said Zimmerman got away with murder? Do you know that the juror’s statement may have been fabricated? Slate Magazine ran a story on July 26th claiming just that.  You would think that it would be big news that a trusted news outlet fabricated something. Nope. Even more seriously, how long did the news media run with the story that the Benghazi attack was triggered by an anti Muslim movie? If there were no alternative media, would you have any way of finding out that the unemployment rate for Black teens was 41.6%?

My point is that almost everything you know about the world outside of your personal experience you learn from the media culture, including music, movies, college text books and more. That isn’t a bad thing if reporters and entertainment industry individuals are honest and have integrity or if the media were intellectually competitive. But if the media are slaves to an agenda that make them fellow travelers  in a big propaganda campaign, your ability to know the truth about anything is almost zero.

That is why I advocate that you use alternative sources, check your facts and get involved in broadcasting what you learn and what you know to others. Here’s an example of an alternative source:

Fighting Back Part III – Get Creative

July 25, 2013

I wrote, in Part I of this series, about the media as being the principal enemy of freedom in modern America. In Part II, I wrote about becoming a citizen journalist to counterbalance the media but also about being an advocate.

Frederick Douglass RepublicanI want to extend the discussion of advocacy by reminding you of what you already know, that creative use of media, personal media, can get your ideas attention.

One of the easiest things to do and get instantly published is to write a blog (weB LOG). So here I am. You may not think you can write and you may not think anyone wants to read what you have to say. Don’t be so critical. It takes thousands and thousands of citizen reporters, researchers and opinion columnists to keep up with the deluge of misinformation we are being fed daily by the media and the political class. So pick something you know about, medicine, guns, the weather or cars and tell the rest of us what we don’t know. There are many free blogging sites and some with fees. Your choice depends on your needs. WordPress is great. Many choose Blogger, powered by Google, which is also free. Typepad costs money but you have a right to advertise there. The blog hosts have a lot of tutorials to help you get started.

If that’s too much to take on, you can do a lot with social media, such as a Facebook page or a Twitter account. Even if all you do is forward information you come across  that you think would be of interest to those that agree with you or eye opening for those that do not agree, you help defeat the media narrative. Spreading the word is at least as important and creating original material.

If you would prefer to do graphic arts to writing, you can create online posters, such as the one above by Jared McA. That one, and many more, can be found at sites such as The Looking Spoon that host both original works and the work of others. You don’t have to be a great artist, although many of the new Conservative political images are amazingly creative. A simple text poster can have a lot of impact. Photoshop is the defacto standard image creation software in the US. However, Corel has a wonderful suite of affordable products for graphics, video creation and more. And, if you are on a budget, the open source, free software, Gimp, is fabulous.

For the future Rush Limbaughs among us there are online “radio” networks you can use to create your own broadcasts and podcasts. The most popular and innovative is Blog Talk Radio. There you can find programs to suit any hobby or political ideology. And with your own account, you can have your own program or talk show right along side celebrities who are using the site more and more.

If you like moving pictures instead of talk, without too many technical skills, you can get videos on YouTube, Vimeo and other platforms. There are even free, professional quality, video editors out there you can use, such as Lightworks, as well as offerings from Adobe, Corel, Apple and Sony. Straight reporting is the easiest technically. Take a camera to a town hall meeting or the school board. Interview fellow citizens or subject matter experts. If you would rather give your opinion than be a reporter, do a video blog (vlog) if you wish. Or, a parody on Pure Detroit.

If you are not quite ready to do that kind of work but you are still feeling creative, you can do something like this video, which is within the reach of you and a couple of your friends. Of course, the idea is very original. Enjoy.

Here is another one. This video is a classic and it went viral. That earned the creator media attention, visits with Senators and convention speeches.

The beauty of the penny videos is you don’t need a team of camera people and audio technicians. You don’t even have to have the courage to do a video ambush on your Congressman. But, again, creativity is the first ingredient.

Here is a more recent offering by the same creator. This one needed more technical skill to add the graphics.

My point is that every time someone creates interesting content, be it a blog, a video, a graphic, they have the opportunity to blunt the impact of the propaganda press and perhaps circumvent their toxic narrative entirely. And there is a need for more of us to combat the narrative. One Obama speech spews enough misinformation to require a half dozen penny videos.

I’ll close with the last 10000 penny video from about a year ago.

Our Despicable News Media

July 13, 2013

I had to take a short break from my posts on fighting back against the Left to comment on the Zimmerman trial. Here we have a trial over a killing. What makes this killing unique, worthy of national attention? Nothing much. There were 72 shootings and 12 deaths in Chicago over Independence Day weekend. Did none of those lives merit our concern, our examination? I guess not.

George ZimmermanWhat makes the Zimmerman case worthy of national attention is nothing more than our despicable media have decided to make it national. They did this based on several assumptions, mostly racial, about what happened. When they found out that Zimmerman was Hispanic and a Democrat, a member of one of their favored tribes, they changed the facts to fit the narrative and started calling Zimmerman a “white Hispanic.”  Look at George Zimmerman’s photo. I don’t see Cameron Diaz or Fernando Lamas so much as I see Carlos Mencia (Sorry Carlos). But the media have decided he’s “white.” Whatever the heck that even means. The media seem unconcerned that they have revealed that “Hispanic” is not a racial term. They will continue to call border-security Conservatives racists.

The endless and inflammatory reporting of an otherwise routine shooting wasn’t enough for them. NBC News had to edit the 911 recording to change the meaning of what happened. The media propaganda has been so bad that now we face the real possibility of riots if the verdict doesn’t go in a preordained way, a guilty verdict for Zimmerman.

And while we dwell on this case, 24/7, we don’t hear about IRS scandals, Benghazi, Fast and Furious or NSA Surveillance. The distraction is a byproduct and bonus to the media.

Trayvon MartinI’m not a lawyer but my simple-minded understanding is this: Zimmerman is on trial for murder or manslaughter or child abuse, depending on the mood of the prosecution on a given day. The jury simply has to decide if there is reasonable doubt that Zimmerman premeditated a murder or, in the case of manslaughter, acted in reckless disregard for life. Any evidence of self defense, not a proof of  self defense, but just enough evidence to introduce doubt of intent to murder, should be an acquittal.

Mark Levin has said this case should never have been brought. But look what’s happened, we have President Obama getting involved with his “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon” comment. We have large numbers of Americans who marched for “Justice for Trayvon” before any facts were presented. They think that’s just fine and acceptable. We have large number of Americans threatening to riot based on the verdict. So lynch mobs are in style again in modern Amerika. Swell.

This is a clear case of the media manufacturing a narrative based on their racial agenda and their gun control agenda. They needed a white on black crime and they found one. They began prattling about reversing “stand your ground” laws before they knew if those laws even applied to the case. Just because the facts didn’t fit the narrative, a race-based premeditated murder by a white guy, didn’t deter them from changing the facts wherever necessary including doctoring the 911 call evidence.

What can be more disgusting than playing with peoples’ lives, the lives of both Zimmerman and Martin and their families, in the service of an agenda? Our media does not care about liberty or justice. Woe to anyone, even you, who gets caught on the wrong side of a journalists bigotry.

Fighting Back Part II – The Media

July 9, 2013

In Part I of this series, I outlined my view that the modern media are our main opponents in the war for freedom. They may not be the root cause of the growth of modern collectivism. Marx or Kant or Woodrow Wilson probably have that honor. But the media are the lever that collectivists push to gain ground politically.

I noticed the bias of the news media many years ago but it has only gotten worse until now, with Obama to promote, the media are overtly and actively dishonest in support of their agenda. Less obvious is what to do about it.

In response to the decay and corruption of the media, alternatives have sprung up. Many of the alternatives are commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. But there is a growing number of serious news organizations, the most popular of which includes Drudge Report and These new outlets are giving the traditional media fits. As individuals, we may not have the time or ability to start an alternative news channel. So how do we make a difference?

I could give examples of how Ronald Reagan spoke directly to the people, thereby circumventing the media filter, but, as I said in Part I, I want to stick to ideas any individual can make use of and leave the BIG IDEAS to the celebrities.

The goal is to blunt the influence of Leftist media with low-information, misinformation and disinformation voters and to contradict the media narrative. Here are some ideas to combat the media, mostly how to compete with them for the mind-share of the public.

Stop watching and reading them and encourage your friends to stop

In other words, stop feeding the beast. I’m not saying you should cut yourself off from society or from news. Simply avoid the most egregious purveyors of Leftist ideology, The New York Times and other leftie papers, the three big networks, MSNBC and other cable lefties. Instead, go to Drudge or Breitbart, Investors Business Daily, Fox News etc. And, most importantly, encourage your Conservative and middle-of-the road friends to do the same. Your doctor will approve of your blood pressure falling.

Relay stories the media do not report

With your own blog, Twitter or Tumblr account or just using email, you can seek out the stories the mainstream media do not report and rebroadcast them. These stories have the side benefit of being interesting, man-bites-dog style. For instance, you might see a story about Hispanic Americans who oppose so-called immigration reform, or maybe a story about gay Conservatives, or maybe a story about a gun in a citizen’s hand used to stop a crime. You get the idea. Forward anything that contradicts the media narrative or media stereotypes. Here is a great example.

Become a citizen reporter, breaking stories the media refuse to pursue

Jason Mattera and James O’Keefe are two individuals who have pioneered citizen journalism. Mattera is well known for ambushing politicians and celebrities with a camera and questions about their voting records or statements they have made. Comedian Chris Rock went violent when Mattera confronted him about statements Rock made accusing the TEA Party as being racist.

O’Keefe and his Project Veritas is responsible for Congress defunding ACORN, and stings exposing campaign corruption, corruption at PBS and the ease of voter fraud. This is out of the ordinary because the old media no longer challenge politicians, unless they are Republicans. Instead, they advocate for them. O’Keefe’s book, Breakthrough, is a testament to what a small group of individuals can do to out flank the media.

O’Keefe’s tactics take courage because he goes undercover with hidden cameras. I don’t recommend that for any but the strongest willed among us. The big message of Project Veritas is that any of us can be citizen journalists at whatever level makes us comfortable. Off the top of my head, projects might include the following.

  • Be a news aggregator and broadcaster. With a Twitter or Facebook account you can alert your contacts to stories from Drudge, Britebart and other sources, stories the mainstream is ignoring.
  • Take a video camera to a TEA Party rally and report on what you see and hear.
  • Take a camera to a local school board or city council meeting and interview politicians and school board members about issues that concern you.
  • Interview other citizens, man-on-the-street style, about local and national issues.
  • Take a video camera to your local town hall meeting with your Congressman or other politician.
  • Go where other media don’t go, like a gun show or drag race.
  • Interview college students and professors, allowing them to speak freely.

All of these are straight reporting kinds of jobs. With a little effort you can become a stringer or free-lance for local media. But if you are going to be a reporter be a reporter and not an advocate. The biggest way the old media controls the narrative is to control what they report. If you report the stories they are unwilling to, you will have more credibility if you try to be objective. That means sticking to fact and letting your audience do the interpretation.

Become an advocate for a cause, creating media to support a point of view.

It’s ok to be a straight reporter and it’s ok to be an advocate for a cause. Just decide if you are a reporter or an advocate. If you decide to be an advocate you may want to do more investigative journalism than simple reporting. In 1996 a New Jersey libertarian named John Paff was responsible, after years of work, for the conviction of Somerset County District Attorney Nicholas Bissell on 30 counts of fraud and corruption. Since then Paff has exposed more political corruption. Of course, New Jersey is a target rich environment. But still. Investigative work you could do might include:

  • The connections between local lobbying groups, such as environmental groups, and your local or State politicians.
  • Ditto your Congressman and Senators.
  • Just looking into the voting records of politicians on a variety of issues, being aware that they often game the system by voting as a Conservative when their vote isn’t needed but voting as a Leftist only when their vote counts.
  • Research the record of judges, sheriffs and bureaucrats, positions that get less scrutiny, as a public service to voters.Interview college professors and students but give them free rein so they confess their true feelings and bigotry or so they expose their ignorance.
  • If you want to play in the big leagues:
  • You can try and speak with staffers for Congressmen and Senators to get the real scoop on what goes on in the office.
  • Go undercover and find out how easy it is for an illegal alien (undocumented Democrat) to get public assistance.
  • Interview celebrity journalists about their backgrounds and biases. Research their connections to the Left and to politicians.

That last one is my favorite. Wouldn’t it be great to scrutinize Katie Couric the way Sarah Palin has been scrutinized? Wouldn’t it be great to ask celebrity journalists if they know the name of the leader of Cameroon? Wouldn’t it be great to ask one of them for his college transcripts or if being married to a Democrat fundraiser colors his reporting? Or how about asking how many TEA Party supporters work in the newsroom or other questions about ideological diversity among their friends and acquaintances.

In Part III we will get creative.

Fighting Back Part I – Know Thine Enemy

July 5, 2013

I had planned on building up to this series on fighting back with articles laying the groundwork for my conclusions. But I’m going to reverse the order because the state of the Union is desperate and because in a few days Mark Levin will be releasing a new book outlining his plan for our salvation. I doubt if my insights will be as impressive as his but I wanted to blurt out my ideas before the “Great One” spoke. So here goes. I will focus on what we can do as individuals and not give many suggestions to political candidates or media personalities.


Rush Limbaugh coined the phrase “low information voter” to to describe those people who spend their time immersed in their personal lives or in popular culture rather than in political ideology. “Low-information voter” has entered Occupy Wall Streetthe Conservative lexicon. These people are noteworthy for voting based on superficialities because they don’t understand the issues. But, the good news is that they are usually open to new information even though they don’t seek it out.

But there are other types of voters we need to deal with. The first we could call the disinformation voter. Unlike the low-information voter, who is simply ignorant, often consciously so, the disinformation voter is very proud of his deep understanding of the issues. Except almost everything he knows is wrong. The disinformation voter believes the TEA Party is racist, Obama’s policies ended the recession and Romney cheated on his taxes. Because the disinformation voter is unconsciously incompetent, and militantly certain of his “facts,” he is a bigger problem than the low-information voter. Attempting to have a polite conversation with the disinformation voter will often enrage him because he is so certain of your ignorance before you have even finished a sentence.

Finally, there is the Leftist operative. This, most dangerous kind of voter, actively spreads disinformation and propaganda. The operative, like all committed Leftists, arrogantly believe they are better than everyone else and that their ideas are so superior that the ends justify their dishonest means. The good new is there are few Leftist operatives among everyday people. The bad news is that they pollute the intellectuals of the academy and the news room. These are the “community organizers” and racial agitators.


I am old enough to remember a time when Republicans and Democrats differed mostly in their solutions but not their goals. Both wanted to protect us from recessions and foreign invasion but differed in their ideas on how to accomplish those goals.

Chuck SchumerBut then the ’60s radicals grew up and took over the Democrat Party. Some people still think, naively, that all politicians have the same goals and so they expect cooperation among them. But the New Left radicals’ ultimate goal is the subjugation of the American public to the Left’s Marxist vision or at least subjugation to a vision of what’s best for us. If other, more Conservative, politicians have fidelity to the Constitution and limited government as their goal they can have no middle-ground with the Leftists and any compromise advances the Left’s agenda while doing nothing for the Conservative’s agenda. The challenge here is while this reality is well understood by many of us it is not understood by the majority of voters nor by the majority of Republican politicians.

Most importantly, in the past there was reason to believe most politicians had good intentions at least some of the time. Sure they would funnel pork to their districts and shade the truth in speeches. But no one suspected them of wanting to destroy the country for personal gain. Today, I suspect exactly that. A perfect example of this is are the hidden political agendas of “immigration reform,” where the goal of Democrats is to increase the underclass of government dependents to guarantee a permanent Democrat majority at all levels of government while the Republicans have the goal of providing cheap labor to business constituencies. Moreover, I no longer believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt. Let the politician defend his intentions when his policy prescriptions are wrong-headed. I never want to hear the phrase, “but he meant well” again.


I grew up when the TV just had three channels and there were a couple of newspapers in each town. We trusted our news sources. But, as I grew older I noticed some things that disturbed me. For instance, I noticed that “investigative journalists” spent much of their time shocked by the lack of government regulation in some industry or other. They never, ever questioned the efficacy of regulations or the purity of a bureaucrat’s motives . And when these intrepid investigators did investigate a politician, it was usually a Republican politician since everyone knew that Democrats were for the little guy.

There has been much written about media bias but the go-to guide was Bernard Goldberg’s 2001 book titled, naturally, Bias. Since then Goldberg has authored several other books on the subject including Arrogance, released in 2003 where he documents the attitudes behind the bias.

On June 18th of this year, 2013, James O’Keefe released his book, Breakthrough: Our Guerrilla War to Expose Fraud and Save Democracy. I highly recommend this book which, for me, was shocking. Shocking for the solid wall of opposition put up against O’Keefe’s work, not only by politicians, including Republicans, but by every manner of alleged journalist.


Walter Duranty, the New York Times reporter famous for his coverup of the Ukrainian Famine and lover of all things Stalin.

For instance, what should I conclude from stories by journalists who possessed complete, unedited, video taken by O’Keefe but who, nevertheless, chose to selectively quote from the video and completely change the meaning of what was said by the subjects of the video? What should I conclude about Federal law enforcement destroying a video that could exonerate O’Keefe when he was accused of “Entry by false pretenses…” to the office of Sen Mary Landrieu. (He was investigating complaints by constituents that the phone lines were always busy when they called to express a negative opinion about Landrieu’s Obamacare vote.)

Goldberg and O’Keefe document an uncountable number of examples of journalistic bias. But O’keefe’s book, in particular, highlights not just media bias but unethical behavior and outright sinister acts by journalists in service to a collectivist political agenda.

I think it was Rush Limbaugh who first said that the modern media was an arm of the Democrat Party. I don’t think that view is accurate. Instead, I think the Democrat Party is the political arm of the Leftist media. And the Leftist media is the propaganda division of the modern collectivist movement.

Why would Democrat politicians take up unpopular causes such as nationalized heath care, gun control and immigration amnesty except for the propaganda climate created by the media? Why would the Republican Party be such a bunch of wimps except for their fear of media smears.

I listen to Conservative commentators complain about the weak candidates fielded by the Republican Party. They can’t stop talking about Christine O’Donnell and Todd Akin. But Democrats have said far worse than O’Donnell or Akin. How about Joe Biden’s comment years ago that Barack Obama was “clean and articulate” or, for that matter, most of what Joe Biden says. Ditto comments by Maxine Waters or the gay slurs by Alec Baldwin? Leftists seldom pay a political price for their politically incorrect commentary. But if a Republican calls for voter ID he is labeled a racist by the media and their political surrogates.

Andrew Breitbart understood this well. He knew that the key enemy was not the politician or bureaucrat. He knew that the enemy was the media. It’s the media that control the agenda and the narrative. And their narrative is usually a lie based on another lie. The media emboldens the Leftist politician and intimidates the Conservative. The media assassinate the character and destroys the life of anyone who gets in their way. And it is the media that allow the low-information voters and empower the disinformation voter. And although media disinformation is not the root cause of America’s slide into statism, the media are key and the propaganda war is the front line of the fight for freedom.

Sequestration: A Disaster of Biblical Proportions

March 1, 2013

If you have been listening to President Obama and Democrats this is what you’ve been hearing about today’s anticipated budget sequestration:

They got the mass hysteria part correct. Here, thanks to Twitter and @kesgardner is a chart based on Congressional Budget Office numbers.  I don’t know the creator so if you do please tell me.

Sequester Cuts Forecast

Sequester Cuts Forecast

If you can find a reason for mass hysteria in this I’m interested in knowing where. The Wall Street Journal took a serious look at the sequestration issue in a Feb 27th article titled “The Sequester Revelation” available here: -The Sequester Revelation-

The author concludes by saying:  “Neither the legal details of the sequester nor the practical work of reforming government are as interesting to the media as Mr. Obama’s invocations of plagues and pestilence. The real revelation is that if the world does end, it will be Mr. Obama’s choice.

What is truly obnoxious about the sequestration story is the journalistic malpractice of the news media that serves to conspire with the Obama Administration to mislead the American public. Take another look at the above graph. There are no cuts! The whole debate is a fraud. There have never been real cuts, even during Reagan, only changes in the rate of growth. Today, almost every media story is a lie or spin to promote Barack Obama and denigrate Republicans. But what’s new? Here’s the debate in context:

The bottom line is that the real Armageddon facing us is a wildly out-of-control growth of Federal spending and power  that will swallow all economic activity in the next decade or two and make the lives of our children and grandchildren a living Hell. The Federal Government alone absorbs 25% of all economic activity. Adding in another 20% to 25% absorbed by the States and we have a situation where half of your working life is spent supporting government at all levels. Moreover, your burden is getting worse, heavier by the year.