Monday, September 21, 2009

Independent press is on life support

It's rather revealing that Obama has signaled that he is open to a financial bailout for the media. He told the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade that he would be happy to look at bills before congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as non profit businesses. What exactly does that mean for the independent press that has been the backbone of our democracy from its conception?

When you have Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, which is the parent company of NBC, on the presidents team of economic advisers, there has already been a line crossed. There are rumors of memos from the top dogs at G.E. , sent to anchors at CNBC encouraging them to take it easy on Obama, especially after Rick Santelli's rant against Obama's policies, that was one factor in spawning the tea party movement. Then you have MSNBC, which has already forfeited any semblance of an independent media, cheering on Obama from mid way in the primaries. Both cable stations are under the parent company General Electric. Then, of course, there's ABC's decision to broadcast Obama's health care infomercial from the White House without allowing an opposing view, and even denying ad buys that countered the president's rhetoric.

You've got G.E. heavily invested in green energy technology with Jeffrey Immelt the CEO having Barack Obama's ear, and an unholy alliance between private industry and government policy developing, where favors can be appropriated if the news organization at NBC continues favorable coverage of all things Obama. Where has the concept of true journalistic ethics, and media watch dog gone. Lap dog would be a better term to describe the current mainstream media.

And now a media bailout is being bantered about, with even greater implications afoot. We already have an administration that has shown they will reward allies, while punishing news organizations that actually do the job, that has kept government accountable. Notice Obama's Sunday media blitz didn't include an appearance on Fox News Sunday, an obvious snub for their refusal to broadcast his last prime time news conference, and Fox News channel's relentless reporting of unsavory characters in the administration, and corruption by pro Obama allies. It would be an intolerable development for any administration to be given the power to choose winners and losers in the media collage.

There has already been an attempt to silence radio talk show hosts by marginalizing them, and of course congress's renewed love affair with the fairness doctrine, is lying in the weeds. It would require all radio stations to offer opposing views, even if they are not economically viable for ad revenues. You've got this administration threatening legal action against Humana for mailings, warning seniors of medicare service cuts if Obama care is passed. Of course Obama himself can make outrages and overblown promises with no basis in fact, and when he's called out the offender is publicly caned.

Patriots who understand the threat a state run media poses, no matter what party is in power, need to stand up against the death of an independent media. No democracy can survive when the state controls information, by intimidation or economic viability. It's time to stand against the creeping tyranny that the first amendment guaranteed all Americans freedom from, through the musings of a free and independent press.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Obama, slyly uses the race card

First Maureen Dowd, cries racism, as my last post refers to, and then Jimmy Carter accuses critics of this administration of opposing Obama because he's black. Now Nancy Pelosi is decrying the rhetoric of the opposition as inciting violence. Is this a coordinated effort to bring Obama's poll numbers up? I have a sneaky suspicion that, the white house in concert with the mainstream media, and democrat lawmakers are concocting a grand scheme to make this president look post racial.

Obama is scheduled to be on Letterman. and every Sunday news show this coming weekend, except Fox, and undoubtedly will be asked the question, by those paragons of honesty and virtue, "the mainstream media," if he believes the critics of his policies are motivated by his race. The president will of course answer that question, "absolutely not!" Then the media will begin a week long adoration extravaganza. they will bend over backwards to project Barack Obama as being post racial and attempting to bring the American people together. There is no way this president wants to be perceived as playing the race card, Ala, the Gates affair, where he let his guard down and fell back into a Reverend Wright moment.

Of course he wants his critics silenced. And of course he believes in the accusation of racism as a means to that end. He just doesn't want the American people to believe he's behind it, or believes it. But, if the far left, and the mainstream media, can carry the water on this smear campaign, he's fine with that, as long as he can float high above the fray. He's learned a valuable lesson, or at least he should have, from the Gates affair, that playing the race card will only hurt his standing with the overwhelming majority of the American people. And he also knows that the sycophants in the media, and the far left members in congress, and a bitter ex-president, can and will do what he can't afford to do himself. And, even though he's going to vehemently disagree with them publicly, he'll be cheering them on, from behind his Wizard of OZ curtain.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

Maureen Dowd: Is she a racist?

I just finished reading a column by Maureen Dowd that has my blood boiling. The name of the column is"Boy oh Boy," and in it, she has succumbed to the mainstream medias' default position , that all of Obama's problems stem from an inherent racism, and that many just can't accept a black president. She starts out the column by saying, and I quote, "Joe Wilson yelled "you lie! at a president who didn't. But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: you lie, boy!"

Now Maureen, When someone hears something in the air that isn't there, especially that implies blatant bigotry, I would be more concerned about the racism in that individual. When you imply he meant to say boy, isn't it because, maybe deep inside, that's how you see the president? Isn't it because you see him as somehow in need of your defense? You, and all your elitists friends think that he has a pigmentation problem, and therefore requires special treatment, and less criticism than other presidents before him. There is a soft bigotry in your snobby accusations against many in this country. You imply that he's not a big boy, oops there's that word "boy" again, and can't take care of himself.

Actually, maybe it's this. You know his health care plan, which you support, cannot be defended by you, your liberal friends, and the president himself, so you cynically slap down your trump card, that ever explosive race card, hoping you'll take the pot this time. Maybe you can stop the criticism if you threaten the criticizers with a label that would be better placed at your doorstep. Alas, the liberal way, comes down to that famous default position, America is racist, therefore they can't support this president. When liberals constantly assume that blacks in this country, need, not only the federal government's help, but also a liberal columnist's help, that is bigotry, pure and simple. Barack Obama, was smart enough, and tough enough to reach the highest office in this land, and to assume he needs you, castigating his critics, "as racist," so that he may succeed, completely undermines your argument, and points the "racist label," at yourself..

Another point, Maureen. How do you explain that he came into office with almost a 70% approval rating, and unprecedented good will from the American people. How do you explain that his personal approval ratings remained high through the spring, even though the American people were not approving of his policies. Can you not even consider, that it's his policy choices and radical liberalism that is bringing his numbers down. Of course you can't, because you believe in every one of them, and how could you be wrong.

Your constant haranguing of all things southern, while you vacation in Martha's Vineyard, soothing your guilty conscience, sipping chardonnay, with your friends, including those lucky black academics, that made it, according to you, even though the whole system was stacked against them, rings hollow with most Americans. While you sit in your insulated, Eastern elitist, cocoon of judgement, most Americans lead a normal life, of blood sweat and tears, and don't take kindly to the likes of you, impugning their character.

In conclusion, Maureen, If you're willing to have an honest debate, about the policy issues that will effect millions of Americans for decades to come, conservatives are more than willing. But, if on the other hand, you simple want to shoot out invectives, that grab headlines and soothe your liberal friends fevered brows, than retreat back into your cocoon until a full metamorphosis of intelligent debate transpires.

For a full airing of Ms. Dowds column, copy and paste the following web address,


Friday, September 11, 2009

9/11: Eight Years Later

I was struck, watching the replay of the media's account of 9/11 this morning, that the attack , even though the pentagon and our government were targeted, was primarily an assault on free market capitalism. What better way to attack that system than to go after the heart of our financial district. Watching those towers ablaze and then ultimately crumbling to the ground, was a reminder to all of us that our very way of life was being violently assaulted.

Thank God that the terrorist failed in an attempt to cripple our financial institutions and therefore our way of life. The American people, for the most part, remained vigilant and united in an effort to protect the sanctity of American life from a terror influence.

Fast forward eight years, and we now have an even greater, albeit less violent, attempt to structurally change free market capitalism in this country. The threat doesn't come from remote caves, or scorching sands, of middle Eastern topography. This threat comes from the highest levels of our federal government. It comes from a newly elected administration that has piggy backed its way to power on the American people's thirst for change, and a post racial America.

Barack Obama, has stated in so many words, that the wealth of this country should be returned to it's rightful owners. He told Joe the plumber, that it's a good idea to spread the wealth around. Every policy decision, and proposal, has ultimately involved confiscating wealth from the private sector, and bringing it into the public arena, where he and his cohorts will decide how to distribute it. Government is growing at an alarming rate, while the private sector struggles to keep it's head above water. Government is taking control of private sector businesses, passing laws to restrict compensation, while the wage gap between federal workers and private sector employees grow exponentially. The total compensation average for federal employees, in 2008, was $119.982, while the private sector average compensation was $59,909, according to statistics from the Cato institute.

The federal government is hiring at an alarming rate, which shrinks that ever important balance between a productive private sector, and publicly employed America. Wealth creation ultimately suffers when the federal government gobbles up all available money to simply pay the interest on it's debt, which is right now 500 million dollars per day.
It is impossible for trillions of dollars to be systematically shuffled from the private sector, to the Federal government without a massive change in lifestyle, standard of living and freedom for all Americans, except those that work for, or have a stake in government largess. At some point critical mass will be reached, and the voting patterns will change to reflect the best interest of government, rather than free market capitalism.

My question to all of you is, are we still willing to remain vigilant in opposition to the over throw of free market capitalism, that made this country the greatest and freest on the face of the earth? Are we willing to take on the powers that be, to ensure our way of life and an American style standard of living? Are we willing to stand for liberty, rather than tyranny?

Barack Obama wants to proclaim 9/11 a national day of service. I don't just say no, I say hell no. 9/11 is a day of remembrance to those, that were snuffed out by radicals trying to change our lives in profound ways. Those nice sounding words are a trap to bring you into the collectivism mentality, that will stop you from working for the best interest of you and your family, and ultimately your community. This country needs to return to a rugged individualism, where hard work is rewarded, and an entitlement mentality scorned. Volunteer work is fine and admirable, but lets not be snookered into thinking this is anything but a call for more community organizing radicals, funded by big government, under the supervision of Mr. Obama.

We in our minds might believe there's a huge difference between terrorism and big government, but in reality their goals are the same. And every American should be vigilant, and profoundly aware of their goals. They both want to, "CONTROL YOUR LIFE!"

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Is Obama selling snake oil?

I watched every word of president Obama's prime time address to congress, where he went all in, on trying to sell his health care plan. there are several points that raised my eyebrows and made me gasp. First off, the speech was unusually partisan, singling out Sarah Palin's death panel phrase for special rebuke. Usually when you consider someone irrelevant, you ignore them. He also accused many opposed to his plan, of using fear tactics, and then went on to say, and I quote,"Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficits will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more WILL DIE as a result." Talk about fear tactics! He actually called, and raised, Sarah Palin's death panel phrase.

Secondly, he sounded like an old time snake oil salesman, making outlandish claims, with no basis for support. He stated that we will provide coverage, one way or another, to the thirty million who are currently uninsured, without rationing. Notice the number has dropped from the 47 million we heard all summer. Probably to make us believe illegals won't be covered. Where are all these extra health care workers coming from, that will make it possible to absorb those extra patients. Wait, I've got it. Those 17 million illegals, must be doctors, nurses, hospital executives, and administrators!

He also stated that most of the cost for this new Obama care bill will come from a savings in medicare. 500 billion in savings, without cutting care. It's simply a matter of waste and inefficiencies, that his administration is going to magically remove from the system. Ok, why didn't I think of that. If the messiah can feed 5 thousand with a loaf and two fish, of course the new messiah can save 500 billion from medicare without cutting care. Don't worry Gramps and Granny, Sarah Palin was just engaging in a rhetorical flourish that went awry, ala Sonia Sotomayor.

So what can we gain from this highly anticipated and overblown prime time speech. Well, according to our president, the sky will fall if we don't pass Obama care. But, if we buy the pitch of a snake oil salesman, just like days of yore, our pockets will be picked clean, and our bones will still ache.


Saturday, September 5, 2009

Obama is losing the trust factor

Why is there such a commotion over president Obama addressing public school students on Sept. 8th? By all appearances, it seems innocuous enough. Shouldn't our national leader be able to inspire and motivate students to study hard and stay in school. You would think so, except there was more involved than just an address. The lesson plan, devised jointly by the administration, and education department, encouraged students to write letters to themselves on what they could do to help out the president. The White house has since backed off on that. If the lesson plan had stated, write a letter to yourself on what you could do to help out the country, parents would have felt more at ease. There may be ways to help the president other than politically, but right now, I'm at a loss for what they may be.

Remember the controversy when Rush Limbaugh stated he hoped the president would fail. Did he mean personally or politically? Is there a difference? Not really. The president is a political being, advancing a political agenda. I doubt Rush was referring to his golf game, or dare I say bowling. When you're at a football game cheering on your home team, and the opposition fumbles, or throws an interception, you cheer and applaud. You're glad they just failed. It's nothing personal, you just want your team to win. Politics is no different, especially when a new administration comes in to radically change the fundamental structure of our country. The battle lines are drawn much more distinctly.

There seems to be an ick factor to the president wanting to speak to students. Parents in their gut may feel , dare I say, there's something "FISHY," about the whole thing. Well it's obvious they've flagged it, and are on high alert. Parents have sat by and watched their children being exposed to left wing propaganda for years. Students made to watch propaganda films, like Al Gores, "Inconvenient truth," or the new Hollywood produced clip where Demi Moore and a host of stars vow to support the president, and his left wing causes. There's a distrust that's similar to not allowing the neighbor down the street watch your children while you run to the store, simply because they seem a little too eager, to spend time alone with Billy or Janey. This may sound absurd, but it feels almost creepy. Right now the left is going to scream, "see it's all about his race. Racist white America doesn't want Obama to speak to their kids." I say "poppycock." Race has nothing to do with it. It's about ideology and propriety, and parents protective instinct for their children.. No parent wants the values and traditions that they've bestowed, systematically expunged from their child. There is a totalitarian feel to it, which probably wouldn't be there if this administration wasn't pushing the agenda that they are. We are all aware of how those types of regimes use children to further their causes, and maybe too many people are making too much of it, but the president has brought most of this on himself.

When you appoint czars that are either avowed communists, socialists, or environmental radicals, people begin to question you. When you spend twenty years in the church of an America bashing, liberation theology preacher, and then disavow his believes, people tend to start to distrust your sincerity, as well as your honesty. When you accuse a White police officer of systematic racism, because he arrests a black friend of yours, the public starts to rethink your post racial credentials. When you campaign on fiscal responsibility and spend our grand kids future, or vow no lobbyists in your administration and then make special allowances for those you want, distrust is almost assured. When your stimulus bill, that must be passed, or the country will fail, turns out to be primarily a pay back to political cronies, or your GM bankruptcy negotiations favor the unions, while stiffing the preferred debt holders, fairness is not your forte. How about campaigning on no earmarks and then signing a bill with 9 thousand in it? What about a health care bill that promises improved care, more insured, at a lower cost? Even those students, you're so eager to inspire, can see through that one.

Now let me ask you, who could condemn a suspicious public for pushing back at a president whom they perceive, rightly or wrongly, to be meddling in the affairs best dealt with on a state or local level, where parents feel more in control of their child's education? It's so refreshing to see Americans wake up, with a healthy scepticism, to what their politicians are up to. So what's the end result going to be? The president will give a benign innocuous address to students, inspiring them to study hard and stay in school, because everyone is watching. Remember the outrage in the Bush administration, about the warrant less wiretapping. The complaint was our government is listening in on everything we say, which was an absurd contention, on it's face. Now the public has turned the tables, and that's the way it should be.