Socialist liberals don't want our voices heard

Communism and socialism fail every time it's ever been tried because it provided no incentive for the little folks to get up and make an effort to improve their lives. It also fails because in order for it to succeed the voices of opposition (capitalists) have to be silenced.

A person I work with told me people should take an intelligence test on the issues before they vote. "Too many people," he said, "vote in this country who have no clue what they are even voting for."

I said, "Isn't that the purpose of living in a democracy, that everyone has a voice. That no one is held under the hand of tyranny. Isn't that the whole reason the founding fathers left the Mother Country, and why they formed a United Nation."

Personally, I think that if everyone studied they'd all vote for the most traditional, conservative candidate. I think he thinks the opposite. So, to stave off either one of us having a tyranny, everyone in America has a equal right to vote. That's why the Constitution was agreed upon as such.

I think my liberal friend is an elitist who thinks he knows what's best for everyone. He's arrogant, as the liberal media is elitist and arrogant. They think they know what's best for everyone. They don't even respect the constitution, as they know better than even the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution.

That is why the left does everything in it's power to shut out voices of opposition, which is what would happen if "everyone had to take an IQ test" in order to vote. That's exactly what happens when the U.S. government releases a document from the homeland security department claiming groups organizing from the right are "far right extremists." That's why the folks on the left try to silence voices like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity by re-enacting the fairness doctrine.

It's also why you see more traditional cable news networks covering all the issues from the right and the left, and why other media outlets, particularly the mainstream media of the major newspapers and the big three networks, shun out the right. This was proven yesterday when only one network covered the anti-tax tea parties in a "fair and balanced' way.

Media outlets have a Constitutional right to be bias, as all Americans have a Constitutional right to be stupid and to vote for the wrong person if that so happens to be the case. And so are attempts to shut out the competition.

CNN's bias coverage of the tea party protests is Constitutional. MSNBC's going out and calling the tea parties "idiotic" is Constitutional too. But I think it goes further than that. I think this is their fervent attempt at shutting out the voices of opposition.

I think the tea parties was the biggest story of the day yesterday, and for the first time in my adult life I actually see people out protesting something I ardently believe in -- a smaller and more responsible government. Yet, as I watch the Today show this morning, after I watched that show for over an hour, I heard nothing about what happened -- nothing.

When I watched CNN and MSNBC yesterday the protester were called "idiotic" and CNN even referred to the protesters as teabaggers. For those of you who never went to college and joined a frat, teabagging is giving lip service to someone's crotch, otherwise known as giving a blow job.

And, moments from now as I watch the CBC evening news, I expect the same to be the case. The left wing media does not consider the tea parties important because they do not further the left wing cause. To them, the protesters are nothing more than conservatives angry because Obama won.

The fairness doctrine, making people take a test to vote, are definitely not Constitutional, as they go against the 1st amendment freedom of speech. They also go against the addict that all men must be treated equal, as if some people are allowed to vote and other not some men (and women) are not created equal.

But liberals don't care about the constitution and fairness so long as they get their way. And that is exactly why the liberal press only covers protests that draws in new people to politics when those individuals support a liberal cause.

In a communist and socialist nation the voices of the little people are shunned out. And by the lefts attempt to silence the good folks in this country who do no agree with their big government socialistic agenda being ignored and belittled by the left, this is a perfect example of socialist elitism.

Rush Limbaugh versus Obama

I wasn't shocked when I was watching CNN and I heard a commentator say: "Rush said flat out he wants Obama to fail." I turned the channel and heard an MSNBC commentator say the same.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a perfect example of what I have written about many times on this blog, that the media twists the news it doesn't like to suit its own liberal agenda.

"If you want Obama to fail," the CNN commentator said, "then you are anti-American."

If, taken in full context, Rush did not say he wants Obama to fail. Rush said he loves his country and he wants the best for it. But if Obama is going to set an agenda that is counter to what would make the country a success, then he cannot hope Obama succeeds.

I agree with Rush and I wrote a similar article on this topic a few days ago.

Rush claims that Obama has no intention of doing what is best for the country. His soul agenda is to pretend to want to help America, but he ultimately wants to create more poor people. The more poor, needy people you have, the more people who will vote for democrats, because democrats thrive on creating government programs under the guise that they will help the poor -- but these programs create more poor.

A perfect example of this is welfare and the war on poverty set forth by president Johnson. What turned out was the more people in poverty, the more people who became dependent on government and thus democrats. The less people in poverty, the more republicans because republicans are the party of success and prosperity.

The New Deal was another perfect example. While every depression before the Great Depression lasted fewer than three years, FDRs lasted for over a decade because of too much government spending -- taking too much out of the pockets of the people who are capable of stimulating the economy (the upper middle class and rich who create 80% of the jobs).

I suppose, Rush himself put it best:

“I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing ‘eternal’ power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts.”

You can go back to what I previously wrote about FDR and the economy. I wrote about Hoover and the economy. I wrote a series on this a while back (1950s to 1980s, the 1920s). It is historically proven that never in the history of government has any government pulled a country out of a recession -- only the free market can do that.

(Harding Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush W. all proved this by limiting government and decreasing taxes to pull us out of a recession, while Hoover, FDR, Clinton and Carter did the exact opposite and drove us into a recession or deeper into one with big government programs as obama proposes).

There are many examples how the free market has pulled us out of a recession. Obama believes, as he has said, that only the government can do this. He is naive and wrong. The government succeed only in creating more wasteful government programs and more needy people, and that is what Rush has said the Obama's stimulus package will create. That is a direction he does not want to see America go in. That is against every ideal he (and myself) stand for. And he cannot hope for it to succeed.

Unless, I must add, his stimulus package has across the board tax cuts, an extension of the Bush tax cuts, capital gains tax cuts all of which would definitely (as historically proven) encourage spending, create jobs, and stimulate the economy. This has succeeded every time it has been tried. So why the heck would any government official want to do anything else other than for party gains?

And then you have Obama with the Gall to tell republicans that if they want to listen to Rush they can't deal with him. What the hell does Obama know about the economy anyway? Apparently, he hasn't read his history books as Rush has.

I certainly hope republicans stick it to Obama by refusing to buy int his stimulus plan that calls for welfare checks under the nam of taxes, contraceptives for poor people and more government.

Only the government would take something that has failed every time it's ever been tried and try it again. Any capitalistic business president who did this would be thrown out of office in a month.

I'm sorry, but I do not want the America that Obama is trying to make. I do not want poor people to be dependent on government. I do not want socialized medicine that will ultimately lead to more government and less choice for the people. I do not want an economic stimulus package that will create so much government there will be no hope for tax cuts in the future.

And therefore, if Obama chooses to take this route, I hope he fails. And, when he does fail, republicans will gain seats in the house, Senate and hopefully win back the presidency by 2012.

There, that is my rant for the month. Yet I'm sure the media will continue to twist Rush's words and hail Obamas because the agenda at CNN and MSNBC is no different than Obama's. I keep thinking that CNN is fair, but then I see something like this and it ticks me off.

Media fails to educate on financial crisis

This is the year journalism died. All over the media is spending all day talking about the head of Iran, and refusing to tell Americans the truth about the fallout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

It started way back during the Carter administration. Jimmy Carter wanted to make it easier for poor people to get loans so they could afford to own a house, so he created regulations to make it so. Most banks didn't take this too seriously.

It wasn't until the Clinton administration that the Fed decided to pressure banks to give out these loans. "If you don't give loans to people who can't afford it, we are going to make your life a living hell."

So then all these people were put into homes that they knew they couldn't afford. And the result was the cost of houses skyrocketed, and thus the housing bubble.

Finally the day came when the bills were do, and all these people who shouldn't have been given loans in the first place were forced to give back their homes through foreclosure. And the housing bubble burst.

And then came the day that the banks collapsed because of of all the fraudulent loans, i.e. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

The Fed -- the very people who caused this crisis -- now thinks it can solve this crisis with more government and more regulations. It seems odd to me that the fed wants to solve a problem of too much regulation with even more regulations. It's like putting oil on a fire.

Instead of taking a problem that was caused by a socialistic problem and trying to solve it by Socializing the Financial system, why not take the opposite approach and allow the market to solve itself?

I say why not, because it was government intervention that ultimately turned the panic of 1929 into the great depression. As I reported before, all the recessions and depressions prior to the Great Depression were short lived. The reason was because prior to 1929, Washington believed it was best to allow the market to fix itself, and it always did fix itself.

Yet, because Washington does not learn from history, it is doomed to repeat it. So now we have the very same people who caused this problem trying to solve it.

Not only has the media NOT told you what I just wrote here, but they have not told you who is really at fault here. It is not George W. Bush, it is liberals. It's Chris Dodd. It's Barny Frank. It's Bill Clinton. It's Jimmy Carter.

Early on in the Bush Administration, it was in 2003 I believe, the White House Warned that a crisis was coming if Congress didn't' to something. Yet liberals in Congress balked.

Barny Frank said, in 2003 following the Bush warning, "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis. The more people in my judgment exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see, I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios."

But the media does not tell us this now. There is no analysis of the news in the media. They no longer do their job.

And that's why if we do not do our own investigating we will not learn the truth, particularly about the present financial crisis.

And that, my friends, is the thought of the day.

Oberman not even close in his prediction

Like many of my fellow bloggers who like to get a fair view of opinion and analysis from a variety of voices, I like to flip through the news channels, particularly after watching political events and speeches.

After John McCain's speech, I so happened to click over to MSNBC where the opinionated Kieth Oberman was talking. He said, "There is one thing I can tell you for sure about this speech, it will not come even remotely close to the 40 million that Obama received last week."

I paraphrased there, but I think I did him justice.

Well, McCain did get 40 million viewers. In my humble opinion, Mr. Oberman should heed the example of Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams and keep his opinion under wraps.

On a side note, I was surprised that MSNBC allowed Mr. Oberman to be the commentator during the political speeches given the fact he continually slams republicans.

It's fine for him to have an opinion, as even I want to hear his opinion, but he should have been on the program as a political analyst if he wanted to state his opinion. He should not have been the commentator.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons MSNBC is viewed as a liberal TV network, and why it trailed every other news network, including the three major networks, in the TV ratings department during all the major convention speeches.

The democratic party controls the media

While conservatives keep chanting that the media is bias, many liberals continue to chant that conservatives are full of crap; that the media is not bias whatsoever.

Better yet, liberals chant that liberals do not control the media. However evidence going all the way back to 1964 says they do.

According to a survey done at George Washington University in 1981 of 240 journalist on their political attitudes and voting patterns, "The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters held liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues."

As you can see from the chart to the right, on a year by year basis, greater than 80% of journalists supported the democratic party, as compared with fewer than 20% in any given year supporting republican social and political issues.

To view other key findings of this study and other similar studies click here.

A similar study done in 1995 by U.S. News and World Report of White House Correspondents found that of the 57 members of the White House Press core, 50 of them would vote for a democrat, while only seven would vote for a republican.

Studies have shown that in successive presidential elections, a whopping majority of journalists voted for the democratic candidate. For example, 81% of journalists surveyed said they voted for the democratic candidate in every election from 1964 and 1976. And later, 76% of journalists said they voted for Dukakas, and 91% for Bill Clinton in 1992.

Likewise, while 43% of the public voted for Clinton in 1992, 58% of editors voted for him. And, in 1996, 49% of the public supported Clinton, and 57% of editors voted for him. And, as you might have guessed these are only a few of the statistics.

Here are some of the trends from the last election based on a University of Connecticut survey of 200 journalists:

1. More than half of the journalists surveyed (52%) said they voted for Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, while fewer than one-fifth (19%) said they voted for Republican George W. Bush. The public chose Bush, 51 to 48 percent.
2. When asked “generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, an Independent, or something else?” more than three times as many journalists (33%) said they were Democrats than said they were Republicans (10%).
3. While about half of the journalists said they were “moderate,” 28 percent said they thought of themselves as liberals, compared to just 10 percent who said they were conservative.
4. One out of eight journalists (13%) said they considered themselves “strongly liberal,” compared to just three percent who reported being “strongly conservative,” a four-to-one disparity.
5. When asked about the Bill of Rights, nearly all journalists deemed “essential” the right of a fair trial (97%), a free press (96%), freedom of religion (95%) and free speech (92%), and 80 percent called “essential” the judicially-derived “right to privacy.” But only 25 percent of the journalists termed the “right to own firearms” essential, while 42 percent called that right “important but not essential,” and 31 percent of journalists rejected the Second Amendment as “not important.”

A June 25, 2007 post on MSNBC.com titled, "Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)," reported that "MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties."

And, overall, according to the same article, 9 out of 10 times a political contribution is made by those in the news media, it is given to democratic or liberal causes.
Technically speaking, it should not matter that a majority of reporters are liberal, as per the rules of journalism 101, they should be fair and balanced in their reporting, giving an open ear to both sides of the story.

Yet, as is proven on a daily basis, that is not always the case. One prime example is how, even in my local newspaper, I read stories by the Associated Press about global warming where they talk about global warming as though it were a fact not to be disproved.
However, the theory that man is the cause of global warming is disputed, and it is disputed not just by 50% of Americans, but 50% of scientists as well.

Again, I don't care what reporters believe in, all I want from them to report the news as it happens, not try to inculcate their liberal views on my children, and not to twist the views of people they disagree with, which is what they tend to do to conservative thought.

And this is not just my opinion that the media tends to twist conservative thought, as there is a growing number of Americans who are losing faith in the media to report the news fairly and accurately, according to the MSNBC report listed above.

Now, it can be argued that just because most journalists identify themselves with the democratic party doesn't necessarily mean they are all liberals. However, a majority of liberals tend to align themselves with the democratic party. To be fair, some liberals do align with the republican party.

Still, the fact that a majority of journalists align with the democratic party is scary, considering the fear is that they do not represent the other half of the country who do not align with the democratic party.

A 1996 poll by Rassmussenreports.com has noted that 34.5% of Americans align themselves with the republican party, and those who align themselves with the democratic party is 37.3%. Yet at least 80% of journalists align themselves with the democratic party.

I'm confident there are fair journalists out there, but if the news is going to be spun, chances are it will be spun to the left for obvious reasons.

Either way, I've proven here that the democratic party and liberals control the media.

To be continued...

Conservatives are uncaring, idiots, fools & bigots; That's what they'd have you think anyway

Be careful what you read, because they will try to hypnotise you into believing you are a fool. Do not look at the object on the right, as they will try to spin your ideas and beliefs and make people think you are wrong when you are actually right.

You know it and I know it, but they will have you made to be nothing more than an idiot who is too blind to see the truth: that conservatives are blubbering idiots who fail to see the truth.

That is what the liberal campaign has been for the past several years, and, to some extent, they are succeeding in this attempt at shaping the minds of people across the fruited plain. And why not, they have the resources available of which to do this: they own the majority of mainstream media outlets and the schools.

According to most liberals in the media, and most liberals in general, conservatives are anti-stem cell research, anti-gay, racist and bigoted. I’ve seen all of these terms used at one point or another. Conservatives also don't care about the environment, don't want all people to have health care, don't care about a woman's right to chose, are pro-war and anti-peace, arrogant, Hitler-like and the list goes on.

The positions that conservatives take, the comments conservatives make about their positions, are spun by liberal elites and taken out of contexts to convince the general public that conservatives are idiots and liberals are the messiah.

It’s as though any conservative remark is twisted and twirled and chopped like an onion caught up in the blades of a blender at high speed, the resulting product needing to be poured out because it’s a liquid pile of gook.

When a conservative talks about how he is against government funding of FETAL stem cell research, liberals claim that “he is against ALL stem cell research.”

When a conservative talks about being against gay marriage, liberals write, “She is anti-gay.”

When a conservative says he’s against Affirmative action, liberals write, “he is a racist bigot.”

When a conservative says he’s pro life, liberals chant, “He’s against a woman’s right to choose.”

When a conservative charges that she supports the idea of going on offense in the overall War on Terror, it's because she does not want to see world peace, and would prefer to do the opposite and start an unnecessary war, resulting in the killing of millions of innocent civilians and American soldiers.

That conservative support of Israel and conservatives unwillingness to talk with terrorists means again that they are anti peace warmongers; cowboys if you will.

I am here today, and in various posts in the next few weeks, to reassure you that none of these liberal chants are true, and I will tackle each issue one at a time, in a pithy manner, and prove liberals wrong once again.

While the new media is making strong headway in making sure the American people are not mislead by the mainstream media or liberal teachers, there is still a lot of progress to be made.

While the New York Times continues to release articles about how arrogant cowboys who don't care about the planet, new media outlets like Fox News, talk radio, the blogosphere, and making sure that people get all the facts so they can make in informed opinion, rather than absorb the spin from the media as the way it is.

And then, thank God, we have the blogosphere, and that is where you and I fit in. With this new revolution, we now all have a voice. Stay tuned.