Americans depend on accurate, balanced information from the media

Commentary by James Shott

After seven months since her last press conference in December, Hillary Clinton appeared before journalists last Friday. As Slate.com reported, “Clinton spoke at a joint convention being held by the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ).” This lengthy hiatus has brought heavy criticism from Donald Trump’s campaign, and even from the mainstream media.

Clinton held what many called a press conference in Washington, DC, last Friday that was open only to members of the NABJ and NAHJ – two ethnic groups that are generally friendly to her – according to a press release for the event. “It is notable that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has recognized the 2016 NABJ-NAHJ Convention as a vital gathering to discuss her platform and the issues impacting black and Latino communities,” said NABJ President Sarah Glover in the news release. 

While the Slate piece was generally not complimentary of the responses Clinton gave to questions from the journalists, it did not mention the positive reaction she received to campaign positions prior to the question/answer period. Slate suggested the questions were submitted in advance for approval. A campaign appearance at a minority journalist organizations’ convention, with attendance limited only to members of those organizations, does not a press conference make.

It isn’t difficult to understand why Clinton, or any candidate, would want to speak at such an event, but it is fair to ask why objective journalists of any description would allow that, let alone invite it.

The Media Research Center outlined the fondness of CNN’s “New Day” for Donald Trump issues over the issues surrounding Iran and the payment of $400 million in possible ransom money for four hostages held by the Islamic nation. MRC’s Newsbusters.org detailed the allotment of time on the two topics: “CNN set aside nearly half of its air time on Wednesday's “New Day” to various recent controversies involving the Trump campaign — 1 hour, 24 minutes, and 18 seconds over three hours. By contrast, the program clearly didn't think much of the Wall Street Journal's Tuesday revelation that the Obama administration secretly airlifted $400 million in cash to Iran. John Berman gave a 27-second news brief to the report, but didn't mention that the payment was sent on ‘an unmarked cargo plane.’ ‘New Day,’ therefore, devoted over 187 times more coverage to Trump than to the millions to Iran.”

No matter what you believe about the Iran hostage release and potential ransom payment, no matter what actually transpired, the utter clumsiness of making a payment for any purpose that way on that date warrants more than a half-minute in a three-hour program that spent 84 minutes on the Trump issues.

All major media organizations spent hours of broadcast time and dozens of printed pages on the Republican and Democrat nominating conventions. At each of these events one speaker addressed the delegates about the loss of a child.

At the Republican convention the mother of Sean Smith, one of the four American heroes killed in the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, spoke movingly about losing her son, and laid responsibility for it at the feet of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Pat Smith also noted that when her son’s body was brought home, Clinton “looked me squarely in the eye and told me a video was responsible.”

The following week at the Democrat convention Khizr Kahn and his wife Ghazala appeared and Mr. Kahn talked about the death of his son, Marine Capt. Humayun Khan, who died in Iraq heroically protecting his men. Kahn described himself and his wife as “patriotic American Muslims, with undivided loyalty to our country.” He then criticized Donald Trump for his comments about Muslims, and said, “You have sacrificed nothing and no one.” Predictably, Kahn’s comments about Trump triggered a response.

“While all the grieving parents deserve sympathy, the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) network evening and morning shows seemed to only care about the parents that showed up at the Democratic Convention,” Newsbusters.org reported. “Khizr Khan and his wife Ghazala’s DNC appearance earned 55 minutes, 13 seconds of Big Three network coverage, nearly 50 times more than Pat Smith, whose RNC speech honoring her son earned just 70 seconds of airtime.”

The First Amendment protects free speech, and that includes newspapers, television and radio news operations; they are free to say what they like, bound generally by the same restrictions as individuals. The difference is that the public depends upon media sources for information upon which people base important decisions, such as deciding whom to elect to important positions.

Therefore, news organizations have a solemn duty to provide balance to the news they cover and how they cover it, and news journalists – as distinguished from opinion journalists – should be proscribed from injecting bias and opinion into their work. 

These recent examples show decision-making by journalistic organizations in selecting a convention speaker that raises questions about objectivity, and a clear, undeniable lack of balance in reporting on important events that Americans will use in deciding their choice for the presidency and other offices.

Surely the U.S. media can do better than this.

Cross-posted from Observations.

Republicans face problems in debates and the House of Representatives

Commentary by James Shott

Say what you will about the way CNBC conducted the Republican debate, the business side of NBC News did something that neither Fox News nor CNN were able to do.

All three had similarities, like gotcha questions and efforts to pit one candidate against another, elements that obstructed a discussion of the serious issues of electing a nominee for President of the United States, rather than assisting voters in making an informed decision. To the extent that real issues arose, the combative atmosphere moderators created in all three debates got in the way.

In sharp contrast to the mood in Republican debates was the Democrat debate on CNN, which also failed to reveal important information about the candidates, but approached not doing so by giving hugs and kisses to the candidates.

CNBC was both over the top and under the table. The three moderators were clearly not up to conducting a meaningful debate, not even on business and economic issues, and the muddle that resulted drew almost universal criticism. Moderators were poorly prepared, partisan, thought they were the stars of the show, were argumentative and often interrupted the candidates. While so many TV news people seem infected with the idea that being quarrelsome is cool, CNBC took that to a new level. You can challenge candidates on issues and answers, and still be civil.

However, as horrible as it was, CNBC did succeed in uniting the candidates for the first time since the campaign began, if only against CNBC’s amateurish approach, and the revolt that followed did produce a little discussion of important issues.

The 2016 debate series should be a valuable element in the process of selecting presidential candidates. Along with public and media appearances, the debates are opportunities for voters to hear candidates discuss their platforms and they are the only vehicle where the pros and cons of the various positions are aired in a way that voters have the opportunity to evaluate them side-by-side. 

So far they all have been disappointing, in terms of illuminating the candidate’s views, but CNBC wins the brown ribbon for the absolute worst. In place of questions on substantive issues, the moderators worked hard to trap and demean the Republican participants, which is very different from challenging them on issues.

Unfortunately, our campaign process identifies the best candidate, not necessarily the person best suited to be president. So much is based on appearance and performance, rather than candidates’ understanding of the country’s problems and sensible ideas for addressing them. A track record of success takes a back seat to image, charm and glibness.

And Republicans have the additional obstacle posed by the liberals in the media, who often misunderstand and not infrequently deliberately mischaracterize their objectives, and tell the world how awful they are.

Granted that the GOP is sharply divided, unlike the Democrat Party that pretty much possesses no diversity of thought. But the left portrays this Republican diversity as a weakness, which is interesting, since the left considers diversity one of the most important things in life.

It suits the purposes of the left to mischaracterize and demonize the House Freedom Caucus, the Tea Party groups and other elements of the right, and there are plenty of media sources indulging in that activity.

Some, commenting on Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan’s election as House Speaker, wonder how he will possibly be able to manage such an unruly group. The liberal writers characterize the conservative Republican bloc with terms such as “right-wing fringe” and “radicals.”

The liberal writers are happy to offer guidance to conservatives, such as that if their subgroup wants to set policy for its party, all it needs is to have a majority of the party’s support. And if it doesn’t have a majority, it should meekly abandon its position and support the position of the majority.

And that no doubt would please liberals and Democrats, and many Republicans. However, millions of Republican voters recognize that this approach is largely why things are worse today than when the GOP gained control of the Congress, and why the Republican Congress has been so ineffective at representing their views.

These conservative House members were elected not to offer their ideas and then surrender, they were elected to fight for their supporter’s beliefs in the traditional conservative values that built the country, and to stick by them. Isn’t that what republican government is all about?

The liberals advise that when voters have put one party in charge of the executive branch and another party in charge of the legislative branch, as is the case today, compromise is demanded to move the country forward.

However, compromise does not mean surrender, as many of these “advisors” suggest. One does not oppose a bill with multiple objectionable elements, and then “compromise” by accepting the whole package when others resist changes. The two sides identify those elements they agree on, take the rest out of the legislation, and move the compromise measure forward.

Compromise means that everyone gives up something, not just the conservative Republicans. It is sad – even dangerous – that so many Republicans do not understand this.



Cross-posted from Observations

News media decline in credibility took less than a hundred years

Some recent media meltdowns call attention in the worst way to the continuing failures of much of the American news and information media. Bad judgment and abandonment of basic principles in three recent cases call attention to a long-standing slide from respectability to corruption for the nation’s news purveyors. Some examples from the recent past include: 

First, the Rolling Stone rape story, in which contributing editor Sabrina Rubin Erdely wrote about a female freshman at the University of Virginia identified as “Jackie,” detailing an alleged sexual assault by seven members of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity.

Ms. Erdely did a poor job of fact-checking the story and failed to interview key individuals involved in the episode. The story was unfit to be printed in any credible publication, and caused quite a bit of turmoil at UVA. 

In defense of this journalistic malfeasance, the following notion has been floated: “Just because it wasn’t true in the Rolling Stone case doesn’t mean it isn’t true somewhere.” Such foolishness is a common defense of beliefs thought to be so important that truth takes second place.

Although Rolling Stone is a pop culture magazine, not a “real” news source, it is not excused from following the rules.

The New York Daily News, however, is a real news source, and has no excuse for this failure:
“Sarah Palin has gone rogue again - this time, giving her fans a fleshy surprise as a holiday gift,” wrote Adam Edelman in the Daily News, describing a video of Ms. Palin.

“In the episode, Palin demonstrates how to make her favorite iteration of blueberry pie, but as she delicately kneads the dough, her sweater falls down to her arms, revealing a whole lot of sun-kissed Alaskan skin and a sexy black undergarment,” wrote Mr. Edelman, a political writer for the paper.

Clearly implying that Ms. Palin was deliberately provocative, the headline blared: “Ho, ho, ho! Sarah Palin wishes fans holiday cheer as sweater falls down,” alleging she “gifted them with the naughtiest Christmas present of all – flesh.”

Perhaps Ms. Palin’s good looks dazed Mr. Edelman, confusing him about what he saw. Or didn’t see. She wasn’t wearing a sweater, as anyone who watched the video knows. The political writer’s imagination ran wild, and visions of underthings danced in his head.
It appears the delicious opportunity to ridicule Ms. Palin easily overpowered whatever journalistic ethics he and the newspaper might once have had.

For the third example, when a white police officer in Ferguson, MO shot and killed an 18 year-old black youth, the media widely portrayed the black youth as a gentle giant who had his hands up in surrender, saying “don’t shoot.”

The reaction to this seemingly tragic event was swift and angry. And wrong.

You see, it never happened. The “gentle giant,” Michael Brown, who was a giant, but was anything but gentle, had just minutes before the confrontation with officer Darren Wilson stolen cigars from a store and assaulted a store worker, disobeyed the police officer’s lawful instructions to move out of the middle of the street, attacked the police officer in his car and attempted to take his gun, then ran from the police officer. An autopsy revealed that he had marijuana in his blood, and according to grand jury testimony, never put his hands up and never said, “don’t shoot.” Instead, he attacked the officer again and died from gunshot wounds in response to his attack.

The media rushed to judgment, accepting without examination the idea that an innocent 18 year-old black youth was murdered while he was surrendering to police with his hands up. Was it because this scenario fit the preconceived notions of much of the mainstream media?
It is the reporter’s duty to scrupulously avoid injecting opinion in his or her reporting, and to carefully label unverified information, so that those in the audience have reliable information from which to form their opinions. 

American journalist and educator Walter Williams founded the world's first journalism school at the University of Missouri in 1908, and in 1914 created the Journalist’s Creed. Among the elements of the Creed are the following:

**I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of responsibility, trustees for the public; that all acceptance of lesser service than the public service is a betrayal of this trust.

**I believe that clear thinking, clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.

Now, one hundred years after its creation, after witnessing so much news coverage that falls so far short of the lofty standards of the Journalist’s Creed, one may justifiably wonder whether the Creed was ever a part of the training of so many practitioners, or has merely been forsaken by them, and is as carefully concealed from journalism students as so much information is hidden from the public by our government.

The three examples listed previously only scratch the surface of the of the failure of modern news journalism to adhere to its moral and ethical mandate. Like our nation’s founding principles, journalism’s ethics and morality need to be restored.

Media blackout of black Chicago protesters marching against Obama

Originally found at: Legal Insurrection

Posted by Anne Sorock    Saturday, November 3, 2012 at 2:12pm

Black Chicagoans from the south and west sides took their message to what they say is the source of the problem when they converged outside of a fundraiser held by Mayor Emanuel for Barack Obama and then marched to the studios of ABC News.

Their message, “let us work in our own community,” was made all the more poignant as the ABC News crew ignored the news event outside their very studios. Not one camera was sent to cover the news that was, literally, placed at their doorstep.

The protest, which took place Thursday evening, addressed these community members’ growing desperation as their wartorn neighborhoods are redeveloped by political cronies, evicting residents and shutting out local investors, and use union labor from outside the community to do the work. It’s a corrupt cycle of government “work” that takes advantage of the poor, evicting them, and then redeveloping the properties to benefit anyone but the community.

In the video below, community members who say they are desperate for jobs and investment, focus their protest against liberal leadership, including Obama and Emanuel, so-called community organizations like ACORN, and unions:

In an earlier video published by Jeremy Segal “Rebel Pundit,” a community member elaborated on the issue the inner-city black community has with unions: they won’t hire black people. Therefore any work going to their communities for building sites, etc., shuts them out of jobs.Segal writes:

According to Mark Carter of the Broke Party, a newly formed group of black grassroots activists fed up with the destruction and blight brought on their community by the liberal agenda, the protest was “about bringing attention to the demolition of homes in Chicago’s black communities on the west and south sides.” These buildings, Carter says, “can still be saved, but the city is tearing them down,” leaving property values and the community in the gutter.
Carter told Breitbart News they chose the Obama fundraiser as the starting point for the protest in order to send a direct message to Rahm Emanuel and Washington, D.C. that they will not be voting on Tuesday for those politicians who are allowing their homes and community to be demolished.
In an effort to bring even further attention to the ongoing issues of the black community in Chicago, the protest ended up outside of ABC 7 News’s local broadcast studio on State Street. This studio can be viewed from the street and sidewalk. When the protesters arrived, they used a bullhorn to announce themselves and called on weather reporter Jerry Taft, seen through the window, not to pretend they weren’t there, prompting a wave from Taft to the protesters.

As the new jobs numbers show black unemployment has risen to 14.3 percent, this community is desperate for work. They are desperate to find a new way outside of liberal leadership. And  they are desperate for the media to stop the blackout on the real stories happening in the inner-city communities.

What can the inner-city black community do to get ABC News and other outlets to cover their plight, if bringing news to their very doorstep is not enough for the media to pay attention?

Originally found at: http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/11/media-blackout-on-black-chicago-protesters-marching-against-obama/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LegalInsurrection+%28Le·gal+In·sur·rec·tion%29

Against All Enemies Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

An Open Letter to the Liberal Media

Link: http://s012/10/30/an-open-letter-to-the-liberal-media/ago.com/2

October 30th, 2012

Dear Mainstream Media,

In this time of the most important Presidential election in the history of the United States, you are letting down the American people, who have for so long trusted you to be our defense against tyranny in our government. You continue to run cover for a man who is very likely the worst President in our 237 year history.

The latest foul-up you are ignoring is of course the incident at the Benghazi “consulate” and the cover-up by the Obama administration. This is one of the two most egregious illegal acts by the Obama administration, the other being “Fast And Furious.” Given the nature of these two Obama administration failures, I would think, as I am sure most of the American people would think, that you would attack with great resolve. After all, many people have lost their lives due to these two Obama endeavors. Yet you are silent.

You went so far as to help hide Mr. Obama’s past during the 2008 election, when you simply looked the other way, though some of you engaged in an organization called “Journolist” in which many of you actively hid the truth.  You buried facts about Mr. Obama’s relationships with nefarious characters like terrorist Bill Ayers, and America hating Reverend Jeremiah Wright, but most of you were just silent on issues.

But, today, you continue to go about your business as if Border Patrol Agent Bryan Terry was never murdered with a weapon that the administration smuggled directly to the drug cartel hit man who killed him. Further to that, you are actively helping the administration cover up the facts surrounding the attack on the Benghazi Consular/CIA Compound, the facts surrounding the gun smuggling that was actively taking place, and the deaths of four (4) Americans; Ambassador Christopher Stevens, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, and Embassy Information Officer Sean Smith. In fact, I would venture to guess, that if I were to ask Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell, Brian Williams, or Fareed Zakaria to name all four of the murdered men from the Benghazi incident, they couldn’t do so.

You have a responsibility to protect the United States from tyranny. Elijah Lovejoy and many other news men died doing just that. Yet, you glibly ignore your duty in the name of your political ideology. What is wrong with you? What has happened to the Journalism schools in our country that have turned you all into political operatives for your party of choice? What makes you think you have the right to propagandize daily when you go to print, or on the air? And since when have you become gods who dictate how our lives will go? How dare you?

There are, all over the world, real journalists who are regularly tortured and murdered for telling the truth. You disgrace them each time you claim to be journalists. During tumultuous times in history, as tyrants arose, from Russia to Vietnam, to Nazi Germany, there have been real journalists who, in their zeal to inform the public were rounded up and summarily executed. They died doing that which was right, and undertaking actions that followed in the spirit of a free press. They were journalists. Elijah Lovejoy was a real journalist. You are but bought and sold propagandists. You must have a hard time sleeping at night. It must be difficult to look in the mirror.

Keep reading (article continues)...

The Government Must Control the Internet

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

--Benjamin Franklin

With the Mainstream Media in the pocket of the powerful, faithfully broadcasting all their lies and perversions, the only alternative We the People have to such propaganda is the Internet.  That is why the government must control it.  That is why any discussion of the government "securing" the Internet should scare you.  Should they be given the keys to the Internet, any sort of cyber "emergency," whether real or contrived, would give them the rationale to control/restrict its use.

The government should be responsible for protecting their own networks.  Private citizens should protect their computers.  Private businesses should protect theirs.  The government cannot protect their own computer systems now, so what makes us think that they will be any more effective if we allow them to protect the rest of America's computer systems?  Giving the government the responsibility for the security of all these domains is a mistake that we will regret.

To stifle dissent and only allow the People to receive the government's viewpoint, the government must control the Internet.  We must therefore do everything possible to prevent them from obtaining such control to protect our Freedom of Speech.

--Against All Enemies

NSA Director Pushes Cybersecurity Bill
by DEFENSETECH on OCTOBER 10, 2012
Link to article

Cyberattacks have breached the Pentagon and sent businesses into bankruptcy. Still, it might take a cyberdisaster that causes damage on the scale of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 to get lawmakers to pass legislation aimed at shoring up the U.S.’s infrastructure.

The White House has proposed an executive order to address part of the problem, but Gen. Keith Alexander, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of U.S. Cyber Command, says that is not enough.

The Pentagon has a pilot program that will help private companies work with the government to help them protect their own information.

But that program “doesn’t give us the ability to work with the Internet service providers and allow that to benefit the rest of the critical infrastructure and the rest of government,” Alexander said during an Oct. 1 panel discussion at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. “That’s really what we need this legislation for.”

An executive order also would fail to address liability protections to shield companies from lawsuits over information-sharing that are needed to encourage participation, says Susan Collins (Maine), the ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee and a co-sponsor of cybersecurity legislation.

“I think the executive order is a mistake,” Collins says. “I fear that it actually could lull people into a false sense of security that we’ve taken care of cybersecurity.”

This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

– Jen DiMascio

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Media Have Become an "Enemy of the People"

Pat Caddell, a former Democratic pollster, discusses how the media has now become an enemy of the people of the United States of America.  He specifically speaks to the media's handling of the attack on our ambassador in Libya, and how the media controls what you are allowed to know, and what you are not allowed to know, as the American people.

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/brDZJA8j-8c

--Against All Enemies

AAE Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Liberal U.S. media working to subvert Mitt Romney’s candidacy

 

Commentary by James H. Shott

The experiences of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney last week illustrate how the media fail to provide adequate, objective and balanced coverage of serious campaign issues.

Campaigning in Colorado last week, Mr. Romney gave an interview to a local TV reporter, no doubt wanting to talk about his ideas for combating the horrible economic conditions, the need for jobs, and other weighty problems that threaten the nation.

The reporter began by asking about Mr. Romney’s inability to connect with Colorado Republicans, and following his 24-second answer then moved to same-sex marriage. Mr. Romney gave what he said was the same answer to this question as he has given from the beginning. The reporter then asked follow-up questions on that same subject. After two minutes of questions and answers on same-sex marriage, the reporter then asked if illegal aliens should receive in-state tuition. And then after that she asked Mr. Romney about medical marijuana.

So, given the opportunity to interview the likely Republican nominee for the office of President of the United States, a local reporter spends three minutes of the four and one-half minute interview asking about social issues.

Mr. Romney had about all he could stand, so he protested, since medical marijuana, same-sex marriage and tuition for illegals are neither the most important issues facing the nation, nor something about which a President of the United States should be concerned, since they are state issues.

And, indeed, there are obviously more important issues needing attention, such as the $16 trillion national debt that runs to $50,000 for every one of the more than 300 million Americans. How about the highest corporate tax rate in the world that makes U.S. corporations less competitive in the world market? How about the 16 percent of American workers – about 13 million, all together – that can’t find a job at all, or are underemployed? What about a nuclear Iran, and the mess in Afghanistan? How about the fact that the Democrats in charge of the U.S. Senate have shirked their obligation to pass a budget for three straight years?

None of that seemed important to the reporter, but she finally did get around to asking questions about energy.

While the Colorado reporter was focusing on less relevant topics, the intrepid investigators at The Washington Post were busy looking into Mr. Romney’s high school days, searching for archaic dirt. And, they found some.

Some of the former governor’s high school classmates from 1965 said that he had indulged in boyish behavior, and one incident allegedly involved forcibly cutting the long blonde hair of a boy a year younger than Mr. Romney, who the classmates said may have been gay. If true, this was clearly wrong and indefensible. But it was nearly 50 years ago in high school, and appears to be an isolated incident. Yet, The Post thought it was important enough for 5,000 words starting on page 1 above the fold. And since then these allegations have “evolved” into proof that Mitt Romney was a homophobic bully. He also is accused of pulling classmate Susie Jones’ hair in the third grade.

The Post’s crack investigators successfully found this 47 year-old story about Mr. Romney (13 times longer ago than the last budget passed by our Democrat-controlled Senate), but gave little attention to Barack Obama’s history with former members of the Weather Underground and his admitted “enthusiastic” drug use, and were unable to find any information about his mysterious college days, including his grades, his formal papers, his days at the Harvard Law Review, his friends, etc.

Some people’s past apparently deserves closer scrutiny than others. You can understand why The Post might regard Mr. Romney’s past as more important: he’s running for President.

It is relevant to note that the family of John Lauber, the victim of Mr. Romney’s alleged brutish haircut, is appalled that their relative would be used for political purposes. His older sister, Christine, was unaware that Mitt Romney, or anyone else, “bullied” her brother, who passed away from liver cancer in 2004, but she was clearly not pleased by the story. “Even if it did happen, John probably wouldn’t have said anything,” she said. “If he were still alive today, he would be furious.”

“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda,” she said. “There will be no more comments from the family.”

The treatment of Mitt Romney in 2012 and the treatment of Barack Obama in 2008 couldn’t be more different. In the Romney story, an unproved allegation of bullying gets front page treatment from The Washington Post, but admitted drug use, et al, by Barack Obama goes virtually unreported.

By emphasizing peripheral issues like same-sex marriage, illegal alien tuition, medical marijuana, and high school behavior, the liberal media distracts attention from President Obama’s dismal record on the critical economic problems. And in the attempt to discredit Mr. Romney, The Washington Post story denigrates John Lauber’s memory and upsets his family, presumably because of its obligation to inform the public. Well, about some things, anyway.

Cross-posted from Observations

War Clouds Continue to Gather

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

First, allow me to explain that, yes, I know it is not popular, today, to point out the obvious.  Ok.  Maybe I should have phrased that this way:  “…to point out what SHOULD be obvious.”

Before I proceed, I’d like to encourage my readers to browse the websites of foreign news services.  If I have learned anything at all (since Al Gore invented the Internet) it is this:  The US mainstream media cannot be trusted.  They have an agenda and that agenda does not necessarily include dissemination of the truth.  As a card-carrying member of the press for many years, I have always been aware of the left-leaning bias of the US media.  That is not to say the same leftist bias does not exist in overseas media because it most certainly does.

Having said that – were you aware that right at the moment the Obama Administration is announcing plans to cut the US defense budget the US is preparing for another war in the Middle East?  Did you know that we have been quietly building an armada of naval assets in the Gulf of Oman just off the shores of Iran?  Did you know this naval armada consists of warships from the US, the UK, France, Israel, and others?  

Looking west a bit we see US, French, and British warships, standing off the Syrian coast, facing off with Russian warships including a Russian aircraft carrier task force.

My regional newspaper is printed in a military town, home to one of the largest military bases in the US, and yet, I see very little information in it’s pages concerning this build-up of military might in the waters of the Middle East.  Why?

I’ll make the answer as straight forward and simple as I possibly can.  There re two parts to the complete answer: 1) Obama is seeking reelection.  2) Obama is seeking to reduce the military budget to gain more money to spend on his leftist agenda for America.

At the risk of being called an “alarmist” allow be to make it plain:  I AM alarmed.

So when will this war begin.  Well, let me put it this way:  The Iranians should carefully watch Obama’s poll numbers.  If those numbers continue their slide downwards, the Iranians are going get the heck bombed out of them. 

Americans are extremely reluctant to change Presidents in the middle of a war.  Obama knows this and is expected to act accordingly. 

Some conservative writers and commentators expect that war in the Middle East is currently scheduled for October 2012. That would be the famed “October Surprise.”

On the other hand, those in my camp believe the Iranians, in all their hyped-up passion, will do something stupid like firing on a tanker or a US warship or aircraft, or even worse, make an attempt to close the Straits of Hormuz by sewing it with mines and other hazards to maritime traffic.  That would be the spark that would bring down the considerable wrath of that naval armada lying off their shores.

Then there are the Israelis.  They have had enough of Iran’s threats and Iran’s war on Israel by proxy.  Israel’s secret war of sabotage in Iran can only deliver limited success at delaying and derailing Iran’s race to build or acquire a nuclear bomb.  Israel could decide, at any moment, that enough is enough and launch their fighter-bombers and cruise missiles at Iran’s nuclear facilities.   Even if it only buys a few months or a couple of years of breathing space for Israel, it is becoming clear there is no other way to effectively deter Iran from building their coveted Islam Bomb.

The situation in the Middle East today is far, far, more dangerous than the US media is reporting.  A single spark will ignite a devastating war that will affect practically every nation on earth to some degree or other.

Those of us who continue to sound the warning bell of a huge war in the Middle East are being compared to the boy Peter in the story of “Peter and the Wolf.” An article at Haaretz.com noted that those who make such public comparisons seem always to leave out the end of Aesop’s famous tale of the boy who called wolf too much.  In the end, the wolf actually DID come -- and the sheep were slaughtered.  (SOURCE)

So, with that ending in mind, I have no concern about continually pointing to those dark, foreboding, clouds gathering in the east.  Since the mainstream media seems to be ignoring a certain war to protect Obama’s prospects in the coming election, someone must stand as a watchman on the ramparts and sound the alarm when clouds of dust from the approaching armies of the enemy is sighted and when the sound of distant war drums is heard.

Today those dust clouds are clearly seen over the horizon and the pounding of the drums can be heard in the distance -- and we are sounding the alarm.

J. D. Longstreet

Shut The Government Down!

Shut The Government Down!
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

I am beginning to believe that we OUGHT to shut the government down for as long as it takes to determine who, exactly, are the government workers essential to running the government. Then, fire all non-essential workers. And don’t re-open until we cut the heck out of the expense of running the government, itself, AND get a handle on congressional and executive branch spending.

Ok. Let’s cut to some of the basics here. First do not buy into the notion that the government actually shuts down when there is a government shutdown. OH, no! That is exactly what the political left wants you to believe. (By the way. For those of you new to my scribblings – understand that when I say “the political left” – I include the mainstream media in that nomenclatura.)

Surely you do not think government bureaucrats and federal employees do not have their backsides covered in the event of the dreaded “government shut-down?” Oh, to be sure, they DO. Yes, assuredly, they DO!

All the scare tactics used by the political left to scare the living daylights out of Americans who, as a rule, have not an inkling as to how their government actually works, are very effective when disseminated by a state controlled press – otherwise known as the Mainstream Media.

NO. Planes will not be grounded, the border will continued to be patrolled, hospitals will continue to treat patients, the military will continue to fight, federal prisoners in federal pens would still be guarded, The tax people (IRS) will keep right on aggravating the dickens out of Americans and, well, just about all the important stuff will continue as if nothing is going on.

What does happen is -- the non-essential government workers will get to stay home and be paid retroactively AFTER the government starts back up again. Most Americans would not notice a government shut down were it not for the press screaming it from every headline, microphone, and TV set in the nation.

Seems to me, shutting down the government would be a good thing. Heck, lets shut it down, and get rid of the non-essential government worker as we recommended above. That, alone, ought to save a whopping amount of money for the treasury.

Certainly, you know that a government shut down does not include sending Congress home. Oh, how I wish it did! The only time I feel safe, anymore, is when Congress is in recess.

See – this whole government shut down thing is a last ditch democrat dirty trick hatched up just in case they DID lose control of the government last November. They continued to push back approving a budget until it fell into the lap of a republican House of Representatives … just as it was planned. Now, the dems believe, they can make hay from the “don’t care” stigma smeared on the Republican Party by themselves and the mainstream media, which, as you know by now, THEY control.

But wait! Something is wrong. Something is not working as it was supposed to work.

Oh, drats! Turns out the American people actually DO want the government’s reckless spending cut back… even if it entails a shutdown of the government itself! Why, that tosses a mean spanner into the cogs, what?

Oh, joy! It turns out those DUMB Tea Partiers are not as dumb as the Mainstream Media and the democrats thought. Those people actually DO know how the government works. They DO know their constitution; and they DO know how to thwart the machinations of the liberal-socialists in the government. As a result, blow back from the electorate has splashed all over the democrats and they are beginning to question the wisdom of forcing a government shutdown.

Now the ball is in Obama’s court. He is the one person in the US government all eyes will be gazing upon if there is a shutdown.

In my opinion, all American voters should be standing in their chairs, yelling at the top of their lungs, demanding a shutdown of the US government until we can get spending under control.

A government shutdown is a GOOD thing, a useful thing, and an essential tool to help us save this country.

So bring it on. Let’s learn whose jobs are essential and whose are not -- and get rid of the non-essential workers as the first order of business.

Now that I have had my fun, allow me to say that I don’t believe either side, dems or repubs have what it takes to get our national budget in order. I am convinced that the US economy WILL crash as a result of the lack of courage of the men and women who are running it into the ground.

When the economy goes so will the government. Only God, Himself, knows what kind of government we will have when the smoke clears. But I WILL venture an educated guess: a communist government. (Notice: I didn’t say “a socialist government!”)

The last two generations of Americans have been prepared in the public schools for this eventuality. They KNOW that socialism/communism is a far better form of government that a representative constitutional republic. They know that because they have been taught that.

It certainly seems that only the American people are interested in saving America. It is obvious America’s government is not.

J. D. Longstreet

Tea Party Terrifies The Mainstream Media

Tea Party Terrifies The Mainstream Media
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

In less than three weeks Americans go to the polls determined to change the federal government back to a responsive, responsible, government, which actually HAS the consent of the governed.

The Mainstream Media is flat-out “hacked-off” by this unparalleled behavior by the people they, too often in the past, have counted as sheep to be led by their left-wing propaganda which they have spoon fed the masses with their pabulum presses and mediocre “news” broadcasts.

The American public is NOT responding and NOT behaving as it is supposed to, and they are frightened.

See – this Tea Party “thing” was never supposed to happen. Nosiree! Just as they have for decades, the American public was supposed to act -- and re-act -- based upon the propaganda fed them by the Mainstream Media. Not THIS time.

It seems the MSM had not factored in an extremely important part of Americans lives today. The Internet.

No longer are Americans shackled to their TV sets at 6:30 PM, or their newspapers at the breakfast table. Now, with the Internet, Americans are plugged into news from around the world on a 24-hour basis. Often the news is “raw.” In other words, it has not been filtered through editors.

And then there are the “citizen journalists.” Oh, THAT is a term the newsies absolutely HATE! For years now members of the MSM have declared there is no such thing as a citizen journalist. All the while those citizens journalists were plying their trade 24 hours a day on the Internet, directly under the noses of the MSM. In other words, those news amateurs were doing the jobs of the MSM. While “raw” their reports were reaching hundreds of thousands of readers hours, and even days, before those same reports appeared in the print and broadcast media.

It did not take the public long to learn there was a constant source of news right at their fingertips anytime they wanted it. That was when the MSM learned they were in BIG TROUBLE!

Then something called a “Web Log” was born. The two words were soon contracted into the single word “Blog” and those who wrote in those “Blogs” became known as “Bloggers.”

The problem with the bloggers was, and remains, that they tend to tell their readers, right up front, where lies their bias. Bloggers do not tend to proclaim themselves non-biased. In fact, they oftimes go out of their way to make it clear to readers whether they are conservative, or liberal, right wing, or left wing. Turns out that was a smart move. It also turns out that readers are comfortable with that knowledge. They can go directly to their favorite conservative blog, or news source or their favorite liberal blog or news source and not have to wade through all the “blather” from the political philosophy they abhor.

Then there is the communications afforded by the Internet which is instantaneous, 24-hours a day 7-days a week. Americans could, for the first time, have a never-ending conversation with each other about anything they wanted.

As it turned out, many Americans wanted to swap political ideas. They began to form into online communities. That’s when the American electorate really found its power.

Soon after the election of 2006, Americans found their government had gone rogue. “Rogue” in the sense that it was no longer responsive to the wishes and desires of the electorate. As the months and years passed the Congress became less and less connected to its constituents. They simply forgot or chose to ignore the fact that they govern with the consent of the governed.

That was when the American electorate decided to use the power they had (with the Internet) to form a resistance movement which would confuse the legislators efforts and if not render them impotent, then certainly slow them down in their efforts to transform America into some sort of excremental socialist nightmare.

Today the landscape of the cyber sphere is littered with portals for all kinds and sorts of political philosophies and organizations. If not the most powerful, then certainly ONE of the most powerful turned out to be the Tea Party.

Demanding that the United States be returned to its status as a constitutional, representative, republic the Tea Party grew with the ferocity of a wind swept prairie fire until it became a juggernaut of like-minded Americans with one goal in mind: to rescue America from the clutches of a government drunk on power.

The power of the Tea Party has influenced primary elections across the country and are now set to rearrange the US House of Representatives and, quite possibly, the US Senate, as well, while plans for the drive to retire the US President loom dead ahead.

There is little to prevent the Tea Party from becoming a third powerful political party in America should the new Congress fail to live up to their expectations in the next few months. It is possible they could replace the Republican Party just as the Republican Party replaced the Whig Party a century and a half, or so, ago.

All of this can be traced back to the arrogance of BOTH political parties in America and to the elite Mainstream Media and their continued support of left wing politics.

The Tea Party reflects the unique American trait of revolution based on the ballot box rather than the cartridge box.

No matter what your feelings about the Tea Party happen to be, this is an important and historical moment in American history. It has shaken the world of the Mainstream Media to the core. They are confused and frightened. They still don’t get that this is America and when American feel their freedom is under attack, they will, as ever, fight back.

J. D. Longstreet

"Passion over Palin"

"Passion over Palin"
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
******************************
I have had some reaction to the piece I wrote on Sarah Palin a couple of days ago. Some good -- some not good. The one thing all comments had, however, was passion. Either the commenter hated her with a passion, or the commenter loved her with a passion. There does not seem to be any middle ground when it comes to Sarah Palin. I am STILL asking why? She has become a polarizing figure.

OK, so maybe I am just thick-headed. Heck, I'll even admit to that. But for the life of me, I cannot see how Ms. Palin, of whom, I had barely heard a word prior to the announcement of her candidacy as McCain's running mate, could come out of the frozen north, still thought of by some as America's frontier, and create so much controversy. THAT was one thing. But AFTER the election, after everyone had gone home, after the party was over, after the lights had been turned out, the bad press just never seemed to stop, or even lessen. Her family problems are the very same problems American families all over the country deal with every day. I am convinced the left made a serious error in judgement by making an issue of the Palin family problems. It created sympathy for the Palins and disgust in conservatives for what was perceived as unwarranted intrusion, by the media, into a family's private affairs.

As far as Alaska politics are concerned... I am a Carolina boy. We know a little something about bare knuckles politics here in Dixie. Take a look at the trouble our former NC governor is facing currently. Then swing your gaze southward to our sister state and the trouble the SC governor is in currently. It gets down and dirty in the Carolinas when politics are involved. So, the political machinations of Alaska's politics, and politicians, made little, if any, impression on me.

As I said in an earlier piece, it DID trouble me that she quit, but, since I have no investment in what Ms. Palin does, or does not do now, or in the future, I did not give it a second thought. It is politics. I moved on.

It seems to me that a neutral observer of the late presidential campaign would have to agree that the "negative" press coverage of Ms. Palin was a bit of "overkill." As a card carrying member of the press for many years, I saw very little subtlety in the way the MSM went after Ms. Palin. It appeared to me to be very nearly a quest to defame her in any way they could so as to render her a neutral threat to their man, Obama, for whom, they were, and are, deeply in the tank.

In the end, it did not seem to matter, one way or the other, for the GOP ticket was doomed from the beginning, long before the voters had heard of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential candidate on John McCain's ticket. For at least two years this old southern boy had been declaring that Senator McCain would never be President of the United States. I am not clairvoyant, I have no crystal ball, and I assure you I am no prophet. What I DO have is knowledge of my fellow southern conservatives.

You see, the day McCain "dissed" the Confederate Battle Flag, any chance he had to garner the bulk of the southern conservative vote was ended. As he had done that just a few years prior to the 2008 campaign, the time he spent campaigning in the south during that campaign was wasted effort. His status as a "RINO" pretty much slammed the door on any chance he MAY have had.

But THIS is what peaked my interest in Palin: After the election, and the Obama win, the Mainstream Media continued their campaign to "Get Palin!" Many southern conservatives, and other conservatives across the land, did not like what they were seeing. (Allow me to add that not ALL conservatives saw it that way. There are a number of conservatives, southern conservatives among them, who feel Ms Palin is a phony, to put it bluntly.) It was interpreted by many as an obvious campaign to destroy any credibility Ms. Palin had, or might have, as a candidate for ANYTHING in the future. Conservatives saw it as sure sign of fear from the left. They quickly became convinced that nothing else could, nor can, account for the zeal of the left in attacking and going after Ms. Palin. What are they afraid of?

The school of thought on that particular question, and the one I tend to lean toward, is this: When the political left saw the attraction of conservatives to Ms. Palin, the same conservatives who were supposed to stay home on election day, they panicked. They had to DO something.

And they did. They attacked.

The unrelenting attack on Palin, by the left, is what has stirred my interest. Had they backed off after the election and stirred clear of Ms. Palin, she would not be nearly as popular today as she is. At least that is my opinion. The cacophony of anti-Palin drum beating, by the left, has drawn the attention of many, many, conservatives who ordinarily would have moved on until the next election campaign or cycle. But the left has kept the attention of conservatives on Palin and drawn many more to the Palin camp as sympathizers.

Now the Republican Party has climbed aboard the "Get Palin" train. Why? The GOP is scared witless that Palin will be the first presidential candidate of the Tea Party in America. If that should happen, she will split the republican electorate, take a slew of votes away from the GOP candidate, and, most likely, insure another victory for the Democrats. However, Palin's possible Tea Party candidacy would suddenly boost the power of those members of the GOP electorate who subscribe to the Tea Party's conservative philosophy. They most certainly would be invited to sit at the table with the high "muckity-mucks" of the GOP and actually have a say in what the GOP does. But, we warn fellow conservatives. This is a power play that will have a high cost. I am convinced it will cost the GOP, and the Tea Party, the White House in 2012.

If the GOP is serious about retaking the Congress and the White House they had better bite the bullet and work with Palin (as bitter a pill as that might be to swallow) and the Tea Party -- not against them. The tide amongst conservative and Independent voters is toward a conservative replacement for the current occupant of the White House and as many current occupants of the House and Senate as possible.

If the GOP goes to war with Palin, the GOP WILL lose... in more ways than one. They will most certainly lose in the Mid-Term elections, this November, and they will absolutely lose their bid for the White House in 2012 -- and they will lose a huge chunk of their electorate who will move over, officially, to the Tea Party. Going after Palin is not an option to be considered by the GOP as tempting as it may seem.

Palin may be a "penny match phenomenon." She may flare up suddenly, producing lots of heat and light, then die down slowly, and eventually go out. I have no way of knowing and I don't want to guess.

I believe today, the Sarah Palin we see on our TV screens, hawking her book, is there as a result of the unrelenting efforts of the political left in America.

Now, here's the thing: IF, in the future, Ms. Palin should become a Congressperson, a Senator, Vice-President, or even President, the political left in America will have only to look in a mirror to discover on whom to place the responsibility for her success. At least, that is my opinion.

J. D. Longstreet

Climategate: The Beginning of the End?

Climategate: The Beginning of the End?
J. D. Longstreet
****************
The “Environuts” are busy these days “backing and filling” in a desperate attempt to “cover-up” the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. I refer, of course, to the Manmade Global Warming Hoax they have been running on us for decades. Now THEY HAVE BEEN CAUGHT – red-handed – AND THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ATTEMPT TO SALVAGE AS MUCH AS THEY CAN.

The aforementioned Environuts have had decades to perfect the manner in which they control the formulation and the distribution of their propaganda. So, they are no slouches when it comes to controlling the leftist Mainstream Media, especially since the MsM is so ready and willing to lend their assistance to any and all efforts to aid the Environuts toward their end goal which is, dare I say it – a “One World Government”, or as THEY refer to it: Global Governance.

There was a time, in the not too distant past, when folks laughed and shrugged off any suggestion that there was a behind the scenes movement to create a One World Government. I must admit it DID sound like something from a bad science fiction novel -- but no longer. We now KNOW such a movement does exist and has existed for rather a long time and it is gaining ground – at least it was gaining ground until Climategate broke on the world a few days ago.

As soon as I learned of Climategate, I contact a few friends who share my concern about this hoax and we all agreed that the only way we would be able to combat their efforts to cover-up Climategate would be to hit back—HARD-- and often -- drawing the public’s attention to their hoax and to the e-mails, which were either hacked or released, possibly by a whistle blower with a guilty conscious. Those e-mails prove the hoax. It is there for the entire world to see.

Either the world will choose to see and accept the truth – the truth we so-called “deniers” have been proclaiming for decades, as well, or the public will continue to accept the lies of manmade global warming and continue to abrogate it’s duty to shut down the perpetrators of this vast hoax and secure its freedom and liberty, or -- the public will continue to grasp onto their string of lies and distortions, about the world’s climate, and finally end up with a world-wide nameless, faceless, dictator which THEY helped gain power over the entire world and all its people.

As free men we have a responsibility to our fellow Americans, indeed, to all the peoples of the earth to do all that is within our power to see that the TRUTH is exposed and that light is shed directly onto the HOAX that is Manmade Global Warming.

My friend, and fellow blogger, Alan Caruba, I feel sure, is of the same mind. He has written an article, in fact, MANY articles, decrying the efforts of those perpetrators of the Global Warming Hoax. I want to share the article below with you.

J. D. Longstreet

************************************

Let the Great Global Warming Cover-Up Begin!

By Alan Caruba

**********************
Now that some enterprising and possibly conscience-stricken soul has served up the emails and other data of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, revealing the deliberate efforts to hide the corrupted research that justifies the “global warming” fraud, all the various journalists and alleged climate scientists who have been a party to it are trying desperately to cover up or minimize the scandal.

Others like the U.S. “Climate Czar” Carol Browner have announced their faith in the disputed data, but Browner, who served as EPA Director in the Clinton administration has never shown any interest in honest science and is not likely to have left a paper trail in her present position. No word yet from Obama’s loony “Science Czar”, John Holdren.

The truth is, those closely allied with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been suppressing the real science, substituting their own corrupted data, and trying to avoid the process of “peer review” by which other scientists, the real ones, can test the data for accuracy and validity.

Thousands of real scientists have signed petitions over the years demanding that global warming claims be submitted to rigorous examination.

The Heartland Institute, a non-profit, free market think tank, spent—-for them-—an enormous amount of money to put on international conferences that brought together top scientists who demonstrated how utterly false the IPCC, CRU and other data was, but the mainstream media simply mocked their effort.

Initially, the culprits at the CRU claimed that their computers had been “hacked”, but many others believe that the data and emails had already been culled by CRU insides for the purpose of removing it from any impending investigation.

In England, its Freedom of Information Act, similar to that in the U.S., had been used to demand the data supporting the global warming theory which, at one point, Phil Jones, the CRU director, claimed had been “lost.” Reportedly, Jones has attracted more than $22 million in grants to the CRU for climate research!

His colleague, Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University, became famous for concocting a “hockey stick” graph that depicted a sudden rise in the Earth’s temperature that was later revealed to have been falsified, but these concoctions have been used for decades by the IPCC to claim that global warming is real and on-going.

The prevailing belief now is that the emails and data were already on a disk that a conscience-stricken CRU staffer decided to make available on the Internet for all to see and examine before it too became “lost.”
You can be sure, however, that the global warming journalists whose careers have been based on furthering the fraud will continue to emphasize the “hacking” theory to suggest this “stolen” data lacks merit and those using it, the so-called “skeptics” and “deniers” are still not to be trusted.

In the United States, James E. Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute, got the “global warming” hysteria going in the 1980s when he testified before Congress that his research revealed an incipient catastrophe if the U.S. did not significantly reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that he said were causing “global warming.” The result was that NASA has averaged more than $1 billion each year since 1995 for climate research.

Estimates of the amount of money the U.S. has spent on all manner of “research” and related programs peg the figure at $50 billion or more. That’s a lot of money for something that was NOT happening and in 1998 the Earth entered a natural cooling cycle; one in which we’re likely be for two decades more or longer.

All of this is exacerbated by the fact that the President of the United States will briefly attend the forthcoming December UN Conference of the Parties on Climate Change being held in Copenhagen. He has made it clear that he believes the false data put forth by the IPCC and wants the U.S. to sign a treaty that would yield U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations.

President Obama has repeatedly said the United States has to reduce its CO2 emissions, the mantra of the global warming liars. It would destroy what's left of our battered, debt-ridden economy.

So a major cover-up will be the objective of the U.S. news media that has pushed “global warming” for years with one scare story after another aimed at energy producers and users.

The battle now is to force the mainstream media to tell the truth about “global warming” and to find out just how many billions of taxpayers dollars have been squandered on junk climate science and policies detrimental to the nation. (emphasis added)

As for President Obama, he should just pick up his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway, give another florid speech, get on Air Force One, and come home.

Alan Caruba

The September 12th March on Washington

The September 12th March on Washington

***********************************

On Saturday, September 12th, 2009, thousands of grassroots patriotic Americans will march on Washington, D.C. for the largest "tea party" in history -- the 09.12.09 March on Washington.

What’s happening in America? Well, it looks to this scribe as if Americans are fed-up with the worse government we have had in the history of this nation and they’re going to Washington to tell them so!

The folks over at www.gather.com/ say the following: “The politicians in Washington, D.C. take our hard-earned money with taxes and inflation. Then they bail out their buddies in the banks with $700 Billion of our money. Then they bail out their buddies in the auto industry... before taking over the biggest ones. Then they pass a so-called "stimulus bill" that is nothing more than a HUGE piece of pork. Then they try to pass the largest tax increase in history with their fake-environmental "cap and tax" bill.

THEN... they try to take over the American healthcare system, and try to ram socialized medicine down our throats. We've had enough, and we're NOT taking it any more. The "sleeping giant" is waking up. Read the article HERE.

Let’s take a look at a press release from FreedomWorks:

FreedomWorks Taxpayer March on Washington Scheduled for September 12, 2009

“WASHINGTON - (Business Wire) Over the last six months the national debt skyrocketed by nearly $3 trillion. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, our national debt will more than double by 2019. Americans will have to pay for this stratospheric spending spree first by begging foreign nations to buy our bonds, and later through higher taxes and inflation.

Grassroots anger at the inability of Washington to live within a budget has been building for some time, and began to boil over in late 2007 as the Bush Administration and Treasury Secretary Paulson abandoned their claimed free market principles to bail out automakers and Wall Street banks through TARP.

When newly elected President Obama and his allies in Congress passed the $780 billion debt stimulus plan in February 2009, activists took to the streets.

On tax day, the tea party movement began in earnest. Until now the movement has remained at the local levels. No longer will that be the case. The movement is coming to Washington on September 12, 2009 for a march and rally at the US Capitol.

From autos to banking, the government is crowding out the private sector of our economy. Where Bush bailed out the private sector, Obama is making hostile government takeovers. Ignoring our multi trillion-dollar deficit, Washington is considering a massive new energy tax and a takeover of health care.

On Saturday, September 12th FreedomWorks will be joined by over ten thousands of liberty-loving activists to take a stand against politicians who are bankrupting our future. National co-sponsors include Tea Party Patriots, ResistNet, National Taxpayers Union, Americans For Tax Reform, Young Americans for Liberty, Ayn Rand Center, Campaign for Liberty, Free Republic, Young America’s Foundation, Smart Girl Politics, and The Club for Growth.

The event will kick-off on September 10th and 11th with various events throughout Washington including grassroots leadership training and Capitol Hill visits. The three-day event culminates on September 12th as taxpayers march on the Capitol building.

For more information, including media inquiries, registration, contacting event coordinators, and the schedule of events, please visit our event website at http://www.912dc.org/.”

Over at http://www.912dc.org/ the folks say this: “It’s time to take the tea party movement directly to Washington, D.C. Please join thousands of local organizers and grassroots Americans from across the country as we gather in our nation’s capital to deliver a message to the politicians: Enough!

We’ve had enough of the out of control spending, the bailouts, the growth of big government, and the soaring deficits. And we reject the future tax increases to pay for all of this spending and debt down the road. We are gathering on 9-12-2009 to deliver our message in person that we’ve had enough!”

Sounds as if these folks are determined to be heard - and to get their point across by taking their protest directly to the nation’s front yard. It is about time! When Moses won’t come to the mountain, then the mountain must go to Moses!

I have been on this earth a long time and I don’t recall ever experiencing a US government as disconnected from the people of the nation as is this government.

Now the fun begins! By the “fun” I mean watching the Mainstream Media trying their very best to ignore this building crescendo of citizen protest. Oh, make no mistake about it. The MsM will make every effort to ignore or “play down” this March on Washington. For if people turn up in vast numbers it will make the media look extremely bad!

It was a Tea Party in Boston that helped get this experiment we call America off and running. Now it is a Tea Party in the capitol of the nation the original tea party helped spawn that may, very well, play a part in saving that experiment!

I have only a couple, or three, questions: Whose got the tar? And whose got the feathers? And, oh yeah, the rails! Whose got the rails? Huh?

J. D. Longstreet
********************

Conservative+Democrats+Healthcare-reform+MsM+Obama