February 19th, 2013
Conservative Refocus / The Examiner
By Barry Secrest
In Washington State, Democrat lawmakers have stunned even the staunchest members of the political left with a recent bill which would severely stretch a number of constitutional rights, while providing fuel to American Conservative warnings.
While many Americans have worried over the availability of future weapon purchases such as handguns and mutiple-round, semi-automatic rifles, few have considered the possibility of Orwellian home-to-home searches by law enforcement officials. And yet, that very possibility is what is now being considered by state lawmakers in Olympia.
The bill in question, SB 5737-2013-14, introduced on February 18th, 2013, is the first Orwellian shot across the bow of a what promises to be many future efforts, as the National Rifle Associations' repeated warnings of what Americans may have in store for them, has proven to be well beyond prophetic.
In the proposed bill, police would be allowed to come into an individual's home and conduct a search for not only where and how assault weapons are stored, but also how safely the weapons are stored.
The exact language reads as follows:
In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall ... safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”
Indeed, while the matter of 'what is an assault weapon' is still being bandied about by highly motivated legislators, the subjectivity of how safely a weapon is stored, appears to now also be at play, but only within the fertile imaginations of law enforcement officers, themselves, according to the proposed bill.
The sponsoring legislator, Democrat State Senator Ed Murray of Seattle, claims that he was unaware of the house-to-house search provisions, according to the Seattle Times, despite the fact that the Murray was the prime sponsor and ostensible writer of the bill in question. The lawmaker went on to indicate that such illegal search and seizure language was probably unconstitutional and "shouldn't be in there."
However, the question that most Washingtonians should be asking might center on the fact of who actually wrote the bill and why did Sen. Murray sponsor it, if he was unaware of the bill's provisions? Many Americans probably remember another such instance, when former House Leader Nancy Pelosi sated a particularly daring curiosity in passing the Affordable Healthcare Act in order to unlock its mythical secrets.
The bills co-sponsors included two other Democrat State Senators; Sen. Adam Kline, who also claimed a singular ignorance of the bill's contents, and Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles, who has not yet made any public statements as to the bill's ultimate disposition.
The main point being, despite where you may live, a number of possible outcomes from the increasing attempts at 2nd amendment scrapping provisionals will continue to pop-up, as the argument continues. It pays to keep an eye on what your often dizzy state legislators are up to, especially if you live, regrettably, in a blue state.
Update 2/19/2013: The Home search provision has been removed from the pending bill, but only after media coverage prompted a hail of protests.
The Seattle Times contributed to this report
February 12th, 2013
By Barry Secrest
While President Obama continues his prolific efforts at spending America into third-world oblivion, and the Republicans appear almost ready to throw in the proverbial hat, there is one prominent individual, in particular, who can be depended upon to confidently recast the deficit argument into the fairy-light of radical ridiculosity.
That individual is none other than Left-Wing Economist Paul Krugman, a man who has never seen a government dollar go to waste, and who insistently wishes for an impending extra-terrestrial attack on earth, so that Obama can spend America into extra-galactic oblivion.
In his latest article, Krugman can be heard to be insistent on kicking the debt-can down the road, over the cliff, and into the dark abyss of shredded-up currencies, and perhaps even well beyond the boundaries of the galaxy, since the stupendous amount of $ 17 trillion just hasn't quite done the trick for the US economy as of yet.
The illustrious Krugman begins by citing Speaker of the House John Boehner:
John Boehner, the speaker of the House, claims to be exasperated. “At some point, Washington has to deal with its spending problem,” he said Wednesday. “I’ve watched them kick this can down the road for 22 years since I’ve been here. I’ve had enough of it. It’s time to act.”
Actually, Mr. Boehner needs to refresh his memory. During the first decade of his time in Congress, (Early 1990's) the U.S. government was doing just fine on the fiscal front. In particular, the ratio of federal debt to G.D.P. was a third lower when Bill Clinton left office than it was when he came in. It was only when George W. Bush arrived and squandered the Clinton surplus on tax cuts and unfunded wars that the budget outlook began deteriorating again.
Now here is where the fallacies begin in earnest, for Krugman, and from there they never seem to stop, especially for a Nobel Prize winning Left-Wing anti-capitalist. Krugman begins by hearkening all the way back to Boehner's career while Clinton was in office in the early nineties and onward. However, what Krugman leaves out is the history of this period in the US. You see, the reason for that decade of fiscal balance was due to the Republican's "Contract with America," where the US government was shrunk down to size, the welfare state was largely done away with, and individual responsibility became the hallmark of governance brought under control.
The important thing to remember? Congress holds the purse strings, referring to the bicameral chambers of the Senate and the House, which have remained split, since the 2010 election. In essence, in the decade of the nineties, Clinton's comparably moderate hands were essentially tied in what he could spend, by Congress, hence Krugman's delight at naming Clinton as the budgetary savior, while forgetting the essential truths at play.
A Bit of History
At the time, it was 1994 when a debt-concerned America moved control of both the House and the Senate over to the Republican Party, and it was here that fiscal sanity was returned to America, at least for a time. The budget balancing under the Republican controlled chambers would continue for a decade, as the party of limited government would remain in control. It wasn't until 2001 when a Senate Republican would flee to the Democrat party that the Senate would come back under Democrat control, but only for a short time.
On September 11, 2001, America's walls would be breeched for the first time in the modern era by a group of religious radicals dedicated to the destruction of western civilization and its leader, the US. It was also here that America would first come head-to-head with the anti-Christ forces of fundamentalist Islam, conflict in which Krugman only seems to find contemptuousness towards the US, and for reasons already enumerated.
In 2004, control would revert back over to the Republicans. In fact, not until January 2007 would control go fully over to the Left-Wing of American politics, and this is where America's budgetary nightmare would begin, and in spades, as referenced in the below chart.
Note the spike beginning in 2007:
What's interesting is Krugman's use of the word "unfunded wars," above, as if anything that Obama and the Democrats have been doing "is funded?"
In fact, the problem is the yearly aggregation of all of these deficits, not the yearly deficit itself. Indeed, at a certain point of running these annual deficits, as they continue to stack up year after year, the total build-up becomes untenable, which is the essential problem, and which is also where we find ourselves in the America of today--a problem which Obama and Leftist "experts" like Krugman never seem to take into account.
Krugman haughtily continues:
But that’s a secondary issue. The key point is this: While it’s true that we will eventually need some combination of revenue increases and spending cuts to rein in the growth of U.S. government debt, now is very much not the time to act. Given the state we’re in, it would be irresponsible and destructive not to kick that can down the road.
But, wait, Mr. Krugman. We have all been told by the mainstream media, and yourself, over the past 4 years that things are looking up, that the economy is improving and things will be right again very soon. Now, after the presidential election, the tune has seemingly become just a shade more realistic or should that be fatalistic?
Now you're telling us that things haven't really gotten better, despite all of the economic crowing in 2011 by the media, and we need to keep spending ourselves into just a little bit more of oblivion so things will then turn out, magically, just right?
So, because these policies that Krugman has been espousing for the last four years have been working so infamously, we need to now hurry up and wait just a few years more to fix the problem. But, Krugman, dear man, what if the real problem is actually the fact that we're not doing anything to balance this outrageous debt in the first place, hmmm?
Krugman haltingly continues:
Start with a basic point: Slashing government spending destroys jobs and causes the economy to shrink.
This really isn’t a debatable proposition at this point. The contractionary effects of fiscal austerity have been demonstrated by study after study and overwhelmingly confirmed by recent experience — for example, by the severe and continuing slump in Ireland, which was for a while touted as a shining example of responsible policy, or by the way the Cameron government’s turn to austerity derailed recovery in Britain.
Indeed, that's not a basic point, but rather it's a fatally flawed point and is easily debatable. Government spending has to be taken from someone or something, Krugman, and if it's taken from someone, then that someone can no longer spend it. It it's taken from something, that being an bond invested in the government, then over 40% of the money taken now has to be repaid to the something or someone in the future, in the form of interest. With America's current load of debt, it becomes money that cannot be used by the very people who actually make the economy go forward.
In truth, if government spending is so absolutely fantastic, Krugman, then why don't we put everyone on unemployment and enjoy the crest of unbounded economic activity, that's sure to follow? Well, that's ridiculous, Krugman might say, and indeed, Krugman would be correct, which reflects the glaring flaw in his imperfect arguments.
Then Krugman trots out two Socialist forms of governments , in Ireland and Great Britain which have been overspending themselves to the same tune as Greece, and tells us that there spend-slashing is what has made their economies sink. However, how can you reach that particular conclusion?
Let's look below, and Behold! The period from 2002 onward represents a Left-Wing, Obama-style, aggregate of deficit spending, by a Leftist to be sure, that finally took its toll in 2009. While Krugman blames Cameron's reductions in deficit spending for the last several years, Krugman completely ignores the build-up of economic detritus that has been aggregated for the entire decade prior.
But what about Ireland, which is the other country that Krugman trots out? Oh, snap! Here, yet again, an aggregate of deficit spending that this tiny little economy could in no way overcome in just a few short years.
Krugman, dejectedly, continues:
Even Republicans admit, albeit selectively, that spending cuts hurt employment. Thus John McCain warned earlier this week that the defense cuts scheduled to happen under the budget sequester would cause the loss of a million jobs.
John McCain, Krugman? Seriously? The diminutive Ogre of the Tea Party's Hobbit-Land, as he calls it? Is he the absolute best that you can come up with on the Republican side, for God's sake? He can't even win a Presidential election against a radical Marxist in the Heart of world capitalism. The scrapings must be getting thin, indeed.
Krugman hesitantly continues:
It’s true that Republicans often seem to believe in “weaponized Keynesianism,” a doctrine under which military spending, and only military spending, creates jobs. But that is, of course, nonsense. By talking about job losses from defense cuts, the G.O.P. has already conceded the principle of the thing.
Weaponized Keynesianism? That would have to presuppose that the military makes money, somewhere along the way and it simply doesn't. Krugman is taking a government economic spending model called Keynesianism and slathering onto an entity that simply has no tangible way to produce an income, thus encompassing a sort of one-way military economy. Instead of "weaponized Keynesianism," lets try "weaponized imbecilism" which is apparently at the heart of Ole' Krugman's US economy-shattering attitude.
That dog simply won't hunt, Krugman. The military is not a micro-economy, although, that academian-acid you're hitting must be some pretty good stuff, I must point out.
Krugman woozily, continues:
Still, won’t spending cuts (or tax increases) cost jobs whenever they take place, so we might as well bite the bullet now? The answer is no — given the state of our economy, this is a uniquely bad time for austerity.
As if there is a good time to throw-up, Krugman? In fact, austerity measures are undertaken by a State to avert an economic disaster, slated to happen somewhere down the road, you know, the road we're kicking the can down. If the economy has a stomach ache because of something that it has consumed which is causing extreme discomfort to that particular economy, then the economy needs to in essense, throw-up, and get whatever's causing the economic bellyache to go away.
Now, while throwing up isn't a pleasant thing, it's much better to take that little bit of discomfort now, rather than to allow whatever is hurting the economic body, to run its course and make the economy septic after being allowed to be absorbed throughout the entire body economic. Never mind what eventually comes out the other end of that same economy, which just so happens to be what we are only midly beginning to see right now in comparison to what may come.
Krugman grimaces onward:
One way to see this is to compare today’s economic situation with the environment prevailing during an earlier round of defense cuts: the big winding down of military spending in the late 1980s and early 1990s, following the end of the cold war. Those spending cuts destroyed jobs, too, with especially severe consequences in places like southern California that relied heavily on defense contracts. At the national level, however, the effects were softened by monetary policy: the Federal Reserve cut interest rates more or less in tandem with the spending cuts, helping to boost private spending and minimize the overall adverse effect.
But wait, Krugman, didn't you, just a bit earlier, crow about how the decade of nineties was the greatest thing since Jiffy peanut butter? You know, while your greatest American hero, Bill Clinton, had his hand firmly on the tiller, and not a few other things , I might add? Wait, I shall go and fetch it for you...and voila' from just a few paragraphs up:
During the first decade of his time in Congress,(beginning in 1991) the U.S. government was doing just fine on the fiscal front. In particular, the ratio of federal debt to G.D.P. was a third lower when Bill Clinton left office than it was when he came in.
Okay, so now we all are confused Mr. Krugman.
In the first part you painted the decade of the nineties as the most wonderful time of the years. Now you're telling us it wasn't, except for an increase in private spending? That's not Keynesianism, that's Reaganism, and we all know how you feel about Reagan! Government spending is the thing you've been keying on throughout this entire article, especially when you continually bring up Keynesianism, so what gives, exactly?
Maybe it's actually you, Sir, who are confused.
Krugman warily continues:
Today, by contrast, we’re still living in the aftermath of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, and the Fed, in its effort to fight the slump, has already cut interest rates as far as it can — basically to zero. So the Fed can’t blunt the job-destroying effects of spending cuts, which would hit with full force.
The point, again, is that now is very much not the time to act; fiscal austerity should wait until the economy has recovered, and the Fed can once again cushion the impact.
Ah, but here, you see, the Fed has a bit of a problem. If interest rates naturally rise, ahead of the US Treasury's short-term treasury bonds, and eventually long-term bonds, then bond interest yields will be forced to rise also, over time. What if the markets dictate an interest rate rise ahead of the treasury's artificially set levels? Then, we could have what is referred to as a 'treasury bond bubble.'
In order to set treasuries at a level competitive with the markets, in this case, the interest rates that the US pays in debt could quadruple over time, essentially forcing the US into paying all of it tax revenue in bond debt, at some point.
Now, we all know what that means, right? The longer we wait to fix the problem, the worse these eventualities can and will become.
Krugman plows forward:
But aren’t we facing a fiscal crisis? No, not at all. The federal government can borrow more cheaply than at almost any point in history, and medium-term forecasts, like the 10-year projections released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office, are distinctly not alarming. Yes, there’s a long-term fiscal problem, but it’s not urgent that we resolve that long-term problem right now. The alleged fiscal crisis exists only in the minds of Beltway insiders.
Indeed, America's financial security ratings have already dropped to an AA level for the first time in the nation's history. Is not that, alone, enough to say that America is in the midst of a financial crisis? But then, Krugman goes on to state that there is a problem, but it's not one that needs to be corrected anytime soon. In essence, if you're walking along on set of railroad tracks and a train rounds the corner, when should you step off? Should you immediately exit the tracks upon seeing the danger? Or, should you wait until the train is about to completely obliterate you, efforting a daring escape at the last possible moment?
Maybe Krugman just likes living dangerously....but what if the train speeds up? What if your foot becomes caught in the track? What if you pass-out in the ensuing excitement and unexpectedly collapse on the tracks? Why wait for a better time when we may, in fact, be within that better time before everything begins collapsing all around us?
Who, in fact, could actually know the answer to this question?
Krugman stays on-track:
Still, even if we should put off spending cuts for now, wouldn’t it be a good thing if our politicians could simultaneously agree on a long-term fiscal plan? Indeed, it would. It would also be a good thing if we had peace on earth and universal marital fidelity. In the real world, Republican senators are saying that the situation is desperate — but not desperate enough to justify even a penny in additional taxes. Do these sound like men ready and willing to reach a grand fiscal bargain?
But...even Krugman himself earlier writes that now would be a bad time to correct our government spending due to the bad economy. Hasn't every economist in the land, including the President, told us that raising taxes in a bad economy is a horribly bad thing to do? My, we seem to have a bit of quandary embedding itself throughout Mr. Krugman's assertively confused opinion.
But Krugman intrepidly circles back around:
Realistically, we’re not going to resolve our long-run fiscal issues any time soon, which is O.K. — not ideal, but nothing terrible will happen if we don’t fix everything this year. Meanwhile, we face the imminent threat of severe economic damage from short-term spending cuts.
So we should avoid that damage by kicking the can down the road. It’s the responsible thing to do.
So, in essence, stay on the tracks, ignore the train hurtling towards us, FORWARD...to the culmination of Obama's transformation of Amerika, got it!
Next stop? Procrasti-Nation Station...where living dangerously and spending other people's money, namely our children and grandchildren's, becomes the national pastime...move over football.
February 6th, 2013
Conservative Refocus/ The Examiner
As a prelude to the White House's legislative impetus to completely bypass any type of strengthened security of America's porous border with Mexico, the Obama Regime has discontinued a program considered integral to maintaining US border security, which has been in place since the 1980's.
The traditional media, with regard to the shutting down of this important border program, has completely failed at reporting the soon-to-be less than secure southern border, in the wake of a new congressional impetus which seeks a bi-partisan approach to amnesty for illegals.
In that vein Liberal Sen. Chuck Schumer stated this recently:
"We are not using border security as an excuse or block to path of citizenship", [Schumer] said in the press conference.
The blueprint's call for a secure border will help make a deal, but won't be linked to citizenship awards or be allowed to block or trigger citizenship for illegals, he said.
"We just want to make sure, this is very important both substantively and politically, that there is a secure border, [but] we are not going to use it as a battering ram to prevent the 11 million from gaining a path to citizenship."
In essence, the Senator is stating that border security essentially has nothing to do with the legislative impetus to convert approximately 11 million illegals to Democratic voter rolls. This recent statement, in addition, flies in the face of Republican bill co-sponsor Marco Rubio, who has indicated a willingness to completely cave-in to the Democrats so that they can refreshen their severely lessened voter base, as exhibited in the 2012 main election.
Some Conservatives, meanwhile, to include this writer, believe that the off-year 2014 election could actually solidify a Conservative hold on both the US Senate and US House, as in the off-year 2010 election, which could ostensibly be offset by a conversion of millions of newly-legalized illegal alien voters, which will invariably vote for the party of "free stuff."
So, while border security on the ground promises to remain well less than secure, the low-flying air incursion of illegal aliens seeking to bypass the border in the air, could prove to be a slipstream of new transportation possibilities for aliens, in addition to the well-documented incursion of illicit drugs, which has been utilized for decades by the Mexican drug cartels.
The soon to be terminated system, known by the acronym TARS was designed to identify low-flying airborne contacts attempting to evade US border security and air radar. These types of contacts could range from low-flying airplanes, helo's and military jets, to even terrorist fired missiles which could threaten mainland America, and especially citizens, who live within most US border States.
In response to what many deem a severe lapse of domestic security, a petition was filed at the White House's "We The People" website, which beseeched Obama to provide funding for the continuance of the US-Mexico border security program. So far, the petition has recorded only 1,195 signatures of the 100,000 needed to effect an administration response.
The defense program, identified as TARS, which stands for tethered aerostat systems, is a relatively low-cost stationary radar system providing real-time low level radar identification of any and all low-flying traffic. The system provides radar coverage to the entire US border along Mexico, the Florida straits, and even a section of the Caribbean sea, which also provides drug-trafficking surveillance for the US DOD counter-drug programs. In addition, TARS is also considered a segment of protection for the North American Aerospace Defense Command with regard to their air sovereignty mission for the continental US.
On January 17th, Exelis Systems Corporation sent out an email to its employees informing them that the border radar detection program would be shutdown and permanently ceased on March 15th of 2013. When Exelis had earlier learned that its operations were being discontinued, the Department of Homeland Security was contacted to apprise them of the gap in border security, but to no avail, DHS appeared not to be interested in maintaining such a security system, despite its operational budget of nearly $ 40 billion dollars for fiscal year 2013.
The cost of the TARS progam, in 2007, was a mere $ 3.5 million dollars, which is the approximate cost of flying Air Force One on a single round trip to Hawaii.
At a time when gun violence from drug cartel incursions along the border have increased in conjunction with congressional action on reforming US illegal immigration policy, many have questioned the administrations increasingly lackadaisical approach to US border security, which has often been referred to as Obama's 'Open Borders program.'
The cessation of this program should be a clear indication to congressional Republicans of how the Obama regime intends to pursue future border security.
On August 24th of 2012, ten ICE agents sued the Obama administration over its unwillingness to deport certain illegal immigrants.
January 29th, 2013
The Establishment Republicans are only now beginning to see what we "Radical Conservatives" (sic) have been saying all along. Obama and the Socialist-Democrats are seeking a fundamental transformation of America, and their plans do not include the Constitutionally inclined Republican Party.
The Moderates dawdle and fret over the media's "not liking" them, when in fact, they never will. In truth, whenever Boehner and the Moderates do give in, the left-wing media laughs and calls it a "cave," when they of the Right don't give in, that same media complains and calls it "gridlock."
The Republicans, moreover, should only then do what is both responsible and in America and Liberty's best interests, and let the chips fall where they may.
This is how the Republicans won in 2010.....it can happen again
By Barry Secrest
Climate change, anyone?
While the Left-Wing of American politics and its fearless leader, greedily salivate over the mountains of public payola that could potentially be had from an illusory temperature change's fictionally altering the earth's climate, there is another climate change taking place in the US, and this one is far more real and far more dangerous than anyone could ever evaluate with a climate researcher's slide-rule.
This danger belongs solely to the media mistruths of today, which seek to bend fiction into plausible fact, and which have now become as profligate as the stars in the nighttime sky, in America.
Oh, indeed, they were always there, but before, more or less clumped in various areas only. Now, However, these areas of infection within America's fourth Estate, have come together to reveal something more akin to a grotesquely animated rotting corpse than any healthy body of journalism.
This unfortunate fact, concerning the media, was given a proverbial exclamation point, recently, by none other than CBS news Director John Dickerson, who wrote in "The Slate" that the President "must go for the throat" and "pulverize" the Republican Party if Obama is truly intent in transforming American politics.
No Bias, in the mainstream media, Ladies and Gentlemen?
This, from none other than the political news director of one of the big three news networks in America, who now brazenly urges the political Left to essentially annihilate those who would offer plausible opposition to Obama's grand game plan. They, it would seem, who no longer even try to camouflage themselves, in fact, as it has now become almost business as usual for the media to bend knee in fawning fealty and theatrical submission to El Magnifico's greatness.
Indeed, what had begun as what CBS Insider journalist Bernard Goldberg referred to as "A Slobbering Love Affair" in his 2009 book, concerning the Media's soft-gloved approach to all things Obama, has now devolved even further than that rather aptly described metaphor. After watching only a few moments of the President's 2012 inauguration ceremony, it became painfully clear that the "slobbering love affair" was gone, but only to be replaced by a media reduced to being nothing much more than a pathetically sadistic "cuckold" for the President's public amusement.
In fact, America's Obama-modulated Ministry of Misinformation, that being the new mainstream media, has literally now taken on what could only be described as a 'novel approach' to reporting the news in far too many cases, in order to please his Immenseness. Within this new paradigm of perfidy, with so many news items being either misinterpreted and or novelized in favor of the ruling political class and their impetus, many of us have begun to wonder why those others in the media still even doggedly toil at effecting any sort of allusion towards political centrality.
Are the novella fictions or facile illusions roiling out of the Inner Beltway like the foul product of a malfunctioning bowel, still just not quite enough to keep Americans politically entertained, if not satisfied?
- (esp. of a theory or argument) Appearing neat and comprehensive by ignoring the complexities of an issue; superficial.
- (of a person) Having a superficial or simplistic knowledge or approach.
Even the inimitable Rush Limbaugh, the titular head of American Conservatism, has now taken to reporting entertainment news segueways, in the course of his daily programming, largely out of a sort of fascinated satirical despair, if nothing else, on his part.
But, it should be further noted, only in Limbaugh's souring view of the exasperatingly low-info miscreants of anti-progress, who find their de-signatured way of life exemplified by the antics of the plastic class in either Hollywood, New York or especially DC, these days.
A Novel Approach to Propaganda
This novel approach for the media is, in fact, based upon the same type of script that a number of fiction novelists use to make their fabled stories both uniquely believable on the one hand while seemingly brilliant studies in plausibility, on the other.
To explain just a bit further, the author or news writer, in this case, will first work out a sequence of events or political points in the form of a timeline, in effect, manufacturing a desired outcome in which the maximum amount of fascinating input can either be achieved or re-edited, in between an amalgam of literary waypoints, much the same as the mortar used between bricks. These customized articles then work as a sort of yellow brick road designed to lead the adoring reader down into the dreamland of an Oz-like construct that bears no actual resemblance to the world in which we actually live.
For example. totalitarian madman Adolph Hitler in his book, Mein Kamph, learned how to use these same types of techniques to a devastatingly debilitating effect on the populace in his efforts at taking over Germany, and later Europe, via a uniquely customized propaganda, or audaciously sodomized facts, take your adulterated pick.
The following are several major points, taken directly from the book, Mein Kamph, which have apparently become the media equivalent of Journalism 101, towards our rather pathetic excuses for American journalists of today:
- "Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people."
Ex: Obama's war on women, war on wealthy, racial warfare, class warfare, war on business, banks, Doctors, etc., each identifying and exemplifying a villain to which blame can be either attached or ascribed. A thing that the media has gleefully participated in ad nauseum, over the last decade.
- "All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed"
Ex: Fiscal Cliff debate, debt ceiling debate, gun control debate, balancing the budget, etc., many of which required the trotting out of either hurt children (23 executive gun control orders), hurt women (Sandra Fluke), or hurt from the wealthy (Romney responsible for woman's death) etc., et al, each of which put the media into a cuckolded swoon.
- "The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses."
Ex: They gonna put ya'll back in chains (V.P. Biden) You didn't build that (Obama) Balancing the budget on the backs of the middleclass (Obama) Forward, The Transformation of America, Yes We can, Change We Can Believe in, etc., all of which have been joyfully proliferated throughout most of the US media, sans few if any critical questions.
- "The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another"
Ex: Obama's nationalization of healthcare, the budget deficit battles, abortion, gay marriage, gun control, battle against oil, green campaign, climate change, etc., each rooted in an appeal to individual security rather than liberty, a word you will rarely hear Obama use. Yet a thing that the media seems to have thrown in the refuse pile of useless ideological terms.
- "The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood. "
In effect and in this case, Hitler exemplifies the main difference between Liberalism, a form of kneejerk reactionism or hysterical emotionalism, to virtually everything; and it's opposition of Conservatism, that which seeks change on a historically inclined basis; slowly and carefully, constitutionally, while avoiding meddlesome, de-stabilizing change, which can often have disastrous, if not unseen, effects.
Just Another Brick in the Wall
As the wall of the novel or news article is laid, this mortar of warped facts being deposited in between the waypoints, works to harden if not fortify the fictional conclusions which the writer has largely manufactured or twisted into shape in the first place. The writer, therefore, manufactures a more or less suitable ending to his or her inscrutable premise by way of artifice, in meeting the political ends of his or her preferred party in power, that always being the Left-Wing Democrats, and as befits the MSM of today.
These new-news articles become, in effect, short stories or mini-novels, a tactical sort of public dysplasia, which the military would metaphorically refer to as "Fire-For-Effect":
By the time the various sequence of events are realized by the reader, the artifice evidenced along the way will naturally appear summarily brilliant to any garden variety reader. The writer has, in effect, successfully built in his or her own form of euphemistic time travel between artfully manufactured waypoints, in a written uni-verse that they have in fact , fictiously created, in the first place.
But, then, where are the latest examples of our fact-twisting media-fictions?
Here are just a few of the latest examples:
The Fiscal Cliff Debase
Singular in the news of late, and after the Government's ostensibly making most of those horrid Bush tax-cuts the new law of the land. There was also a simultaneous increase in taxes both on the rich and to a very smallish 80% of all Americans. Those Americans, by the way, who were also repeatedly promised "not another dime in new taxes" by the previous term's Obama, nevermind Obamacare's built-in tax increases.
The main lie of the media in evidence on the Bush tax-cut extensions aka the Fiscal Cliff?
The mere fact that Congressional Republicans were simply trying to renew the very same existing tax rates and keep them wholly in place. It was Obama who held up the process by insisting on the addition of a tax increase for those he deemed weren't paying their fair share. While the media and Obama continually referred to the existing tax paradigm as "new cuts, or Bust tax-cuts," they were actually nothing more than a continuance of the same rates in effect for the prior decade.
It's just, very simply put-- that simple--despite the often vast and circuitous media sojourns exhibited to the otherwise. So, who was actually holding America hostage, as Obama put it?
The Debt Ceiling Non-Debate
As the grandiose fiscal cliff debate was bandied about and settled, a new argument began percolating, even before the old one had left off.
In response to the peals of outrage from the media over Congress and their penchant for constantly not giving into the President, at least not in the earliest of stages, here was Obama's Congressional stance as a member of Congress in 2008, on the debt ceiling debate:
The following, in severe alliterative contrast, was Obama's 2012 quote on the debt ceiling as President:
My, my, how "the truth" can change in the same set of circumstances, but only a few years, and votes, later.
This argument, the dreaded debt ceiling altercation, is apparently not an actual ceiling but rather a spastic canvas tarp or perhaps even an attractive multi-transitional drape which can easily be elevated and or reset whenever all of those who've spent the People's funding have reached their temporary credit limit. This, as opposed to an earlier law created by this same governing body, capping government debt with the supposed- to-be-difficult to move actual debt ceiling that really does not exist, at all.
When the next to last debate over the Debt Tarp Limit was concluded, The Budget Control Act of August 2011 set forth a number of things that would happen in the future, ostensibly now, if spending cuts could not be agreed upon.
In the agreement, which will be detailed in short here, the Republican Party had partially given into Obama and the Democrats by raising the debt limit by $1.2 trillion immediately then, but by also cutting spending by $ 1.2 trillion over ten years. This would mean a cut of only about $ 120 billion per year. A veritable drop in the bucket when the US is over-spending its revenues by swell over $ 1.2 trillion per year, at present.
Same budget gimmick, different budget day, however, the media and El Presidente' act as if they have essentially stripped the budget completely.
Regardless, in each of these arguments, the media has come down strongly on the side of the Democrats and Obama, as is usual, whereas in the 2008 debate and during the "spend-crazy" Bush Presidency, this same media could be heard to be clearly enunciating their heightened displeasure within the camp of Democrats arguing against any sort of debt tarp-ceiling increase.
Sequestration: Not to be confused with Self-Castration
The sequestration cuts, which are now required (but could have been avoided had an agreement been reached by mid-December of 2011), set forth a number of mandatory spending cuts that would be automatic if Congress granted any increase in the debt limit thereafter without making any cuts. These cuts would be applied to any and every program except Medicaid, Social Security, civil and military pay and veterans.
The cuts would be set at the baseline of 2011 spending levels, meaning an annual increase of 3% plus inflation, for all future years, beginning in 2012, of course. The only way to avoid these cuts would be for either a Constitutional balanced budget amendment to be sent to the states or spending being reduced by a greater amount than the debt limit is increased.
So, what's the point of all of these technical details? Well.... that's where it gets really interesting.
First of all, in order to explain how the media acted in concert with the administration, we will need to look back at the events of August 2011, when the initial agreement had been hammered out. As the Republicans tried to feverishly work out a deal with an administration that could never actually reveal its true aims, the media and beltway politicos began retching violently over the fact that the Conservatives were trying to limit Obama's outrageous spending levels in the first place.
The media continually complained about gridlock and Republican intransigence in virtually every story that came out. No fault, from the Media's novel approach, was ever ascribed towards Obama or the Liberals over not passing a budget in over 3 years, or their hyper-incredible penchant for borrowing and spending. This, despite the fact that America's debt had now surpassed its Gross domestic Product for the first time since WW2. In fact, as the whiney pitch from the Liberals grew louder and louder, the Low-info public tuned in without really understanding the ramifications of what Obama and the Democrats were trying to do.
The media, which has always despised the Tea Party, then set up a bizarre paradigm of perfidy by blaming the fiscally Conservative Tea Party for the entire gridlock episode. In fact, a book was actually written about the entire debacle by Watergate star Reporter Bob Woodward, who laid the blame for the failure, not on the Tea Party, but rather squarely at the President's feet, for essentially moving the goal line at near-agreement by a $ 400 million tax increase, out of fear of his base, and essentially killing the deal altogether.
Oh, that would the Republican Party respect its base even half as much...
But the incredible nonsense didn't stop there. In fact, it would only get worse as one of greatest mistruths of 2011 would finally be laid to rest with little if any notice by the hyper-sycophantic media.
America Loses AAA Bond Rating: Tea Party Blamed
When America lost its AAA bond rating over an admittedly obscene amount of US government spending on August 5th of 2011, the normal response that might have been routinely expected would have been one of concentrated zeal, if not pragmiticized prognosticating, over how it was time for Obama to get serious about a severely reckless US penchant for unparalleled deficit spending. However, rather than the media and the Executive branch's calling emergency legislative meetings over how best to tackle this not-so-difficult problem, the media apparatchiks and the Regime decided on an entirely original, if not outrageous, solution to the problem and the propaganda machine jerked Forward into motion.
You see, Standard and Poors, is a highly respected market analysis company. According to the US Media line, S&P was said not to have based the ratings draw-down due to America's stupendous debt level. Oh no, the problem was, in fact, the Republican Tea Party's efforts at trying to both hold and contain the damaging debt by effectively reducing it and saving America's bond rating. So, in essence, the Tea Party, which had been elected largely to fix the deficit problem, was blamed and crucified by the media and Obama's minions, for their very act of trying to actually correct the problem, in the first place.
Inner Beltway Heresy
Say what? You might inquire? Oh yes, to be certain, that was the supplanted argument going forward. However, there's a really, really super-problem, in this particular argument. To explain, ratings agencies such as Standard and Poor and virtually all others, do not base their ratings on political arguments nor disagreements nor anything like any sort of emotionalized political responses. Quite the opposite, those issues are subjective and cannot be measured on any sort of statistical analysis accounting model:
In a word, it would be virtually impossible to base any sort of rating on the politics of any given situation. Just as in the case of the CBO, ratings can only be based on the cold, hard numbers and the prevailing trend going forward. However, shortly thereafter the Standard and Poor's chief executive, John Chambers, on August 9, stated this:
“We think the debacle over raising the debt ceiling is one illustration of that,” John Chambers, head of S&P’s debt rating committee, said Monday. He said the political gridlock and S&P’s analysis of a rising U.S. debt burden in coming years prompted the downgrade.
It should be noted, however, that this was only after the Italian government raided S&P's offices and even threatened to raid S&P's NY offices, only a day after S&P's US decision:
Are there any true coincidences or did the US bully a ratings organization through one of its lackies?
The Tea Party, by the way, has never fully recovered from this media propaganda effort. However, this particular lie would propogate itself remarkably well, as the various pundits and news stories would continually replay the fiction well into Obama's re-election, and right up until now.
On December 19, 2012, the following story by the Associated Press would appear to very little fanfare, almost as an afterthought, but it would also completely negate the political Left and the media's entire argument on why the AAA bond rating was reduced in just a few short paragraphs:
19-Dec (AP) — Fitch warned that the U.S. is more likely to lose its top-notch “AAA” rating if lawmakers cannot agree on how to cut the deficit and avoid the broad government spending cuts and tax increases that go into effect next year if no deal is reached.
But the credit ratings agency said in a report Wednesday that if lawmakers can agree on a deficit-cutting plan, the U.S. would likely keep its “AAA” debt rating. Fitch would then raise its outlook to stable from negative.
“Resolution of the fiscal cliff and an increase in the debt ceiling are pressing issues that the President and Congress must address if the U.S. is to avoid a fiscal and economic crisis,” the report said.
So, there you have it, one of the greatest political lies ever told rendered completely baseless, after the initial firestorm had already done the damage, by this rating agency's stance to also lower the US debt ratings, based solely on the deficit and budgetary numbers.
As a proverbial cherry-on-top and as this article was under final edit, one other thing would occur, and it was this quote from President Obama on January 27, 2013:
One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.
So, here we have the leader of the free world, once again, spotlighting and vilifying both a news organization and a member of the high-profile opposition, in Limbaugh, using the Saul Alinksy playbook, due solely to their reporting of facts which have often proved damaging to his ulterior agenda.
Where, Ladies and Gentlemen, are the rest of the media in the President's critique, with regard to journalism's primary function of holding power to account? This is the actual climate change that's truly occurring in America and it is far more dangerous than the illusory environmental climate change being spouted by either the Obama Regime or the Left-Wing media and its educational apparatchiks.
All of these points are but the self-evident truths at work today, in America.
Interestingly enough, the President also started out his first term attacking Rush Limbaugh, only two weeks after his inauguration speech, in 2009, almost to the day of this most recent attack, as outlined in our book "A Perfect Liberal Storm" (Page 15)
Are there truly any coincidences?