Busting Myths of Liberal Media

And now for some random thoughts. Here are some liberal myths that need busting.

Right-wing protests and activist groups are more violent, racist, and intolerant
False. Tea Partiers and allied groups have had demonstrations, protests, and gatherings in every city across the country for over a year and the number of violent incidents is almost zero. In fact, there have been a couple instances of Tea Partiers being attacked by Union thugs as in St. Louis, as well as Black Panther and other groups actively trying to obstruct, disrupt or outright attack such movements.

The Oklahoma City bombing is often invoked as the consequences of letting right wing passions run high. In the last twenty years that is the only incident, and in that case McVeigh and Nichols acted alone without any support or validation from other groups. In fact, conservatives and the supposed "right-wingers" were among the most strident groups demanding justice. In every case of armed militia groups going off the deep end, conservatives never sympathize. The only sympathy they receive is when the government goes in heavy-handed and kills a good number of them as in Ruby Ridge and Waco (religious group in this case). Even, then most conservatives I know have very little sympathy for these types of groups.

Left-wing groups meanwhile have a more checkered past (Weather Underground for one). No bombings recently but - pro-illegal immigration groups attacked pro-rule of law demonstrations in Arizona not two weeks ago. In fact they are pushing hard for draconian efforts to punish Arizona for its passing of the law. In other states they are actively trying to obstruct business with Arizona, bordering on criminal. Radical environmentalists, socialists, and even some anarchists violently protested the WTO meetings in Seattle. Anti-war groups constantly disrupt public proceedings, block roads, protest military events, and even protest at military funerals.

Overall political violence in this country is very low, but a lot of it comes from the left wing, not the right.

Liberals still believe that conservatism is still dominated with groups that are intolerant, racist, and even violent towards those that oppose them. What they fail to see is that white supremacists have become so small and fringe, that they are not a part of the "right wing" anymore. They are radicals to conservatives. Liberals on the other hand are not always tolerant. Opposition to the liberal worldview is met with suspicions of racism, intolerance, and greed. Their blood begins to boil and they lash out at those that disagree with them. It is ironic, but in many cases liberals are the most intolerant of those with different beliefs and ideas.

It is difficult to enter this country legally, or its so complicated and takes so long that people have no choice but to cross the border illegally.
In 2009 alone roughly 700,000 immigrants became U.S. citizens including 110,000 from Mexico. At that rate, you could populate Chicago with nothing but newly naturalized citizens in four years. One has to ask, what number of immigrants and level of citizenship is appropriate or desirable? Should be we welcoming over 1 million per year? 2 million? Are our doors too narrow?

And why is it that we are so tolerant of illegal immigrants from Mexico only? Why is it that Mexico gets the opportunity to cross illegally in such a quick and easy manner? Those from China and other parts of Asia must spend the journey in cargo containers a lot of the time (when they are illegal) or worse. There are probably millions of Africans dying to come to this country as well. Why is it that Mexico gets the edge only because they are on our southern border?

How many people do you think would immigrate here and become citizens if given the opportunity? Two million a year? Three million a year?

The Time Square bomber was a lone wolf attacker, a novice, who decided to attack because he lost his home to foreclosure and was having difficulty in the economic recession
This is such bull shit I have a hard time responding. The bomber was born in Pakistan, had made several trips back home and probably had jihadist leanings well-before he lost his house. He married an American to become a citizen despite the fact he should've been on a watchlist for his visits to Pakistan and other evidence of a possible threat. In my mind, he is not an American, he is still Pakistani. I do not suggest any change in immigration law, but at the very least we should take a closer look at those who marry themselves into citizenship.

Many have lost their homes, jobs, or worse in this recession. To date, only one tried to bomb something. That person was of Pakistani descent, had made several visits there and clearly had some sort of tie to the Taliban. Even if he got no logistical support from the Taliban, he clearly wasn't just some nut living alone and going insane with anger and a desire to do violence.

I have no sympathy for this man, and if the liberal media wants to stop their downard spiral of TV ratings and circulation, they should try to keep their expressed sympathy for this human piece of shit to a minimum.

Conservatives and Republicans are greedy and selfish. That is why they are opposed to social programs, equal protection, and social justice.
Statistically Republicans give more to charity in both absolute terms and relative terms (per capita). And it is not because Republicans are rich. Statistically Republicans and Democrats average roughly the same in terms of salary and personal wealth. That is changing, as a portion of the Middle Class is starting to leave the Democratic Party and become independents thus moving the Democratic number downward.

To the conservative, wealth is created, it is not a static number or overall amount. If that were true then we are all greedy for desiring to protect the piece of wealth we currently control. We are also greedy for wanting to expand our piece whenever possible, as we all do. Any attempt to increase the size of our piece of the pie must in effect be taking from someone else. This theory is false.

Wealth in general is not a static thing. Our economy was $6 trillion in 1993, it is now $14 trillion. Wealth is created, it expands. Conservatives want the opportunity to create as much as possible, not "take" it from another source. Those who want to take it from others are not capitalists, socialists or any other label - they are the ones that are truly selfish, greedy, and dangerous. But those are not ideologues, they are the opposite, they have no principles at all and therefore could be anywhere on the cultural spectrum or more likely they have no strong feelings either way. They just want what isn't theres.

Democratic Party: A Party of Fear and Paranoia

I discussed the major drawback of the polarity strategy (labeling an opponent as the evil enemy or the opposite) is that one can easily become paranoid or portrayed as paranoid. I felt that the Republican Party was allowing itself to fight the polar attacks of Democrats with their own polar attacks, which gives you short-term gains but leaves you reliant on whatever popular sentiment exists at that time. It is not a long term strategy. This has been true but something else is developing and it is not the result of the political tactics or words of the Republican Party.

The Democratic Party is becoming fearful and paranoid on its own.

Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid began this with their references to political assassinations, pro-slavery efforts in the 1850s, anti-civil rights movements, and hate crimes from the 1960s and 1970s. Then more Democrats jumped on board making references to the KKK, Neo-Nazis, and violent right-wing militias. This has been a common criticism of Democrats aimed at the anti-establishment Tea Party Movement that is focused on defeating the incumbent majority Party. Now you have more references to racism and political violence. Even former President Bill Clinton fears the anti-government sentiment will lead to violence such as the Oklahoma City bombing or the confrontations with fringe militias at Ruby Ridge and the religious group at Waco.

Just one problem. None of the Tea Party Protests or significant rallies have indicated their desire to overthrow the Government. In fact, they are invoking the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the words of previous political leaders as their rally point. It is antithetical to refer to existing political documents when overthrowing the existing political system.

Are they violent? No. There has been no bombings, no shots fired (except at Eric Cantor's campaign HQ), no burning down of government buildings, or calls for the death of President Barack Obama. Certainly if you look long and hard enough you will find crazies that support such actions but they are not leaders of the Tea Party Movement, and most Tea Partiers would opposed such illegal acts.

Thats the unique thing about the Tea Party. It is a popular movement that worships the rule of law. They want a return to a respect for the Law and a return to the conservative foundation of the country. They don't want to destroy anything literally or figuratively. They promote voter registration, voter participation, dissemination of information, and coordination of efforts across the country.

In the end that is what former President Clinton and others are afraid of. They are afraid of this alleged "anti-government" movement because it is really about the movement kicking them out of power. They are afraid of a popular movement that intends to vote them out. They should be afraid.

The Government ought to be afraid of its people.

More crazy talk comes from the sinking MSNBC and Time Magazine. Journalists (well in name only) Kleine and Heilemann seem to think Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are guilty of sedition. Their utter lack of legal knowledge is incredible. Sedition is a relic from a different age that has no relevance today. In other parts of the world it is a crime designed to protect unpopular tyrants. Are Beck and Palin guilty? NO! They invoke actions of voting, protesting, demonstrations, and other actions! All perfectly legal. All things that liberals love to promote as well and did so not five years ago against President Bush and the Iraq War.

The left also does not feel any remorse or responsibility for publishing falsehoods like Dan Rather's National Guard Records, infiltrating Tea Party protests like in Chicago, or outright accusing their political opponents of federal crimes that for the most part do not exist.

The Democratic Party has become paranoid, throwing out accusations and attacks that have no base in reality. They are so afraid of losing power they will say anything to discredit or slow down the popular tide that has turned so strongly against them in the past year. I think many Americans are beginning to see the pitiful, juvenile, and incompetent Government they voted in power not long ago. They will not make the same mistake this time around.

It seems very possible that the Republicans will retake the House and move to within 2 seats of retaking the Senate. This would completely stop the Obama Agenda dead in its tracks and lead to the end of the Pelosi-Reid era. Pelosi will likely be replaced as the Democratic House leader, and Reid is all but certain to lose his re-election bid in November.

Of course, unforeseen events in the next six months could change this. But as of now. I think the Democratic Party is deathly afraid of what is about to happen to them and are saying everything and anything they can think of to stop it.

The Polarity Strategy: Demagoguery

Politics is almost always saturated with the use of the polarity strategy. Polarity requires one designate an enemy, a wrong, or some sort of bad trend that compels people to act. In war, its the use of propaganda to get the people personally angry at the enemy such as the characterizations of the vicious bloodthirsty Japanese in World War 2, or even when the Nazis used constant propaganda techniques to demonize the Jews, then the Poles, then the Soviets. It stirs the people into anger and they demand action.



It does not need to be a specific enemy or person. It could be a crime. Groups have always used the traumatic imagery of tragedies to stir anger and mobilize the people to action. A little girl kidnapped from her parents, sexually assaulted and murdered successfully mobilized people into utilizing the new Amber Alert, increasing punishments on sex offenders, and creating the sex offender registry. Mothers of Drunk Drivers (MADD) would tell vivid stories of their family members lost in auto accidents involving a drunk driver. That raised the drinking age to 21 and strengthened enforcement against DUI and raised the penalties. It is important to note that a cause pushed through polarity strategy isn't necessarily without merit or substance. Drunk driving and pedophilia are two things that certainly warrant attention and action. But it is a strategy, that is all, it can be used for any cause.



Today both political wings use it a lot. The right-wing demonizes abortion doctors, gay marriage advocates, the atheists of the ACLU, elitist liberals, greedy labor unions, and criminal illegal immigrants. The left-wing demonizes health insurance corporations, Wall Street, dirty industry, greedy doctors, heavy-handed police officers, reckless soldiers, cruel and greedy white men, and sometimes churches.



The left wing has also done an excellent job of using the dormant polarity strategy. That is, demonizing opposition to their own cause. Those who oppose public education programs are anti-children, anti-teachers, and anti-education. Those who oppose Universal Healthcare are selfish greedy people who don't want to pay for basic healthcare for the poor, the needy, and others. Those who oppose their Immigration Policies are racist, intolerant, and anti-American because the history of America is one of immigrants. Those who oppose their foreign policy are warmongering, imperialists, and anti-Muslim.



This multi-directional use of the polarity strategy has not been successful in swelling the ranks of the left-wing but has successfully persuaded a majority of moderates of the virtue of their cause. In this case, it has worked very well for Democrats over the past five years.



What about merit? What about substance? There is substance to some of their positions but that is not how they persuade a center-right country to back their cause. They need to use the polarity strategy, demagoguery, at every turn. Look no further than the Healthcare Summit. While Republicans argued numbers, specific provisions in the bill, and the overreach of the bill, Democrats told stories of poor Jesus in Reno, and other poor minorities who could not afford insurance and are suffering.



In the United States, in an age of cable news, the internet, and instant communication, demagoguery is very effective. It will continue to be effective as long as people vote on what they see and hear on television, on the internet or otherwise. As long as the facts are shrouded in darkness or distorted in public discourse, the polarity strategy will reign.



What is the counter-strategy to the polarity strategy? Well, one that has developed over the past couple centuries has been the demagogic tendency toward paranoia. As a faction continues to label individuals and groups as enemies, the list grows and soon one cannot help but wonder if that faction has become paranoid, irrational, and delusional. How can everyone be the enemy? How can so many be the enemy? It is more than just playing the "blame game", a faction that uses polarity to excess begins to lose its grip on reality, if it cannot stop itself from creating enemies. Aggressive tyrants are especially prone to paranoia (Hitler, Stalin, Mao). Push them to perceive steadily more and more individuals and groups as enemies and soon the rational observer will begin to see the paranoia.



What about the people? Will we ever come to realize we are allowing ourselves to be persuaded by a parade of demagoguery and fear? Some are coming to their senses, to be sure. But the reaction seems to be the demagoguery in the reverse, the demonization of the Democratic Party, liberals, and socialists. That is hardly an improvement. It is also equally divisive as the Democratic polarity strategy.



Another is to focus on the performance of the Democratic Party. According to the raw numbers, they have governed poorly. This has been used well so far but can be improved. The Democratic Party has been in control of Congress for almost 4 years now. And yet, we seem to look at a record only 1 year long. Bush may have been President, but the Democrats were a key player in the government policies of 2007-2008, the period that preceded the recession. One can also blend fact with fiction. One can argue Democratic policies likely led to the banking and housing collapse, or that they had an opportunity to avert the disaster but decided not to.



This is done all the time on both sides. Republicans are not quite as effective in utilizing this strategy. They need to get better.



Not only has the economy, financial reform, unemployment, and other problems arisen under their watch, but the outlook for the country is poor. Experts do not expect unemployment to return to 5-6% for at least three years. Meaning, Democratic efforts to bring us to economic recovery have failed. Economic growth is very weak and will be weak for years, hence the Democrats have done nothing but prolong the crisis, just as they did in the 1930s. The myth of the New Deal and FDR can now be broken with our recent experiences with government stimulus and centralization of the economy. The New Deal did not get us out of the Great Depression, World War 2 did.



There is also another effect of the polarity strategy. The people want action, but who will act to punish the offender, destroy the evil cause, or stop the evil from occurring again? The Democrats have always promoted central government solutions, central government action. They do not want individuals, groups, or even state and local governments solving these problems. To them there is only one solution. Nationalization, Centralization, and government authority.



It is important to point out: every action exerts power and authority. By calling for action, the Democrats are asking for more power and authority.



Who do Republicans want to give power and authority to? Well, taxpayers and businesses. Unfortunately that comprises barely half of the population (only half the country pays federal income taxes), and businesses are not visible people with families or dreams. What about state and local governments? Very few Republicans seem to want power or authority in these areas to solve these problems. They argue the negative but offer no compelling alternative. At least it is not compelling to the non-ideological moderate.



Do we want to call people to action? As stated above, a polarity strategy to counter a polarity strategy is a troublesome idea. It is short-term and does not allow Republicans to hold the moral high ground. Even now they are no more popular than the Democratic Party. The Republicans seem to arbitrarily use substance and merit as well. Attempts to portray Democrats as paranoid has also been seldom used.



In my mind the Republicans should consider the following:



(1) keep control of the reverse polarity strategy, don't just demonize the Democrats, liberals, and socialists. That will help you make short term gains but it lowers your potential growth and exposes you to potential problems later on if popular opinion swings again.



(2) Portray the Democrats as paranoid, seeing nearly everyone as the enemy: Wall Street, industry, corporations, health insurance companies, doctors, police officers, soldiers, CIA agents, veterans, gun-toting Bible-thumpers, people on television, and anyone else you can get them to blame. Make them appear as if they are pointing their finger at everyone around them.



(3) Finally, find a way to occupy the moral high ground with clear alternatives unrelated to demagoguery. Your call to action should be one of disarming those who act. Government solutions always fail. Solutions are better left with individuals, businesses, but particularly state and local governments. It is time to look elsewhere for solutions and it is time Republicans become clear and coherent in their offering of alternatives.

The United States today

This is the United States today. Today, a corporation is required to make filings with the SEC regarding its business decisions and outlook that directly affect shareholders. If you say something in that SEC filing that is contrary to what the U.S. Government wants, you just might be called to Washington D.C. to testify as well as make available e-mails, memos, and internal papers on the subject.

This is our country today. If a private corporation makes a government filing that does not support government policy or make it "look good", you are in trouble. And to all other private corporations that are considerng making such filings and God forbid, tell the truth in them, you might want to think about what the government wants, their interest, because in the end it is the federal government's interests that are most important, not yours and not the shareholders.

This is in reference ot the news that the executives of AT&T are being called to testify in front of Henry Waxman's Committee about a recent SEC filing that stated they will be re-evaluating their healthcare benefit programs of their employees and retirees as a result of the recent legislation.

In the United States today, if you want to go to college it is going to cost thousands and thousands of dollars. If you want loans to help pay for it, you will need to go to the federal government. They now control the entire student loan industry. They have positions in numerous large banks, they have control of the Federal Reserve of course. In short, if you want a loan, credit, or money in general you will have to get it from the federal government.

In the United States today, it is important for the President of the United States to give his full opinion on Supreme Court decisions and criticize the Justices on national television if necessary. These are Justices that serve on the Court for life, are not beholden to voters, and certainly not beholden to the President. In some bizarre world, the opinion of the President matters to the Supreme Court, the executive branch has the right to go after the judicial branch.

In the United States today, any reference to God or Christianity is a clear endorsement and establishment of a State Religion. You can't call it Good Friday, its Spring Holiday. Its not Merry Christmas, its Happy Holidays. If the word God is anywhere on Government document, engraved on a wall or statue, or mentioned in the pledge of allegiance - it is bad. This country must take the initiative to eliminate all symbols of religion from the country out of fear of it magically establishing a State Religion, or offending someone somewhere, and to make this country atheist as soon as possible.

This is the United States. If there is anywhere one has the right to offend one another it is here. It is what Free Speech and Free Religion directly involves. You are allowed to practice these things regardless of who it offends. That is the point. Many came here because these activities offended someone in their home country. This country is not atheist, it was not founded by atheists, and the Founders certainly did not want to establish an atheist country.

This is expansion of government power and control of private citizens and individuals, control of all money, and the suppression of a person's right to exercise their religion, and for people to acknowledge that in this country there are Christians and that those Christians have holidays and our calendars reflect that. Instead of pretending religion does not exist, we should fully acknowledge these facts and also realize that this in no way is a declaration of some endorsement of a State Religion. These symbols have been present for 230 years and yet we still do NOT have a State Religion.

Of course, none of this matters. In ten years or less, we will be bankrupt. The economy will be in ruins, we will retreat from the world, and our role as a global power will be extinguished.