Media Fellow Travelers
By: Eddie Clements
In the presidential election of 2008, a left-wing radical candidate won by positioning himself to the right of his opponent. This was made possible for two reasons: one, the inability of John McCain to garner sufficient support from the right, and two, a conscientious effort by leftist partners in the mainstream media to promote their candidate by hiding his extremism. This enabled a misinformed public, seeking dutiful discharge of duties by their politicians instead of partisan sniping, to elect a candidate who promised bipartisanship and unity. He has since rejected both.
Barack Obama seemed too good to be true as a candidate, on the surface. You know the old caveat: if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. After six months on the job, Obama has exhibited only contempt for American values and accomplishments. As a true leftist, he has shown his real self: inexperienced, statist, and ruthless â€“ but with a plan. He could not have attained his position, and canâ€™t carry out the plan, without the help of the media.
I know, I know â€“ another rant about the media. But the thought occurred that I mistakenly accused the media of failing their duty. They are not neglecting their duty, they are carrying it out: support radical forces to effect radical change throughout America.
The media is staffed with leftists, from the broadcast media centered in New York and Washington DC, to print media in those locations plus Los Angeles and Chicago. Lesser print outlets in other locations and cable stations CNN and MSNBC, notably, exhibit the same staff characteristics. All this has been the end result of years of infiltration of America by so-called progressives. A case can be viably made that liberal-progressive political philosophy draws its grounding from Communism, socialism, and fascism. All three of those philosophies are statist.
Radicals in the administration, particularly the â€œczarsâ€ who are accountable to no one but the chief executive who hired them, will enact programs without congressional approval, in effect through executive order. Their beliefs are known through their writings and public speeches, not their practical experience. Heck, they canâ€™t DO anything but think things to death. The only people they talk to are people who agree with them. No wonder their ideas are so radical. This suggests there is no sense of responsibility to serve, but to dictate and impose unwanted change.
Take John Holdgren, for example. He has stated there is no prohibition in the constitution regulating forced sterilization or other means of population control. Interestingly, the non-issue of the need for such control will be passed over in favor of arguing over whether his supposition is indeed the case. The result will be acceptance through declarative statement that population control is needed; the only question will be how to obtain this end.
If the above sounds nutty, consider the issue of enhanced interrogation techniques. Democrat â€œstrategistsâ€ and other talking heads say â€œtorture is un reliable, un-American values…â€, etc. Constant repetition conveys the sense that the techniques used were indeed â€œtortureâ€, despite legal opinions that it was not. Thus the issue is argued on leftistsâ€™ terms, regardless of its validity.
The same has been attempted about global warming/climate change/greenhouse effect. The issue is addressed by leftists as a foregone conclusion, though the data is questionable and woefully inadequate. The â€œsolutionâ€ to the â€œproblemâ€ is green jobs and trading around paper permits. The real problem is, leftists canâ€™t explain what a â€œgreen jobâ€ is, other than saying â€œit reduces your carbon footprintâ€. They do not add that a consequence of footprint-reductions is a reduction in quality of life for many humans. But the true objective is to eliminate capitalism and its attendant reliance on growth. True to form, liberal-progressives love humanity but hate people – that are not liberal-progressives.
There is no media examination of the â€œCzarsâ€ positions, qualifications â€“ or even if they reflect the values the people they are supposed to serve. If changes they suggest were truly merited, there could be reasoned discussion.
These issues could be discussed in media, but they are unrealistic, so they concentrate instead on the mechanics. Can Obama get this passed? Is his agenda in danger? How will this affect his other initiatives? Arenâ€™t these czars great? Resistance is coming from racists! Townhall protestors are militant, NAZIâ€™s, uninformed on the issuesâ€¦ They want the president to fail! If he fails, America fails! (Isnâ€™t that what they want? Yes, as presently constituted; liberal-progressives want America re-made in their Utopian image.) Any rhetorical trick available to cast opposition in a negative light and make Obamaâ€™s position enlightened, new and improved is employed.
So where does this concept of media as enemy of traditional America come from? How can anyone say they are biased? Too easy.
One characteristic of liberal-progressives above all others affixes that label to the MSM: they think they are smarter than everyone else. Their position is that of assumed wisdom and insight over the unwashed masses. They assume high-falutinâ€™ â€œthinkersâ€ in positions of authority know whatâ€™s best for you better than you do. One more thing I canâ€™t pass up. How many of these supposed high thinkers and self-styled wise men are based in Washington DC, New York, California, Massachusetts, and Illinois? How smart can they be if they canâ€™t look around and see how badly those places are doing, and then say what is best for everywhere else?
There must be sincere, concerned Democrats/liberal-progressives out there, perhaps even in the MSM, who disagree that the radical makeover of America is necessary. But if so, besides Pat Caddell, where are they? Are their voices drowned out, or are they not given a stage?
The MSM is doing their job â€“ promoting an agenda they agree with. But tyrannical change must be resisted, despite the happy-face put on it by hopeful words offered in a soothing delivery.