Recently in Media Category

Reagan in the White House private quarters wit...

President Reagan with Judge Robert Bork at the White House, 1987


Tonight Barack Obama won. The left, as we all very much know, wish to see Barack Obama re-elected as America's tyrant-in-chief and in every Republican primary tonight Barack Obama walked away with another victory on the road to re-election in November. The left realized over half a century ago that in order to impose its will in a country where only a tiny minority of Americans self-identify as "liberal", the left must fight a war of misinformation, for which it needed to use the hammer and anvil of education and the media. 

The enemedia (enemy-media) accomplished this quite well in 1987 after misogynist liberal Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell announced his retirement. Powell sided with the majority in the infamous 1977 Coker v Georgia case in which the liberal Court nullified Georgia's death penalty for aggrivated rape. In Powell's concurring opinion he infamously stated: "Although rape invariably is a reprehensible crime, there is no indication that petitioner's offense was committed with excessive brutality or that the victim sustained serious or lasting injury." No "serious or lasting injury"? Naturally, there was no outrage from feminists on the left because Powell was a liberal. The more things change... 

So Reagan decided to replace Powell with not only a conservative Originalist, but also one of the truly greatest legal minds of our time: then-DC Circuit Judge Robert Bork. The media circus began with 'round-the-clock character assassination of Bork by Democrats Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and the other usual suspects with the help of the far-left media. It worked, and it was a watershed. Not since Watergate had the media been so influential in changing the outcome of a contest for high office - in this case, a nomination for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.  

One of the primary roles of education for leftist academia has been to subdue critical thought, which clearly has been subdued increasingly over recent decades - and the role of entertainment media must also be noted in pushing the notion that one should always follow one's emotions rather than seek objective truth. And so our government of wolves has been salivating over our nation's transformation into a flock of sheep.

In the last two decades, the news media - though having had a left-wing bias for much longer - decided it was time to pull out all the stops in pushing its preferred policies and candidates. In 2004, it failed, thanks to a GOP unified behind an incumbent president. It was not enough that one or two bloggers could prove what is now known as Rathergate; those blogs needed also to be widely promoted and supported by a movement in order to not be simply ignored. When CBS tried to smear President Bush with a forged document claiming he was a draft-dodger, it backfired: the critical information reached the voter and rather than seeing Bush destroyed, Dan Rather's career came to an abrupt end.

In 2008, there was no incumbent Republican president in the race, which only poured gasoline on the establishment's unhinged jihad on conservatives within the party to purge them from every appointed and elected office. By the summer, the establishment had succeeded in imposing John McCain on the party, with much help from the far-left media, which had its own separate agenda, but nonetheless momentarily allied itself with the GOP establishment to ensure the weakest possible candidate - and also the most liberal and controllable, in the unlikely event he should win - would face Barack Obama in the fall. Conservative bloggers went to work again, uncovering a treasure trove of damning information about then-candidate Barack Obama, but this time the establishment-led McCain campaign kept its distance and gave such efforts no legitimacy - in effect, signing its own political death warrant. Enemedia spared no expense or salacious story trashing the McCain campaign while at the same time the McCain campaign repeatedly told conservatives they were not wanted. Certainly Senator McCain was happy to try to create a coalition by bringing a conservative onto the ticket, but this clearly roiled many of the hardline establishment who sought to solidify their control of the party since the late 1990s. Since 2008, there has been a steady stream of sad discoveries about McCain campaign staff working to sabotage Sarah Palin, apparently willing to prove another great truism once again, that the establishment would much rather see a Democrat win the White House than a conservative - apparently on any part of a ticket. 

Ultimately, however, even the establishment purists would prefer to see one of their Republicans in the White House to a Democrat, however that may be accomplished. The American Spectator in October of 2008 noted several former Romney 2008 staffers then working for McCain-Palin sought to sabotage McCain-Palin in order to allow Barack Obama to win in 2008 (and implement Obamacare - based on none other than Romneycare) so that Mitt Romney would have a shot in four rather than eight years without running against a sitting president of the same party:

Former Mitt Romney presidential campaign staffers, some of whom are currently working for Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin's bid for the White House, have been involved in spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, seeking to diminish her standing after the election. "Sarah Palin is a lightweight, she won't be the first, not even the third, person people will think of when it comes to 2012," says one former Romney aide, now working for McCain-Palin. "The only serious candidate ready to challenge to lead the Republican Party is Mitt Romney. He's in charge on November 5th." 

In 2012 it has been much the same - in fact, as we know, with many of the same tired players. Presently, the far-left media are using Rick Santorum to push Reagan Conservative Newt Gingrich out. Santorum's qualifications for such an honor are that he is most likely to be defeated by Mitt Romney, but in the unlikely event he isn't and in the even more unlikely event Obama were to self-destruct, still promises to be controllable (he is a "team player", after all) as a Senator with a record as a big-spending, big-government, China-friendly, manage-the-decline shallow slogan-chanter. Indeed, one of the few differences between Santorum and Romney lies only in the theme of the shallow slogans they mindlessly chant. Bothwere pro-abortion self-described anti-Reagan progressives until it was politically unhelpful to be such, and both have an equally disastrous record in government.

If the media succeed in weaponizing Santorum against the only Reagan Conservative with a proven record of success - Newt Gingrich, they will then destroy Santorum so that Romney will win the nomination, after which they will destroy Romney. It's such an old playbook that really, enemedia can do it with their eyes shut. If Americans do not seek to educate themselves, then they will be spoon fed a deadly toxin like infants by the agenda-laden far-left dinosaur media and will act foolishly based on the misinformation they've received and not only will Newt Gingrich - another great Reagan Conservative leader with one of the greatest minds of our time be "Borked", so too will our nation. "How blessed is the man who finds wisdom and the man who gains understanding," but "a fool despises wisdom and instruction". (Prov 3:13, 1:7) An apathetic people and representative government cannot exist concurrenty for long.


nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.


American Statism: Aping Putin?

| No Comments | No TrackBacks


Newt Gingrich is in good company: Garry Kasparov, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and Boris Nemtsov know what it means to be the dissident candidate and to face the darts of running against the establishment and its media. Stand strong, Newt. You are fighting for your grandchildren's future and for ours.

This is something I predicted would happen in 2009, that American statism without intervention would increasingly mimic the electoral authoritarianism of Putin's Russia.

As a boy I worked on Ronald Reagan's re-election campaign and read and watched everything that had to do with him. As I grew older, my love for the Gipper only grew as well. That's why I'm with Newt. I also know where Mitt Romney and his ilk come from: they were the ones who not only opposed Reagan but hated him - and hated the American people for wanting to be in control of their government.

In 2006 the establishment hit the first major wall of resistance since the era of Newt Gingrich as House Speaker. The American people were resolute to stop the amnesty legislation the Senate was seeking to pass that would allow millions of illegal aliens to cut in front of legal immigrants and American citizens and become a new voting bloc to ensure the votes of millions of Conservative Americans would be rendered inconsequential. In the height of the battle, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter pounded his fist on the lectern on the floor of the Senate and exclaimed, "The will of the Senate will prevail!" But the American people had a different idea, an idea that was firmly based in the words of Thomas Jefferson: "The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." And so the establishment lost and not long thereafter, Senator Specter was primaried out of office and replaced by a more conservative Republican.

The battle won, the war waged on. Increasingly, the establishment media became more brazen with each passing year. They were caught and frustrated in 2004, when Dan Rather's forged documents revealed an attempt by CBS to alter the outcome of that year's presidential election. In 2006, MSM struck back, both with its nakedly biased coverage of mass protests by illegal aliens and events leading up to the fall midterm elections. By 2008, the establishment's media was back with a vengeance. It began by anointing weak liberal Republican Senator John McCain for the nomination, then dutifully torpedoing him the moment the nomination was clenched in favor of Barack Obama. The coverage was so slanted, it became the focus of several feature documentaries and countless other serious points of examination. The sad part about American establishment media is that unlike Russian media, which is compelled at the barrel of a gun, the US press subjugates itself freely.

With Nancy Pelosi firmly in control of Congress and after Barack Obama's election in 2008, the establishment set to subdue the American people as they did the Native Americans so many generations ago, and to punish us for asserting our fundamental human rights as expressed in the Constitution. One of the means by which they sought to do so was by enacting Obamacare, which gave the state complete control over whether each of us would live or die without a trial or even the accusation of having committed a crime. Socialized medicine, they knew, was like a death penalty for the innocent, and it was touted by supporters like Robert Reich as a way to kill off the feeble and elderly.

What resulted, however, was probably not anticipated: a backlash that spawned the Tea Party, which became a movement so vast that one of its protests on the Washington Mall exceeded in size the total present for Barack Obama's inauguration, which itself had set the record for crowd size on the mall.

By November 2010, the movement had gained maturity, leading to the largest sweep of House seats in US history, as well as those in state houses. The establishment scrambled and quickly appointed stalwarts like Speaker John Boehner to manage the damage.

In 2012, the establishment is determined to use whatever means necessary to destroy any candidate who is a serious reformer, as we see with incomparable bias in MSM as well as Fox News and Drudge. And in the noise of the chaos of seeking to destroy Newt Gingrich, another negative side effect of all this nasty campaigning by Romney is that we might forget about our Tea Party candidates running in congressional races. Therefore we must both stand strong with Newt while giving of our time to the other races that matter, too. It's a good deal of work, but it is still so much less than that which those who wear the uniform must so often face.

This primary season we have a choice to make. We will either choose a man who stands with the far left and looks at you and me with contempt or we can choose Newt Gingrich - a proven Reagan conservative bold enough and moral enough to stand up to the establishment and carry the torch of the people - and Reaganism - into the White House. Let's go with Newt.

In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State. -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn


nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.


Obama-Media Complex: Made in Putin's Image

| No Comments | No TrackBacks


I wrote a piece a couple of years ago detailing Russia's disappointing departure from rather short-lived aspirations of democracy in the 1990s and how Vladimir Putin's concept of a managed, electoral authoritarianism (to borrow from Francis Fukuyama) meant that by controlling the media he controlled the elections. As a result, Putin's government managed to guarantee the outcome because he controlled the information the voters needed to make their decisions.

So Newt Gingrich faces a confluence of things which for a host of disparate reasons seeks to have him lose to Romney. On the part of the pro-Obama media, we see an unflinching advocate with a bullhorn in on hand and duct tape in the other so it can both talk over and silence the opposition. With the bullhorn, the media strategically chants whatever it must at any given time to protect the administration. It then brings the duct tape into the GOP presidential debates and silences any it wishes to marginalize.

Indeed, the media's strategy at the moment is to see to it that the weak, threadbare liberal Mitt Romney wins the nomination. One might be a bit tongue-in-cheek and say that last night's debate was an ABC-orchestrated infomercial for a worthless product called Mitt Romney, although at least ShamWow had "wow" in its name.  And it is true that Willard "Mitt" Romney is an incredibly flat dullard - although President Obama may arguably come up even shorter in that area - which is why both he and the left in general realize they must not only promote Romney but destroy his opposition beyond recognition, at least until Mr. Romney secures the nomination. What Alexander Solzhenitsyn once noted about the 20th Century seems just as true today about candidates like Romney, which is possibly another reason why the media prefer him: "Hastiness and superficiality are the psychic diseases of the twentieth century, and more than anywhere else this disease is reflected in the press."

The reality, however, is far more serious than a comical dysfunctional former governor with a 34 percent approval rating who abuses his dog and only talks about saving the life of the unborn if it saves his career. As we've learned, this is the way an MSM "debate" works in the modern era: Silence Newt, give Romney all the time, pronounce Romney the winner. Hello Vladimir Putin. And that should be the worrisome part. In effect, the American media is doing exactly what Russian media has been doing for twelve years since Putin took power with the exception that at least Russian media had to be coerced. American media hasn't had 300-plus journalists murdered by the regime - no, all it needed was some common ground and a few fancy invites to the White House. The shameful and perhaps most disturbing part about Romney (or perhaps evidence of his sheer stupidity) is that he's perfectly okay with this as long as the Obama media takes out Mitt's enemies, too. Even with the guy endorsing Mitt who tried to ride that ride back in 2008 only to have it turn around and bite him once he clenched the nomination, Mit seems utterly oblivious to the fact that being last to be lead to the slaughterhouse still means you're being taken to the slaughterhouse. It seems we have learned very little from the McCain disaster four years ago. But RINOs have been trying to inoculate themselves against conservatives ever since the Reagan Revolution, which is part of the reason why they so willingly join forces with Democrats and the liberal media to destroy conservative candidates.

Will Newt win it or is he somehow destined to become the next Garry Kasparov? I believe he will win, but it will be difficult. Newt is truly an historical figure of a potential magnitude of greatness that he may well go down as one of the actual top-four presidents in US history. So why would it be so hard if Newt finds natural resonance with the American people if he is such a gigantic figure? Again, the answer: the gatekeepers in the media. The American people cannot vote for someone they do not realize even exists, instead believing the evil cartoon character the media has created in his stead. Judging by the debate last night in which Newt was limited to fewer chances to speak than even Jon Huntsman who sits at the bottom of the polls, it's clear that the media realize Newt's initial surge came about by his ability to speak directly to the people much as Reagan did. The media would like to see Romney nominated because they believe he will lose to Obama, but even if Romney somehow defeats Obama, he is by far the closest thing they have to Obama outside of Hillary Clinton. So the media is working overtime to cut off Newt's mic while creating a host of fables about him that would be easily dispelled by any direct contact. So far, they've succeeded somewhat with help from the usually-right leaning but pro-Romney Drudge Report, Fox News, and over $10 million in false attack ads by Romney and his wingman Ron Paul, which the media have apparently forbidden Newt form defending himself against.

To borrow an idea from Speaker Gingrich himself, Newt plays chess, Romney plays checkers, and Barack Obama plays tic-tac-toe.* And right now both the checkers and the tic-tac-toe guy are playing "get the guy with the chess set". So we shouldn't by any stretch see this cabal of anti-Newt media or the virtual blackout during the debate last night as a nail in the coffin. Newt is smarter than all of them put together and I have no doubt that the champion of great solutions will solve this challenge, as well as the next, which is defeating Obama. Newt's sights are set and we need to stay behind him as he fights to restore the greatness of America, and certainly with each new step along the way, we begin that restoration, or to borrow from Newt's own words, "Nothing will turn America around more than Election Night when Barack Obama loses decisively." But as we seek to return the reins of power to the people, we also need to take time to reflect on the values that made us great. The media must also return to the values of integrity and fairness so that our great and free society can thrive and its people prosper. The media has been headed down a very dark path in which the lie has increasingly "become a moral category but a pillar of the state", as Solzhenitsyn also noted about life in the Soviet Union. He also famously said that "the strength or weakness of a society depends more on the level of its spiritual life than on its level of industrialization. Neither a market economy nor even general abundance constitutes the crowning achievement of human life. If a nation's spiritual energies have been exhausted, it will not be saved from collapse by the most perfect government structure or by any industrial development. A tree with a rotten core cannot stand."

So as we elect Newt Gingrich as the 45th President of the United States next November, let's remember what Newt himself has told us: we also have much work to do. Health starts on the inside and works its way out, not from the top down. We have no way to predict what will become of Russia but we are in full control of what we as Americans become.


*"It's one thing if the White House can't play chess. It's another thing if the White House can't play checkers. But if the White House can't play tic-tac-toe..." - Newt, January 7th, 2012


nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.




History, Odds Are With Newt

| No Comments | No TrackBacks


Like Obama, Romney is a reflexively liberal empty suit. Empty suit or not, both men are strongly ideological. In point of fact, every man has an ideology - whether it is shallow or deep, in contact with the real world or not, and that view of the world shapes his behavior. Romney essentially has the depth of a baking sheet but it is a rather liberal baking sheet. Being shallow for both these men means they are not only wrong but incompetent.

As for the election, I think we all realize that Romney almost certainly will lose to Obama, as RINOs have always done against liberal Democrats. In fact, it's really built into this campaign season and is part of why Romney is the establishment's anointed one. Romney's major backers back him because they have already embarked on a senate-first strategy. They believe him to be a suitable throwaway candidate who will not rock the boat for the effort to retake the senate. Certainly, the crusty and perhaps bigoted establishment would not be game for having a Mormon serve in the White House, so that alone is your first indicator he is a diversion. Others indicate his lackluster record as governor of Massachusetts and his inability to connect with voters - particularly southern voters - even as well as Al Gore or George H.W. Bush had. The establishment has concluded it will be impossible to defeat Obama, so the desire instead is to focus efforts on Congress and pick an unserious presidential candidate, saving better ones for another time. I fundamentally disagree with this approach and believe history bears this out, although his cynical backers most certainly are right about Romney's chances.

Let's take a look at just a few of the historical patterns.

First, only three of the last nine Republicans to win Iowa went on to win the Nomination. Of those, two were sitting presidents and unopposed and the other was the liberal Bob Dole who lost to the Democrat Clinton in the GE. In 1980, Ronald Reagan was one of the candidates who was beaten badly in Iowa by George H.W. Bush (the Romney of the day) and the campaign was nearly destroyed. For most of us, Paul Harvey doesn't need to read us the rest of the story.

Furthermore, no Republican presidential candidate running as a liberal like Romney has won the general election in the past forty years:

Ford 1976 (running as a liberal): Lost
Reagan 1980: (running as a conservative): Won
Reagan 1984 (running as a conservative): Won
Bush 1988 (running as a conservative): Won
Bush 1992 (running as a liberal): Lost
Dole 1996: (running as a liberal): Lost
Bush 2000 (running as a conservative): Won
Bush 2004 (running as a conservative): Won
McCain 2008: (running as a liberal): Lost

One reason for this is sheer demographics. Conservatives make up close to 50 percent of the US population as well as the majority base of the GOP. By contrast, self-described liberals comprise roughly 20 percent, with independents, the confused, the apolitical, and convicted felons making up the difference. Of those in that 30 percent who can legally vote, a candidate would be lucky to secure a third, i.e. 15 percent of the original pie. So it is vital for any GOP nominee to carry the base in order to win and we can see what happens to those who don't just by having another look at the list above.

Finally, Romney has consistently failed to garner more than the mid-20s - far less than even his mentor Bush 41, the 1980 frontrunner at this point in the race. New Hampshire will almost certainly go for Romney, but the political terrain suddenly changes as they head south. South Carolina almost always votes for the eventual nominee, and both SC and Florida favor Newt. By this time Bachmann and possibly Santorum will have dropped out, adding their supporters and key percentage points to those also left by Perry who suspended his campaign tonight. That support isn't going to Romney and I predict this will cascade in Newt's favor. But no matter which conservative chess piece you place as the sole competition to Romney, Romney loses. The numbers are just there; they're diffuse among several candidates at the moment, but those numbers will be reaching critical mass just when they're needed. Make no mistake, 2012 is another Tea Party election and Newt is the strongest Tea Party candidate and conservative candidate in essence to take it to the general election.


nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.



Apparently, Business Insider is now hiring staff writers for Xinhua, China's state-run "news" agency. In fact, the propaganda (both in tone and content) is so thick in this hit piece directed at America and its people that it likely would move members of the CCP to tears.  So we decided to go through each of "The 9 Things About America That You Knew Were True - But Aren't" and give you the aren'ts'  aren'ts.


1. July 4th isn't really an important day

"The founding fathers would be surprised to learn that we celebrate on the 4th. John Adams, future second president of the United States, wrote that 'the Second of July, 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.'" Actually, the writers of this piece should have suggested that perhaps some of the founding fathers might have initially felt this way. July 4th quickly became the traditional date of commemoration for our declaration of independence from Britain as well as other patriotic reasons: the date in 1778 also marked an important victory for George Clark's forces, and in 1802, it was the date West Point Military Academy opened. It was also the date of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the date Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both passed away in 1826, and the date slavery was abolished in law and practice by the State of New York in 1827.


2. The Pilgrims were just a bunch of racists and were only inconvenienced by authorities harshing their buzz in Europe

As we can already tell, Eric Goldschein and Robert Johnson - the two mind-numbed public school automatons who wrote this piece - seem to have a clear bias, which becomes further evident by dismissing "persecution" and replacing it with "frustration". In reality, Pilgrims were in fear of their lives, which rises somewhat above mere "frustration". Furthermore, the Founding Fathers established no "separation of church and state" - a slogan of the left ever since it was taken out of context from a private letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists and began being employed in the 20th Century to read into the Constitution the exact opposite of what the letter and the spirit of the law states.


3. Betsy Ross didn't design the flag

The article's title claims that nine things "aren't" true, so the writer must have meant to include this one, too; however, the writers admit here no one seems to know. Even the simplest mind (except for atheists) knows that lack of data does not prove a negative. Just the tone of this segment further supports the idea that Goldschein and Johnson had an axe to grind.


4. Salem witches not burned at the stake

The witch-hunters did burn accused witches at the stake in Europe, but the writers are correct on this point. Interesting to note, however, that the writers did not go out of their way here to minimize these trials in the historical context, even though they were rather slight in scope and short-lived compared to those in Europe. But this fact might have been an inconvenient truth in support of the many reasons we fled Europe, one of which being the sheer barbarity. I do give the writers a few points for mentioning the Salem body count of 20; however, literally scores of thousands were burned to death and murdered in other ways across the pond. This fact should have been mentioned as well, if the goal were to supply accurate context (e.g. Mexico outlawed slavery - at least on paper - in 1830).


5. The Alamo was about defending slavery rather than freedom


This is complete revisionism. Santa Anna was one of the most egregious tyrants and violators of human rights on the continent. Sadly, the Mexican government remains one of the most elitist (and unpopular) faux democracies in our hemisphere today. Furthermore, Mexico outlawed slavery the same way Communist China today has freedom of religion in its constitution: a formality as a rule ignored in practice.


6. Revere's words aren't sufficiently exact, so we should hate America

"Someone needs to let Sarah [Palin] know" what? The original controversy to which the embedded image of Palin intimates is whether Revere also warned the British, not over the exact words that Revere used, which is what this hit piece falteringly addresses. In fact, the exact words used by Revere would not have made much sense in recounting the story in later generations, which is why for generations we paraphrased them with, "The British are coming!", as Longfellow discussed but also did not state verbatim in his famous poem. The fact that Goldschein and Johnson take issue with this and for added measure takes a swipe at Palin further lends to the obvious, which is this Business Insider bit is little more than an anti-American hit piece that is also perfectly happy to go after those who are outspoken supporters of America for good measure.


7. Wild West wasn't quite so wild

Congratulations to the writers who have at last - on number seven out of nine - scored one for their "win" column. The Wild West was not as wild as the writers' friends in Hollywood have portrayed it. But before we give Goldschein and Johnson their trophy for getting one right, this win might turn out to be a bigger loss. Why? Because the political left to which Goldschein and Johnson clearly belong has long associated the Wild West with those crazy savages in flyover country - or basically anyone not an East- or Left Coast liberal establishment type. So as we look deeper we realize these gems have shot themselves in the foot. But hopefully this wild west-style fiction-slinging won't wind up following them around in their apparently early careers.


8. Lindbergh wasn't the first to fly around the world

This is a half-win for our dynamic komrade duo in the sense that this is true. Unfortunately, they fail to provide historical context, which I found odd. It's interesting to note they avoided mentioning Lindbergh's anti-Semitism and love for socialism and the Nazis - views likely in many respects shared by these writers' political clique.


9. "US not responsible for winning World War II in Europe"

At last something the US isn't responsible for. That is of course because it is a good thing, according to these writers, who have been brainwashed to also conclude that since the US is evil, it can't be recognized for doing good. That the US isn't "resonsible for winning WWII in Europe" is also a popular meme among non-American participants in the war who were humiliated by having the crap beat out of them by Nazi Germany at the time the US stepped in and began smashing heads together, further pointing out their humiliation. In fact, I worked with a Russian during my time in London and we debated this matter a couple of times. There is no question that every little bit helped, so the Soviets deserved some credit (actually, by that logic, Germany deserves some credit for not learning Napoleon's lesson and invading the Soviet Union and getting attacked by bad weather). The British (thanks to American arms and support), a handful of French, and other resistance fighters (thanks to American arms and support) also deserve credit for their courageous role in standing up to the Germans. But the reality is that they were all but Lilliputians until the US King Kong showed up on the scene and took Hitler down. Even Churchill knew it was the Americans that had saved the British Empire. That far-left revisionists like the ones who wrote this piece follow an old, infamous antithetical meme says more about the writers than it informs us on the details of history. That the writers intimate that the genocidist Stalin is the real hero both smacks of genocide-denier Walter Durranty of the NYT and fails to give meteorology the credit it is due, to say nothing of denying the US role in defeating Nazi Germany.


As pointed out, our beloved writers clearly had a bone to pick with the US. In eight of the nine short swipes, they managed to spout the leftist party line without a single error - a sycophant's ape-rate even writers for Xinhua have trouble at times attaining. This Business Insider bit is far from serious and is nothing more than a hit piece filled with the ersatz slogans we come to expect in any friendly PLA writing course. Given Business Insider's low bar for its writers, I honestly wouldn't waste my time at Business Insider going forward. Interestingly, Business Insider, also offers a piece titled, "The 25 Worst Mistakes In History". Surprisingly, denying the Soviet strategic threat and human rights violations for decades and hiring these two writers didn't make the list. Better to stick to something like the Wall Street Journal, where even the liberal writers attempt to write for grownups. Or you could always head over to Cracked.


nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.


Some Thoughts on The Norway Terrorist

| 2 Comments | No TrackBacks


I find it interesting that mass-murdering terrorist Anders Behring Breivik's closest apparent political leanings would be along the lines of United Russia, Vladimir Putin's political party (and similar to Vidkun Quisling's National Unity Party).

I also find it noteworthy that two separate Islamist groups tried to take responsibility before realizing that gig was up. This further demonstrates that with their shared hatred for Israel and love of blowing things up, Anders and the Islamists he claims to also detest are actually natural allies.

I suppose there is some irony here, particularly with the aforementioned antipathy for Israel shared by Anders and the Islamists, but also Norway's Labor Party. Incidentally, Labor also has "declared war on radical Islam." Of course, radical Islamists hate Labor and Anders, too. That the three of them are at each other's throats is noteworthy no matter how you look at it. As the saying goes, "haters gonna hate", and all three seem to hate each other and everyone else, for that matter.

I'm also rather curious if Anders had any connection with the "Anonymous" movement, which is allegedly supported by "Russian interests". Russia not only has a long history with active measures throughout Europe in both Soviet and post-Soviet days, it also has a considerable one in Norway.

Speculation aside, what we can gather about Anders at the moment is that he is a fairly educated and intelligent sort of terrorist. He doesn't seem the type to be led around by the nose of one ready-made ideology, but might well hand pick the things he likes out of both right and left baskets. Just another speculation, of course, since we truly know so very little about him yet. Some have made some great points about the fact that had Norway's gun laws not been so strict, camp counselors could have been able to possess firearms and thus could have stopped Anders much earlier on in his murder spree. That would have especially been handy in this case, because authorities took an hour and a half to respond. Another travesty of the socialist dystopia? It is likely that Anders will only get 21 years for his unspeakable carnage. 21 years? Seriously?

Some great analysis and links to those who've really been digging into this can be found here, here, here, and here. Bonus: Far-Left Wikipedia has already linked Anders to the American Tea Party Movement.


nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.


It appears the plot has thickened in the horrific Norway massacre that involved bombings and shootings at two separate locations that claimed the lives of close to 100 innocents yesterday. Unlike many on the left, it made no difference to many of us what color the shooter's hair or eyes were; there only began to prove to be a strange twist when rumors of his worldview began to swirl around. It was only then that he began to appear to be a bit of a departure from the norm. After all, he would not have been the first European Islamist we've captured in the past ten years. But we one thing seems unchanged: he agrees with Norway's labor government's - and the Islamists' - anti-Semitism, and he agrees with the far left that terror and oppression are the only useful tools in governing a society.

At present, Anders Behring Breivik seems to be the sole suspect, contrary to earlier suspicions - mine included, as well as those of the BBC and other left-of-center media and government officials - that this was a coordinated Islamism attack. Of course, the BBC dutifully began filling the air almost entirely with speculation that it was Norway's almost non-existent role in Afghanistan and Libya that was the culprit and all but ignored the growing Islamist movement in Norway and how PM Jens Stoltenberg's government has chosen not to deal with it (when it wasn't supporting it, which was quite rare).

But of course, all of that talk may have become moot as more details seem to have surfaced. So naturally, conservatives will seek to fall back and suggest that perhaps this will become the exception that proves the rule, while the left will most certainly suggest the opposite: that this is the rule that proves the rule. In one sense, the left is right. When you begin to look at it a little deeper, you might begin to think this is the rule that proves the rule.

But what rule? While early reports suggest he was an ultra-nationalist á la Alex Jones-with-hand-grenades (though we do not know the philosophical basis of this or his mental health - so it is yet too early to determine what is at the root of his rampage) we do know that Europe has a long history in which the balance of power has either shifted toward the violent left or the violent right - a "right" quite alien from how we define it here in the US. Historically, this battle has not given much voice to the average, peaceful person living in the Old World. Marx or Hitler was your choice, so you were screwed either way. Over the centuries what started out as contests among nobility has evolved into what began to be known as leftist versus rightist in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Regardless of the name of the fashionable political philosophical candy du jour, this clash of titans remained one of the principle reasons so many fled to America.

Of course, much of the media in the US and the world today counts itself among the combatants in the Old World sense, so it will seek to make up for the Loughner that got away in its quixotic cultural quest to finally vanquish its ancient nemesis as well as put away this new post-1776 foe: the "third option". As you recall, before the blood had even dried on the pavement, MSM sought to paint Jared Loughner as a right-wing terrorist and then pin him not to the Alex Jones extreme but to the Sarah Palin mainstream. This was until Loughner's rantings on YouTube and testimony from those who knew him surfaced and it became clear he was a radical atheist and quasi-neo-Marxist. Loughner was also determined to be mentally unfit to stand trial, so the crestfallen media was able to quickly let the story drop with cover. The Obama administration was also forced to wait for another opportunity to push its anti-America class narrative.

If anything, yesterday's tragic incidents in Oslo and Utoya should serve to further support the reality that the traditional American conservative is the true "centrist" in the world body politic. While you still have at one extreme the deranged Hitlerites and at the other the genocidal Maoists, in the very exceptional and sane middle, you can still find the rational pro-America, pro-Israel constitutionalist. This third option is only option that has ever truly empowered the people. "Centrist" not so much in the more popular sense today; many see political actors such as John McCain and Jon Huntsman, Jr. as timid leftists. Rightly so, because these faux moderates seek to join their more radical comrades in turning back the clock on America to the old days, when we were subject to top-down governments and the kind of extremist clashes eternally ongoing in Europe.

Of course, the likely policy response in Norway and in other NATO countries to yesterday's attacks will most likely prove counterproductive and will also neither solve the growing and very extant Islamist threats nor the actual violence or the anti-Semitism that continues to thrive in Norway. Nor will it provide anything of use in dealing with the nascent and already very serious China threat. Instead, it will surely provide further cover for ignoring them. It will likely, however, encourage Janet Napolitano to grope Americans a little bit more. This incident will no doubt play right into the narrative Napolitano and the Obama administration have been working on more feverishly in recent days, which in itself makes for an exceptionally convenient set of circumstances in Norway. This will in turn play into the narrative of the Alex Jones sect, who will seek to continue to hijack what is truly American while the extreme left seeks to help the hijacking so they can be rid of us, the peaceful, civil American voter - and the exceptional idea of America - once and for all.

So you neither have in Anders the nail in the coffin that proves that ordinary people trying to live their lives are actually terrorists who should be locked up, nor the exception to the rule that all terrorists are Islamist - which isn't true at any rate. What we do find in Anders, if early reports turn out to be true, is that the rule that civil society is still caught between two extremes happy to use violence against innocents to attain their goals is still very much a reality. And we also see why our Founding Fathers were wise to want none of it in the US. At the end of the day, Anders serves as a reminder why we must divorce the kind of European thinking that has led to wars and so much suffering and loss of life around the world. It once again demonstrates that the idea that the Founding Fathers had was truly exceptional and that for democratic peace theory to work, there must be more freedom and power in the hands of the people, not less. The idea that "we the people", the civil society, oversee the affairs of state rather than the opposite and that differences are solved rationally through debate (at times impassioned) and elections rather than an endless cycle of oppression and uprising, tyranny and terrorism, is truly the most novel even some 235 years later; it is the best idea men have ever had and also the best in practice.


nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.


The NPR History of Hate

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

In light of the faux mass MSM hysteria over Michele Bachmann's non-anti-Catholic religious beliefs, I wonder what NPR thinks about Catholics? Blogbat has the answer.

In this episode, our cardboard hero runs into his physics professor (who also works as an NPR personality) in the cafeteria. A chat ensues that leaves the good folks of Generic College with mouths agape.

 



Thanks to Newsbusters and (gasp) Fox News for the dirty laundry on NPR used in this bit.



nme.jpg


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.
Enhanced by Zemanta

China: The Fourth Reich

| No Comments | No TrackBacks


Change some names from this latest Chinese state media aping of the regime's ruling party and you've traveled back in time to an era our grandparents knew well.

The latest straight out of Nazi Germany:


w020090322680748373586.jpgGermany has strived to protect human rights of all social groups while honoring its National Human Rights Action Plan.


On Thursday, the Führer's State Council Information Office (RRIA) published the Assessment Report on the National Human Rights Action Plan of The Greater German Reich (1939-1940), which says all targets and tasks set by the Action Plan have been fulfilled as scheduled.


Over the past two years, Germany has earmarked 2.779 billion Reichsmarks (431 million U.S.dollars) as a development fund for ethnic minority groups.


Levi, a Polish wood artisan, moved to a 100-foot-long brick-wood apartment last year. He said, "It's beyond my wildest imagination that I could have ever got such a nice apartment." Previously, his family, eight people in total, roughed it in a 10-square-foot mud house in a ghetto.


The renovation of his house was, for the most part, sponsored by the Reich.


Like his family, 46,000 households of Poles in his neighborhood were moved to new houses in 1939 in our new communal living center that provides free healthcare and ovens for baking large quantities of bread.


In Czechoslovakia, the people, in carrying out the Action Plan, strived to raise the employment rate of ethnic minority people, and have done so, with full 100 percent employment right outside their new homes.


The Reich has worked to safeguard women's rights to employment and equal access to economic resources. The state now forces women to have abortions whether they want them or not so that they may stay employed for their own good.


The Führer has relaxed restrictions on the disabled people for applying for drivers' license by introducing a revised "Regulations on Application and Use of Driver's Licenses" in 1939.


The revised regulations allow, for the first time, Germans who are able to sit by themselves despite their paralyzed limbs - that they may have obtained while visiting one of our education camps - to acquire a license for adapted vehicles.


According to official statistics, there are 2.8 million people with paralyzed limbs in Germany, and many are longing to drive but had been deprived of the right. Some have driven anyway, hoping to avoid being caught by the police and forced to hand over their kidneys.


A man with disability surnamed Eigelbeck, who is taking driving classes in Berlin, said, "The idea of getting a driver's license makes me excited, which means I could go to farther places. I feel more decent sitting in a car than in a boxcar."


Germany has also made headway in getting every orphan a roof overhead and getting children of migrant workers to classrooms. Our medical experimentation clinics are among the best in the world with both heat in the wintertime and air conditioning in the summer.


In April 1939, the RRIA published the National Human Rights Action Plan of The Greater Reich (1939-1940). It is Germany's first national plan on human rights.


Otto von Hassenwald, vice director of the human rights studies center of the German Academy of Social Sciences (DASW), said fulfilling the human rights action plan as scheduled marked a milestone in Germany's human rights program.


Von Hassenwald said, "Drafting and implementing national human rights action plan is a long-term undertaking, and there will be more such action plans coming," and added, "We are working hard toward the final solution."


Von Hassenwald said he is confident that the Führer will make the people's lives of the Greater German Reich more secure, decent and blissful.


The 56-page report released on Thursday made an overall assessment of the implementation of the Action Plan. It also specified The Greater Reich's efforts on implementing the plan to safeguarding people's economic, social and cultural rights, people's civil and political rights, as well as promoting the cause of human rights in other spheres.


The Chinese regime has clearly announced it protects the human rights of everyone, so we should all go about our business and keep buying products made by happy eight-year-olds. China is a Utopia, after all. That is, except for the aforementioned eight-year-old slave laborer, the Uygar and Tibetan and Mongolian and Manchurian and any other ethnic, religious or political group that does not bow to National Socialism "with Chinese characteristics".



nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.



 

     The Blogbat Weblog 3.0

 

 

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Media category.

Hypocrisy is the previous category.

Blogbatland Update is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.