Marxist/Liberal Media Bias Part 2

An unaffiliated group, Media Study Group, established seven categories of poor journalistic practice: for example, the journalist stating personal opinion in a report, asserting incorrect facts, applying unequal space or treatment to two sides of a controversial issue. The group then analyzed The Age Newspaper in  Australia for the frequency of infraction of this code of practice. The resultant instances were then analyzed statistically with respect to the frequency they supported one or other side of the two-sided controversial issue under consideration. The goal of this group was to establish a quantitative methodology for the study of bias. They discovered the obvious, which was that there was media bias!

 A self-described liberal media watchdog group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), in consultation with the Survey and Evaluation Research Laboratory at VirginiaCommonwealthUniversity, sponsored an academic study in which journalists were asked a range of questions about how they did their work and about how they viewed the quality of media coverage in the broad area of politics and economic policy. “They were asked for their opinions and views about a range of recent policy issues and debates. Finally, they were asked for demographic and identifying information, including their political  orientation”. Guess what was discovered about their political orientation?

This study states: “we learn much more about the political orientation of news content by looking at sourcing patterns rather than journalists’ personal views”; surprise, surprise liberal responses are very predictable. As this survey shows, it is government officials and business representatives to whom journalists “nearly always” turn when covering economic policy. Labor representatives and consumer advocates were at the bottom of the list. This is consistent with earlier research on sources. For example, analysts from the centrist Brookings Institution and conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute are those most quoted in mainstream news accounts; liberal think tanks are often invisible. However, they are out there hiding in the shadows and putting their biased views out for media to use. 

The study “A Measure of Media Bias” by political scientist Timothy J. Groseclose of UCLA and economist Jeffrey D. Milyo of the University of Missouri-Columbia, purports to rank news organizations in terms of identifying with liberal or conservative values relative to each other. They used the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) scores as a quantitative proxy for political leanings of the referential organizations. Thus their definition of “liberal” includes the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization with strong ties to the Defense Department. What is “liberal” in the United States may not be “liberal” by world standards. FAIR suggests that a benchmark for each country be set by scientific polling of a cross-section of the citizens. The American marxist news media thinks that everyone should be as liberal as those other bastions of “liberalism” in Europe. Even though, they are falling apart economically which is resulting in upheaval and chaos; liberals still love them!

Tools for measuring and evaluating media bias were used by Richard Alan Nelson’s (2004) study based upon “Tracking Propaganda to the Source”. “Tools for Analyzing Media Bias” reports there are at least 12 methods used to analyze the existence of and quantify bias: Surveys of the political/cultural attitudes of journalists, particularly members of the media elite, and of journalism students. Studies of journalists’ previous professional connections. Collections of quotations in which prominent journalists reveal their beliefs about politics and/or the proper role of their profession. Computer word-use and topic analysis searches to determine content and labeling. Studies of policies recommended in news stories. Comparisons of the agenda of the news and entertainment media with agendas of political candidates or other activists. Positive/negative coverage analysis. Reviews of the personal demographics of media decision makers. Comparisons of advertising sources/content which influence information/entertainment content. Analyses of the extent of government propaganda and public relations (PR) industry impact on media. Studies of the use of experts and spokespersons etc. by media vs. those not selected to determine the interest groups and ideologies represented vs. those excluded. Research into payments of journalists by corporations and trade associations to speak before their groups and the impact that may have on coverage.

A technique used to avoid bias is the “point/counterpoint” or “round table”, an adversarial format in which representatives of opposing views comment on an issue. This approach theoretically allows diverse views to appear in the media. However, the person organizing the report still has the responsibility to choose people who really represent the breadth of opinion, to ask them non-prejudicial questions, and to edit or arbitrate their comments fairly.

When done carelessly, a point/counterpoint can be as unfair as a simple biased report, by suggesting that the “losing” side lost on its merits. Using this format can also lead to accusations that the reporter has created a misleading appearance that viewpoints have equal validity (sometimes called “false balance”. This may happen when a taboo exists around one of the viewpoints, or when one of the representatives habitually makes claims that are easily shown to be inaccurate.

Another technique used to avoid bias is disclosure of affiliations that may be considered a possible conflict of interest. This is especially apparent when a news organization is reporting a story with some relevancy to the news organization itself or to its ownership individuals or conglomerate. Often this disclosure is mandated by the laws or regulations pertaining to stocks and securities. Commentators on news stories involving stocks are often required to disclose any ownership interest in those corporations or in its competitors.

In rare cases, a news organization may dismiss or reassign staff members who appear biased. This approach was used in the Killian documents affair and after Peter Arnett’s interview with the Iraqi press. This approach is presumed to have been employed in the case of Dan Rather over a story that he ran on 60 Minutes in the month prior to the 2004 election that attempted to impugn the military record of George W. Bush by relying on allegedly fake documents that were provided by Bill Burkett, a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Texas Army National Guard.

Finally, some countries have laws enforcing balance in state-owned media. Since 1991, the CBC and Radio Canada, its Francophone counterpart, are governed by the Broadcasting Act. This act states, amongst other things: the programming provided by the broadcasting system should be varied and comprehensive, providing a balance of information, enlightenment and entertainment for men, women and children of all ages, interests and tastes, provide a reasonable opportunity for the public to be exposed to the expression of differing views on matters of public concern

Political bias has been a feature of the mass media since its birth with the invention of the printing press. The expense of early printing equipment restricted media production to a limited number of people. Historians have found that publishers often served the interests of powerful social groups. John Milton’s pamphlet ‘Are opagitica’, a Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing, published in 1644, was one of the first publications advocating freedom of the press.

In the nineteenth century, journalists began to recognize the concept of unbiased reporting as an integral part of journalistic ethics. This coincided with the rise of journalism as a powerful social force. Even today, though, the most conscientiously objective journalists cannot avoid accusations of bias.

Like newspapers, the broadcast media (radio and television) have been used as a mechanism for propaganda from their earliest days, a tendency made more pronounced by the initial ownership of broadcast spectrum by national governments. Although a process of media deregulation has placed the majority of the western broadcast media in private hands, there still exists a strong government presence, or even monopoly, in the broadcast media of many countries across the globe. At the same time, the concentration of media in private hands, and frequently amongst a comparatively small number of individuals, has also led to accusations of media bias.

There are many examples of accusations of bias being used as a political tool, sometimes resulting in government censorship. In the United States, in 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which prohibited newspapers from publishing “false, scandalous, or malicious writing” against the government, including any public opposition to any law or presidential act. This act was in effect until 1801. During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln accused newspapers in the border states of bias in favor of the Southern cause, and ordered many newspapers closed.

Not all accusations of bias are political. Science writer Martin Gardner has accused the entertainment media of anti-science bias. He claims that television programs such as The X-Files promote superstition. In contrast, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is funded by businesses, accuses the media of being biased in favor of science and against business interests, and of credulously reporting science that purports to show that greenhouse gasses cause global warming.

Language may also be seen as a political factor in mass media, particularly in instances where a society is characterized by a large number of languages spoken by its populace. The choice of language of mass media may represent a bias towards the group most likely to speak that language, and can limit the public participation by those who do not speak the language. On the other hand, there have also been attempts to use a common-language mass media to reach out to a large, geographically dispersed population, such as in the use of Arabic language by news channel Al Jazeera.

Language may also be a more subtle form of bias. Use of a word with positive or negative connotations rather than a more neutral synonym can form a biased picture in the audience’s mind. It makes a difference whether the media calls a group “terrorist” or “freedom fighters” or “insurgents”. For example, a 2005 memo to the staff of the CBC states: Rather than calling assailants “terrorists,” we can refer to them as bombers, hijackers, gunmen (if we’re sure no women were in the group), militants, extremists, attackers or some other appropriate noun. PC run amuck!

It has been observed that the world’s principal suppliers of news, the news agencies, and the main buyers of news are Anglophone corporations and this gives an Anglophone bias to the selection and depiction of events. Anglophone (English speaking countries) definitions of what constitutes news are paramount; the news provided originates in Anglophone capitals and responds first to their own rich domestic markets.

Despite the plethora of news services, most news printed and broadcast throughout the world each day comes from only a few major agencies, the three largest of which are the Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse. Although these agencies are ‘global’ in the sense of their activities, they each retain significant associations with particular nations, namely France (AFP), the United States (AP) and the United Kingdom (Reuters). Chambers and Tinckell suggest that the so-called global media are agents of Anglophone values with privileged norms of ‘competitive individualism, laissez faire capitalism, parliamentary democracy and consumerism.’ They see the presentation of the English language as international as a further feature of Anglophone dominance. The added concern of a definite liberal spin on all news stories is a real issue with these news media giants.

Media bias towards religion is most obvious in countries where the media are controlled by the state, which is in turn dominated by a particular religion. In these instances, bias against other faiths can be explicit and virulent. But even in countries with freedom of religion and a free press, the dominant religion exerts some amount of influence on the media. However, this influence is rapidly disappearing. Even in today’s world you see religious bias when the government places Christians on a list equating them to terrorists!

According to the Encyclopedia of Social Work (19th edition), the news media play an influential role in the general public’s perception of cults. As reported in several studies, the media have depicted cults as problematic, controversial, and threatening from the beginning, tending to favor sensationalistic stories over balanced public debates. It furthers the analysis that media reports on cults rely heavily on police officials and cult “experts” who portray cult activity as dangerous and destructive, and when divergent views are presented, they are often overshadowed by horrific stories of ritualistic torture, sexual abuse, mind control, etc.

The apparent bias of media is not always specifically political in nature. The news media tend to appeal to a specific audience, which means that stories that affect a large number of people on a global scale often receive less coverage in some markets than local stories, such as a public school shooting, a celebrity wedding, a plane crash, or similarly glamorous or shocking stories. For example, the deaths of millions of people in an ethnic conflict in Africa might be afforded scant mention in American media, while the shooting of five people in a high school is analyzed in depth. The reason for this type of bias is a function of what the public wants to watch and/or what producers and publishers believe the public wants to watch.

Bias has also been claimed in instances referred to as conflict of interest, whereby the owners of media outlets have vested interests in other commercial enterprises or political parties. In such cases in the United States, the media outlet is required to disclose the conflict of interest. However, the decisions of the editorial department of a newspaper and the corporate parent frequently are not connected, as the editorial staff retains freedom to decide what is covered as well as what isn’t. Biases, real or implied, frequently arise when it comes to deciding what stories will be covered and who will be called for those stories. Accusations that a source is biased, if accepted, may cause media consumers to distrust certain kinds of statements, and place added confidence on others.Liberal bias in the media occurs when liberal ideas have undue influence on the coverage or selection of news stories.

Conservative critics of the media say some bias exists within a wide variety of media channels including network news shows of CBS, ABC, and NBC, cable channels CNN and MSNBC, as well as major newspapers, news-wires, and radio outlets, especially CBS News, Newsweek, and the New York Times. These arguments intensified when it was revealed that the Democratic Party received a total donation of $1,020,816, given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks (NBC, CBS, ABC), while the Republican Party received only $142,863 via 193 donations.  Both of these figures represent donations made in 2008. It is not difficult to see where the bias is located!

A study cited frequently by critics of a “liberal media bias” in American journalism is The Media Elite, a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists’ attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s. The authors concluded that journalists’ coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality.

In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party. This leaves 24% who didn’t want to answer or undecided or Independent.

A 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of DartmouthCollege, Press Bias and Politics, investigated the issue of media bias. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers stated that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints. They claimed that reporters who they thought were expressing moderate or conservative points of view were often labeled as holding a minority point of view. Kuypers said he found liberal bias in reporting a variety of issues including race, welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control.

A joint study by the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at HarvardUniversity and the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that viewers believe that liberal media bias can be found in television news by networks such as CNN and other networks. These findings concerning a perception of liberal bias in television news – particularly at CNN – are also reported by other sources. This liberal slant by the news media is actually taking away the individuals right and ability to make an informed political decision! Furthermore, this liberal slant is a shirking their responsibility of their responsibility to keep the public informed.

The unstated objective of many liberals is a one party electorate. This is best accomplished by media bias with lots of misinformation! In today’s world we are beginning to see this goal of one party rule come to fruition. By definition one party rule is communism! What do you plan to do about this horrible trend because it will face us sooner rather than later? We are rapidly approaching a society where the takers and users and nonproducers represent more than 52% of the American voters and represent the majority!

Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

 Ayn Rand

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marxist Media Bias Part 1

Media bias that I am referring to is that of the journalists and news producers within the marxist mass media. This bias occurs in the selection of which events and stories are reported and how they are covered. The term “media bias” implies a pervasive or widespread bias that break the rules or the standards of journalism, rather than the perspective of an individual journalist or article. The direction and degree of media bias in America is widely displayed. All one has to do is check other sources and you soon come to realize that there is bias.

Practical limitations to media neutrality include the inability of journalists to report all available stories and facts, and the requirement that selected facts be linked into a coherent narrative. These talking points are then repeated “ad nauseum” by the rest of the zombies who fail to think for themselves.  

Since it is impossible to report everything, selectivity is inevitable. Government influence, including overt and covert censorship, biases the media in most situations. Market forces that result in a biased presentation include the ownership of the news source, concentration of media ownership, the selection of staff, the preferences of an intended audience, and pressure from advertisers. There are a number of national and international watchdog groups that report bias in the media.

The most commonly discussed forms of bias occur when the media support or attack a particular political party, candidate, or ideology. Guess which one the media dumps on? Other common forms of bias occur when stories are selected or slanted to please advertisers and corporate bias, when stories are selected or slanted to please corporate owners of media or “BigGov”.

Mainstream bias, a tendency to report what everyone else is reporting, and to avoid stories that will offend anyone. Sensationalism, bias in favor of the exceptional over the ordinary, giving the impression that rare events, such as airplane crashes, are more common than common events, such as automobile crashes. Other forms of bias including reporting that favors or attacks a particular race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, or ethnic group.

“If the system functions well, it ought to have a liberal bias, or at least appear to. Because if it appears to have a liberal bias, that will serve to bound thought even more effectively” as stated by Noam Chomsky, the current self proclaimed spokesperson of the marxist/liberal left. As this statement indicates and most radical progressive marxist liberals would go along with its premise, media should have a liberal bias. Therefore, all is well in wonderland, and the radical marxist liberal media helps keep everyone in the same state of equality. Sound familiar?

Media bias is studied at schools of journalism, university departments (including Media studies, Cultural studies and Peace studies) and by many independent watchdog groups from various parts of the political spectrum. In the United States, many of these studies focus on issues of a conservative/liberal balance in the media. Other focuses include international differences in reporting, as well as bias in reporting of particular issues such as economic class or environmental interests. Of course most of these schools stress the “how to report” in a way to support the liberal message.

An academic study cited frequently showing a liberal media bias in American journalism is The Media Elite, a 1986 book co-authored by political scientists Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter. They surveyed journalists at national media outlets such as the New York Times, Washington Post, and the broadcast networks. The survey found that most of these journalists were Democratic voters whose attitudes were well to the left of the general public on a variety of topics, including such hot-button social issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and gay rights. Then they compared journalists’ attitudes to their coverage of controversial issues such as the safety of nuclear power, school busing to promote racial integration, and the energy crisis of the 1970s. The authors concluded that journalists’ coverage of controversial issues reflected their own attitudes, and the predominance of political liberals in newsrooms therefore pushed news coverage in a liberal direction. They presented this tilt as a mostly unconscious process of like-minded individuals projecting their shared assumptions onto their interpretations of reality.

George Orwell originally wrote a preface for his book “Animal Farm”, which focuses on self censorship. “The sinister fact about literary censorship is that it is largely voluntary. Things are kept right out of the press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that it wouldn’t do to mention that particular fact.” As if to prove the point, the preface itself was censored and is not published with most copies of the book. Apparently “BigGov” was closer than Mr. Orwell thought.

Many of the positions in the various censorship studies are supported by a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers, Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream print press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of race and homosexuality, Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.

Studies reporting perceptions of liberal bias in the media are not limited to studies of print media. A joint study by the JoanShorensteinCenter on Press, Politics and Public Policy at HarvardUniversity and the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that people see liberal media bias in television news media such as CNN. The study’s findings concerning CNN’s perceived liberal bias are echoed in other studies.

There is also a growing amount of literature on mass media bias, both on the theoretical and the empirical side. On the theoretical side the focus is on understanding to what extent the political positioning of mass media outlets is mainly driven by demand or supply factors. However, the steady downward trend on the demand side of the equation would indicate that the mass media is out of touch with its readers!

According to Dan Sutter of the University of Oklahoma, a systematic liberal bias in the U.S. media could depend on the fact that owners and/or journalists typically lean to the left. Along the same lines, David Baron of Stanford GSB presents a game-theoretic model of mass media behavior in which, given that the pool of journalists systematically leans towards the left, mass media outlets maximize their profits by providing content that is biased in the same direction. They can do so, because it is cheaper to hire journalists that write stories which are consistent with their political position. A concurrent theory would be that supply and demand would cause media to attain a neutral balance because consumers would of course gravitate towards the media they agreed with. This argument fails in considering the imbalance in self-reported political allegiances by journalists themselves. Indeed, in 1982, 85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative”. This same argument would have news outlets in equal numbers increasing profits of a more balanced media far more than the slight increase in costs to hire unbiased journalists, notwithstanding the extreme rarity of self-reported conservative journalists. Makes you wonder what exactly is their motive for being in business? Liberals know the answer to this question and the answer is to force the voting public to the right and make America a one party system! That has been the goal for at least 50 years.

As mentioned above, Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri at Columbia use think tank quotes, in order to estimate the relative position of mass media outlets in the political spectrum. The idea is to trace out which think tanks are quoted by various mass media outlets within  news stories, and to match these think tanks with the political position of  members of the U.S. Congress who quote them in a non-negative way. Using this procedure, Groseclose and Milyo obtain the stark result that all sampled news providers -except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times- are located to the left of the average Congress member, i.e. there are signs of a liberal bias in the US news media.

John Lott and Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute study the coverage of economic news by looking at a panel of 389 U.S. newspapers from 1991 to 2004, and from 1985 to 2004 for a subsample comprising the top 10 newspapers and the Associated Press. For each release of official data about a set of economic indicators, the authors analyze how newspapers decide to report on them, as reflected by the tone of the related headlines. The idea is to check whether newspapers display some kind of partisan bias, by giving more positive or negative coverage to the same economic figure, as a function of the political affiliation of the incumbent President. Controlling for the economic data being released, the authors find that there are between 9.6 and 14.7 percent fewer positive stories when the incumbent President is a Republican.

Riccardo Puglisi of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology looks at the editorial choices of the New York Times from 1946 to 1997. He finds that the Times displays Democratic partisanship, with some watchdog aspects. This is the case, because during presidential campaigns the Times systematically gives more coverage to Democratic topics of civil rights, health care, labor and social welfare. These topics are classified as Democratic ones, because Gallup polls show that on average U.S. citizens think that Democratic candidates would be better at handling problems related to them. This result is more a case of weak Republican leadership with no efforts to change public opinion.

Therefore, I am suggesting that other conservatives follow my lead and begin to use Mr. Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” that the extreme left is so proud of! There are not that many rules to follow and they are extremely easy to follow. The first step would be to call attention to their (liberals) rules and force them to follow them and thereby claim ownership.

 To achieve, you need thought. You have to know what you are doing and that’s real power.  Ayn Rand

Watch this video and see what it means to not think!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rtBkX1ey-A&feature=player_detailpage

Obama’s Alinsky Tactics Go into Overdrive

So many political crusades, so little time. For the Obama team one day it’s voting rights; the next day, gun control and immigration reform; then health care; then student loans; then climate change; then oil drilling; then the coal industry; then gay marriage; then minimum-wage and living-wage laws; then a brain research initiative. And of course, every so often we are treated to presidential sermons about the need for tax hikes on the loathsome “corporate-jet owners,” “fat-cat bankers,” and “millionaires and billionaires” who are “sitting pretty” at “the very top” of the economic hierarchy, largely as a result of their “breathtaking greed.”

Various reports have noted precisely the same type of “hyperactivity” in the daily doings of the new big-money, pro-Obama advocacy group, Organizing for Action. “Not a day goes by without this George Soros sponsored organization inserting itself into another policy dispute,” observers stated. “First it was the debate over gun control. Then Organizing for Action said it would become involved in the immigration debate. After that, the group banged the drum for legislation to reduce carbon emissions. And after that, Organizing for Action suddenly discovered a passionate interest in an obscure campaign finance battle in New York state that has nothing to do with the president’s agenda.”

So, what’s up with this merry-go-round of issues, crises, and calls-to-action? Above all, it is vital to understand that none of this “hyperactivity” is random or accidental. Every single, solitary bit of it has been carefully planned and orchestrated by Obama and his political allies, for the purpose of advancing the transformational change the president so zealously seeks to impose on America by means of the tactics taught by the late, famed godfather of community organizing, Saul Alinsky.

When Obama was coming of age as a socialist community organizer in Chicago, he was mentored by people who themselves had been trained at the Alinsky-founded industrial Areas Foundation. Later on, Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method. Alinsky was a communist fellow-traveler who helped establish the tactics of infiltration that have become central to left-wing activism in recent decades.

In the Alinsky model, “community organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” promoting the systematic redistribution of wealth and power, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. But Alinsky’s brand of revolution is not characterized by dramatic, sweeping, overnight changes. Rather, Alinsky advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of existing institutions such as churches, schools, media outlets, labor unions, and political parties—and to remake them gradually and incrementally, as insiders.

Foreshadowing Obama, Alinsky despised “the larcenous pressures of a materialistic society,” preferring instead a socialist alternative that would place “human rights far above property rights” while “fight[ing] conservatives” and all their “privilege and power”, thats you and me.  Moreover, Alinsky exhorted left-wing radicals to help society “advance from the jungle of laissez-faire capitalism to a world worthy of the name of human civilization,” where “the means of production will be owned by all of the people, instead of just a comparative handful”, and controlled by the elite in “BigGov”.

Understanding the limits of the human attention span, Alinsky emphasized how vital it was for radical organizers to focus on multiple issues and adopt multiple approaches, just as we see Obama doing today. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag,” Alinsky wrote. “Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time … New issues and crises are always developing…” “Keep the pressure on,” he continued, “with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”

Toward that end, Alinksy advised radical organizers to be sure that they always kept more than one “fight in the bank”—i.e., a stockpile of varied crusades to which they could instantly turn their attention at a moment’s notice. These “fights in the bank” work synergistically, Alinsky explained, serving to prevent one another from going “stale” as a result of excessive public exposure. “Multiple issues mean constant action and life,” he said.

This, in a nutshell, is why Barack Obama is constantly shifting our attention from one issue to another, to another, to another, to another. The Alinsky disciple learned his lessons well. It’s that simple. Now do you understand the plan? The transformation will be here before he leaves office in 2016!

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

 Ayn Rand

Hat tip to  John Perazzo and FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

 

 

Regulatory Capture of America

In economics, regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency created to act in the public interest instead advances the Government or special interests that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.

Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for large entities to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called Captured Agencies. Obama does not care what Congress does or does not do his plan is to Transform by Regulations!

For public choice theorists, regulatory capture occurs because groups or individuals with a high-stakes interest in the outcome of policy or regulatory decisions can be expected to focus their resources and energies in attempting to gain the policy outcomes they prefer. Meanwhile members of the public, each with only a tiny individual stake in the outcome, will ignore it altogether. More to the point, they are to busy getting more free stuff!

Regulatory capture refers to when this imbalance of focused resources devoted to a particular policy outcome is successful at “capturing” influence with the staff or commission members of the regulatory agency, so that the preferred policy outcomes of the special interest are implemented. George Soros has a plan and it involves the destruction of America. How best to set this collapse in motion? Set up so many regulations that no business venture can succeed and then watch the dominoes fall! He was successful in Great Britain and he has set the same plan in motion here in America.  

Regulatory capture theory is a core focus of the branch of public choice referred to as the economics of regulation; economists in this specialty are critical of conceptualizations of governmental regulatory intervention as being motivated to protect public good. However, the Marxist Media are not covering these critical comments.

The risk of regulatory capture suggests that regulatory agencies should be protected from outside influence as much as possible, or else not created at all. A captured regulatory agency that serves the interests of its invested patrons with the power of the government behind it is often worse than no regulation whatsoever. What would happen if “BigGov” set out to circumvent congress by regulation? Do you understand the plan that has been put into play?

The idea of regulatory capture has an obvious economic basis in that vested interests in an industry have the greatest financial stake in regulatory activity and are more likely to be motivated to influence the regulatory body than dispersed individual consumers, each of whom has little particular incentive to try to influence regulators. As well, we would expect that when regulators form expert bodies to examine policy, this will invariably feature current or former industry members, or at the very least, individuals with contacts in the industry.

However, these regulatory agencies have become so huge and powerful that they can actually circumvent Congress and the Constitution. What we see now is Obama using these agencies to transform America by regulation. The Transformation of America has begun! Did you really believe that “Hope and Change” meant anything else?

Government “help” to business is just as disastrous as government persecution… the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off.

Ayn Rand

Marxist Justification for Stealing What You Have Worked For

Like all Leftists, Saul D. Alinsky, the godfather of community organizing, was a malcontent, jealous of success,  and was endlessly wringing his hands over the “war” between the Haves and the Have Nots.

His seminal book Rules for Radicals is the justification for  not working and stealing the hard work of others. Alinsky wants to ruin the middle class and the rich…he wants what you have worked for. You are the enemy. Rules for Radicals is the low rent version of Sun Tsu’s Art of War.

In the chapter on Tactics Alinksy writes the following: Tactics means doing what you can with what you have. In the world of give and take, tactics is the art of how to take and how to give. Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have Nots can take power away from the Haves.

Alinsky then details thirteen rules to essentially steal what has been created by the so called Haves: 1 Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.       2 Never go outside the experience of your people. 3 Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy.  4 Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. 5 Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. 6 A good tactic is the one that your people enjoy.  7 A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.  8 Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions…9 The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing  itself. 10 The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. 11 If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will breakthrough into its counterside. 12 The price of a successful attack is a constructiv alternative.  13 Pick the target. Freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

The two most widely practiced rules are number five and number thirteen…and they are usually practiced in concert. You have seen the tactics employed over and over and probably not realized you were seeing Alinsky rules in action.

The endless attacks on Sarah Palin (which continue today) were highly coordinated even though there were no “Let’s Destroy Sarah” meetings of liberal writers, journalists, publishers and late night comedians. There was no secret cabal or conspiracy. There didn’t have to be. Alinsky has infected the marxist liberal DNA. The message is disseminated and the unsuspecting non-radical Democrat picks it up and starts spouting it like a trained monkey.

Palin never said she could “see Russia from her house”…that was a joke on Saturday Night Live by Tina Fey. But it became so much a part of the narrative that even politicians and the day to day voter, to this day, believe she said it.

When the evil AIG executives, who received those “outrageous” bonuses, were picketed at their homes, an action organized by ACORN and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), that was Rule #13 in action.

 When the Tea Parties are ignored and/or ridiculed by the liberal press and the Democrats, in spite of the fact that the numbers were growing, that is Rule #5 in action. Tea Party attendees are characterized as wild eyed racists, Tea Baggers, and of course, out of touch with the mainstream.

The most recent issue is the backlash to Obamacare. The leftists and Obama Press Secretary are accusing the Republicans of being in league with the insurance companies. They also accuse Republicans of bussing in conservative  ‘activists’ to the August 2009 recess townhalls to ‘organize and manufacture anger’ against the good Congressman trying to explain Obamacare . They characterize the protesters as instruments of the Republican Party, belligerent, wild eyed racists and out of touch with the mainstream. This is pure projection by the Leftists as bussing in activists for street protest is a classic Leftist and union tactic. Rule #5 and #13 in action.

Consider this bit of Big Lie propaganda from the Democratic National Committee on August 4, 2009: Statement from DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse on the Republican Party and Allied Groups’  Mob Rule: The Republicans and their allied groups;  desperate after losing two consecutive elections and  every major policy fight on Capitol Hill ; are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country.

 However, much like we saw at the McCain-Palin rallies in 2008 where crowds were baited with cries of ‘socialist,’ ‘communist,’ and where the birther movement was born – these mobs of extremists are not interested in having a thoughtful discussion about the issues – but like some Republican leaders have said – they are interested in ‘breaking’ the President and destroying his Presidency.

These mobs are bussed in by well funded, highly organized groups run by Republican operatives and funded by the special interests who are desperately trying to stop the agenda for change the President was elected to bring to Washington. Despite the headline grabbing nature of these angry mobs and their disruptions of events, they are not reflective of where the American people are on the issues – or the hundreds of thousands of thoughtful discussions taking place around kitchen tables, water coolers and in homes.

The right wing extremists’ use of things like devil horns on pictures of our elected officials, hanging members of Congress in effigy, breathlessly questioning the President’s citizenship and the use of Nazi SS symbols and the like just shows how outside of the mainstream the Republican Party and their allies are. This type of anger and discord did not serve  Republicans well in 2008 – and it is bound to backfire again.

Amazing. Does the White House and the Dems have proof that the people who asked questions were bought and paid for?  Unlikely. Conservatives don’t have an ACORN like group of  thugs organizing for them. We are perfectly capable of thinking for ourselves.

In response to the ‘angry mobs’ that dared to ask questions of their representatives at townhall meetings Obama called out the Organizing for America drones — SEIU and ACORN.  Senior White House adviser and deputy chief of staff told  senators to focus on the insured and how they would benefit from “consumer protections” in the overhaul, such as ending the practice of denying insurance based on preexisting  conditions and ensuring the continuity of coverage between jobs.

“If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,” Messina said, according to an official who attended the meeting.

 Obama to the opposition — sit down and shut up!! The Chicago Way…Alinsky style intimidation…Rule #9

Obama: “But I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.”

 It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.

               Ayn Rand

Hat Tip to Gary Starr

The Radical Marxist Liberal Mind

In the radical marxists liberal mind “two plus two equals five” and is a slogan used in George Orwell’s “BigGov” masterpiece ‘1984’ as an example of an obviously false dogma one must believe, similar to current obviously false slogans by the liberal  marxist “BigGov” Party. It is contrasted with the phrase “two plus two makes four”, the obvious – but politically inexpedient – truth. In the book ‘1984’ George Orwell’s protagonist, Winston Smith, uses the phrase to wonder if the State might declare “two plus two equals five” as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes in it, does that make it true? If the “ONE” deems it so must it therefore be factual? Smith writes in his log, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.” Later in the novel, Smith attempts to use doublethink to teach himself that the statement “2 + 2 = 5” is true, or at least as true as any other answer one could come up with.

Eventually, while undergoing reeducation, Winston declared that he saw five fingers when in fact he only saw four (“Four, five, six – in all honesty Idon’t know”). The Inner Party interrogator of thought-criminals says, of the mathematically false statement, that control over physical reality is unimportant; so long as one controls their own perceptions to what the ‘Party’ wills, then any corporeal act is possible, in accordance with the principles of doublethink (“Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once”). In the mind of the radical liberal marxist this is logical thinking and therefore, all things from the “ONE” is truthful and correct and must be protected by all means possible.

This type of thinking has existed in the liberal mindset for centuries and was developed into the current belief that the State is the answer for all the ills of society. During the Third Reich Hitler and his cronies took this idea to a level that had never been seen before and George Orwell stated:

 “Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as “the truth” exists. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, “It never happened”—well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs

“Two Plus Two Equals Five”, which was a slogan used by Stalin’s government to predict that the Five year plan would be completed in four years, which for a time appeared widely in Moscow. However, Orwell may also have been influenced by Nazi Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, who once, in a debatably hyperbolic display of loyalty to Adolf Hitler, declared, “If the Führer wants it, two and two makes five!” In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Orwell writes:

“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is     controllable—what then?”

Victor Hugo said “Now, get seven million five hundred thousand votes to declare that two and two make five, that the straight line is the longest road, that the whole is less than its part; get it declared by eight millions, by ten millions, by a hundred millions of votes, you will not have advanced a step.”

The idea seems to have been significant to Russian literature and culture under the rule of Stalin. Ivan Turgenev wrote in prayer, one of his Poems in Prose “Whatever a man prays for, he prays for a miracle. Every prayer reduces itself to this: Great God, grant that twice two be not four.” Also similar sentiments are said to be among Leo Tolstoy’s last words when urged to convert back to the Russian Orthodox Church: “Even in the valley of the shadow of death, two and two do not make six.” Even turn-of-the-century Russian newspaper columnists used the phrase to suggest the moral confusion of the age”.

In Ayn Rand’s ‘Atlas Shrugged’, the hero John Galt posits that “the noblest act you have ever performed is the act of your mind in the process of grasping that two and two make four”. However, having said that we must stay alert at all times because the Devil is hiding in the details! If we lose sight of the importance of our freedoms then the Devil will be there to take them away and once this happens there is no guarantee that we can get them back  

It seems that when serfs are placed under the rule of “BigGov” there will always be measures or rules that are made to keep the serfs alike so that “BigGov” can keep control. The rules of the “ONE” have to be adhered to so that chaos does not become evident and upset the rules! This aspect really is confusing since that usually is how “BigGov” gets started in the first place. “BigGov” steps up when radical marxist liberals are able to create chaos and then place their special rules to fix the chaos. This is where Mr. Alinsky stepped in and developed his ‘Rules for Radicals’ and then the usual suspects stepped in and trained a large group of marxist radicals on how to use his playbook.

Are you beginning to see a pattern here? Are you aware of the current efforts by “BigGov” to make us all equal in the lower and middle classes? So when we are all equal does the “transformation process” begin for America?  Modern America will become something that Americans have never been before if we allow these radicals to transform America as they are trying to do right now. I would urge you to read George Orwell’s books or Ayn Rands’ books or similar authors and compare what these authors are saying to what is going on here in America. Do not for a second think that this could never occur in America because it can, in fact the process has started! The population of America has changed and the hard working middle class is now the minority.

Liberals have the defective mind set that will allow them to continue to forge ahead until that day WE allow the “BigGov” serfdom to happen. They will not give up until they achieve their goals. The radicals remind me of a dog with a bone.

Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.   Ayn Rand

 

 

 

 

 

Censorship and the Marxist News Media

The justification for censorship is different for various types of information censored. Moral censorship is the removal of materials that are obscene or otherwise considered morally questionable. Pornography, for example, is often censored under this rationale, especially child pornography, which is illegal and censored in many jurisdictions in the country. Military censorship is the process of keeping military intelligence and tactics confidential and away from the enemy. This is used to counter espionage, which is the process of gleaning military information. Very often, militaries will also attempt to suppress politically inconvenient information even if that information has no actual intelligence or combat-tactical value.

Political censorship occurs when “BigGov” holds back information from the citizens. This is often done to exert control over the information and prevent free discussion that might stimulate concerns. Don’t want any embarrassing questions asked do we?  Some censorship is by the “Marxist Media” itself when any material considered objectionable by a certain group (liberal) is removed. This often involves a dominant liberal group forcing limitations on information to the public. Alternatively, one political view may shun the works of another when they believe the content is not appropriate for their members. Do you understand why the “Marxist Media” is silent about all the negative stuff concerning the Obama Administration?

Censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to disrupt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light, or intervene to prevent alternate offers from reaching public exposure. Sometimes the media itself makes this decision not to allow news to reach the public. Which is happening more and more lately as the radical agenda of the news media suppresses news that they consider harmful to the liberals. 

The People’s Republic of China, which continues Communist rule in politics, if not in the controlled economy, employs some 30,000 ‘Internet police’ to monitor the internet and popular search engines such as Google and Yahoo. Currently, in the United States, there is an effort by the Obama administration to get control of the internet. Think of the damage that can be done with this control!

Iraq under Saddam Hussein had much the same techniques of press censorship as did Romania but with greater potential violence. Cuban media is operated under the supervision of the Communist Party’s Department of Revolutionary Orientation, which “develops and coordinates propaganda strategies”. Connection to the Internet is restricted and censored.

An example of “sanitization” policies comes from the USSR under Joseph Stalin, where publicly used photographs were often altered to remove people whom Stalin had condemned to execution. Though past photographs may have been remembered or kept, this deliberate and systematic alteration to all of history in the public mind is seen as one of the central themes of Stalinism and totalitarianism. Some marxists want this in America so that they can retell history their way.

Censorship is occasionally carried out to aid authorities or to protect an individual, as with some kidnappings when attention and media coverage of the victim can sometimes be seen as unhelpful. Internet censorship is control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet. The legal issues are similar to offline censorship. One difference is that national borders are more permeable online: residents of a country that bans certain information can find it on websites hosted outside the country. A government can try to prevent its citizens from viewing these even if it has no control over the websites themselves.

Barring total control on Internet-connected computers, such as in North Korea and Cuba, total censorship of information on the Internet is very difficult, but not impossible, to achieve due to the underlying distributed technology of the Internet. Pseudonymity and data havens (such as Freenet) allow unconditional free speech, as the technology guarantees that material cannot be removed and the author of any information is impossible to link to a physical identity or organization. However, if you look deeply into this idea you begin to see dark areas where a group could possibly apply a disinformation offensive through deceit.

In some cases, Internet censorship may involve deceit. In such cases the censoring authority may block content while leading the public to believe that censorship has not been applied. This may be done by having the ISP provide a fake “Not Found” error message upon the request of an Internet page that is actually found but blocked. In November 2007, “Father of the Internet” Vint Cerf stated that he sees government control of the Internet failing due to private ownership. The Australian government announced in December 2009 that it will introduce internet censorship legislation before the next Australian federal election.

Given all this information what are we to do? There are many counter measures that conservatives could start right now. The Tea Party is capable of making short statements to the media that include the censored materials. They could also blanket the TV Media in their local areas with short blocks of information that shows the public what is missing and censored by the Marxist Media. So what are you going to do besides talk, talk, and talk?

The man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap.

Ayn Rand

 

A Letter to Republican 2014 Candidates

Recently my wife and I put together a letter for Republican candidates for the November 2014 election. Before we mail it to them I thought it would be a good idea to get some feedback. So if you have a thought let us know.

We will consider donating again to the Republican Party when and only when you announce what you will do for America!!! We both feel that Republicans must do a Contract With America and state some goals that Republicans will work toward if elected and use that contract as a guide for the people to judge the Republicans!!

The present Republican Party is without any leaders who have enough courage to fight the Socialists who have taken over our beloved country!!! In fact the Republican Party has many Progressives who helped bring this current form of government to fruition!! The current Republicans belong to the same pack of jackals because of their continued placement of “PORK” laden bills for Americans to pay for through their taxes!!!

When you look at candidates you might try to find their yes and no answers to this enclosed candidate screen. Then make your decisions on their ability to represent the Republican Party as a conservative!! We have way too many “hidden liberals and progressives” in the Republican Party!!! We cannot believe what is currently happening in America and the only way we can save this great country is for our conservative Republicans to start acting like they are Republicans and believe in America!!!

Therefore, as proud Conservatives we will only support Republicans that openly support Tea Party Conservative values!!! So until you make public statements that you support these values and will make every effort to fight to reduce the size of the US Government, fight to reduce taxes, fight for all conservative values, lead an effort to change or do away with Obamacare, lead an effort to disband Acorn and put the leaders behind bars, change the current method of financing political contributions that will do away with Mr. Soros and other Socialists that support progressives, lead an effort to put corrupt members of congress out of office and behind bars,  investigate SEIU leaders and thugs, and start acting like a Regan Conservative; then we will consider again supporting Republicans. If we don’t hear these public announcements by Republican candidates then we will only support Tea Party candidates.

Please answer the following:

Will you vote for or against a bill to eliminate “PORK” and earmarks from all bills?

Will you vote for or against a balanced budget amendment?

Will you vote for or against a bill that gets Government out of the Health Care System?

Will you vote for or against a federal budget that includes any item whose benefit is primarily for a single state (e.g., a bridge in Alaska, or a levee in Louisiana)?

Will you vote for or against funding nuclear power plants to help address our energy needs?

Will you vote for or against a law that requires final legislation to be available for public review at least seven days prior to the vote?

Will you vote for or against a law that requires each representative to certify he/she has personally read the final version of a bill, in its entirety, prior to being allowed to vote for the bill?

Will you vote for or against a presidential line item veto?

Will you vote for or against creating a law that limits the number of immigrants who can become citizens in any single year to one percent or less of the population (that would be approximately three million immigrants this year)?

Will you vote for or against United Nations recommendations or dictates given to the United States?

Will you vote for or against a bill to reduce the size of the Federal Government?

Will you vote for or against processing all people who commit a crime against a U.S. citizen who are not U.S. citizens in military tribunals instead of the U.S. legal system? (Declaring they do not have the same rights as our citizens.)

Will you do everything possible to change whatever the current Marists put into law to control the people of this country? The most important being the socialist bills like the Healthcare Plan?

Will you vote for or against allowing people who entered the country illegally to receive Social Security or other government benefits?

If it comes to a vote, do you commit to vote for an amendment to the Constitution that calls for term limits for the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate?

Will you vote for or against an effort to put corrupt members of congress out of office and behind bars?

Will you vote for or against supporting states’ rights over federal rights?

Will you vote for or against supporting the right of citizens to bear arms

Will you vote for or against amending the Constitution to re-establish and re-clarify equal rights for all over special rights for a few (e.g. prisoners, seniors, students, gays, and minorities)?

Will you vote for or against allowing those seeking citizenship an opportunity to serve in the military for six years in exchange for citizenship, but ensure that mercenaries make up no more than 10% of military personnel?

Will you vote for or against a law that requires all legislation be limited to one subject and no hidden rules?

Will you vote for or against an effort to fight to reduce the size of the US Government?

Will you vote for or against reducing the size of our national deficit?

Will you vote for or against a bill to decrease the Federal Government power and increase States rights?

Will you promise to support our nation as a republic, not a socialistic, communistic or fascist society?

Will you vote for or against amending the Constitution to make an abortion legal for only the first three months after conception excluding cases of rape, incest or serious risk to the mother’s life?

Will you vote for or against fining employers 3% or more of their gross income if they hire illegal immigrants not registered as “Guest Workers” on their first offense?

Will you agree to always support and fight for conservative issues and not Progressive ideas?

Will you vote for or against reducing the total number of federal employees each year you are in office?

As long as the federal government remains involved in the education system, will you vote for or against the teaching of religion in public schools, as an elective?

Will you vote for or against limiting the time that any person or family can receive welfare to twenty-four months or less in any five year period?

Will you vote for or against supporting the Kyoto Protocol (as written)?

Hat Tip to the Web Sites that listed these questions.

 

Marxist Media Echo chamber

The term “media echo chamber” can refer to any situation in which information, ideas or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission inside an “enclosed” space. Observers of journalism in the mass media describe an echo chamber effect in media discourse. One source of information will make a claim, which many like-minded people then repeat, overhear, and repeat again (often in an exaggerated or otherwise distorted form)until most people assume that some extreme variation of the story is true. The liberal politicians say something and the Marist news media justify and repeat the statement over and over.

Similarly, the term is also used to name the media effect, whereby an incorrect story (often a “smear”) is reported through a biased channel, often first appearing in a Marxist media domain, and it is this simple presence of a story which is reported in more reputable mainstream media outlets, often using intermediary sources or commentary for reference, independent of the factual merits of the story. The overall effect often is to legitimize false claims in the public eye, through sheer volume of reporting and media references, even if the majority of these reports acknowledge the original factual inaccuracy of the story.

Regarding this condition arising in online communities, participants may find their own opinions constantly echoed back to them, and in doing so reinforce a certain sense of truth that resonates with individual belief systems. This can create some significant challenges to critical discourse within an online medium. The echo-chamber effect may also impact a lack of recognition to large demographic changes in language and culture on the Internet if individuals only create, experience and navigate those online spaces that reinforce their “preferred” world view. You can find what you want to find online!

Another emerging term used to describe this “echoing” and homogenizing effect on the Internet within social communities is “cultural tribalism”. The Internet may also be seen as a complex system (e.g., emergent, dynamic, evolutionary), and as such, will at times eliminate the effects of positive feedback loops (i.e., the echo-chamber effect) to that system. Complex systems that are characterized by negative feedback loops will create more stability and balance during emergent and dynamic behavior. Which in effect means that the squeaky wheel gets the most grease because it draws attention to what you are really looking for on line. If you are wanting a negative idea to get out about something it seems easier to do online.  

The Republicans MUST find a way to distort this negative media message so that their message gets out to the public. One suggestion that I would make is for the Republicans to start a positive media campaign much like those used during political campaigns. These media events should stress what the Republicans stand for and how this platform would affect the electorate. Republicans should fill up TV comercial times with conservative adds that stress positive views of of their platform. They should start now and request donations from citizens to support such an endeavor.

The Spanish vote could be grabbed from the liberals by stressing an outreach program that would show how their religious beliefs match conservative beliefs. There are many young Latinos that could help accomplish this goal. Many Latinos do not support giving illegals a free pass to citizenship, they believe there must be steps that illegals take before they achieve citizenship!

Of course the Marxist Media would have you accept as true that all Latinos believe illegals should be given a free past to citizenship. Republicans must stop dancing to the distorted messages presented by the Marxist Media. We must stand tall against the evil that exists in our country or we will become just another victim. We can make a difference in the November 2014 election if we stop the negative talk and get busy now. What do you plan on doing?

Evil requires the sanction of the victim.

 Ayn Rand

Liberal Game Plan

Conservatives need to adopt liberal tactics in order to change the views of the American people. Conservatives need to counter the negative message presented by the lame street media with a more positive staging. Liberals have for years and years presented a steady drumbeat that conservatives were less than human and conservatives have sat around crying foul and have done nothing to counteract this message.

The favorite liberal tactic is to launch a massage intimidation campaign against the advertisers of conservative media outlets. The liberal goal is to stop advertisers from advertising on certain programs. Progressive henchmen have taken this tactic to a new and disgusting level. Unions and other large groups of thugs have shown up on the doorsteps of those that they wish to intimidate! Intimidation is their favorite tool. Liberals constantly scream and carry on as if the world is about to end and the compliant media repeats word for word the liberal message!  

These tactics are part of the liberal playbook and they use it often and in a variety of ways. Liberals will discredit anyone who speaks out in opposion to their agenda by comparing them to the lowest elements in society. Liberals will label them as murderers, uninformed, violent, racists, uneducated, Nazis, or members of the KKK! Have you ever noticed how every liberal parrots the same message and thought of the day! This is because they have a daily plan and no liberal is allowed to deviate from that plan.

The really ugly part of this tactic is the fact that the liberal lame street news media follows this same liberal tactical script. . You can see it daily in the news media when they assassinate anyone who disagrees with the liberal issue of the moment, some are worse than others but the negative message does get through!

 A large number of the democratic rank and file falls for this message because they refuse to take a close look at anything. If they read or hear it in the news media or hear it from the democratic leadership then it must be true! They really believe that the party is for the common person because that is what they are told by their union bosses and party bosses, and we all know what pillars of society they are.

Conservatives must start to develop their own tactical playbook and they might want to copy some liberal tactics, such as, launching their own intimidation campaigns against the advertisers in the liberal news media. The Tea Party could be very effective using this tactic! Advertisers will react to these threats just like they do when democrats have used them in the past. Looks like we have arrived at a point in time where conservatives need to become activists or the thugs will win!