Posts Tagged ‘Second Amendment’

Mainstream Media ‘News’ Is Another Word For ‘Leftwing Propaganda’: Look At The Difference In Coverage

February 17, 2011

Let’s start with a very recent story of an NAACP president and a quote alluding to violence:

NAACP President Attacks Huntsville School System, Threatens Legal Action
Nick Banaszak
WHNT News 19 Reporter
4:00 p.m. CST, February 14, 2011

HUNTSVILLE, AL — Already dealing with an ongoing financial crisis that’s forcing layoffs and possible school closures, Huntsville City Schools now faces the threat of a lawsuit from the NAACP.

Local NAACP chapter president Alice Sams ripped the school system in a press conference Monday morning, while also presenting a list of demands the organization wants fulfilled immediately.

Sams and other leaders from Huntsville’s black community are accusing Huntsville City Schools of creating a divided system tilted against black students. The NAACP said the school district has failed to abide by a 1970 federal court order that officially eliminated segregation in schools for Alabama and other southern states.

“We have compiled a list of concerns, which in short is entitled ‘What We Want,” said Sams. “If satisfactory steps are not taken to satisfy our concerns, we may petition the state department of education to take over Huntsville City Schools and request Department of Justice and federal court intervention.”

NAACP officials say the alleged inequalities will only be made greater if several schools targeted for closure in predominantly black North Huntsville end up shutting their doors. The organization cited a forty point achievement gap between black and white students on standardized state tests, calling the results unfair and unacceptable. Sams said the blame did not fall on students or their parents, but rather on schools she claims are inferior compared to those in predominantly white South Huntsville. School closures are a likelihood as the district aims to overcome a $20 million budget deficit.

“It is our opinion that we have a divided system,” said Sams. “One for black students in the north end of town, separate, unequal and academically unsucessful; and one for the white students on the south end of town…All efforts to terminate the 1970 court order will be opposed by us until concerns to satisfy the racial and academic inequalities as stated are resolved.”

Sams ended her speech with a bold statement.

“Those who make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolution inevitable,” said Sams, who quoted former president John F. Kennedy. When asked to clarify her remarks hose who make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolution inevitableand how it applied to the context of the school system, she referred back to the original quote.

“You know what the quote means,” said Sams. “I quoted the president (Kennedy). He was a peaceful president, so I did a quote. You can interpret it anyway you want to, I just quoted.”

School board attorney J.R. Brooks declined our request for an on-camera interview and did not respond to the NAACP’s claims. He only said the school district had always been in compliance with federal court orders issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, and that the school board had no control or authority over people who had voluntarily moved in and out of North Huntsville since 1970.

Nothing in the mainstream news coverage about this as a racist remark or an instigation to violence.  No depiction of, “Violent revolution is inevitable.  And it will all be whitey’s fault when it comes.”

Now the media could have heard the words “violent revolution is inevitable” from the NAACP and immediately associated them with the views of a different black organization:

Here’s the new political correctness:

SHABAZZ:  I hate white people.  All of them!  Every last iota of a cracker, I hate him!  You want freedom? You’re going to have to kill some crackers! You’re going to have kill some of their babies.

That certainly isn’t all that the guy Obama wanted to protect said:

Samir: We didn’t come out here to play. There is to much serious business going on in your black community to be sliding through south street with white, dirty cracker whores on your arms. What’s a matter with you black man, you got a doomsday with a white woman on your arm.
……
“We keep begging white people for freedom. No wonder we’re not free. Your enemy can not make you free fool. You want freedom you’re going to have to kill some crackers. You’re going to have to kill some of their babies.

Let us get our act together. It’s time to wake up, clean up, and stand up.”

“I can’t wait for the day that they’re all dead. I won’t be completely happy until I see our people free and Whitey dead.”

“When you have 10 brothers in uniform, suited and booted and ready for war, white folks know these niggas ain’t their niggas. We kick white folks asses. We take it right to the cracker.”

“We’re going to keep putting our foot up the white man’s ass until they understand completely. We want freedom, justice and mutha[expletive]‘ equality. Period. If you ain’t gonna give it to us, mutha[expletive], we’re gonna take it, in the name of freedom.”

Now, it would have been very easy for the mainstream media to take the statement, “Those who make peaceful revolutions impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” and point out that in this case the inevitable “violent revolution” means killing crackers, killing white babies, and dealing harshly with white, dirty cracker whores.  And the revolution will be over when “whitey dead.”  You’ve got a call or at least a prediction of violent revolution coming from a specifically black and race-based organization, and you’ve got a very detailed description of what such black and race-based violent revolution would look like.

But they didn’t.  After all, John Kennedy said those words, and he was a Democrat, so it obviously can’t be bad.  And the black president of the NAACP is, of course, a sacred cow in the mainstream media, and her motives are beyond questioning.  Ever.

Now let’s look at how the mainstream media deals with conservatives who would dare to quote great minds of the past who held great warnings for the future:

Sharron Angle Joins Calls for Armed Revolution in America
Several prominent figures have hinted that they’d like to see armed Americans storming the Capitol.

Sharron Angle, the Republican nominee for Harry Reid’s Nevada Senate seat, has called for armed revolt against the government. Glenn Beck’s new novel, The Overton Window, encourages concerned citizens to pick up a weapon, too. And they’re not the only public figures calling for violent insurrection. 

In January right-wing radio host Lars Larson asked Tea Party favorite Angle where she stood on Second Amendment issues. She replied:

“You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason, and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it’s good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.

“I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying, My goodness, what can we do to turn this country around? I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.”

We presume she means “take Harry Reid out” by means of the ballot box. Or even more charitably, perhaps for dinner to discuss the bizarre and extreme direction American politics has taken since Barack Obama’s election in 2008. Because Angle is not the only prominent figure, or even the only politician who has recently called for armed revolution.

Rick Barber, a candidate in the Republican primary for Alabama’s Second Congressional District, released an ad which ends with an actor dressed as George Washington declaring “Gather your armies.” Presumably to storm the same Congress that Barber is hoping to join.

The Overton Window, Beck’s new novel, is also out today. According to a Washington Post review, it is a parable on worthy insurrection in which earnest, plucky American patriots arm to fight an evil plot by elites bent on a government takeover. Beck calls it ‘faction’—which is a melding of ‘fact,’ and ‘fiction,’ apparently. “If the book is found tucked into the ammo boxes of self-proclaimed patriots,” writes the reviewer Steven Levingston, “…Beck will have achieved his goal.” 

The Overton Window,” Levingston concludes, “risks falling into the tradition of other anti-government novels such as The Turner Diaries, by William L. Pierce, which became a handbook of extremists and inspired Timothy McVeigh to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.”

Meanwhile, in Oklahoma City in April 2010, Tea Party leaders and conservative members of the state legislature decided to try to create an armed state militia “to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty,” according to the Associated Press. The group hopes to get legislation to recognize the new force by next year. 

At around the same time as that plan was announced, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann of Minnesota told WWTC 1280 AM that she too wanted people “armed and dangerous,” on the issue of Obama’s energy bill, “because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson,” she said, her words becoming eerily familiar, “told us, ‘Having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,’ and the people—we the people—are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country.”

Violent revolt is a regular theme of Rush Limbaugh’s too. And Sarah Palin made what some considered to be her own coded call to arms when she aired a new catchphrase—”Don’t retreat, reload”—for her followers.  She later said, during a speech in Nevada, that she was telling people, “Their arms are their votes. It’s not inciting violence. It’s telling people, Don’t ever let anybody tell you to sit down and shut up, Americans.”

Will the deniable words and twisted justifications for violence reach critical mass and push one unstable person over the edge? Hopefully we’ll never have to find out. (Or at least find out again.)

That’s Newsweek making all those sweeping connections, hardly insignificant stuff.  Did they look at all the hatred and calls for violence coming from the left and see a pattern?  Not with the king size blinders over their left side, they sure didn’t.  They take a couple of quotes from rightwing figures, run them through the filter of leftwing analysis such as the Washington Post who of course see “rightwing hatred and intolerance,” and then say, “See how evil they are?”  So Newsweek can connect Glenn Beck directly to Timothy McVeigh because another leftist publication made that connection for them, and Newseek is merely “reporting the facts.”

Take a look at this long, long, LONG, LOOOOOONG expose of urgings of hate and violence coming from the left and from leftwing media.  And of course that’s just one of many such compilations.  Read through that and then tell me that you can’t identify any trend to connect to the left wing.

The media could obviously, of course, do unto the left exactly what they manage to do unto the right on a daily, almost second-by-second basis.  But they won’t.  Because they are leftwing propagandists, and honesty, facts and truth are the last things on their minds.  I am quite willing to entertain the notion that NAACP president Alice Sams did not intend to make a call to violence.  But if you’re going to argue that Sharon Angle did, at least be fair for once in your life.  If quoting something because John F. Kennedy – the president who got America deeper into the Cold War, deeper into Vietnam and very deeply indeed into the Bay of Pigs mess – wasn’t violent, then why must quoting something that President Thomas Jefferson said be taken as violent?  If we’re going to be fair for just two seconds?  Shouldn’t the benefit of the doubt swing both ways once in a while?

But it never does.

So the media as a matter of routine blithely ignores all the giant logs of hate and anger and outright calls of violence there are coming from their own beloved left, but man do they spot every splinter coming from the despised right.

Now, you could point out that the NAACP president quoted John F. Kennedy whereas Sharon Angle quoted a hated founding father who helped lay the foundation for the even more hated Constitution.  Which of course the left only hates less than the Holy Bible.

But that only gets us back to the rabid bias and the contempt for truth that the media manages to exhibit every minute of every day.

For the record, I am not a journalist and I do not profess to be one.  I do not claim that I am “objective” and “nonpartisan.”  So please don’t call me a hypocrite for doing the same thing that I say that mainstream media is doing.  If you do so, I will immediately quote what I wrote here and correctly call you an idiot.  Because unless and until the mainstream media says, “We’re a bunch of liberal ideologues and we all only see things from a leftwing perspective and denounce the right as a matter of reflex,” I’m NOT doing what the mainstream media does.  Because unlike the mainstream media, I tell you exactly what perspective I’m coming from.  The banner directly under my “Start Thinking Right” site name reads, “Michael Eden’s discussion of the two forbidden subjects – politics and religion – from a conservative perspective.”  Unlike the deceitful mainstream media which reveals naked bias every single day, I never claim to be a neutral observer and objective reporter of the facts.  Rather, I proudly report the facts from a stated Judeo-Christian and conservative world view.  I never smuggle in my ideological bias and then report “opinion” as news like the mainstream media does in virtually every story they cover.

For the further record, I don’t denounce the mainstream media for their leftwing point of view; I denounce them for their blatantly false self-depiction of neutrality and objectivity when it is clearly not true.

Advertisements

Jeff Sessions’ Remarks In Sotomayor Confirmation Hearing

July 13, 2009

Transcript: Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)
Opening Statement

Monday July 13, 2009

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your leadership.

And I believe you set up some rules for the conducting of this hearing that are consistent with past hearings, and I believe will allow us to do our work together. And I’ve enjoyed working with you on this process.

I hope this will be viewed as the best hearing this committee has ever had. Why not? We should seek that.

So, I join Chairman Leahy, Judge Sotomayor, in welcoming you here today. And it marks an important milestone in your life. I know your family is proud, and rightly so, and it’s a pleasure to have them with us today.

I expect this hearing and resulting debate will be characterized by a respectful tone, a discussion of serious issues, a thoughtful dialogue and maybe some disagreements. But we worked hard to do that, to set that tone from the beginning.

I’ve been an active litigator in federal courts. I’ve tried cases as a federal prosecutor and as attorney general of Alabama. The Constitution and our great heritage of law I care deeply about. They are the foundation of our liberty and our prosperity.

And this nomination is critical for two important reasons. First, justices on the Supreme Court have great responsibility, hold enormous power and have a lifetime appointment. Just five members can declare the meaning of our Constitution, bending or changing its meaning from what the people intended.

Second, this hearing is important, because I believe our legal system is at a dangerous crossroads. Down one path is the traditional American system, so admired around the world, where judges impartially apply the law to the facts without regard to personal views. This is the compassionate system, because it’s the fair system.

In the American legal system, courts do not make law or set policy, because allowing unelected officials to make law would strike at the heart of our democracy.

Here, judges take an oath to administer justice impartially. That oath reads, “I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and to equal right to the rich and the poor, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help me God.”

These principles give the traditional system its moral authority, which is why Americans respect and accept the ruling of courts, even when they disagree. Indeed, our legal system is based on a firm belief in an ordered universe and objective truth. The trial is a process by which the impartial and wise judge guides us to truth.

Down the other path lies a brave new world, where words have no true meaning, and judges are free to decide what facts they choose to see. In this world, a judge is free to push his or her own political or social agenda.

I reject that view, and Americans reject that view.

We have seen federal judges force their political and social agenda on the nation, dictating that the words “under God” be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and barring students from even private, even silent prayer in schools.

Judges have dismissed the people’s right to their property, saying the government can take a person’s home for the purpose of developing a private shopping center.

Judges have, contrary to longstanding rules of war, created a right for terrorists captured on a foreign battlefield to sue the United States government in our own country.

Judges have cited foreign laws, world opinion and a United Nations resolution to determine that a state death penalty law was unconstitutional.

I’m afraid our system will only be further corrupted, I have to say, as a result of President Obama’s view that in tough cases the critical ingredient for a judge is, quote, “the depth and breadth of one’s empathy,” close quote, as well as his words, quote, “their broader vision of what America should be.”

Like the American people, I have watched this process for a number of years, and I fear that this thinking empathy standard is another step down the road to a liberal, activist, results-oriented, relativistic world, where laws lose their fixed meaning, unelected judges set policy, Americans are seen as members of separate groups rather than as simply Americans, where the constitutional limits on government power are ignored when politicians want to buy out private companies.

I feel we’ve reached a fork in the road, I think, and there are stark differences. I want to be clear. I will not vote for, and no senator should vote for, an individual nominated by any president who is not fully committed to fairness and impartiality toward every person who appears before them.

And I will not vote for, and no senator should vote for, an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their personal background, gender, prejudices or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of or against parties before the court.

In my view such a philosophy is disqualified. Such an approach to judging means that the umpire calling the game is not neutral, but instead feels empowered to favor one team over another. Call it empathy, call it prejudice, or call it sympathy, but whatever it is, it’s not law. In truth it’s more akin to politics, and politics has no place in the courtroom.

Some will respond Judge Sotomayor would never say it’s never acceptable for a judge to display prejudice in that case, but I regret to say, Judge, that some of your statements that I’ll outline seem to say that clearly. Let’s look at just a few examples. We’ve seen the video of a Duke University panel, where Judge Sotomayor says, “It’s the Court of Appeals where policy is made, and I know, I know that this is on tape, and I should never say that and should not think that.”

And during a speech 15 years ago, Judge Sotomayor said, quote, “I willingly accept the way the judge must not deny the difference resulting from experience and heritage, but attempt continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate,” close quote.

And in that same speech she said, quote, “My experiences will affect the facts I choose to seek.” Having tried a lot of cases, that particular phrase bothers me. I expect every judge to seek all the facts.

So I think it’s noteworthy that when asked about Judge Sotomayor’s now famous statement that a wise Latina would come to a better conclusion than others, President Obama, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg declined to defend the substance of those remarks.

They each assume the nominee misspoke. But I don’t think it — but the nominee did not misspeak. She is on record as making this statement at least five times over the course of a decade. I am providing a copy of the full text of those speeches for the record.

Others will say that despite these statements, we should look to a nominee’s record, which they characterize as moderate. People said the same of Justice Ginsburg, who is now considered to be one of the most activist members of the Supreme Court in history.

Some senators ignored Justice Ginsburg’s philosophy and focused on the nominee’s judicial opinions. But that is not a good test, because those cases where necessarily restrained by precedent and the threat of reversal from higher courts. On the Supreme Court, those checks on judicial power will be removed, and the judge’s philosophy will be allowed to reach full bloom.

But even as a lower court judge, our nominee has made some troubled rulings. I’m concerned by the Ricci, the New Haven firefighters case recently reversed by the Supreme Court, where she agreed with the city of New Haven’s decision to change the promotion rules in the middle of the game. Incredibly, her opinion consisted of just one substantive paragraph of analysis.

Justice Sotomayor has said she accepts that her opinions, sympathies and prejudices will affect her rulings. Could it be that her time as a leader in the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, a fine organization, provides a clue to her decision against the firefighters?

While the nominee was chair of that fund’s litigation committee, the organization aggressively pursued racial quotas in city hiring and in numerous cases fought to overturn the results of promotion exams. It seems to me that in Ricci, Judge Sotomayor’s empathy for one group of firefighters turned out to be prejudice against another.

That is, of course, the logical flaw in the empathy standard. Empathy for one party is always prejudice against another.

Judge Sotomayor, we will inquire into how your philosophy, which allows subjectivity in the courtroom, affects your decision-making, like, for example, in abortion, where an organization of which you were an active leader argued that the Constitution requires taxpayer money to fund abortions; and gun control, where you recently noted it is settled law that the Second Amendment does not prevent a city or state from barring gun ownership; private property, where you ruled recently that the government could take property from one pharmacy developer and give it to another; capital punishment, where you personally signed a statement opposing the reinstatement of the death penalty in New York because of the inhuman psychological burden it places on the offender and the family.

So I hope the American people will follow these hearings closely. They should learn about the issues and listen to both sides of the argument and — and at the end of the hearing ask, if I must one day go to court, what kind of judge what I wish to hear my case? Do I want a judge that allows his or her social, political or religious views to change the outcome? Or do I want a judge that impartially applies the law to the facts and fairly rules on the merits without bias or prejudice?

It’s our job to determine which side of that fundamental divide the nominee stands.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

END