Posted tagged ‘socialism’

The Gross Misrepresentation of the Tax Day Tea Parties

April 18, 2009

Depending on where you get your news, you may know a good bit about the tea parties held on April 15th and what they were all about.  I doubt there is anyone that didn’t know about them (with the exception of President Obama…I’ll get to that later), but there may be plenty of people who have a horribly distorted view of the parties thanks to the purposeful and irresponsible misrepresentation on the part of the media and liberal commentators.

Allow me to briefly explain what the tea parties are all about.  Note that I say “are” and not “were.”  The tea parties didn’t begin on April 15th, and they didn’t end on April 15th.  This is a genuine grassroots movement involving people with a variety of political viewpoints.  It’s about protesting the increasing role of government in our lives, the excessive spending habits of our government, and the taxpayer money that will be used to fund these habits.

As I said, you may not know this depending on who you rely on to deliver the news.  Let’s take a look at how CNN “reported” on the tea parties from the Chicago tea party.  While you’re watching this, keep in mind that this is supposed to be a reporter, not a commentator.

Wow…Susan Roesgen wastes no time in distorting what the tea parties are all about and thus slanting this story to fulfill her agenda.  It’s just “a party for Obama-bashers,” she says.  Curiously, after saying this, the cameraman begins to pan the crowd and a sign is clearly visible saying “Republicans SUCK Too!”  Wait…I thought this was just about bashing Obama.

The point of her story was clearly to depict the party as some kind of gathering solely for right-wing conservatives, but that is simply not the case.  A recent Fox News Opinion Dynamics poll found that out of 377 Democrats and 183 Independents, 29% of each group would be willing to participate in a tea party (Source).  Not only that, but of the Democrats polled, 94% held a favorable opinion of President Obama.  There would obviously have to be some overlapping there.  What?!?  You mean people who like Obama would go to the tea parties???  I thought these were just for Obama-bashers!

Democrat Leonard Jacobs explained in an editorial why he would be attending a tax day tea party:

…let’s face it, fiscal responsibility is an American issue. Does this mean we will inevitably define certain aspects of fiscal restraint differently? Sure we will — but that doesn’t mean fiscal restraint cannot also be the shared American ideal. I will attend the tea party in Manhattan tomorrow night not because I’m a Democrat or a Republican, but because I’m an American. My nation comes first.

(Source)

Once again, that is coming from a Democrat…and one who supports President Obama’s stimulus package at that.

Also worth mentioning is that out of the 294 Republicans that participated in this poll, 48% said they would not be willing to participate in a tea party while 47% said they would.  For a movement that’s supposed to be solely conservative and right-wing, you would think a majority of Republicans would be willing to participate.

So why ignore the facts and portray these tea parties strictly as a conservative fringe movement?  It’s simple really…if you can make the participants look like a bunch of biased radicals, you can downplay the significance of their rallies.  No grassroots movement of legitimately concerned citizens here…just a bunch of crazies who are bitter because their candidate didn’t win the election.

Now let’s look at how Ms. Roesgen treated the people she interviewed.  The first man she interviewed did have a pretty radical sign.  The other side that I’ve seen in pictures was a lot worse.  But as a reporter, it was not her job to chastise the man and to teach him a lesson in morals.  And didn’t you love how she picked the guy out of the crowd who probably had the most radical sign there to interview first to further set the tone she was aiming for?  Seeing this brings to question…where was this kind of outrage when people were saying the same things about President Bush?  Well it just didn’t exist as can be seen in a clip of a Susan Roesgen report featured in a Newsbusters article in January 2006:

No big deal.  Adolf Lucifer Bush is merely a look-alike…no reason to be offended by that.

How about the next guy she interviewed?  She wouldn’t even let him deliver his point without interrupting him and demanding to know what that had to do with taxes.  Guess who missed the point!  As I’ve already discussed, the tea parties aren’t just about taxes.  Oh, but sir, your state gets $50 billion out of the stimulus bill!!!  What is this woman not understanding?  Most of the people there are likely going to be against the stimulus bill…  I guess she’s the type of person who will support something if she’s getting something out of it rather than being motivated by principles like most of the people at the tea parties.

One of the priceless moments of this video was when Ms. Roesgen pointed out that it was “highly promoted by the right-wing conservative network Fox.”  What a joke!  You mean Fox News saw a huge news story brewing and decided to cover it in-depth and promote its coverage?  What were they thinking?  What a bunch of partisan conservative hacks!  I guess CNN and the rest of the mainstream media thought it was a smart strategic decision to ignore a big story or cover it briefly and with disgusting bias.  And yes, it was a big story.  Anytime you have hundreds of thousands of people gathering in one day for one purpose across the nation, you have a big story.  There were some small towns that had about 1,000 people in attendance.  That in itself is a news story…I know we’ve all seen much more insignificant stories than that on national news.

So Fox did its job as a news organization and REPORTED THE NEWS!!! What happened as a result?  Fox News outperformed each of its direct competitors (CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and HLN) by at least double the amount of viewers in every single measured time slot on April 15th (Source).  Special Report with Bret Baier, The O’Reilly Factor, and Hannity’s America actually each had more viewers than the shows in the same time slots on the other networks combined.  But this is nothing new.  Fox has been outperforming its competitors for a while now because of its reputation for reporting the news and not ignoring it or slanting it as the others do.  Of course you’ll get opinions from the commentary shows (which also fare a lot better on Fox), but that’s to be expected.

Anyway, Ms. Roesgen concludes her report by saying that the protest is “not really family viewing.”  What?  Are you kidding me?  I guess because she’s gone around and efficiently antagonized the people there and shown what a lousy reporter she is, it’s no longer “family viewing.”  This report really wasn’t fit for anyone…not because of the protesters, but because of her slanted reporting.  It’s not her job to influence opinion.  She is simply supposed to report the news.  Tell us there’s a tea party, maybe interview some people to find out why they are there, thank them, leave.  It’s simple.  Now enjoy a video, courtesy of Founding Bloggers, of a lady at the tea party confronting Ms. Roesgen after her report ended.  CNN forced YouTube to pull the original video based on copyright claims (I suppose because the video featured the actual clip from CNN), yet there are plenty of other clips of the CNN broadcast available that they apparently didn’t have a problem with.  That’s probably because they weren’t attached to a video of Ms. Roesgen being schooled on her shabby reporting.  I think issuing a copyright claim on a news clip is pretty dumb anyway.  Here is the video:

Hopefully you’re enjoying reading this because I’m not quite done yet!  What I’ve shown you and discussed so far isn’t the only way that these tea parties are being misrepresented.  Some are going as far as to label this as a racist movement.  Granted you may find some racists at a gathering designed to protest the policies of a government whose leader happens to be black, that in no way speaks for the crowd as a whole.  That’s like saying that if there happen to be a couple of really drunk people at a bar you’re at that are making a scene and trying to start fights, then everyone who goes to drink at a bar is a violent drunkard.  It’s illogical.  There will be stupid people anywhere you go in life.

I can safely say that at the tea party that I attended along with hundreds of others (maybe around 1,000), I never saw any racist signs or heard any racist talk.  It was a very tame crowd.  But don’t worry…anti-tea party liberals have covered their bases.  Jack and Jill Politics recently published a despicable article in which they took it upon themselves to redefine racism so as to fit the description of many tea party-goers:

Here’s the new criteria for an undercover racist attack:

1) Is it unique to Obama, i.e. is it a phrase we’ve never heard before applied to any other president or is it something we haven’t heard in recent memory? For example: he’s not an American citizen or he’s a socialist who’s planning re-education camps for young people.

2) Is it illogical or impossible – does the assertion plainly contradict the facts? For example: not an American citizen, socialist, tax raiser, re-education camps for young people.

3) Is it repeated, over and over, by a desperate person whose team lost badly in the last election & who adopts a wide-eyed, credulous, nodding stare pronouncing the lie slowly and precisely with a watchful eye to see if the listeners are buying it. For example: not an American citizen, socialist, elitist, drug seller, tax raiser or terrorist.

Optional: Does the assertion cause nervousness, embarrassment or confusion among non-blacks? When other white people such as Tom Brokaw or John Stewart sense something wrong and start to ask questions like “Do you really believe that?”, you know for sure you’re in the racist attack zone.

(Source)

There you have it…if you didn’t vote for Obama and you call him a “socialist,” then you, my friend, are an undercover racist using code for the n-word.  That makes me want to puke.

Actress and not-funny comedian Janeane Garofalo also agrees that this is all about racism:

Garofalo actually called Party-goers “a bunch of teabagging rednecks,” adding “this is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.”

(Source)

She also says it’s about immigrant-bashing.  Well why was this black immigrant in the following video being cheered on with thunderous applause when she said that the parties are not about any of that (or why was she even allowed to speak there to begin with)?  Skip to 1:52 to hear her speech:

If these tea parties are about racism, then why was Alan Keyes (a famous black conservative) invited to speak at three tea parties on April 15th in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, and Indiana (Source)?  He also spoke at one in Pittsburgh a week earlier.  Also, why were there some black people at the tea party that I attended?

Well Janeane Garofalo has an explanation for that:

But these people, all white for the most part, unless there’s some people with Stockholm syndrome there.

(Source)

……I can’t imagine a more racist thing she could have said to explain black presence at the tea parties.  These black people couldn’t possibly have been there to express their own opinions…no way.  They were confused, they were simply saying what their white “captors” had conditioned them to feel.  They were simply black shells expressing white ideas.  How absolutely sickening.

I think I’ve done more than enough to show that these tea parties were not about being conservative or right-wing, not about Obama-bashing, not about racism, not about any of the ridiculous things that opponents would have you believe.  This is a legitimate movement of Americans who want to express their discontent with the increasing size of government and/or the spending practices of the government.  But those on the far left don’t want you to understand that, and so they choose to insult their fellow Americans and twist the meaning of these tea parties into something that they are absolutely not rather than just debate the true issues.  Don’t let them fool you…they are the most intolerant bunch of people you could ever have the displeasure of dealing with.

Finally, how did the White House respond to these tea parties?

When Americans are gathering and expressing their concerns that the government doesn’t care about them and is not listening to what they have to say, President Obama responds, “You’re right.  I’m not listening to you.  In fact, I don’t even know you exist.”  That’s his way of acknowledging us with the middle finger. A guest on Neil Cavuto’s show this morning made a great point, but unfortunately I can’t remember his name to give him proper credit.  He said that Obama is showing great interest and desire to listen to our enemies, such as Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but he apparently doesn’t care in the least bit to listen to the citizens of his own country.  Way to lead, Mr. President.  I should probably mention that the person who made this point was a black man, so he must just be suffering from Stockholm syndrome.  I guess we should disregard him.

Advertisements

Obama and Geithner Take Responsibility…a Bit Too Late

March 19, 2009

This morning it was reported that President Obama has taken responsibility for the AIG bonus mess:

“Listen, I’ll take responsibility. I’m the president,” Obama said at a “town hall” meeting in Costa Mesa, California, where his bid to sell his economic revival policies was swamped by news coverage of the bonus fiasco for a fourth day.

“We didn’t draft these contracts. We’ve got a lot on our plate — but it is appropriate when you’re in charge to make sure that stuff doesn’t happen like this,” he added, amid outrage across the United States.

(Source)

I’m willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt as far as how much specific information he had about all of this.  That doesn’t change the fact, however, that he signed the stimulus bill into law and should have known exactly what he was signing.  Therefore, he should have known about the “Dodd amendment” and dealt with it before it got to this point, and he seems to be acknowledging that.

Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner also took responsibility for the mess today by admitting that the Treasury Department did indeed work with Chris Dodd to add the amendment to the stimulus bill:

In an interview with CNN’s Ali Velshi, Geithner said the Treasury Department did talk to Sen. Chris Dodd about a clause he put forth that would have strictly limited executive bonuses.

The Treasury Department was concerned that legislation that would restrict contractual bonuses would not hold up to legal challenges, Geithner said.

“We expressed concern about this specific version. We wanted to make sure it was strong enough to survive legal challenge,” Geithner said.

(Source)

This confession from Geithner comes only after Senator Chris Dodd (who previously lied about his role) admitted to inserting the amendment into the stimulus bill at the urging of the Treasury Department.  Geithner still claims to have not known the full scale of the bonus issues until last week, but it’s quite clear that he foresaw a problem over a month ago when requesting that the amendment be inserted into the bill.  The fact that this issue was singled out and addressed by Treasury would seem to indicate that it was known then that bonuses would be paid, therefore the government should have begun working with AIG then to come up with a reasonable solution.

As I said in last night’s post, AIG may have indeed been contractually obligated to pay these bonuses.  Let’s assume for a moment that they were.  In that case, the “Dodd amendment” was necessary to preserve rule of law.  Had Geithner and Dodd (and any other Democrats) done their duty and publicly addressed the issue earlier, this whole ordeal probably wouldn’t have gotten so out-of-hand.  Instead, they wasted time covering it up and lying about it and let it just spin completely out of control.  By not taking responsibility earlier, they’ve given fellow Democrats the opportunity to play dumb about the law that they passed and pretend to be furious about it, contributing greatly to the unhealthy mob mentality that has taken hold.

A product of this mob mentality is the bill just passed in the House today (by about every single Democrat and sadly with significant Republican support) that would enact a retroactive 90% tax on any bonuses received since December 31,2008, by employees with family incomes of over $250,000 at companies that have received at least $5 billion in bailout money from the government (Source).  Of course, this would include the bonuses paid by AIG.  But if these bonuses were indeed part of legally-binding contracts (as Democrats apparently believed considering they passed the bill containing the “Dodd amendment”), then they have absolutely no business taking this money from them.  This is nothing but an excuse to pass socialist legislation to take money from those who they believe made too much.  I don’t like the fact that people at a horribly performing company that has received a lot of taxpayer money are getting bonuses, but if they were legally entitled to them, so be it.

Even if these contracts didn’t really obligate AIG to pay the bonuses, this is not the way to solve the problem.  The truth is that the problem was solved last week:

In a letter sent to congressional leaders, Geithner said he persuaded AIG Chief Executive Edward M. Liddy last week to scrap or cut hundreds of millions of dollars in future salaries and other compensation after determining that the bonuses already granted would be “legally difficult to prevent.”

Geithner said the company would be required to pay the $165 million from corporate operating funds as part of the final terms for a previously announced $30-billion line of credit from the government. In addition, the credit line will be reduced by the same amount.

(Source)

The Treasury has already worked out a way to recover this money!  Democrats in Congress knew this, but they saw their opportunity to pass some socialist legislation to take even more money and took advantage of this mob mentality to do so.  This really only strengthens the case that some conservatives are making that this may be a bill of attainder (one intended to punish specific individuals), which is prohibited by the Constitution.  They no longer have a noble excuse.  This bill was obviously designed with the sole purpose of punishing the receivers of the AIG bonuses.  I can only hope that this bill doesn’t get any further and that the American people will see all of this for what it really is.

Obama Criticizes McCain for Personal Attacks, Responds With Personal Attack Onslaught

October 7, 2008

If you’ve been watching the news for the past few days, you know that the McCain campaign has become more aggressive and is now criticizing Obama for his connections to domestic terrorist William Ayers. Of course, the Obama campaign was not too happy about that:

Sen. Barack Obama said today that, while his rival John McCain seeks to “distract you with smears” and “Swift Boat-style attacks” in the last weeks of the campaign, he would keep focused on economic issues and what he described as McCain’s shortcomings.

( Source -> )

Curiously, around the same time that Obama tried to portray himself as one who was taking the moral high road, his campaign released an ad, a documentary, and launched a web site (link) smearing McCain for his connections to the Keating Five scandal ( Source ). I guess Obama figured that since the Keating Five scandal was related to economic issues, he could pass off this obvious and massive smear campaign as a legitimate focus on economics rather than an exercise in blatant hypocrisy.

Now for a little background on the Keating Five scandal. Charles H. Keating, Jr. was the chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association that collapsed in 1989. Lincoln had earlier been the subject of a regulatory investigation that five senators, McCain included, were accused of having inappropriately intervened in. These senators became the subject of an investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee.

McCain, who had been friends with Keating since 1981 and had received numerous political contributions from him, did indeed meet with regulators on Keating’s behalf. One of the regulators, William Black, took detailed notes during the second meeting with the senators, which stated that McCain made the following comments:

“One of our jobs as elected officials is to help constituents in a proper fashion,” McCain said. “ACC (American Continental Corp.) is a big employer and important to the local economy. I wouldn’t want any special favors for them. . . .

“I don’t want any part of our conversation to be improper.”

( Source -> )

McCain said later that he was only there to ensure that Lincoln Savings and Loan was treated fairly. Once he found out about the criminal referral being made against Lincoln, McCain cut ties with Keating. The Senate Ethics Committee determined that no action should be taken against Senator McCain. An excerpt from their statement:

Based on the evidence available to it, the committee has given consideration to Senator McCain’s actions on behalf of Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. The committee concludes that Senator McCain’s actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him. The committee finds that Senator McCain took no further action after the April 9, 1987, meeting when he learned of the criminal referral.

Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate; therefore, the committee concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator McCain on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry.

( Source -> )

Robert Bennett, the Democrat who served as special counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee, now says that McCain should never have been included in the investigation in the first place ( Source ). On top of that, McCain has expressed regret for his actions as well:

“The appearance of it was wrong,” McCain said. “It’s a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do.”

( Source -> )

So now let’s take a look at the facts. Barack Obama is attacking John McCain for his involvement in the Keating Five scandal. But McCain was long ago exonerated of any wrongdoing in the matter, and the Democratic special counsel to the ethics committee says he should never have been investigated in the first place. Despite all this, McCain still takes responsibility for the appearance of his actions and regrets doing what he did. This amounts to nothing more than a smear campaign against McCain by the Obama campaign. The fact that Obama is bashing McCain for his personal attacks while simultaneously leading this smear onslaught against him just makes this even more despicable.

But what about William Ayers? Is associating him with Barack Obama fair? For anyone who doesn’t know who he is, here’s a bit about him:

Ayers, 63, spent 10 years as a fugitive in the 1970s when he was part of the “Weather Underground,” an anti-Vietnam War group that protested U.S. policies by bombing the Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and a string of other government buildings.

( Source -> )

His wife, Bernadine Dohrn, was also a member of the terrorist group. Both of them in written and television interviews have indicated that they do not regret what they did and wish they had done more. This family is a class act, right? Perhaps the most condemning connection to Obama, which is mentioned in the article I cited above, is the party that Ayers and Dohrn hosted for him in their home at the beginning of his political career to introduce him to the neighborhood. You have to think…what does it say about a man who is going to associate himself with proud anti-American terrorists? I know I would never give Ayers or Dohrn the time of day, whether it was simply acknowledging them in a friendly manner or serving on a board or on a panel at a university with one of them (as Obama did with Ayers). Why would Obama do this?

One possibility is that he agrees with the radical terrorist acts they committed. I certainly hope not. Another possibility would be that he is apathetic about it. In other words, maybe he doesn’t care about the horrible things they have done and was more worried about his political career. And a final possibility is that he is appalled by their terrorist acts but decided that advancing his political career was more important to him than his principles.  But that explanation wouldn’t make much sense, would it?  If he deemed his political career more important, then he wouldn’t have any upstanding principles.  It would seem that the only explanations are that he agrees with the terrorist acts they committed or that he was too politically ambitious to care about standing up for what was right.

Obama is still not open and honest about the aspects of his relationship with Ayers, dismissing any references to it as smears or irrelevant, and has yet to apologize for his associations with him and Dohrn.  Is attacking Obama for these associations fair?  Of course it is.  And if we have to, maybe we can disguise our personal attacks as a focus on economic issues as the Obama campaign does.  How about this?  Ayers was a member of a Communist terrorist group and to this day is proud of what he did.  Obama was associated with him.  Does Obama want to change our economy from capitalist to communist?  You know, that question wouldn’t really be that far out there considering the socialist agenda that liberals like him tend to pursue.