Wednesday, October 19, 2016

An address to liberals

I want to address this post to liberals. As a conservative, I want to preserve our nation as our founders intended. I do not want to be a Protestant, I want to be a Catholic. I do not want to bay for British wars, I want to spend my money on tea instead. You see, that is how the U.S. was founded. It was founded on the principle that people have inalienable rights, and should not have to do what they do not want to do.

Okay, that I why I am a conservative. For some reason, perhaps due to the fact that it's been so long, people forget what it was like living prior to the U.S. Back then, you had to give up most of your money in taxes, and you got nothing in return. The people who benefited were the ruling class, or the rich and powerful.

Now, in 2016, people do not think twice when it comes to solving problems by raising taxes, creating programs, creating regulations, that tell people what they have to do. Obamacare tells people they have to buy healthcare. Some taxes are taken from people and spent on global warming. What if I don't believe in global warming, why should I have to fund it.

See, that's why I'm a conservative. When you create a program, or think about creating a program, I want you to ask, "Is this program, or is this law, going to take away someone's freedoms. If the answer is yes, then we don't want it."

I understand your aunt Millie might benefit from Obamacare. But I don't want to pay for it, I should not have to. It does not matter what my reason it. I do not want you to take my taxes to pay for global warming, I want to give my money to some asthma charity instead.

See, that's why I'm a conservative. I don't want people telling me what to do. I don't want people telling me how I must spend my money. I don't want people telling me I have to lose weight. I don't want someone preventing me from watching conservative news outlets. I don't want that. I want freedom and liberty.

Give me liberty or give me death. I love that quote. I would rather die than succumb to liberalism. I don't want to be told what to do. Because liberalism has succeeded, that is why 95% of the people in this country hate Congress.

They hate it because it finds a problem, and then creates a program that you MUST pay for. And some of us don't want to do it, and it causes animosity, just like paying for British wars caused animosity among the colonists.

Monday, October 17, 2016

10 things liberals always do during political discussions

Things liberals will almost inevitably do during a discussion or debate on politics, and why you should just ignore discussing politics with them.

1. They will tell you a sob story, thereby implying if you don't support their liberal programs you don't have empathy. I really would have benefited from.. my uncle Timmy has severe back problems, he can't work, he really needs... Do it for the children. We need to help our children.  This is to imply that if you don't support their programs, you don't care. A conservative should not buy into this, as their programs are meant to get government out of the way to remove barriers that prevent people from prospering. Example: lower taxes and cut regulations and everyone will benefit, not just one or two groups of people.

2. They will question your news sources. They will say, "Where do you get your news," "Or, you must just listen to Rush Limbaugh?" "You heard that on Fox news! This is their way of saying that you don't make sense, so you must have flawed news sources.

3. They will call you names, such as "You are a racist, homophobe, or simply an idiot." More likely, if they are in front of you, they will be nicer about it, and just say, "You are not nice." This is their way of saying, I have no more attacks, so I have to disqualify your argument by bringing you don't.

4. They will change the subject. You are talking about global warming, and they will start talking about something totally different. This is called pivoting. You are talking about the first amendment, and they say, "You probably believe the second amendment give people the right to own guns." Don't take the bait. Stay on track.

5. At some point, they will just sit there and say nothing. This is because you got to them. They are mad. It is my belief that if this happens, you won the argument, and you should leave it at that.

6. They will say, "Well, it worked in such and such a place," Or, "Such and such did it, so it will work here." This is as though to imply that two wrongs make a right. An example is universal healthcare, it worked in Canada, so it will work here.

7.  They will accuse conservatives of starting a conspiracy. Obama does this a lot, "It's just conspiracy talk." He was implying to talk that progressives got together years ago and plotted how they were going to take over Washington: it's a conspiracy theory.

8. They will in some way imply that you are opposed to progress. And they are right, and that is why they are called progressives and we are called conservatives. They want to progress --"Fundamentally Transform" -- the United States toward -- "move forward"-- a more socialistic society. We are called conservatives, meaning we want to conserve the U.S. as the founding fathers had intended. The U.S. was formed on the premise that government can't be trusted, that it absconds inalienable rights. And when progress is creating government programs that help the few at the expense of the many, that is not what the U.S. is about. A good example is Obamacare. Some people are helped, but others have to abscond their freedom to choose whether or not to have healthcare. That is progress that is the antithesis of freedom, liberty, and the American way.

9. They will say, "Well, you don't want solutions," or You don't want to solve problems" And they will be right, if the solutions call for more government. Why? Because more government results in less freedom. Every new law takes away another freedom." They will say, "Well, you just don't want to solve problems." Meaning, we are lazy and don't are.

10.  They will say, "Well, we have such and such a problem, and we have to do something." No we don't, especially if doing something means doing something that is stupid; especially if doing something is doing something that will abscond more freedoms; especially if doing something is something that is experimental and you don't really know if it will work (such as Obamacare).

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Old media no longer holds truth to power

The role of the media is to be the watchdogs for the American people. Their job is to doubt everything that comes out of Washington until it's proven to be fact. They did this for many years, but no more. The media, most of it anyway, is now just an extension, a satellite, of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). If you want to find doubters, you have to check the new media, or what is often referred to as conservative media.

Today, the media is a part of the state, and by state I mean DNC party. They are liberals, and they are in bed with the Clinton's, and I say that figuratively. They are no longer suspicious or doubtful. They no longer hold truth to power.

I will give you an example. Obama released his latest unemployment numbers which show about a 5% unemployment rate. The New York Times, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc, all put this out as breaking news, claiming, "Economy doing great!

Now, a part of me thinks, "Yeah, this is good." But another part of me thinks, "How accurate is this unemployment number?" I mean, I shouldn't have to think this way, because what we are getting from the media is supposed to be facts. We are supposed to be getting both sides of the story. But, knowing what we now know about the modern media, we must now question the media the same as we question the government, because they are now one and the same.

So, as we check into our conservative news feeds, we learn that there are 94 working age people who have given up looking for work. These good folks are no longer counted on the unemployment roles. So, based on this figure, the unemployment rate has declined because people quit looking for work, not because they are working.

You see, the new media, so called the conservative media, is now doing what the old media, the mainstream media or traditional, used to do. The new media, a.k.a conservative media, holds truth to power. The new media is suspicious and doubtful of what comes out of Washington.

So, now armed with the news from two sources, we can see that the unemployment number is not 5%.  If you add the 5% unemployed and still looking for work with the 94 million who are unemployed and no longer looking, you get an unemployment number of about 23%.

You want to know something? The unemployment rate in 1933 was 25%. Back then there were people in soup lines, so you could see them. Today, they are watching TV on their laptops and talking to their friends on phones they received from Obama.

If you just watched CNN you wouldn't know that. If you just watched CNN, you'd think the economy was perfect. But, the American people aren't stupid. We see our friends out of work. We see ourselves not getting raises for five straight years. We see that our wages are at the bottom of the scale. We see that median wages are down from ten years ago.

We do not see this as acceptable. We do not see this as good. We do not become tolerant to it. We do not say, as they want us to, that this is just the new normal; that this is just the way it's is from now on; just the way it's going to be in the modern world. Such talk is defeatist talk. It's like saying, "We're cooked. This is the best it will ever be." I do not believe that. Most people don't believe that.

So, people in government are only watched and analyzed by the new media. That's the only place where this occurs anymore. The old media has failed us. The old media is nothing more than in bed with the government, and that should explain why you don't see anything good about Trump in the news, and Hillary Clinton is made out to be a saint.

Monday, October 3, 2016

Are we more polarized today than ever before?

One thing I get tired of hearing is people saying that we are more polarized today than ever before. We are a history of wars, and what is more polarizing than wars. You have people so polarized that they want to kill each other to get their way. We have fewer wars today than ever before, and, therefore, by default, we are less polarized today, not more.

So, you want to relate it to American history. What about the election of 1812 was between Thomas Jefferson democratic-Republicans and John Adams Federalists. Back then presidential candidates believed it was not presidential to campaign for themselves, yet their surrogates were very polarized in their comments.

They each called their opponents some vial names. Let me give you some examples. Both sides claimed that victory by the other would ruin the nation. I have heard such comments from both sides in nearly every election that I've ever participated in.

Federalists called Jefferson an undisciplined deist whose sympathy for the French revolution would bring similar bloodshed to America. Democratic-Republicans complained that the Federalists wanted the government to be too central and too powerful. They adamantly complained about the attack on individual rights by the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Adam's Federalists wanted a large central government with the government having more control over people's lives, while Jefferson's Democrats wanted a small central government in order so that the people could have control of their own lives.

Monday, September 12, 2016

Journalism 101: The Narative

In journalism school, we learned that the narrative sets itself, and the journalist reports about it. However, that was back in 1988. It was hard to do. In today's journalism classes, they must teach that the narrative is set by the journalist, and then they search for material to support their narrative. It's not hard to do.

A perfect example here is a story in the New York Times, May 14, 2016, "How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private."  It began on the front page and covered, I think, 11 pages in total. So they decided that Trump is setting the narrative, and they can't handle that. That's not selling papers. So Michael Barbaro and Megan Twohey, the authors of the hit piece, decided to set the narrative that Trump, in his younger years, was a womanizer who treated women poorly.

Rather than letting the news happen, they created the news. Rather than gather the evidence and report the news from the narrative as it was happening, they created the narrative  and searched for evidence to support it. They talked to as many women as they could, women who had contact in one way or another with Trump, and twisted their words. Their story made page one.

Then Trump woke up the next morning and saw the hit piece. He said, "You know what, I didn't say that. They lied about what I said."

About 20 years ago, before social media, the media would have won. The people would have no way to know who was telling the truth, so they would have just assumed the media was telling the truth. Today, however, social media has a way of finding the truth. You cannot hide behind a lie. You cannot hide behind a false narrative. And so the New York Times was busted.

Then Times has now admitted that the story was false. They were lying. They were misleading.

When asked if he was going to sue, Trump said he is currently in talks with the Times.

Maureen Callahn, in the New York Post, "Everything Today is a Lie," also from May 14, 2016, wrote how everything in the news today is a lie. This is because the media is setting the narrative. She said nothing we see in the news is real because the narrative is being set. The piece is very long because she gives many examples.

For instance, she talks about Sharron Osborne crated the narrative that her husband had an affair and had gone missing. This was all over the news, and people actually had sympathy for Sharron. Yet then the two were seen together later in the week and the whole thing was learned to be a scam. Sharon couldn't rely on her own talent, or her husband's fame, to get headlines: she had to create her own fake narrative.

She basically gave examples of how narrative has become a substitute for substance; how the narrative is set; how the narrative is spun. Substance does not sell newspapers, so the narrative has to be set to make the narrative more interesting. And a busy public doesn't have time to do fact checking.

And this type of narrative setting happens in politics too. Obamacare was passed not because the bill was a good bill full of substance, but because it was spun as a good bill. The narrative was set by the Obama administration, and this narrative was picked up by the media and reported as news. And a busy populace didn't have time to fact check.

Now, the media reported the narrative set by the Obama Administration as opposed to doing their own fact checking. They didn't want to report on the substance, because they didn't like the substance, or so we are lead to believe. They did not look into the substance of Obamacare and report on that. They did not want to report on that narrative. So they just wrote about the narrative that was set and went with it, as thought they were satellites for the White House rather than watchdogs for the people.

As noted by Rush Limbaugh:
"The only thing that was important to the media was: "Would Obama get it? Would Obama be the first ever to get national health care in America? Would Obama succeed? Will Obama get what he wants?" Not, "Is what Obama wants good? Is what Obama wants helpful? Is Obama being truthful about the details of what he wants?" None of that. The press didn't cover one syllable of that. Not one page of Obamacare. The media covered the villains: The Republicans and people like me on radio and in blogs trying to stop Obama from getting what he wants.
But they didn't report on us by telling people we were covering the substance of Obamacare. They just portrayed us as what have you: Racist, bigots, homophobes, who wanted to deny the first African-American president a signature legislative proposal. So the media -- which most people instinctively rely on to learn what things are -- doesn't tell anybody what things are anymore. All the media does, because they're all Democrats... They're all part of the Democrat agenda. All the media does is try to make sure that Obama or Clinton or whoever, get what they want."
So, you have a media claiming to be unbiased, and yet they are biased. The New York Times is a good example of that. Then you have outlets like "National Review" that only report on substance, and they struggle to stay afloat because they do not create interesting narratives, they just report on the substance of the real narratives. They ask the questions. They get to the bottom of things. They report on what people might not want to hear, "That Obamacare has no substance. That it will fail."

And they are honest and call themselves conservative. The only difference between the New York Times and National Review is the Times lies that it is bias and National Review is honest about being unbiased. Of course, if the New York Times revealed it's true liberal bias, no one would read it. So they lie. They spin the narrative. They create it. They only get to substance when republicans are trying to get their agenda passed.

You see, I was taught in journalism 101 to hunt for the real narrative and report on that. It was hard, because you had to dig. You had to go out of your way. You had to talk to people. You had to gather information and report on what you learn. And, what you learn, may not be what you expected, and it may not even be what you want. You may not agree with it. But, regardless, it was the narrative, it was the substance, and therefore it was the news.

Today, however, journalists must be taught that they are to create the narrative. Now they are taught to advance their own version of the story, spin it just the way they want. They can make bad news good, or good news bad. They can do whatever they want. And it's easy, because all they have to do is interview one or two women in Trump's lives and spin what they say as news.

Further reading:

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Hitler was a socialist

I'm not a big fan of memes
But this one is right on. 
One of my liberal friends tried to explain to me how Trump is like Hitler. He said that the people of Germany wanted change, and Hitler offered change. Right now the people of Washington are corrupt and dishonest, and Trump, like Hitler, is a political outsider who offers the type of change the people want. "It's scary," he said.

I said, "Actually, trump is like Bernie Sanders. He mesmerized the people by telling them he would solve all their problems. He guaranteed them a job, a living wage, free healthcare, free school, free college, etc. And, aside from that, NAZI stands for "National Socialist German Workers Party."

Now, we can go a step further. Many claim that he is a right winger because he killed the Jews. Sure, killing Jews is right wing, if you look at the political spectrum as a straight line. You have Hitler on the far right as a Jew killer, but you also have him on the far left as a radical socialist.

If we look at the political spectrum as a circle, with the radical side of the party at the top of the circle, you see that Hitler is right at the top of the circle.

New World Order: What would it mean for us?

So, there are talks that the goal of progressives is to downsize America, and get rid of it's borders and sovereignty, with the ultimate goal of creating a New World Order. If they got their way, what would this mean for those who currently consider themselves America -- or us? 

If a NWO were created, it would mean that a Super Government would probably be created somewhere in Europe, such as Brussels or Prague. Or, I suppose, it could be head quartered by the United Nations in New York.

The people running this Super Government would be considered the smartest people in the world. Whatever they believed would be forced on the rest of us. Considering they are the experts, they know what's best for us. So, it wouldn't matter what we thought, we would be forced to accept the edicts, the regulations, the laws they set forth. 

It wouldn't matter if you didn't believe that the theory that man is the cause of global warming was a hoax. You wouldn't even be able to state your opinion, because you would probably be put in prison if you insisted on stating it. Or, at the vary least, your opinion would be minimized. There would only be three or four TV stations, and all of them would be run by the state. The government would be able to promote what it wants, and put down whatever it wants. 

This Super Government would set up a World Court, and this court would supersede anything written in the U.S. Constitution. This would mean that you are not necessarily proven innocent until proven guilty. It would mean whatever the justice experts decided it meant. And you can imagine that these experts would all be progressives and not conservatives. Conservatives would all be silenced or killed. They would be the majority who sit in prisons. Or they would just be killed if they continued to act out. This would be similar to how it was prior the the United States. 

A Security Council would be created by the defense experts. They would decide who went to war and with whom and when. They would decide the rules of war. They would decide who won the war. They would decide who had what weapons. They probably would decide to take all the weapons from the people to make sure there was not public revolution against the desires of the state. A state militia would control the people and keep the peace. It would also take care of anyone who spoke out against the Super Government. 

But this would be their Euphoria. This would be the world where everyone has a job, a home, a car, an iphone, the Internet, cable television (or whatever was made available), food, and healthcare. And you can easily see what we would be giving up in order to enjoy life in this so called euphoria -- our liberties. 

In the past, both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were willing to wage war against the United Nations when they decided to create a World Court, on the grounds that they were not willing to have rights currently protected under the U.S. Constitution absconded by government. However, Obama doesn't seem to have such qualms.