The Democrats and media are waging a War on America

Liberal Democrats and their media allies are waging a War on America and it is well past time that we recognize this fact.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks a commission examined our relationship to the Islamists who had slaughtered our people and concluded that Islam has been at war with us for quite a while but that we have failed to recognize it.

Recent polls on the subject confirm years of previous polling showing that liberals are not patriotic, they don’t love America and they wish they could change our country into something else-probably France.

The bottom feeders in the media use lies and smears to continually attack conservatives who represent what is good about America because they hate America. Far from being proud of our country, the media and its leftist allies are embarrassed by America.

An overview of our national political landscape makes it blindingly obvious that the Left and the media have succeeded in tearing us apart. We are no longer a united country, but one inhabited by makers and takers. While it is certainly true that there are White takers, only a lying liberal would argue that minorities are not takers at a much higher rate than their percentage of population would support. Likewise, Whites represent a higher percentage of makers (the ones off whom the takers live) than...

Liberal Democrats and their media allies are waging a War on America and it is well past time that we recognize this fact.
Those bums have been controlling the debate by controlling the language - to such extent that even when you complain about it, you use their preferred language and therefore cannot express your opinion adequately. Just in the sentence above there are two euphemisms - one, the above usage of the term “liberal” (specific to America, and specific to the post-1930 era) to describe people are not recognized as liberal outside the US - and who would not have been recognized as liberal in America before the 1920s. Safire’s New Political Dictionary dates that change - in the US only - to the 1920s. That general dating is confirmed by the use of the term “liberal” by F. A. Hayek in The Road to Serfdom (written during WWII), and Hayek’s subsequent lament in the 1950s over the loss of that “nearly indispensable word” in its traditional meaning in America. Hayek was adamant that “I am not a conservative” - and nobody in America actually is. There are only ersatz “liberals” who are actually reactionaries against the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the US, and actual liberals who are called “conservative” but who are the ones who believe in progress of, by, and for the American people.
The other euphemism, if that is the correct word for it, in the quoted paragraph is the term “media.” It is true that Democrats have allies in all publication/broadcasting/movie media, but the real difficulty is to stand up on your hind legs and call out the specific genre of publication which is sine qua non for the propagandist to control - journalism. There actually is a principled line of attack against journalism as we know it - one which does no injury and indeed would strengthen the First Amendment. For the reality is that “freedom of the press” as codified in the First Amendment is a right of the people, and not a privilege reserved for the membership of the Associated Press.
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments
Thus we have, in words penned before the American Revolution, a clear description of the natural motive of the journalist, and the vulnerability of the people to propaganda from the journalist. But how did journalism as an institution come to be unified as the enemy of constitutional liberty? It turns out that Adam Smith’s later writing is instructive in that regard:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public . . . - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
America from its founding, if not before, had systematic support for the sharing of news via subsidized interchange of newspapers amongst its printers. But the real impetus for a virtual “meeting” of all important news organizations was the telegraph. The telegraph, and its inevitable application to news distribution, the wire service. The main wire service in the US is the Associated Press. In reality, the AP was aggressively monopolistic from its early days, but even had it not existed others would have had the same effect of conducting a continuous virtual meeting of journalists nationwide.
It should be obvious from Smith’s writings quoted above, therefore, that the wire services generally and the AP in particular would inherently promote “a conspiracy against the public” by journalists, and that journalists’ natural desire would be to lead and direct us, tending to subvert our freedom. And that the public inherently has a tendency to acquiesce in that.
Institutional journalism holds the public in contempt, as an object to be manipulated rather than as people with rights to their own opinions and freedoms. That is tolerable, barely, in its milder forms. But journalism has a systematic tendency to select convenient targets amongst the people - George Zimmerman, the Duke Lacrosse team, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Republican politicians as a class and individually, and to perpetrate libel against them in a heated propaganda campaign. It has commonly been deemed to be impossible to take on all the “individual” perpetrators of these libel campaigns. But if you consider wire service journalism as a whole to be the real perpetrator - and if you name the AP and its membership as joint and severally responsible, you theoretically present SCOTUS with a case that many, possibly a majority, of its justices go to sleep dreaming of. The “legitimacy" of the FCC and the FEC would be heavily compromised by a correct SCOTUS ruling to the effect that wire service journalism is presumptively not objective individuals but a rather a suspect cabal.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.