sedition at the very least....isn't this a Rosenberg anniversary?Maybe we need to be hard headed again
I think we all know the answer.
Just ask these Congress critters, and add the Kerry, and Kennedy types that aren't on this list.
Let us not forget a fat scroungy looking bastid who made a movie full of lies that is being hailed by our enemies and himself praised for sedition. Michael Moore.
Carolyn
Why not call it censorship?
That's what it was called in WWII, from December 19, 1941 until August 15, 1945.
Conducted by the Federal Office of Censorship, FYI.
"a case can be made against those who work in the media and deliberately undermine the current Republican administration's war on terror while purposely pushing their own agenda."And so are these:
"most mainstream media lean left and therefore slant their reporting to benefit liberal politicians."The so-called "journalists" of the "mainstream newsmedia" seek to manipulate public opinion by manipulating the news--through selective reporting, emphasis, and outright distortion.
Their agenda is to remove President Bush and the Republican Party from office and replace them with Democrats. From their point of view, this is their duty. What they do not realize--or more likely refuse to see--is that it is a dangerous manifestation of dangerous hubris that dangerously misleads the public.
The source of their hubris is arrogance, intellectual and moral laziness, a disinclination to avoid consensus reality (groupthink) and an inclination to fashion, a misguided commitment to "internationalism" and "Liberalism", and a blinding hatred for President Bush.
Hubris preceeds a fall. Let's hope they don't bring us all down with themselves.
Carolyn
Wasnt there something on the news the other night about the WH being outraged that some reporter had revealed the exact location of the Vice President's bunker?
Well stated - good examples.
"The tongue has no bones, but it can break bones" --Old Sicilian Proverb
ping
When the laws of our Constitution are not upheld, it's only a matter of time, before our Constitution and our Country, no longer exist.
That time is very close.
Great post!
Nancy Salvato and the Washington Times have got it!
Will enough American citizens get it before the election?
We had best hope so and work our butts off to ensure that they do!
Corrected posting
I agree
Bit slow, aren't we?The media continue to spin to the public that we are losing the war. This is helping convince the mainstream that by going to Iraq we became enveloped in a quagmire, which in turn, undermines public confidence and support for our efforts and our current president. The media promote their agenda and that of the terrorists to encourage the election of the "Not Bush" candidate while putting our country at greater risk for the success of terrorism.
The fundamental truth of the First Amendment is that journalists are fully entitled to push their own agendas. Note the plural, "agendas." Indeed Hamilton and Jefferson sponsored newspapers in which to conduct their partisan battles against each other.Treason has become so acceptable the Democratic candidate for president may be said to have committed it back in 1970 when he conducted a meeting with North Vietnamese communists. Laws forbid private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers.The scandal is not that journalists participate in politics, the scandal is that we-the-people sucker for the con that journalism is something other than politics. We imbibed it with our mothers' milk, but the conceit that journalists are, or should be, objective is based solely on the propaganda power of America's PR Establishment.
And journalism can be spoken of as a single entity - indeed, as The Establishment - precisely because journalists have in America formed a well-defined cabal around the notion that competition among them does not extend to questions of what is important.
That cabal coheres because it defines "What is important" in terms of the self-interest of its membership. That is, the journalistic establishment conflates "what is important" with "what will sell newspapers." And it coheres in the principle that "Never argue with someone who buys ink by the carload" applies to people who indeed buy ink by the carload themselves. It is the principle of avoiding flame wars - avoiding bad PR.
Since what sells newspapers best is what people are afraid not to read, "What is important" is what makes the public feel insecure. Winston Churchill once said, "Democracy is like a raft. It won't sink, but your feet are always wet." The PR Establishment of journalism is not interested in the ineluctable flotation of the raft but only in the wetness of the feet of its passengers.
The con of the journalism establishment is that journalism is objective; the the establishment excludes anyone who breaks its consensus with a PR campaign to the effect that the miscreant is "not objective, not a journalist."
But the effect of claiming objectivity is to claim wisdom. If you start from the premise that you are wise, then the truth of any proposition follows directly from the fact that you have stated that it is true. That saves a great deal of the difficult work known as, "thinking."
But openly making such a nakedly circular argument would convince very few people, and anyone who seriously considers the case must realize that it is not the self-identified "objective" person but the person who admits the existence of an identifiable perspective in his own thinking whose speech and writing is least likely to be misleading. The term "philosophy" was coined precisely to distinguish the person who pursued wisdom from the "sophist" who merely claimed wisdom.
But then, sophistry allows you to prove anything. Why then should journalism have any difficulty promoting the traitor as the patriot?Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
This is a great post. Thanks for it. This message needs to get out and people need to understand it.
The parasitic media dogs are well beyond reporting. They have no right to interfere with military operations and troop morale (hey - we kicked Geraldo out of Iraq, and nothing horrible happened as a result).
Since the NYT/etc. isn't interested in "co-operation", censorship is the only alternative unless masses of us decline to buy their stinking papers. Unfortunately, in our squishy society, neither is likely to happen.
We are truly in a war ........
Those who don't believe in war deny there is a war. The issue of war or no war was settled in the 70's.... there shall be no more war, thus today there is no war. The belief in no-war trumps the belief in war. All the current activity involving the military is misguided political activity, it is not war. The belief in no-war is part of the utopian religon of liberalism. Religous fanatics will not accetpt reason nor will they accept any other view.
The left is truly a propblem. Refusing to defend against deadly attack and taking an active role to discredit or bring harm to those who do places the nation in a very bad situation.