Excellent column.
The High Schools are where we should be going to get fighters....we are finding out that we have conservative kids chomping at the bit, but no teacher will “adise” them, because of fear. So, we the conservative GOP party in our county are starting to help them...and they want to become involved....and THIS is IN western OREGON!!!
I’m seeing a ‘new trend’ start lately with groups of conservatives getting together and thinking they are so indispensable to the world that they must form organizations like ‘fox nation’, and start charging people to watch their worthless opinions- the same kinds of opinions that are given for FREE all day long on fox- apparently these elitist republican opinion givers think that their opinion is so superior to everyone else’s opinions that they should charge - they apparently think their worthless opinions will ‘bring the change in politics where everyone else’s opinions have failed to do so’
They wont! people will simply pay the money to get their hourly junky fix, and then it’s right on to the next junky fix, then the next, then the next- all day long, every day- what was said a day before will be forgotten, and the new ‘outrage of the hour’ will be presented in the next few minutes- so stay tuned loyal fans!
This accomplishes nothing! Well, practically nothing- it MAY- just may, motivate a few people to get out and vote perhaps, but in the end it amounts to very little-
A far greater effort, if these elitists were serious about bringing about change, could be put into something like the tea party started,- and i don’t mean for organizing rallies to ‘protest such and such’ either- I’m talking about organizing boycotts that will have tangible far reaching effects like they used to- organizing fund raising rallies for conservative politicians, (which the tea party did to great effect), organizing defense funds for conservatives that are attacked by the despicable lying left- making the left pay every-time they try to railroad the right-
But i think the greatest effect would be through boycotts- The left are don it to the right all the time- but the right doesn’t fight back effectively enough any more- We now have the idiotic dual sex bathrooms now because the right allowed the left to win in their agenda by boycotting states that refused- The whimpy states folded up like wet noodles, and now perverts and criminals are allowed to shower with the opposite sex and there is nothing parents can say to prevent it now-
[[The left aided by the liberal media has declared war on conservatives. They have declared war on cops, the Constitution, the rule of law, due process, religion, and free speech.]]
Yup- and The only way to effectively fight back isn’t with opinion, but with the pocket book- hit them where it hurts- Boycotts-
[[To counter this, we need political street fighters, brawlers]]
Yes, we need political brawlers who will get laws enacted to stop the crap the left are doing, but then a democrat controlled presidency and congress will simply undo them, and we’re back to square one- What I think we need is both- laws AND boycotts- When the dems undo the laws again- bring out the boycotts- make it very expensive for democrats to thwart the will of the people! The moral majority have given up fighting- We are allowing the left to steamroll us- We fear their bad opinion of us more than we fear God- and society is taking a nosedive because of it-
Government doesn’t fear financial loss anymore- they now say ‘this is how it is and if you don’t go along, you will be pounded into submission- period’ They have forgotten that it is they who work for us- and we have forgotten that it is us who hold the purse strings
Re: the FBI police etc. which side are the cops on? Look at the Tucker Carleson home riot incident,have they arrested anyone yet?
I have looked at this from inside out, up and down, and I think the very first thing conservatives desperately need if we are ever going to have a hope of winning is a hoard of lawyers willing and able to pro bono fight for the cause of liberty and freedom -— OR, billionaires willing to shell out big bucks to win lawsuits in rapid fashion. Just look at what Judicial Watch has done all by their lonesome.
Flynn lost everything and was so pinched by his legal fees that he was pressured into pleading guilty for lying about something that was probably confidential at least. Do you think for one nanosecord that the election rigging vote liar Snipes in Florida worried at all about her legal fees that she knew she would never have to pay anyway???
I don’t condone lying, but I have had certain knowledge that someone without a need to know has asked about in friendly conversation and I have had to give a “I’m not sure what you’re talking about” reply regardless of their security clearance. Perhaps Flynn felt the same way in his relaxed and friendly conversation with the FBI agents???
Do you think the individual Tea Party groups had the money to hire the lawyers to defend themselves from the IRS with their taxpayer funded lawyers that could make sure the process was as costly as possible by refusing to produce and dragging things out for years? The Tea Party didn’t die, it just went underground because it couldn’t afford the legal fees any longer!!!
They win with their lies because their lawyers can support and defend their lies. These lawyers become judges that codify the lies into precedent. It is very hard to fight or flip precedent.
We are stuck as long as each individual and nonprofit has to support themselves in court while the opposition is paying essentially -0- for months, days, years to win.
Secession is the best option. You form a new country from several states. Then you have all the functionality of a country and you can still work and you can can fight off the Feds with a real army if they come for you.
I tried to arouse people into action. Blogging angrily is so much more convenient.
I sent my resume to Trump’s website. Never heard a word. Jim Acosta has no clue what would happen to him if I took him on.
What we are faced with is a propaganda war, and we are all too close to defenseless in it.I speak, of course, of “the media.” IMHO there is a remedy, which can be implemented but should have been done “yesterday.” The Republican Party has been libeled systematically and viciously by American journalism, and it must sue for damages in the billions of dollars.
Theoretically anyone can sue for damages, but not just anyone has a specific claim of a specific tort which would really matter. It has to be the Republican Party. Of course, the pre-Trump Republican Party would never have tried such a thing. But as a centaur is a man with the body of a horse, and a mermaid is a maiden with the body of a fish, Donald Trump is a seemingly mythological creature. He is a Republican with the chutzpah of a Democrat. He needs to get this ball rolling.
Anyone can file a lawsuit, but the objection is that the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision makes it difficult for any politician, or even a judge, to sue for libel. This is true - and not only so, but that 1964 decision was unanimous, with concurring opinions wanting to make it even stronger. Not only is that the case but - I warrant - a panel of judges picked by Donald Trump today would decide the same case the same way tomorrow.
Why then do I suggest a lawsuit which would be “doomed to fail?” Because the case to be brought would neither allege the same facts nor plead for the same relief as the Sullivan case did. And it would attack “the media” under a different law - antitrust law.
You and I know that “the media” is a cabal which conspires against the public by ganging up on Republican politicians, and letting Democrats off
easycompletely.. But it can be shown that that is precisely what should be expected of journalism as it exists today. Not only can voluminous evidence of this fact - already compiled by existing organizations such as Brent Bozell Media Research Center - be adduced, but it is easy to show that journalists have ample motive and ample opportunity to conspire against the public in precisely that way.As to motive, journalism operates under the rule for commercial success which states, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Journalism is systematically negative, such that society might easily build an entire city with little notice from journalism except for the occasions when buildings burn down. All journalists know, therefore, that journalism is negative. And yet journalists claim that journalism is objective. The claim that “negativity is objectivity,” however, can only be made by a cynic. Why then would journalists claim objectivity? Because they want to be influential (and commercially successful).
The trouble with being objective is that it is difficult to the point of impossibility, on the one hand, and against human nature, on the other. It is against human nature, because anyone who has an opinion thinks that opinion is right - or it wouldn’t be his/her opinion. The only way to try to be objective is to analyze that opinion from the point of view that where you stand is probably affected by where you sit. This is uncomfortable, and that makes it hard work. And that is not what journalists do. Given the opportunity, journalists collude to claim objectivity, and collude to destroy the reputation of anyone who questions their objectivity.
And journalists have the opportunity, in spades. It is the air they breathe. In the founding era, and into the late Nineteenth Century, newspapers were primarily about the opinions of their printers (much as the Rush Limbaugh show is about the opinions of Rush Limbaugh), and nobody would have seriously suggested that they were objective. And that is the sort of journalism the authors of the Constitution and First Amendment were familiar with.
The telegraph was demo’d by Samuel Morse in 1844, and the first wire service began in 1848. This quickly morphed into the Associated Press, and by the 1870s concern began to be expressed over its concentration of propaganda power. The AP’s response to the charge was to assert that it essentially consisted of its - and its member newspapers notoriously did not agree about much of anything. At the time, there was truth to that argument - and the value of the wire service in disseminating information quickly throughout the country while conserving expensive telegraphy bandwidth was unquestioned.
But the AP “wire” constituted a virtual meeting of a critical mass of American journalists. And as Adam Smith warned in Wealth of Nations (1776), “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” Although the Associated Press Stylebook institutionalized some useful standardization (such as the “pyramid” organization of news stories which demands that the most important information appear early in any story), it can also have direct political implications (such as the insistence that illegal aliens not be called “illegal aliens”).
The “meeting” created by “the wire" gradually became the air that journalists breathe. And the motive to cooperate - the motive of going along and getting along ideologically, and being seen as “objective,” transformed American journalism from an assortment of ideologically idiosyncratic purveyors of opinion (and secondarily information) into the ideological monolith with which we are all to painfully acquainted. All major journalism institutions all insinuate cynicism towards society, which conservatism considers to be fundamentally OK and in need of little guidance from government. And concomitantly, they project naiveté towards government (of which conservatism is suspicious).
The Republican Party must therefore sue wire service journalism (especially the AP, emphatically including its member newspapers). All wire services have the same sort of homogenizing effect, and all journalists share the motivation of being considered objective - and share the fear of the wrath of the cartel if they challenge any other journalist’s objectivity. So the fact that there are multiple wire services does not change the dynamic which, arguably, the AP was best positioned to start but need not be the only support of the system in being. Journalism which is in a de facto cartel does not compete, and functions to promote its interests, and those of the Democrat Party.
The upshot is that the journalism cartel pushes for “campaign finance reform” to decrease the ability of outsiders to oppose its agenda, and in other ways promotes the conceit that, far from being ordinary citizens, journalists in good standing with the cartel are “the Fourth Estate,” with rights that you and I do not enjoy.
The New York Times v. Sullivan case presented entirely different facts. The losing plaintiff, a Southern Democrat, was an unsympathetic figure, and the Times didn’t even write the ad of which the plaintiff complained. And the ad did not even attack the plaintiff by name. There was no implication of conspiracy among journalists as a class.
Collusion among journalists to obviate ideological competition among them is provable factually, and it is explicable theoretically. Not just an individual newspaper here or there but the whole of journalism must be sued for libeling the whole of the Republican Party. Because that is what has been going on for half a century and more. The wire services are engines of “conspiracy against the public,” and - in the wake of the development of fiber optics, lasers, and microwaves and satellites - wire service journalism doesn’t save important money in the dissemination of the news. Wire services should be forced to transform, or disband.
New York Times v. Sullivan to the contrary notwithstanding, SCOTUS can do it. But the Republican Party has to bring the case.
What we are faced with is a propaganda war, and we are all too close to defenseless in it.I speak, of course, of “the media.” IMHO there is a remedy, which can be implemented but should have been done “yesterday.” The Republican Party has been libeled systematically and viciously by American journalism, and it must sue for damages in the billions of dollars.
Theoretically anyone can sue for damages, but not just anyone has a specific claim of a specific tort which would really matter. It has to be the Republican Party. Of course, the pre-Trump Republican Party would never have tried such a thing. But as a centaur is a man with the body of a horse, and a mermaid is a maiden with the body of a fish, Donald Trump is a seemingly mythological creature. He is a Republican with the chutzpah of a Democrat. He needs to get this ball rolling.
Anyone can file a lawsuit, but the objection is that the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision makes it difficult for any politician, or even a judge, to sue for libel. This is true - and not only so, but that 1964 decision was unanimous, with concurring opinions wanting to make it even stronger. Not only is that the case but - I warrant - a panel of judges picked by Donald Trump today would decide the same case the same way tomorrow.
Why then do I suggest a lawsuit which would be “doomed to fail?” Because the case to be brought would neither allege the same facts nor plead for the same relief as the Sullivan case did. And it would attack “the media” under a different law - antitrust law.
You and I know that “the media” is a cabal which conspires against the public by ganging up on Republican politicians, and letting Democrats off
easycompletely.. But it can be shown that that is precisely what should be expected of journalism as it exists today. Not only can voluminous evidence of this fact - already compiled by existing organizations such as Brent Bozell Media Research Center - be adduced, but it is easy to show that journalists have ample motive and ample opportunity to conspire against the public in precisely that way.As to motive, journalism operates under the rule for commercial success which states, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Journalism is systematically negative, such that society might easily build an entire city with little notice from journalism except for the occasions when buildings burn down. All journalists know, therefore, that journalism is negative. And yet journalists claim that journalism is objective. The claim that “negativity is objectivity,” however, can only be made by a cynic. Why then would journalists claim objectivity? Because they want to be influential (and commercially successful).
The trouble with being objective is that it is difficult to the point of impossibility, on the one hand, and against human nature, on the other. It is against human nature, because anyone who has an opinion thinks that opinion is right - or it wouldn’t be his/her opinion. The only way to try to be objective is to analyze that opinion from the point of view that where you stand is probably affected by where you sit. This is uncomfortable, and that makes it hard work. And that is not what journalists do. Given the opportunity, journalists collude to claim objectivity, and collude to destroy the reputation of anyone who questions their objectivity.
And journalists have the opportunity, in spades. It is the air they breathe. In the founding era, and into the late Nineteenth Century, newspapers were primarily about the opinions of their printers (much as the Rush Limbaugh show is about the opinions of Rush Limbaugh), and nobody would have seriously suggested that they were objective. And that is the sort of journalism the authors of the Constitution and First Amendment were familiar with.
The telegraph was demo’d by Samuel Morse in 1844, and the first wire service began in 1848. This quickly morphed into the Associated Press, and by the 1870s concern began to be expressed over its concentration of propaganda power. The AP’s response to the charge was to assert that it essentially consisted of its - and its member newspapers notoriously did not agree about much of anything. At the time, there was truth to that argument - and the value of the wire service in disseminating information quickly throughout the country while conserving expensive telegraphy bandwidth was unquestioned.
But the AP “wire” constituted a virtual meeting of a critical mass of American journalists. And as Adam Smith warned in Wealth of Nations (1776), “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” Although the Associated Press Stylebook institutionalized some useful standardization (such as the “pyramid” organization of news stories which demands that the most important information appear early in any story), it can also have direct political implications (such as the insistence that illegal aliens not be called “illegal aliens”).
The “meeting” created by “the wire" gradually became the air that journalists breathe. And the motive to cooperate - the motive of going along and getting along ideologically, and being seen as “objective,” transformed American journalism from an assortment of ideologically idiosyncratic purveyors of opinion (and secondarily information) into the ideological monolith with which we are all to painfully acquainted. All major journalism institutions all insinuate cynicism towards society, which conservatism considers to be fundamentally OK and in need of little guidance from government. And concomitantly, they project naiveté towards government (of which conservatism is suspicious).
The Republican Party must therefore sue wire service journalism (especially the AP, emphatically including its member newspapers). All wire services have the same sort of homogenizing effect, and all journalists share the motivation of being considered objective - and share the fear of the wrath of the cartel if they challenge any other journalist’s objectivity. So the fact that there are multiple wire services does not change the dynamic which, arguably, the AP was best positioned to start but need not be the only support of the system in being. Journalism which is in a de facto cartel does not compete, and functions to promote its interests, and those of the Democrat Party.
The upshot is that the journalism cartel pushes for “campaign finance reform” to decrease the ability of outsiders to oppose its agenda, and in other ways promotes the conceit that, far from being ordinary citizens, journalists in good standing with the cartel are “the Fourth Estate,” with rights that you and I do not enjoy.
The New York Times v. Sullivan case presented entirely different facts. The losing plaintiff, a Southern Democrat, was an unsympathetic figure, and the Times didn’t even write the ad of which the plaintiff complained. And the ad did not even attack the plaintiff by name. There was no implication of conspiracy among journalists as a class.
Collusion among journalists to obviate ideological competition among them is provable factually, and it is explicable theoretically. Not just an individual newspaper here or there but the whole of journalism must be sued for libeling the whole of the Republican Party. Because that is what has been going on for half a century and more. The wire services are engines of “conspiracy against the public,” and - in the wake of the development of fiber optics, lasers, and microwaves and satellites - wire service journalism doesn’t save important money in the dissemination of the news. Wire services should be forced to transform, or disband.
New York Times v. Sullivan to the contrary notwithstanding, SCOTUS can do it. But the Republican Party has to bring the case.
Please Unretire.
Though he is no conservative, the author, Stephen R. Donaldson penned an excellent expression of this: The Oath of Peace.
In essence, it states that one is justified in using whatever level of force is necessary to cope with evil, as evil escalates in potency and violence.
Bttt.
5.56mm
p
One way to create a wave would be to email your Reps and Senators every day on their websites with a list of
QUESTIONS and that we demand ANSWERS.
If the servers started getting millions of emails a day someone would have to take notice...
but it would have to be a concerted plan.
and of course, the libs would start their own counter..
ping to a very essential article......
The question remains: Where the hell do I sign up?
Ping