Posts Tagged ‘Progressive’

No, Mr. President, we ain’t buying it

September 30, 2010

The official word on the Democratic agenda, if you listen to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is a vague promise to keep moving the country forward. While defending an unpopular agenda, the idea of laying out a clear agenda for the 112th Congress is not yet taking hold. “We’re so busy defending our record — and it is quite a record. If you look at what we accomplished, you may not like it, we have accomplished quite a bit in a very short period time.”

Very telling. Yes, it’s quite a record of passing legislation that the clear majority strongly opposed. And no, we do not like it at all. We see it as arrogant elitists telling us “shut up, we know better than you”. This is not what Americans elect their representatives to do. You arrogant elitists have ignored the majority of your constituents, and we are rightfully outraged. Just what did you expect?

Obama had the absolute hubris to say “You’d think they would be thanking me”!  Thanking you? Thanking you for trampling the Constitution? Thanking you for ignoring the will of the people? Thanking you for putting our grandchildren in debt so you could reward your supporters? Thanking you for growing the government into a Soviet style overseer of our everyday functions? Thanking you for forcing your socialist policies and agenda on us, when we have been screaming “NO!” at the top of our lungs?

No, Mr. President, we have no thanks for you. We reject your “progressive” (socialist) policies and agenda. In fact, we want your so-called “accomplishments” repealed. We don’t want your “vision” of a Democratic Socialist state. We now see that your ambition is to become America’s Hugo Chavez, and we will absolutely not stand for it. We don’t need “adult supervision”, we are adults, thank you very much. We can make our own decisions without government guidance. Do you really believe that you are so superior to the American people that we cannot function without your wisdom? We CAN do without you, and there is little doubt now that we would do better without you and your arrogance.

We reject you and your arrogant elitism, Mr. President. Most of us think we would be better off if you would go back to your “community organizing” with corrupt organizations like ACORN. We have seen your dog and pony show, and we are not impressed. We don’t want you, and we certainly don’t need you. Go back to Chicago, where your brand of corruption and thuggery is the norm. We don’t want you anymore, or your “progressive (socialist) vision.

Common Spin, or Pure Propaganda? – 01

May 14, 2010

Fire is hot, ice is cold, water is wet, and all politicians spin. In this age of 24/7 cable news outlets, the internet and the blogosphere, it’s not nearly as easy to do as it was when there were only the Big 3 Networks. Back then, you could have a spokesman read a prepared statement a couple of times a week, and be done with it. Now, there is an issue or two a day to deal with. And depending on your political philosophy, you either have the majority of TV networks and print media defending you and one cable news network and the majority of talk radio slamming you, or vice-versa.

Politicians have always had complaints about treatment in the media, even when the media consisted entirely of a weekly newspaper, and that available only in larger cities. And they complained bitterly. Often, their refutations and rebuttals were published, as well. That was how the free press operated. If you owned a newspaper, you were free to publish such rebuttals, or not, but your credibility was at stake. I would call this “free-market journalism”. The success or failure of your paper depended upon the confidence of your readers in your relative “fairness”.

Between World War II, and the turn of the century, there have been a few attempts by administrations to stifle criticism by the press. None were taken kindly by the American people. In fact, the backlash was usually worse than the bad press that inspired it. Since the advent of satellite communications, cable news networks, and the internet, now folks have so much choice in their sources of information, they don’t seem so concerned with sources taking sides. One can get their information from multiple sources  of varying points of view. Most people don’t see that as a bad thing. A bit confusing, perhaps, but in a free society, choice is generally a good thing.

It is also nothing new in politics, particularly in campaigns, to try to “control the message”. But at what point does common “spin” and “controlling the message” become propaganda?

The first definition of “propaganda” I present is from The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48;

Propaganda Prop`a*gan”da, n. [Abbrev. fr. L. de propaganda
fide: cf. F. propagande. See Propagate.]
[1913 Webster]
1. (R. C. Ch.)
(a) A congregation of cardinals, established in 1622,
charged with the management of missions.
(b) The college of the Propaganda, instituted by Urban
VIII. (1623-1644) to educate priests for missions in
all parts of the world.
[1913 Webster]

2. Hence, any organization or plan for spreading a particular
doctrine or a system of principles.
[1913 Webster]

In the context of the consistency of message among missionaries, that sounds fairly reasonable. Note, however, that this definition is from 1913. Here is a more updated version from the Brittanica Concise Encyclopedia;

Manipulation of information to influence public opinion. The term comes from Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith), a missionary organization established by the pope in 1622. Propagandists emphasize the elements of information that support their position and deemphasize or exclude those that do not. Misleading statements and even lies may be used to create the desired effect in the public audience. Lobbying, advertising, and missionary activity are all forms of propaganda, but the term is most commonly used in the political arena. Prior to the 20th century, pictures and the written media were the principal instruments of propaganda; radio, television, motion pictures, and the Internet later joined their ranks. Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes use propaganda to win and keep the support of the populace. In wartime, propaganda directed by a country at its own civilian population and military forces can boost morale; propaganda aimed at the enemy is an element of psychological warfare.” (Emphasis mine)

Let’s examine what’s going on currently in the political struggle to “control the message”, beginning with the Presidential campaign of 2008.

In a nutshell, the Republican campaign struggled to try to keep up with the Democrats media campaign. With the support of the majority of Hollywood, where fantasies come to life, the Democrats put on a masterful display of a Grand Illusion. The Republicans, lacking an exciting candidate, as well as the theatrical mastery of Hollywood, were at a huge disadvantage. Obama became a messianic figure, with vague promises of “hope and change”, but without much detail. Their timing and organization, thanks to ACORN and SEIU, managed to register hundreds of thousands of new voters (some actually real, live people), and mobilize the guilt-ridden Liberals and African-American voters who desperately wanted to see the first Black President in their lifetime. It didn’t hurt that the overwhelming majority of the media was swooning over the first ever African-American candidate for President. Obama’s campaign took advantage of the situation brilliantly, as any campaign would have hoped to have done.

The Obama campaign also used the new communications technology to spread their message, solicit contributions, and to mobilize his base of voters very effectively, where the McCain camp was not able to. All fair play, so far.

What has happened in the information world since January 21, 2009 is where things start to get dicey.

As the Obama administration came into office with a healthy majority in both houses of Congress, Mr. Obama apparently assumed that he had a mandate from the people for his agenda. Not willing to accept the fact that the 47% of voters voted against him,  he proceeded to try to take advantage of that perceived mandate to push a radical progressive agenda.

What he didn’t count on, was the pushback he would receive from that other 47%. That is totally unacceptable for a messiah with a mandate. Worse yet, he didn’t have a total lock on the news outlets, with that one pesky TV news channel and most of talk radio questioning his appointees, his policies, and his motives. I can just imagine him thinking “I had ’em eating out of my hand, and now these spoilers are exposing things I don’t want exposed, and asking questions I don’t want to have to answer. I had the wool pulled completely over their eyes, and it was clear sailing ahead, but these a*****es are wrecking the illusion we have so carefully built”.

Yep, those damned dissenters. So what do we do about that? We certainly can’t have the opposition going around dispelling our BS figures we feed them in order to keep them from insurrection if they knew the truth. That would also wreck the illusion that I am indeed the messiah, the savior they have been waiting for. We haven’t yet put into place the mechanisms for putting dissenters in FEMA camps. The logical solution is to take “controlling the message” to the next level. Enter Cass Sunstein.

Another radical from Chicago, Sunstein was tapped to be the president’s “Information and Regulatory” chief. Radical from Chicago, you say? I’m sooooo glad you asked.

I see that I am nearing 1200 words, so to keep from losing your interest, I’ll have to continue with a part 2. Sorry, I didn’t intend this, but I’ve learned that I must carefully explain my points, or I’ll be responding to minutia for days, if I don’t. I guess it goes with the territory.

The story of Cass Sunstein, Propaganda Minister of the Obama Regime, coming soon…

Progressives and History – 01

April 30, 2010

Is it just me, or do the Progressives not just cherry-pick history, but bend and twist it to suit their needs?

The current uproar over Arizona’s new law, making illegal immigrants illegal (huh?) is a perfect example.

Because of the Federal Government’s abdication of it’s primary duty to defend the sovereign borders of the United States, the citizens of Arizona demanded some protection from their state. Facing an onslaught of crime, including home invasions, car-jackings, kidnappings, and a real danger to travelers on public roads from transporters of illegals, I can’t say as I blame them one bit.

The Obama administration is aghast that a state might assert it’s right to defend it’s citizens without the blessing of the Feds. How dare they uphold laws already on the books that we refuse to enforce? It’s nothing short of impudence to defy the “Anointed One”. I want as many illegals in the country as possible, so when I grant them all amnesty, they will all be beholden to vote for me in 2012. Sounds like a plan to me.

The problem is a simple fact of history. The fact is, that freshman Senator Obama was the deciding vote in passing a “poison-pill” amendment, dooming the 2007 “comprehensive” immigration bill to fail passage. You don’t have to take my word for it, check out the documented facts:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/04/29/obama-helped-kill-immigration-reform-2007-will-media-remember

Now, the Obama administration needs the votes of the Illegal Immigrants already here, so he is all for giving them amnesty, as well as housing, food stamps and free medical care, on your dime. As the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live used to say, “How convenient”. This is also what is behind the sudden push for statehood for Puerto Rico, but that is another story.

The Progressives will use history as it suits their purposes. No excuses, and no apologies. If it fits their needs, they’ll use it. If it doesn’t, it’s irrelevant. Unfortunately, the Progressives don’t seem to observe any rules other than, “If it serves our purpose, use it, but if our opposition uses the same tactic, cry foul loudly”.

We are accustomed to engagement confined by rules which confine each opponent to the same constraints. Unable to maintain a competitive stance by those accepted standards, the Progressives seek to “win by any means” including deception, smearing their opponents unfairly, and attempting to “change history”. Outright lies are not out of bounds, either.

In the face of this opponent, willing to go to any lengths to advance their oppressive agenda upon us all, I suggest that while we retain the honorability that defines our cause for generations, that we become familiar enough with their tactics that we can not only defend against them, but are able to “flank” them and entrap them in their own tactics.

We must prevail in this defense of our liberty, lest we become slaves of a failed and flawed perversion of our great nation.