Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Orwellian Doublespeak

The recent G-8 Summit of global leaders was hosted by President Barack Obama. The news media characterized the meeting as a conflict between supporters of “growth” and supporters of “austerity.” The message was duly repeated by all the mainstream media—“growth or austerity” intoned the New York Times, “growth or austerity” chanted The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times in unison, “growth or austerity” mimicked ABC, CBS and NBC.

It was all Orwellian Doublespeak. Since when did following the proven path to prosperity by balancing your budget and only spending what you can afford become austerity? Or when did government spending money you don’t have and running up debt that threatens worldwide financial collapse and depression become growth? Government spending only results in one thing—growing a bigger and more powerful government. George Orwell was prescient. He understood the mindlessness of ideologues that would willingly pretend up was down and down was up and hot was cold to advance their failed economic ideas. Those Soviet five year economic plans worked so well.

The old Pravda had nothing on today’s news media. Spending trillions of dollars on failed stimulus programs becomes a “growth” agenda and balancing your budget, reducing the size of government, and ending wasteful government programs becomes “austerity.” Any fool knows that balancing your budget is just good common sense and that spending money you don’t have on failed programs that starve the free market of the money it needs to grow is just stupidity. This is the same kind of reasoning that prevailed in the fall of 1931 that led to a worldwide depression.

But the mainstream media agenda laced with the arsenic of dishonesty is the topic of this blog. One of the great canards perpetuated today is that Ronald Reagan cut social welfare spending. It is absolutely untrue. In fact, he reduced the rate of growth in welfare spending. Only in Washington, DC can cuts in the rate of growth in spending be characterized as cuts in spending without laughing out loud. So in Orwellian doublespeak, increases become cuts.

This lack of journalistic integrity is a continuing pattern that goes back many decades. Who but an agenda driven media would characterize a socialist like Adolph Hitler (head of the National Socialist Party) as being on the right? Who but a corrupted media would characterize the hardliners (i.e. communists) in Russia as “conservatives.” There is only one purpose in identifying Hitler as a man of the right or hard line communists in Russia as conservatives and that is to confuse Americans and slander American conservatives. Those on the right believe in the principles of the Founders, “that government that governs least, governs best.” Hitler and his fellow socialist, Joseph Stalin, wanted big powerful government. They wanted gun control and they got it. They wanted universal (and awful) health care and they got it. They punished minorities. They killed millions, and both Hitler and Stalin were darlings of liberal journalists like Walter Lippmann and Walter Duranty. In fact, New York Times writer Duranty received a Pulitzer for his fine, objective writing, and it has never been taken back even in the face of indisputable facts that he intentionally lied about the holocaust of Ukrainians brought about by Joseph Stalin.

Consider the stark contrast in the way the mainstream media covered the rallies by the Tea Party and the Occupy trespassers. The media genuflected as Barack Obama praised the Occupy movement and they applauded as Nancy Pelosi said, “God bless them.” The media turned the other way as the Occupy rabble destroyed public property, engaged in vandalism, shouted profanities, uttered anti-Semitic speeches, defecated on automobiles, blocked traffic, and interfered with those who were actually working. The media marveled at the wonder of the Occupy movement that could not explain its purpose, yet hailed murderous dictators and assorted leftists like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Che Guevara. They stole, they raped, they fought, they delighted colonies of rats, and yet the mainstream media could not muster any dissatisfaction with them. When they finally disbanded they left mountains of trash behind. The cleanup continues to cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

Contrast the barbarian behavior of the Occupy folks with the Tea Party rallies and consider the treatment Tea Partiers received from the mainstream media. While the Occupy movement was received with open arms by the Democratic Party, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the President himself, the Tea Party was scrutinized for any possible infraction. They were accused of being racists and being homophobes. Harry Reid called them radicals for believing in the Constitution.

Members of the Black Congressional Caucus apparently believed their own false narrative that conservatives are racists. They walked through the Tea Party demonstration to the Capitol Building (instead of taking the underground subway as they normally do) expecting and hoping for the Tea Party crowd to utter racial epithets. Their entire walk was documented by multiple TV cameras provided by a compliant news media.

Much to their disappointment there were no racial epithets. Legendary civil rights leader Congressman John Lewis initially accused a Tea Party member of spitting on him, but later had to clarify that he was not spit on, just received some spray from a shouting demonstrator who immediately apologized. To show the total corruption of the news media and their false narrative about conservatives, the late Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 to anyone who could prove that any Tea Party demonstrator uttered racial or homophobic epithets. Considering the hundreds of thousands of people who attended Tea Party rallies across the United States it was a bold move, but one he did with confidence. The fact is that the oft repeated smear that conservatives are racists and homophobic is just a flat out lie. Breitbart had no takers and kept his money yet the media continues their smear of the Tea Party Movement.

Then there’s the issue of compassion. According to the news media narrative, liberals are compassionate and conservatives are not. No sense in doing any research, everyone knows that liberals have a bleeding heart and that conservatives are stingy. But, unfortunately someone has done the research. Professor Arthur C. Brooks. published his results in a book titled, Who Really Cares and Why? Guess what, the idea that liberals are the compassionate members of society and conservatives are the Scrooges of society is another myth, another lie. What Professor Brooks learned shocked him. He found out that 65% of all charitable giving in the US comes from conservatives. A miserly 35% comes from liberals. So, based on the facts, who are the compassionate members of our society, liberals or conservatives? As it turns out, liberals are only compassionate with other people’s money. They are anxious for the federal government to give away the money of other people to those in need, but they won’t open up their own wallet and donate money to help those in need. It’s like two neighbors bemoaning the plight of a neighbor who is in desperate need of money. Instead of giving that person money from their own pocket they accost yet another neighbor who they believe has too much money and insist that he give money to the neighbor in need. That sums up liberal compassion. Yet, the news media continues to promote the myth that liberals are compassionate and conservatives are miserly.

Finally, there’s the issue of judicial activism. Judicial activism refers to judges ignoring the laws and the United States Constitution. In doing so they become legislators setting forth new laws rather than doing their job of making sure bills passed are within the law and the Constitution. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is a poster child for such judicial activism. The judges on the Ninth Circuit Court repeatedly ignore the Constitution and rule on the basis of their own political views. They trample on individual rights, ignore the spirit and the intent of the Constitution and generally issue decrees that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution or the intent of laws passed by Congress. It is no wonder that rulings of the Ninth Circuit are turned over by the Supreme Court more than any other circuit court.

Now, with the aid and support of the national news media, the left has turned the meaning of judicial activism on its head. Just this week Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, launched an attack on Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Roberts. He warned him not to overturn Obamacare, saying that if he does so he will be guilty of judicial activism. Like President Obama, Senator Leahy has no respect for the Constitution, the division of powers or the integrity to faithfully pay attention to history. For Obama, Leahy and the Democrats in general, everything is politics. The fact is that the Court has repeatedly ruled that laws are unconstitutional. In fact, one might say that is the primary task of the Court, to determine if a law passes muster as being in concert with the U.S. Constitution according to its original intent. In the past, under more liberal Courts it has been common for the Court to flaunt the intent of those who drafted the Constitution and approve legislation well beyond the enumerated powers of the Federal Government. As liberals like to say, “the Constitution is a living document,” meaning they can interpret it to mean whatever they want it to mean. I sure wouldn’t want to play baseball with someone who thinks the rules are “living rules” that mean whatever they want them to mean.

Senator Leahy has been in the forefront of encouraging past courts to engage in true legal activism, finding new and imagined rights in the Constitution, ignoring the limitations of the federal government to abide by enumerated powers only, yet he has the chutzpa to say in regard to Judge Roberts, “I trust that he will be a Chief Justice for all of us and that he has a strong institutional sense of the proper role of the Judicial Branch.” According to Leahy the “proper role of the Judicial Branch” is to ignore the Constitution and abide by whatever liberals desire. And then, with a straight face the good Senator said, “The conservative activism of the recent years has not been good for the Court.” In other words, abiding by the letter and the intent of the writers of the Constitution is bad, while ignoring the original intent of the drafters of the Constitution is good. What despicable behavior by a U.S. Senator, especially one who is head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. His words make a mockery of the concept of a government of laws. And who is standing on the sidelines cheering? The mainstream media, of course.

There is no independent news media, save FOX News Channel and a few independent minded newspapers, TV and radio stations. Without any shame whatsoever, the news media serves as the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party and especially for President Barack Obama.

To recap, in the Orwellian doublespeak of the news media, living within your means is “austerity,” deficit spending by the government is “growth,” reducing the increase in government spending is “cuts,” hardline communists are conservatives, Socialists like Hitler are right-wingers, the Occupiers are worthy of praise and blessing, the Tea Partiers are racists and homophobes, compassion is spending someone else’s money, stinginess is donating your own money, ignoring the Constitution is “a strong institutional sense of the judicial branch,” and adhering to the original intent of the Constitution is “judicial activism.”

And when pigs fly…

No comments:

Post a Comment