Is The Mainstream Media Telling You What Is Important and What Isn't?

Liberals have a big problem; they have no foot to stand on when it comes to facts and reason. All they have is emotion. Emotion is what they rely on to further their “cause”. When conservatives bring facts and reason into the picture it poses a big threat to the liberal agenda. This is why they need to shape the narrative. They do this by telling you, the voter, what is important and what isn’t.

Last week Breitbart.com released a video of President Barack Obama in his college days. This video showed the President saying “open up your hearts and minds to the words of Professor Derrick Bell” while introducing then hugging radical “Critical Race Theorist” Derrick Bell. This was a video that was hid by the mainstream media (MSM) during the 2008 presidential campaign, as Professor Charles Ogletree admits in the video released by Breitbart.com.

 After the release of this much anticipated video Breitbart.com’s editor-in-chief Joel Pollak appeared on Soledad O’Brien’s Starting Point on CNN (an interview was as typical as it gets) to explain the video and its importance. From the start of this interview we can hear quips like “over-advertising again” and “is that it, is that the “bombshell”?”-  alluding that the released video is nothing of importance. Soledad O’Brien spends almost the entire interview TRYING to discredit the importance of this video. Not to mention that when she isn’t doing that she’s getting her facts wrong about critical race theory, like the basic definition of it (watch interview).

As an example of liberals not liking what doesn’t fit their narrative, on twitter I pointed out a few of Ms. Obrien’s shortcomings in the interview with Joel Pollak about Professor Bell and critical race theory and I was blocked without hesitation. No response, no questions, I just got blocked. I guess Ms. Obrien didn’t like what I had to say. This is the perfect example to show how liberals think. While conservatives have no problem accepting and encouraging new voices to the debate liberals do. Liberals want to silence all opposing voices. Why you ask, because they have nothing to stand on. They rely on these tactics of silencing their opponents instead of debating the matter at hand. Just look at what Media Matters For America tried to do to Glenn Beck; going after his advertisers to try to get him kicked off the air, to silence his voice.

This is what the liberal MSM does. Any piece of news that might prove troubling to their liberal candidates or their liberal organizations is hidden or squashed and if or when it comes to the surface they downplay it. Look no further than the Monica Lewinsky story Drudge broke while Newsweek sat on it. The MSM is filtering the news they provide to their viewers. They are telling you what is important and what isn’t. Any news that doesn’t fit their narrative is squashed. Then when it comes up, just like this Derrick Bell video came up, they downplay it. “It’s not that important!” “You (the viewer) didn’t need to know about it.” Sound familiar?

The MSM is anything but objective. For a long time now they have been deciding for their viewers what news is important and what news isn’t. That isn’t the media’s job. The media’s job is to provide the news and provide it objectively. The media should be reporting their findings while letting their viewers decide whether it is important or not. This is why New Media like Breitbart.com, The Daily Caller, and Drudge Report have been so popular. People are waking up to the fact that their news was being filtered for them by the MSM.

It is important to understand what the liberal mainstream media does to silence the voices of their opponents and this is why it is important that they are vetted. If the mainstream media is allowed to continue filtering the news they provide their viewers they will continue to control the narrative. They must not be allowed to tell the people what news is important and what news is not. This is why it is important for citizen journalists and true objective journalists to vet the media!

--Trent Anson

TSA

The Unions That Are Destroying Our Country

Republicans are trying to save this country- pulling it out of the depths of recession while liberals are kicking and screaming to continue their job crushing, debt accelerating, anit-American ways that are destroying this country. These liberals are using their public sector unions, and the Democrats those unions have put in office with taxpayer money to milk taxpayers dry… you know, the people that are actually working for their money?

Liberals seem to view government as the “company” providing jobs to those who couldn’t get a job in the private sector due to their skills, attitude or sense of entitlement. Then they get paid more to produce less. Sounds like your typical liberal thought process.

There is no room for public sector workers to unionize. There is a big difference between a private sector union and a public sector union. Even FDR and former AFL-CIO president agreed with this point. FDR said, “…collective bargaining cannot be transplanted into the public sector” while former AFL-CIO president, George Meany, says, “Unions are not appropriate for civil servants.”

Liberals don’t seem to understand that there exists a difference between the two different kinds of unions, public and private. Ever since this latest fiasco in Wisconsin liberals have been trying to knock conservative pundits like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck for siding with Governor Scott Walker on the issue of public sector unions. Liberals say these guys don’t know what they are talking about; they belong to unions themselves. Hey, smart guys- those are private sector unions they belong to. Even Ronald Reagan, the father of the modern conservative movement, belonged to a union…. that’s a private sector union.

There are many reasons there is no room for public sector unions; but all those reasons originate from one fundamental business practice, “negotiations”. Government unions don’t have hostile management on the other side of the bargaining table like private sector unions do. The government “bosses” are part of those same unions themselves and they are on the same side of that same negotiating table. That means the taxpayers don’t even have a seat at the table, making it so the workers get whatever they want because they have no one they are negotiating against. So, management and the workers are bargaining against no one for their better wages and benefits.

Due to liberals and these unions getting their way for so long public sector workers are making ridiculous amounts of money and benefits without having to produce.

In the private sector workers are expected to produce a certain amount to make their share of the company’s profits, their wages. If they produce more there is an opportunity to make more, if they produce less they lose their job. This isn’t the case in the public sector. There is no incentive for the public sector worker to produce more or even what is expected. They will get their wages, with automatic pay increases, no matter what their output. Just look at the teachers of New York getting paid to sit around to do nothing because they are unfit to be in a classroom. Due offenses ranging from insubordination and incompetence all the way to sexual misconduct. The taxpayers are footing the bill at the tune of $65 million a year for these teachers to sit around and play Scrabble.

On top of that, due to the public sector unions “negotiations”, if you want to call them that, even if these civil service workers don’t produce what is expected it is nearly impossible to fire them. Then, when/if cuts are needed and people need to be let go the decision of who to lay-off is made solely by seniority, not merit.
What makes this all even worse is the federal worker makes substantially more than his counterpart in the private sector. In 2009, the average public sector worker made $123,049 in salary and benefits while the average public sector worker made $61,051. Then, when just wages are considered both the hourly and salary employee of the federal government makes 57% more than the private sector worker.

Liberals, like John Berry of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), love to say that this is not comparing apples-to-apples because the federal worker is on average more skilled and/or schooled than the private sector worker. Well, the Heritage Foundation did two studies that accounted for skill, education and even experience (apples-to-apples) and the federal employee still made 22% more in wages than the private sector worker. Twenty-two percent is a lot when the private sector worker probably produces around double what his private sector counterpart produces.

Private sector workers, in 2010, quit their jobs at a rate of 1.6% while public sector workers quit at a rate of 0.2%. All this being said it very apparent why public sector workers don’t quit their jobs. They make amazing wages, have great benefits, can’t be fired and don’t have to produce anything, and they don’t…. why would anybody quit that job?

All of this waste is costing the taxpayers a fortune. If the wages and benefits of federal employees were reformed to market rates it would save the taxpayers around $50 billion a year at the federal level alone. This doesn’t mean that Congress should uniformly reduce the rates. What they should do is expand outsourcing to the public sector and replace the current system with a new performance based pay system. Congress should also bring the federal benefits in line with market rates.

Of course these liberal filled unions don’t like this because they will actually be forced to work for once. They also would get passed up by the guy that is actually working and producing what he was hired to produce. Seniority would no long be they safety net it is today.

Not only have unions been telling Democrats they put in office, with taxpayer money, what to do but those Democrats have been promising the public sector unions more money, more benefits and more job security. If those Democrats, that are elected with the dues the union members pay (whether they want to or not), don’t support the union in every aspect they are told they will be removed from office.

Elected officials have no offsetting concern when negotiating with public unions, at least Democrats don’t. The more taxpayer money these officials get the unions- the more the unions will contribute to their campaigns for reelection.

After years of this same routine, finally the battered taxpayers have some people fighting for them at that negotiating table. Governors like Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels and Scott Walker have been reforming the systems in their states to work the way things are supposed to.

For example, Governor Scott Walker cut through the pleasantries and announced what the state really was, BROKE! Instead of letting the state’s credit card continue to go past its spending limit, he proposed a solution. Part of that solution, which didn’t include raising taxes like the Democrats have done for years, was to curtail the collective-bargaining right of state employees- restoring the voter and taxpayer control over the system. This has been called an assault by many, including the president. The problem is this isn’t an assault and it is the only way for Wisconsin and other states alike to have a responsible, fiscally sound government.

This caused unions to go ballistic, bitching and moaning, launching protests at the state capital of Madison- All just because they were asked to contribute to their pensions and healthcare, still around 30-40% less than the average private sector worker does. The protests were supposed to help the unions gain public support. Of course, during the protests, the unions fail to inform the public, in their chants, that they have continuously confiscated the rights of their members, or how their demands will bankrupt the state.

It really is too bad for the unions because Mitch Daniels did this exact same think in Indiana and it saved the members $1000/yr. It also made it so the members who didn’t what to pay their dues, which automatically go to the Democratic Party, didn’t have to. So for these union members to say that they won’t be able to live on these new wages and without collective bargaining is absurd.

Then the unions say that are “for the people”, they aren’t “for the people”, they are “for the Democrats.” Time and time again these same unions have proved that they are more interested in their political agendas and the union big wigs than their actual rank and file members. There have been so many instances where the unions have decided to allow their members to be laid off instead of taking a cut in either wages and/or contribute more to their benefits.

One can only come to the conclusion that all this is normal when dealing with liberals. It’s like they find the worst way to do something and will stop at nothing to keep doing it that way. It doesn’t matter what the consequences are or who it hurts…. it’s the liberal way, right?

Net Neutrality

 

Once again Barack Obama and his administration are after more power with unchecked executive orders while completely ignoring the wishes of the American people. It is obvious that the liberals in this country didn’t understand the message the American people sent this government back in November. You know… that clear cut message of LESS GOVERNMENT?!?!?!?

This time Obama is after control of the internet with “Net Neutrality”. Back in December of 2010 the head honchos over at the FCC held a vote to implement the new rules of Net Neutrality. They did this completely disregarding the decision DC Appeals Court, eight months earlier, telling them they couldn’t do it because they didn’t have the authority to regulate the internet that way.

But, to no surprise at all, the vote passed anyway, showing the progressives in government today have no respect for separation of power. The vote was split right down party lines, 3-2. The three Democrats that voted for it were Mignon Clyburn, Michael Copps and Chairman Julius Genachowski. The Republicans that voted against it were Robert McDowell and Meredith Baker.

Well what is Net Neutrality?.... Net Neutrality is a set of regulations that would prohibit Internet Service Providers from discriminating against data and content while making it illegal to transfer certain websites data faster than other sites data. On the surface it looks like a really good plan but think about it for a second. What has made the internet so great and so prosperous? That’s right, the fact that government hasn’t been involved in it in any way, shape or form.

The reason the internet has flourished the way it has in the past 10-15 years is because government has been kept out of it.

The liberals love to play the “fair” card. Well, this makes everything fair. The liberal blogger in his underwear, in his parent’s basement, would get the same download speed as FOX News would get under the Net Neutrality regulations. The problem with that is it shouldn’t be fair. FOX News, paying hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in internet service bills should get a priority over the kid in his room watching porn. That’s just the way it is.

This is also what business is, offering a product that people want for money. If someone is willing to pay more for a faster internet connection, the service providers should be able to offer that in their internet packages if they want. If a consumer doesn’t like what a service provider is doing they can always switch providers. If a certain service provider blocks a particular site and the consumer doesn’t like that, just change providers.

What Net Neutrality changes is, if the government decides to block a certain site or certain content you can’t switch governments. There is nowhere else to go because every service provider is providing the same thing. Where this gets really dangerous is, what if Barack Obama decides to block his opponent’s campaign site one month before the election? What will stop him from doing it? By the time it gets settled in court the election is already over. The damage is already done.

The fact is 80% of Americans have a choice between at least two different service providers for their internet needs. What this means is, if one service provider is doing something the people in the area don’t like, the other provider is going to make sure it is doing the opposite. It’s called competition, that’s what business is. This also means that there is a lot of room for growth in the service provider market.

The reason some of the big companies like Netflix are supporting the Net Neutrality regulations is because it makes it harder for newcomers to enter the market. The more regulations there are in an industry the harder it is for a new company to start up. Look at the automotive industry…. Why do you think there have been no new car companies created in the past 20-30 years? It is because there are so many regulations in the industry that it is nearly impossible for a new company to start up.

This applies to the internet industries the same way. These big companies that have already established themselves and already have their foot in the door have nothing to worry about. Then, the more internet regulations that come around the safer they become. The regulations force these businesses to provide a certain product a certain way. So, when the newcomer comes into the market he can’t offer anything new or different because the regulations limit what he can do.

The reason some of these companies are objecting to these new regulations is because Net Neutrality will limit their potential to create new business opportunities and to produce more revenue. There is a lot of money to be made out there on the internet and it is packed full of potential. The problem is when government introduces regulations like this into the market it puts a huge dent in the amount money that can be made and the amount that can be achieved through innovation.

Now, on top of all this, Barack Obama wants an off switch he can use in times of “crisis” to turn off the internet when he sees fit. What possible crisis could arise to where it would be necessary to turn off the internet? The answer is none. It would just be another display of power Obama wants to possess.

Would it be a crisis if he was down 30 points in the polls going into November 2^nd?... An “accidental” slip of the finger turning the internet off here and there till his numbers go up? Just a thought.

The internet was turned off in Egypt when the country broke out into complete chaos and Obama demanded it be turned back on… yet he wants to be able to do it himself in this country? Ya, that makes a whole lot of sense. The simple fact is it’s all about power and nothing else.

Another horrible idea the president has added to his internet regulation is to give all internet users in America an Internet ID. Now why else would they want to do this other than to just spy on people and see what everybody is doing? It is just a nonstop power grab with this president and his administration? That’s all they are after, is power.

There is some good news about Net Neutrality that has developed in the past few weeks though. The Republicans in the House seem to have their heads on straight. They are making sure that the Democrats can’t implement these internet regulations and are stopping the power grab.

First, House Republicans made sure when they passed this last continuing resolution a few weeks ago, to fund the government through mid-march, they told the FCC it was not allowed to use any of the money they were given, for operations, to enact any parts of Net Neutrality. This is just a temporary measure taken until they can defund the whole thing and pass a law to make sure this never happens again.

Second, Congressional Republican leaders are starting to focus on the Net Neutrality argument again. For a while there, it seemed as if people had forgotten all about it, but its back. John Boehner himself even posted a blog giving 11 reasons why a government takeover of the internet is a bad thing.

Net Neutrality is a great example of job crushing, innovation killing regulations implemented by power hungry liberals in Washington DC. These power grabs need to be stopped. If America continues to walk down this path with blinders on this recession will soon become the new norm. The internet is one of the last government-free industries out there. And look at it, there is a new self-made millionaire created every day because of it.

We all know the liberals hate it when they hear someone has done well for themselves and made a lot of money, but who cares. Let them live in their miserable little bubble dreaming of that completely socialist society where everybody is the same. Remember Ayn Rand’s book Anthem? Just don’t let them make it a reality. The internet is an amazing resource with endless potential. As soon as the government gets involved, that is all gonna go right down the drain. The reason the internet is so great today is because the government isn’t involved. Let’s keep it that way!

Pass the word along about why Net Neutrality needs to be stopped. Next time you’re at a dinner party bring it up and tell your friends why these regulations are killing our country. It is time to just stop sitting there thinking everything will work out for the best. These liberals have become dangerous and need to be stopped. We can’t do this from our living rooms. Get out there, get hungry! Make a difference!

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.7