Controlling the Agenda
Vol: 104 Issue: 21 Friday, May 21, 2010
I am trying to think of a single policy decision made at the federal level over the past fourteen months that benefitted America, rather than hurting her.
I’m drawing a blank. How about you? It would seem that whenever there is a choice of two ways to go, the administration always takes the path that does the country the most damage.
We now embrace our enemies and repel our allies. I don’t have to rehash the number of times Obama has already either apologized or bowed to our enemies or how many times he has sabotaged relations with our friends.
It seems like each day provides a fresh example.
The Left gave Mexican President Felipe Calderon a standing ovation when he both criticized openly mischaracterized (lied about) Arizona’s immigration law.
Every federal official that stood to applaud Calderon offered a direct slap in the face to every Arizona law enforcement officer, not to mention every Arizona voter.
Arizona’s law mirrors federal law and forbids racial profiling.
The assumption that law enforcement officers can’t be trusted to obey the laws they are charged with enforcing betrays each federal official that applauded that assumption. They don’t obey their own laws unless it suits them, so they assume that the police don’t either.
I don’t think that is a partisan assessment — since it is shared by a significant plurality of Democrats. According to Real Clear Politics, the president’s job approval rating is split almost down the middle, with 48% approving and 46% disapproving.
When you look at RCP’s stats, be sure and notice how the polls break down. CBS has Obama’s approval at 51% and disapproval at 39%. ABC NewsWashington Post’s last poll has Obama at 54% approve, 44% disapprove. NBC shows it 50% to 44%.
FoxNews’ polling data shows 45% for and 46% against.
Neither CBS nor ABC bothered to poll presidential approval ratings for May. They’ve invested all of their journalistic integrity and credibility in Barack Obama being the nation’s last, best hope.
It will take a lot for them to admit not only that they have been had, but that they are primarily responsible for his election. Obama has seemingly made so many rookie mistakes that it gives pause to wonder if he has a clue about what he is doing, so the mainstream media is extending him the benefit of the doubt.
I am beginning to believe that is a disguise — Obama knows exactly what he is doing. It is the mainstream media that is clueless.
The liberal media still refuses to look too closely at the Obama administration — it simply can’t afford to. But it ignores Obama at its own peril — what they don’t realize is that they are standing in front of Obama’s bulls-eye.
They are assisting in their own involuntary suicide, but they are too heavily invested in The Legend to acknowledge the reality. But every time Obama goes off-script, he lets a bit more of his real agenda slip out.
Like at Hampton University where he complained that the American people were being exposed to “all kinds of arguments” that according to Obama, “don’t rank that high on the truth meter.”
Obama’s ‘Diversity Czar’ is a fellow named Mark Lloyd. First off, let’s examine what a “Diversity Czar” actually is. Lloyd is in charge of enforcing ‘diversity’. I looked up ‘diversity’ in my thesaurus and discovered diversity’s antonym.
The thesaurus says the opposite of ‘diversity’ is ‘unity’ as in the United States of America. The Diverse States of America would be Canada, the US, Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, etc.
America needs a Diversity Czar like Moscow needs more Communists. If anything, America needs something to unify it. Which is why Obama is taking us the other way.
Lloyd’s vision of ‘diversity’ includes reviving the woefully misnamed ‘Fairness Doctrine’ that would require equal time for opposing points of view on virtually every subject.
That sounds fine on paper. But what it means is two things. The first is that Christian networks will have to present opposing (anti-Christian) points of view. Secular networks will have to either drop Christian programming or find and broadcast opposing programming, whether they want to or not.
The administration denies it, but it is impossible to imagine that Mark Lloyd would issue an exemption to Christianity, which leads to the second point.
From the media producer’s point of view, it is easier to drop opinion and religious programming than it is to meet Fairness Doctrine standards. That’s why Obama wants the Fairness Doctrine reinstated. His guy gets to pick what’s ‘fair’.
Elena Kagan, Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, is on record complaining about an “overabundance of ideas” — allow that concept to sink in for a second. Moreover, Kagan believes it is up to the government to ‘unskew’ certain ideas.
The administration’s ‘Net Neutrality’ plan sounds as innocuous as the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ does, but in reality, it is an effort to control content on the internet.
There are a lot of things are broken and need fixing; illegal immigration, the economy, Afghanistan, Iran, foreign relations with Israel and the UK, the list is long and the threats they pose are manifest.
The internet, however, works exactly as advertised. It is truly neutral in that every point of view is represented. The internet needs a Net Neutrality Act like a butterfly needs a Harley. Any effort to regulate internet neutrality will necessarily accomplish the opposite.
The administration has also declared total war on Fox News, singling out both the network and individual commentators from the presidential podium, an unheard-of practice for a country founded on the principle of freedom of speech as the only way to keep the government honest.
President Obama’s open contempt for the Tea Party movement is more than a little baffling. The Tea Party consists primarily of independent and conservative swing voters — and they are the ones that decide elections.
Partisan Republican voters vote the straight-Republican ticket. Partisan Democrats vote the straight Democrat ticket. To these voters, it doesn’t matter who the candidate is. All that matters is that he belongs to the right party.
So the Democrats needn’t worry about their own voters and they know they aren’t going to get any from the other side. And neither party commands a majority of the voters. The electorate breaks down to about a third for each party and a third conservative-leaning independents.
So for either party’s candidate to win in national elections they need the swing vote. Obama’s contemptuous dismissal the 20% of independents that identify with the Tea Party should be political suicide in November.
In a normal world and a normal electoral year, Obama should have put the rest of his controversial agenda on hold while he went to work on charming the Tea Party.
Instead, he mocks the very voters he needs to prevent losing the Congress and spending the last two years of his presidency as a lame duck.
It’s like he knows something that the rest of us don’t.
The very first step on the road toward totalitarian government is controlling the agenda by controlling the media. Obama has managed to maintain total control over the mainstream media, excepting talk radio and some programs on Fox.
I find the O’Reilly and Glenn Beck segment on “The O’Reilly Factor” is growing increasingly bizarre in that O’Reilly simply dismisses Beck’s horrifying conclusions out of hand, without offering a shred of contradictory evidence.
Beck says that Obama is deliberately leading the country down the road to ruin as part of a globalist agenda to control the world. And Beck fills an hour each day providing evidence to support that view. O’Reilly laughs at him.
If Beck is nuts — and O’Reilly clearly thinks that he is — then why not question Beck’s evidence? Or provide evidence that counters Beck’s charges?
And if Beck isn’t nuts, then why isn’t O’Reilly taking up the cause? After all, if Beck is right, the cause is America’s continued existence.
O’Reilly can’t afford to — even if he agrees with him. Even if O’Reilly believed it was all true, O’Reilly wouldn’t dare admit it. The administration and the media have made Glenn Beck so radioactive even O’Reilly has to maintain some distance.
I picked on the O’Reilly/Beck segment because it demonstrates the level of media control the administration already enjoys. The first step in controlling the agenda, remember, is to stifle the opposition.
If Beck is right, nothing less than the survival of the United States as we know it is at stake — yet O’Reilly dare not exhibit anything more than bemusement at his demented friend.
Beck can get away with it because Beck is already marginalized as a screwball. O’Reilly can’t afford to take the risk. Even if his country is at stake.
A totalitarian scheme can’t work without the willful ignorance of the public. The public must be conditioned to accept the unacceptable without admitting that they accept it. That is how political correctness works.
“Undocumented worker” is PC for “illegal alien.” Undocumented worker describes a guy who goes to work and forgets his wallet. Illegal alien describes a foreign-born national illegally in the United States.
One must be willfully ignorant to believe they mean the same thing.
It is not ‘racist’ to enforce immigration laws. What race are Canadians? They are subject to the same US immigration laws. It takes willful ignorance, bordering on the delusional, to believe that US immigration laws are racist with a mixed-race immigrant sitting in the Oval Office.
Indeed, I believe it is as politically incorrect to observe that Obama is of mixed-race as it is to mention his middle name or question his undocumented background, is it not?
“And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:” (2nd Thessalonians 2:11)