The Media Reloads

The following column appeared in the Trojan Tribune in October.

   When Republicans shout for war, they seek the authorization of Congress, the body given the power of war declaration by our supreme law, the Constitution. When Democrats shout for war, they either lie about circumstances to forge it (are you hearing this, LBJ?) or don’t know why we should go, but agree to pay for it and hand France the reins (ahem, present situation in Libya acknowledged).

   It’s a curious thing, though, when the media declares war on conservatives. No formal declaration is issued from the commanders-in-chief of MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or CNN, but the opening salvos from the guns of libel and slander ring loud and clear each time we turn on the television.

   The assault has been ongoing for decades. In an October, 1987 issue of Newsweek, a picture of Vice President and soon to be President George H. W. Bush was captioned with the words, “Fighting the ‘Wimp Factor.’” A more treacherous headline could not have been conceived. Bush the “wimp” had not only served with distinction as vice president, CIA Director and envoy to China, but after becoming the youngest aviator in the United States Navy at the age of 19, he had completed 58 flight missions in the Pacific during World War II, earning him the Distinguished Flying Cross and three Air Medals.

   Let’s not mince words: Newsweek is an example of a leftist publication with a staff whose mission is to destroy conservatives. It was members of that very staff, Evan Thomas and Eve Conant, who penned a story called “Hate on the Right,” a shameful skewering of the Tea Party movement. The article, published on April 19, 2010, includes a timeline of disconnected acts of violence that are purportedly the doing of right-wing extremists. This list includes the Kennedy assassinations, the shooting of Martin Luther King, Jr., and attacks committed by The Weathermen, a leftist anti-war group.

   And get this--one caption reads, “Trouble in the air: Huey Long castigated the rich and Father Coughlin denounced Jews in the 1930s. Today, the microphones belong to Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.”

   You see, liberals don’t bat an eye when they compare a conservative talk show host and a Republican governor and vice presidential candidate to racist fear-mongers who believe in class warfare. In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to find two people who have greater respect for Israel and earning your keep than Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.

   But this caption delivers a new level of irony. Not only is it blatantly wrong in its assertion, but it ignores the fact that the opposite is true. It is President Obama, not conservatives, who is calling for the wealthy to “pay their fair share” in no less than $1.5 trillion in new taxes. Oh, and wasn’t it the president who stated in a speech, “If asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a Jew--as a janitor--makes me a warrior for the working class, I wear that as a badge of honor”? And Newsweek has the audacity to imply that Beck and Palin have it out for the Jewish people?

   But that’s the difference between liberal and conservative writers. I know that President Obama made a slip of the tongue, not a jab at Jewish Americans. It’s beneath us to put substance behind that kind of remark and put it on the front page. But it’s not beneath a liberal.

   Whether it’s CBS publishing a story that wonders if Michele Bachmann’s headaches would interfere with her ability to be president, or every media outlet in the nation giddily and falsely reporting that Sarah Palin doesn’t know her history on Paul Revere’s ride, the media will sink to any low to paint conservatives as incompetent.

   But there are two things that render the media’s war on conservatism totally ineffective. Firstly, people don’t read liberal publications or watch liberal television. That’s why Newsweek has lost money since 2007 and more people watch the Fox News Channel than CNN, MSNBC and CNBC combined.

   Secondly, we don’t need front page magazine stories to push our agenda. Our ads can be seen everywhere, and we don’t pay for them. They’re gas price signs. They’re notices on people’s doors that read “foreclosed.” They’re unemployment lines. Every time the stock market goes down, our national debt increases and a small business closes its doors, it’s an ad against President Obama.

   The media will never offer a truce in its war on conservatism.

   And we’re not asking for one.

What's not to love?

   There’s nothing wrong with being unabashedly pro-American. As the most exceptional and honorable nation on earth, our culture is unique in ways that other countries cannot grasp or imitate.

   In fact, I would be very disappointed to meet someone who is not pro-American. Where else in the world can you own a concealed handgun, say a prayer in a public school without it being on a Persian rug facing Mecca, or own an SUV and collect a welfare check at the same time?

   In addition to our proud history and constitutional freedoms, we are a country of firsts. First electric washing machine. First role of barbed wire. First atomic weapon. First polio vaccine.

   One would think you could never run out of good things to say about America. Ever since the 1960s, however, and thanks to a rancorous group of, shall we say, “high” ideal university students that would “weed” our culture of values and make sure morality was “drug” from the school setting, it has become popular, if not promoted, to hate America.

   Jane Kim of California, (now there’s a state with “high” ideals) for example, says she doesn’t “think our flag represents a nation where there's liberty and justice for all.” Kim is Supervisor of San Francisco’s sixth district and as such serves on the city’s board of supervisors at City Hall. She refuses to recite the pledge of allegiance before city meetings.

   Naturally, Kim is within her constitutional rights. But do any misgivings about our government give cause for lack of patriotism? Should the disapproval of our politicians lead to the disapproval of the basic principles on which our country was founded? And where is the lack of justice or liberty?

   Maybe she would prefer living in China. I hear there’s lots of justice there. And liberty, well that’s about as prevalent as their child labor laws. 

   Or maybe Saudi Arabia would be her destination. She’d be freed from the burden of driving, deciding who to vote for, and shielding her face from sunlight (I’m not sure much gets through the Burka). 

   And then there’s Iran. The most she would have to worry about there is getting stoned to death for being in the same room with a man who’s not her husband. I mean, you only need four male witnesses to testify in court that you were raped and not committing adultery. I’m not sure what American statues says on that subject, but I want to say it’s something like five or six.
   Anyway, Ms. Kim isn’t alone. WikiLeaks, the online organization run by alleged rapist Julian Assange, has been nominated for the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize for “disclosing information about corruption, human rights abuses and war crimes.” Not to mention all the work they did to kill Afghan civilians, undercover agents overseas, and American soldiers. 

   Do you know what we did to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg after they gave secrets about the atomic bomb to the Russian government? We graciously gave them a final meal before frying them in the electric chair. How mad Julius and Ethel would be to know that in today’s world they would be in contention for the world’s highest honor. (But I guess that isn’t saying much--after all, you only have to be president for less than 10 months to win it.)

   To be fair though, WikiLeaks isn’t the only thing responsible for the deterioration of American prosperity. Since the beginning of the Egyptian revolution, socialist and communist radicals have capitalized on the political upheaval at home. Protests have been held from New York, to New Jersey, to Washington, D.C. calling for a revolution--not in Egypt, but here in the United States.

   A screwball at a Code Pink protest was caught on tape screaming, “Revolution now!...This is what we need more of in America, this kind of street heat...what’s happening now in Egypt, same thing needs to happen here!” 

   The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) also hosted protests. One spokeswoman for PSL declared, “Only by building the party can this capitalist state be overturned by a revolutionary party...”.

  Like Jane Kim, these protesters are are completely within their constitutional rights. I wouldn’t want to change that. It’s ironic though that these people use the system that allows them to protest, and then abuse it by calling for its destruction.

  It’s a good thing, then, that I am within my constitutional rights when I say, “If you’re going to burn the American flag, then wrap yourself in it first.”  

Hypocritical thinking

The following column appeared in the Trojan Tribune last month.

American politics has been described as a contact sport. Aspiring statesmen worry about the effects entering public service will have on their families, because everyone knows that once you jump in, the consequences are immediate. If it’s too rough for you, then get off the field, they’ll tell you.
Candidates accept the fact that when they run for national office, every minuscule aspect of their lives will be investigated and published on the front page of the largest newspapers in the country. I guess politicians will have to accept that. But when it comes to the type of violence Arizona witnessed on Saturday, the reality that “politics is a contact sport” no longer suffices as an excuse.
On January 8, Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat, and 19 other innocent bystanders, were shot in Tucson by deranged gunman Jared Lee Loughner. Giffords survived the shooting, but the injury to her head put her in critical condition.
The tragic incident set off a firestorm of controversy among pundits over the motives of Loughner, and has started a heated discussion about the political climate of the country.
So far, two dangerous conclusions have been made by liberals since the shooting: the first is that the second amendment is to blame, and the second is that this horrifying outburst of hatred is endorsed by Tea Party Republicans. Saturday brought accusations that the Republican party is an evil institution that uses assassination and violence to reach its goals.
But when I looked over a story on Giffords on the New York Times website, the comments below it were not filled with hopes for goodwill in politics, nor were condolences given to Giffords’s family. The messages were shocking:
“For political gain, the Republican Party has encouraged this rhetoric. They deserved to be shunned.”
“We Democrats have been saying that for over a year that, if bulls-eyes, threats, gunslinging, and other calls to arms by (Sarah) Palin, (Michele) Bachman, (Rush) Limbaugh, (Glenn) Beck and others did not cease, somebody was going to get hurt.”
On assassinating Sarah Palin: “An attempt on Lincoln right at the end of a bloody war didn’t bring the republic down. I think it will be OK.”
“Is that Nazi (Dick) Cheney dead yet?”
“And lastly: why shouldn’t we be honest and admit that this is caused by right-wing extremism, an extremism mined for all it’s worth by Republicans for 30-odd years? How often in history have people been killed by Democrats? How often are Democrats killed? Why is it so hard for us to just admit this?”
If there is one vice that kills an argument, it’s hypocrisy. These comments by left-wing rabble-rousers are filled with not only factual inaccuracies, but brim with the very hatred that consumed Jared Lee Loughner.
We watched with devastation as an honest and talented congresswoman was shot in the head, and what do these people have to say? What is their solution? To ban Republicans from engaging in politics, as if this event was orchestrated by the GOP? To assassinate Sarah Palin in return? To call a former Vice President a Nazi? To label Republicans murderers, thugs and gun-toting hate-mongers? If Giffords could watch the news or read the comments under that New York Times story, she would be heart-broken.
It’s a dangerous thing when people try to turn a time of mourning into an opportunity for political gain and disgraceful retribution. We can’t allow our public officials to be the targets of such violence, and we mustn’t blame each other for the actions of one insane fanatic who begged the world to care that he existed.
When I turned on the TV on Sunday morning and heard about the catastrophe in Tucson, I was reminded of day in English class three years ago. We had been assigned to write and present a demonstration speech about anything our middle school minds could think of. Two students walked to the front of the room, cardboard pistols in their hands, and demonstrated how, if given the chance, they would assassinate President George W. Bush. I watched in horror. No one said a word of disapproval.
Hate exists in every political faction. Democrats and Republicans have their share of zealots, and we let these extremists win by refusing to look hatred in the eye and correct their incendiary statements.
For the sake of Gabrielle Giffords, let us argue with facts, and not ignorant fury.