Wednesday, October 22, 2008

What media bias?

I must get around to reading Rules for Radicals one day. I might really learn something. The manifesto of how-to-grab-power by the militant, amoral socialist Saul Alinsky has long been the activist handbook for many Democrat-funded groups in the USA. It was the creed of the vote fraud enterprise ACORN, from which Obama bravely (read: falsely) distanced himself in the final presidential nominee debate.

In brief, Alinsky's mantra was one of rise-against-the-establishment, and get what you want using whatever means possible (including physical violence and intimidation). Agitate others to get alonside you. No, you are NOT happy with your lot! You are oppressed! And disadvantaged! And you are angry! And it's the government's fault, and big business's fault!

To give you further insight, Alinsky positively acknowledged "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom". To whom was this professed atheist referring? That's right- Satan.

Well, that was in the first edition of Rules For Radicals. The Democrats eventually realised that praising Satan might lose them one or two Christian votes, so they had it removed. Who says Democrats know nothing about the Bible?

But I really want to know if fear-mongering and stigmatizing your opponent's supporters is one of Alinsky's radical rules.

The claim amongst Democrat boffins recently of "Republican Rage" (how adept they are at giving their alleged hate crimes special names) was so well coordinated it made it onto Australian primetime news. Democrat advisors were interviewed, with their ashen faces and morbid narratives of "we're really worried about the anger and incitement from the republican some cases people calling to 'Kill Obama'. What will they do if he gets elected?". At this point I was surprised they didn't break down in mock tears, only to be comforted by their adoring media friends.

Please. Firstly, the "kill him" allegation has been investigated by the Secret Service and found to be false. The journalist for the Pennsylvanian newspaper who broke the dramatic story seemed to be the only one out of several thousand who actually heard the offensive remark. The newspaper never retracted it, naturally.

In fact, the only known case of this kind of thing is that of an assault charge against a Democrat supporter who attacked a Republican demonstrator in NYC. It's actually real. But I never saw that on the news here. So, only the fantasy stuff makes it onto the mainstream media.

It gets worse. American News Project, a leading freelance journalism portal, is convinced that they can find more evidence of this hate crime phenomena which doesn't actually exist, by offering to pay people to get it. Here is a snippet from an open email from ANP's chief editor to all registered freelance journalists:

ANP is working on a series between now and Nov. 4 analyzing the phenomenon of rage among McCain-Palin supporters which has surfaced in the past few weeks...
...we need your help. Between now and Nov. 4,
we want to document this rising rage nationwide at GOP rallies or anywhere else. If you have any evidence of rage, bigotry or deliberate misinformation among McCain supporters, whether at an official rally or elsewhere (local GOP groups, etc.), we need your help to video these events.
...If we use your footage in our series, whether it is 5 seconds or 5 minutes, we will pay a fee of $500 and give you producers credit.

In the email, they enclose a YouTube piece giving their example of "Republican Rage" to demonstrate what they are looking for. In the video, an elderly man uses the word "nigger", and a very inarticulate woman worries that the country will be run by black people. That's it. The rest of the comments are typified thus:

"I believe (Obama) is a wolf in sheep's clothing. But I think Sarah Palin is full of the Holy Spirit and she will bring honesty and integrity to the White House".
Well, they can't possibly think using a well-known cliche involving animals is hate speech, that would make Obama's "pig and lipstick" reference to Sarah Palin a little awkward. Perhaps the references to the Holy Spirit was the problem?

"He is friends with terrorists of this country". Correct. His ties to William Ayers are provably deeper than Obama claimed at the last debate. Surely telling the truth, anecdotal or otherwise, is not hate speech.

"I am concerned that Obama and his wife might be anti-white". Fair concern. Being under the wing of Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't good for you if you're trying to avoid racism. And references to "white greed" in some of Obama's speeches whilst a state senator would be called racist under any other circumstances.

All other comments were equally innocuous. So, the filmmakers then wave Obama/Biden signs to passing Republican supporters to see what horrible hate crimes and violence they can provoke. The only audible reference made is a republican supporter calling out "baby can call it what you want but that's what it is".

I presume they were referring to Obama's attempts as a senator to block the born alive infant protection act in 2000. Or perhaps they were referring to his promise that he would enact the Federal Freedom Of Choice Bill if elected, effectively removing all state restrictions on abortions and opening up federal funding of abortions. At least, this was what he told the Planned Parenthood movement in 2007. He denied it when talking to a Christian group in 2008, as well as denying his attempts to block the infant protection act in 2000. But you can read all about that here.

The point is, the filmmakers then cried persecution and feigned fear of attacks from these crazed republicans. It was the most incredible display of conniving, sabre-rattling and brilliant acting I have ever seen.

But the most morbidly laughable thing about this "evidence of republican rage" movie to illustrate ANP's point- it was provided by Al-Jazeera.

Al-Jazeera! The mouthpiece of terrorist dogma!

Okay, so even if these were legitimate examples of gun-toting, raging, frothing-at-the-mouth republicans threatening to kill everyone who even thinks about voting Obama, here's the problem; ANP want to pay people to produce similar "evidence". In any legal forum, where evidence is required to prove a crime, evidence paid for is tainted and inadmissable... for reasons which should be painfully obvious.

I'd love to think Democrat supporters are above dressing up in republican garb, spewing racist, violent rhetoric while their mate films them, and sending it to ANP to cash in. But watching that YouTube footage again, quite clearly, and sadly, it is totally possible.

UPDATED 24th Oct: Here's what makes the mainstream news: This assault on a McCain supporter was proven to be "false". So, let me get this straight:
- the MSM give airtime to democrats decrying "Republican Rage" without the slightest piece of tangible evidence (a bit like giving them free campaign time)
- an actual case of a democrat supporter assaulting a republican is nowhere to be seen on the MSM, however
- the discovery that a republican claim of democrat rage was falsified gets prime time.

No media bias? Please....

No comments: