Former CBS News president Richard Salant (1961 - 64 and 1966 - 79) explained the major media's role: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." ...and to this very day most Americans haven't noticed they're being brained washed! ~ N. Hooben
Friday, January 30, 2009
Once upon a TIME, facts were not sugarcoated ...
was pro-American...
All at once, the enemy launches a massive counterattack, striking deep in supposedly secure areas. Baffled American commanders are struggling to keep their forward-most units from disintegrating; green kids are literally breaking and running. Combat veterans are rushing forward to try and stem the enemy surge.
That’s exactly what happened 64 years ago this week in what may well be considered one of the greatest intelligence failures and resulting mass-losses of life in American military history: The Battle of the Bulge (Dec. 16, 1944 to Jan. 28, 1945) between the Allies (mostly American and British) and German forces -- which we won, by the way. But not before suffering some 19,000-plus American soldiers killed of 81,000 total U.S. casualties.
But what makes that battle different than even a far less costly setback our forces might suffer today in Iraq, Afghanistan, or who knows where is the way in which the Battle of the Bulge was reported and ultimately perceived by the public.
For instance, in several Time magazine pieces of the period, facts were not sugarcoated -- the situation was indeed dire and the magazine said so -- but the reporting was far more balanced in terms of what the casualty figures reflected and what the attacks, counter attacks, and counter-counter attacks might actually lead to. Covert political agendas played no role in the reporting, but it was obvious the mainstream media supported its troops. And if there was hope in the midst of hell, the correspondents found and reported it.
According to Time (Dec. 25, 1944): “[The Germans] struck with more weight and fury than they had mustered at any time since their ill-fated attempt to break the Allied line at Mortain, in Normandy. … Some Germans were so inflamed with savagery by the switch from retreat to attack that they murdered U.S. prisoners and wounded.”
The same article discussed the terrible cost in lives, the Allies having been “surprised and caught off balance,” the “disconcerting” fact that the Germans were willing and able to martial its forces for such a fierce counteroffensive at that stage of the war, and the reality that the Rhine might be “much harder to reach than the Allies originally expected.” But in a ray of pro-American optimism, the magazine also surmised the German counterattack might actually “simplify, and perhaps even hasten, Allied victory in the west.”
One week later (Jan. 1, 1945), Time reported: “In General Eisenhower's favor was the fact the enemy was now out in the open -- not in the fortifications, river lines and prepared defenses of the Westwall.” On Jan. 22 it was reported: “the Allied command team was intact and operating in harmony … The team had work to do. It had been thrown for a big loss and the way to the enemy's goal was long and hard,” and “… U.S. troops took the blow, and shoved forward again.”
Regarding air operations over the Bulge and beyond, Time reported (also on the 22nd): “Some 4,000 Allied bombers and fighter escorts, profiting by the weather break to attack oil plants deep in Germany, raised a swarm of Luftwaffe interceptors. At least 232 German fighters were downed, while the first count of Allied losses showed only 45 planes missing.”
Notice the word “only.” Not to suggest that the crews in those planes had no value -- they did, to be sure -- but to lend substantive perspective as regards the friendly-enemy win-loss ratio in the air.
Make no mistake, the Battle of the Bulge was a terrible miscalculation on the part of theater commanders and their intelligence chiefs, and nearly 20,000 Americans died in a five-week period as a result. But in the end, the battle was a decisive victory for the Allies. And the broader war was ultimately won thanks in no small measure to solid, balanced reporting, a huge measure of optimism and faith in the capabilities of our soldiers, and always being able to see and report the light within the darkness.
Our success going forward as we prosecute the war on terror is also heavily dependent upon how we view and expound on the light within the darkness. War by its very nature is dark. Irregular war, which is largely the kind of conflict our war on terror is, is even darker. Consequently, it is the responsibility of those of us who report or provide commentary and analysis to always look for the light.
Fact is, if a soldier believes he can win -- and knows others have faith in his ability to win -- he usually will win. That’s why he won at the Bulge.
Mr. Smith is a contributor to Human Events. A former U.S. Marine rifle-squad leader and counterterrorism instructor, he writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon. He is the author of six books, and his articles appear in a variety of publications. E-mail him at marine1@uswriter.com.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
If history is a guide...Obama will fail...
Do We Need a New New Deal?
Burton W. Folsom, Jr.
Charles F. Kline Chair in History and Management, Hillsdale College
Author, New Deal or Raw Deal? How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America
The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 9, 2009, in Washington, D.C., at a seminar sponsored by Hillsdale's Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship.
THE NEW Deal has probably been the greatest political force in America during the last 100 years, and Franklin D. Roosevelt has probably been the most influential president during this time. In our current economic crisis—which some have compared with the Great Depression—many critics are calling for more federal programs and a "New New Deal." There are three reasons we do not need a New New Deal from President Obama in 2009.
First, the federal programs in FDR's New Deal did not lower unemployment. Sure, the Works Progress Administration built roads, the Tennessee Valley Authority built dams, and the Civilian Conservation Corps planted trees. But every dollar that went to creating a federal job had to come from taxpayers, who, by sending their cash to Washington, lost the chance to buy hamburgers, movie tickets, or clothes and create new jobs for restaurants, theaters, and tailors.
What's worse, some New Deal programs had terrible unintended consequences. The Agricultural Adjustment Administration, for example, overhauled agriculture by paying farmers not to produce on part of their land. After farmers took the federal dollars, the U.S. developed shortages of the very crops taxpayers were paying farmers not to produce. By 1935, for example, the U.S. was importing almost 35 million bushels of corn, 13 million bushels of wheat, and 36 million pounds of cotton. Simultaneously, we had an army of bureaucrats in the Department of Agriculture to inspect farms (and even to do aerial photography) to ensure farmers were not growing the crops we were importing into the country.
Second, the taxes to pay for the New Deal became astronomical. In 1935, Roosevelt decided to raise the marginal tax rate on top incomes to 79 percent. Later he raised it to 90 percent. These confiscatory rates discouraged entrepreneurs from investing, which prolonged the Great Depression.
Henry Morgenthau, FDR's loyal Secretary of the Treasury, was frustrated at the persistence of double-digit unemployment throughout the 1930s. In May 1939, with unemployment at 20 percent, he exploded at the failed New Deal programs. "We have tried spending money," Morgenthau noted. "We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. . . . We have never made good on our promises. . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. . . . And an enormous debt to boot!"
Third, the New Deal divided and politicized the country in tragic ways. Those who lobbied most effectively won subsidies and bailouts even if their cause was weak. Others, who had greater needs, received nothing. Walter Waters, who led a march of veterans on Washington, lobbied successfully for a special bonus for veterans, whether they had been in battle or not. When asked why veterans—instead of longshoremen or teachers—should receive a special bonus of taxpayer dollars, he said, "I noticed, too, that the highly organized lobbies in Washington for special industries were producing results: loans were being granted to their special interests. . . . Personal lobbying paid, regardless of the justice or injustice of their demand."
Thus, as money became available, those with effective political lobbies won the subsidies and others, who sometimes had more just causes and greater need, received little or nothing. In the case of the veterans, in 1936 they won a $2 billion federal bonus—a sum exceeding six percent of the entire national debt at the time. Teachers, by contrast, were less effective lobbyists and won almost no federal subsidies. Silver miners, led by Senator Key Pittman of Nevada, won a silver subsidy that paid almost $300,000 a day each day for 14 years, but coal miners were left out.
In another example, under Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt, Illinois lobbied effectively and won $55,443,721 under the first federal welfare grant while Massachusetts received zero federal dollars. Without federal money for welfare needs, Massachusetts valiantly raised its own funds to secure what Illinois extracted from Washington. The Boston Civic Symphony repeatedly gave concerts to benefit the jobless. City officials and teachers raised money and took pay cuts. Massachusetts Governor Joseph Ely believed that no state should receive federal aid and that private charity was the best charity; that federal relief ruined both taxpayers and those in need. "Whatever the justification for relief," Ely said, "the fact remains that the way in which it has been used makes it the greatest political asset on the practical side of party politics ever held by an administration." Ely added that "millions of men and women . . . have come to believe almost that there is no hope for them except upon a government payroll."
Federal dollars always become political dollars, and the Democrats moved to use federal money to gain votes at election time. In Pennsylvania, Joseph Guffey, the successful Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate in 1934, ran a campaign ad that said, "Compare this $297,942,173 contributed by Pennsylvania to the U.S. U.S. Treasury with the cash and credit of $678,074,195 contributed to Pennsylvania by the Roosevelt Democratic administration." Vote Democrat, Guffey and others proclaimed, and the federal faucet will keep running. James Doherty, a New Hampshire Democrat, said, "It is my personal belief that to the victor belong the spoils and that Democrats should be holding most of these [WPA] positions so that we might strengthen our fences for the 1940 election." One WPA director in New Jersey—a corrupt but candid man—answered his office phone, "Democratic Headquarters."
If history is a guide, we have every reason to believe that if President Obama institutes a New New Deal, then universal health care, federal bailouts, and jobs stimulus programs will be costly, will be politicized, and will fail.
American Idol Viewers Look Here! ...you too x-box players! - You missed this in school today!
The Future Of The Democratic Party...the future is here
If the article below is an indicator of which way our country is is headed then we are alread doomed as One Nation Under God. - Norman E. Hooben
Anti-Christian Hate Crime By “College Democrats” At George Washington University: Political Group Steals Crucifixes, Defaces Them With Penises, Condoms - Crucified Christ Mocked With “Pwned” And “LOL” Below His Feet - Warning: Graphic PhotosJanuary 28th, 2009 Posted By Pat Dollard
“Apparently to the College Democrats, making fun of Christianity, and specifically a memorial to aborted unborn children is humor. To me, it is flagrant, disrespectful and downright disgusting. The fact that these crosses remained displayed in the College Democrats’ office for over 24 hours just adds to the sheer lack of respect they have for Christians on campus.”
- College Republican source, identity withheld for his protection pending investigation
This is a Pat Dollard.com exclusive.
Back in October, The Washington Times reported on allegations of an ominous and potentially dangerous atmosphere of hostility and intolerance for campus Conservatives, free speech, and apparently now, Christianity, by the George Washington University chapter of the national College Democrats organization. Here’s an excerpt from the article:
“College conservatives say the excitement of a historic presidential election which could send the first black American to the White House has become clouded by an atmosphere of intimidation and hostility on campus.
“People on campus who say they’re the most tolerant, they simply do not walk the walk,” said Brand Kroeger, chairman of the George Washington University College Republicans and head of the D.C. Federation of College Republicans.
Mr. Kroeger said he has been flooded with calls from students who feel they cannot express their views in favor of Republicans for fear of being shouted down….
GW College Democrats President Cory Struble was accused of sanctioning harassment of Republican and conservative students with comments he made at the beginning of the semester WRGW Radio.
According to an audio file provided by Mr. Struble, he said, “We seek to marginalize them as much as possible. You remember YAF last year put an ad in the paper saying how marginalized they felt [at GW]. Well, this year we want to make sure that GW is an even more uncomfortable environment for Republicans and conservatives…”
Today’s story is breaking and developing. Here are the initial details as revealed to me by two confidential sources within the College Republicans. I have no official statement or comment yet from the organization.
The College Republicans were in possession of a number of crucifixes used in a University-sanctioned Right To Life display. When the display was taken down, they were stored in the College Repulicans’ side of their shared but divided office space with the College Democrats. When the last College Republican members left the offices this last Friday, January 23, the crucifixes were safely stored on their side of the suite.
This Monday afternoon, January 27, when the first College Republicans to re-enter the offices did so, they discovered some of the horrifically desecrated crucifixes, stolen from the private property confines of their storage containers, and proudly displayed on the College Democrats’ bulletin board, and other areas, including a bowl, laid out as if they were candy for any member of the public who visited the office to take home and enjoy. One crucifix featured the College Democrats’ version of Christ: a large penis with an actual condom pulled over the top, in lieu of His crown of thorns.
GW College Democrats feel Jesus is someone who needs to be conquered, and his suffering on the cross is to be laughed at. The top caption is “Pwned”, internet slang for “owned” or “defeated”. At his crucified feet is LOL - internet slang for “Laugh Out Loud”
More were discovered and retrieved on Tuesday.
Shockingly, according to the College Democrats’ work schedule, Executive Board members of the organization were on duty in the offices before the College Republicans’ arrival. It would appear that the Executive Board members either perpetrated the hate crime, or did nothing to stop it, including at least removing the assaulted sacred symbols, even if the crime had been perpetrated by junior members of the organization without their knowledge.
The crucifixes have been retrieved and delicately handled in order to preserve their evidentiary integrity for investigation by the appropriate authorities.
“The College Democrats, for whatever reason have been unable to contain themselves this year…earlier in the year they spoke of wanting to wipe conservatism from the campus, later defaced posters of Ronald Reagan and George W Bush and now frequently fail to show courtesy to the organization in the wake of the election. Their latest move is by far the most egregious and outrageous offense. While we doubt these acts were perpetrated by the College Democrats executive board themselves, it was left on their wall for over an entire day, where on average, there anywhere between 3 to 5 College Democrat officers in the office throughout the day…I believe it was put up on the wall and showed off.”
- College Republican source, identity withheld for his protection pending investigation
I have the fullest confidence that the university administration, university police and any law enforcement agencies with jurisidiction, who clearly must become involved, will guarantee the fair and equal application of all relevant laws of theft, vandalism and hate crime, treating the assault on these religious objects precisely as they would if they were Korans, Menorahs, etc.
Related:
The Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act
Originally introduced as separate legislation by Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), this measure was enacted into law as Section 280003 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. The provision directed the United States Sentencing Commission to provide a sentencing enhancement of “not less than 3 offense levels for offenses that the finder of fact at trial determines beyond a reasonable doubt are hate crimes.” The provision defined a hate crime as “a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.”
The Hate Crime Statistics Act (28 U.S.C. 534)
Enacted in 1990, the HCSA requires the Justice Department to acquire data on crimes which “manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity” from law enforcement agencies across the country and to publish an annual summary of the findings.
Police officials have come to appreciate the law enforcement and community benefits of tracking hate crime and responding to it in a priority fashion.