Fujah Magazines February Issue On-line Now!

Sarah Steelman ON Point - "Why Stand We Here Idle?"
Dr. Z's Perspective - Freedom of Speech, Politically In - Correct?
InspiRED Valentines Day Fashions, by Nicole Taylor - Photography Edward Biamonte
Racist Republicans??
Transparency? Liberty for All! by JB MAX
Interview with Rocker Rick Derringer
and much much more On Line Now

Unconstitutional Government

Unconstitutional Government

http://www.fujah.com/current-issue/95-unconstitutional-government-.html

by Dr. Maryann Zihala, J.D.

Limited Government
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls would be necessary. In fashioning a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” James Madison

In 1787 the Framers of the U.S. Constitution wrote a contract between the governed and the government. It is a contract that creates a “limited” government: a federal system that divides power between national and state levels of government, with a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances among and between the three branches at the national level – all designed to limit the power of government. Additionally, they added a Bill of Rights so that the newly created national government would be very clear about the rights retained by the people. This is known today throughout the world as the Madisonian model of limited government – in deference to the father of our Constitution: James Madison. Ours is a Constitution that clearly defines the powers and limits of the national government. There are delegated powers: those expressly given to the government; there are implied powers: those that are necessary in order to carry out the delegated powers; there are denied powers: those that cannot be exercised. Madison even explained this for us:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

The current government in Washington is certainly not the first to ignore the Constitution. Constitutional government in America has been eroding for the better part of a hundred years. Many of those who have occupied the Executive Branch have used inherent powers and executive privilege –neither of which appears in the Constitution– to usurp power never intended for that branch. Those in the Legislative Branch have used the general welfare clause, the interstate commerce clause, and the necessary and proper clause –all contained in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution– as justifications for expanding powers for the Congress way beyond what the Framers intended. That being said, the current holders of power in Washington have completely breached the contract we call our Constitution. More than disregarding it, they have shown utter disdain for its main principle of “limited” government.

Unconstitutional Presidency
President Barak Obama has exhibited tremendous contempt for the Constitution, evidenced by his words and his actions. He seems to believe that the limits placed on government by the framers of the Constitution are a hindrance. In a now famous interview on Chicago Public Radio WBEZ in 2001, Obama said:

“As radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution . . . that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; says what the states can’t do to you; says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf. ”

As president, Obama has usurped power for the executive branch in a manner never seen before. Even if we were to allow that the executive has certain inherent powers, we cannot find justification for this president’s actions over the last year. In 1952, in the midst of war, the steelworkers threatened to go on strike and President Harry Truman seized the steel mills –steel being critical to the war effort– citing inherent power and national security. A mere two months later the Supreme Court ruled the president’s actions unconstitutional opining that this action was a violation of the principle of separation of powers because the president did not have “lawmaking power” as that belonged to the Congress alone.

Louis Fisher recently told the Senate Committee on the Judiciary of the danger associated with an executive invoking inherent powers –those powers beyond what is explicitly granted by the Constitution. “The Constitution is undermined by claims of open-ended authorities that cannot be located, defined, or circumscribed. . . .Whenever the executive branch justifies its actions on the basis of inherent powers, the rule of law is jeopardized. To preserve a constitutional system, executive officers must identify express or implied powers for their actions.”

Stimulus Bill
One of the first actions of the new government that took control of both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue in January was to pass an outrageous spending bill under the guise of stimulating the economy. This is money that will have to be borrowed or printed now – and the people will be taxed to pay for it later. And we have since seen that the money from that bill which has been spent has not stimulated the economy or created jobs – but much has gone to the favored constituent groups that placed these same politicians in office. On the spending limitations in the Constitution, Madison wrote: “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Government Takeovers
Consider President Obama’s seizures of private businesses: AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GMAC, General Motors, Chrysler. He fired the CEO of GM, hired a new CEO, and appointed a Car Czar to make decisions about suppliers, unionization of workers, and types of cars to be built by the auto companies the U.S. government now owns.

The takeover of these companies, in and of itself, is a violation of the eminent domain clause of the 5th Amendment. The government can only take property if it is for public use and the previous owners of the confiscated property must be fairly compensated. These takeovers were not for public use and the bailout money cannot be considered fair compensation to the previous owners because the stockholders of these companies received nothing. Buying stock in a company is always a risk, but most stockholders did not even consider there was a risk that the company would be confiscated by the federal government rendering their stock worthless.

The original bailout program and the creation of TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) by Congress can be cited as authority for the president’s above listed actions. However, that fund was never intended to be used to buy auto companies. It was supposed to buy the toxic assets of financial institutions that were deemed “too big to fail.” So the president’s actions are not only unconstitutional, they are also not sanctioned by law. And even if the Congress passed a law authorizing the president to do the things he has done, such a law would be unconstitutional as well. The concept of “too big to fail” is anathema to our country, our culture, and our Constitution. We are a capitalist country; a read of the delegated powers in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution reveals that Congress has a duty to promote capitalism and free enterprise; it has no duty to protect companies that have become inefficient and are no longer able to compete in our capitalist economic system. When private companies are labeled “too big to fail” and are saved from bankruptcy by the taxpayers, we no longer have capitalism.

The president’s appointment of a Pay Czar to set salaries for these –and other– companies violates numerous constitutional principles. The argument that these companies are operating with taxpayers’ money, and, therefore, have to allow the government to control salaries and bonuses, fails on several levels. These companies were not informed that this would be the situation if they accepted bailout money. Without this upfront disclosure, changing the rules now amounts to an ex post facto law, disallowed by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. Cutting the bonuses and salaries of employees is also a bill of attainder because these people are being singled out for punishment by the executive and legislative branches –also a violation of Article 1, Section 9, and a violation of the separation of powers principle. Only the judicial branch can mete out punishment and then only after the requirements of due process have been satisfied with a trial. Additionally, denying the salaries and bonuses promised to these employees in their employment contracts is a violation of the contracts clause of Article 1, Section 10. And if the original intention ever was to only control salaries and bonuses of those bailed-out companies, the Federal Reserve’s recent announcement that all of the banks it regulates –and it regulates them all– would now be given salary guidelines, speaks volumes.

Unconfirmed Presidential Appointments
On the subject of Czars: President Obama now has almost three dozen of these policy analysts working in the White House. In the past, Congress has created about a dozen offices for the president with the top position held by a Senate-confirmed presidential appointee. Obama has tripled this number and none of his new czars have been confirmed by the Senate. This is beyond any constitutional executive powers; this is legislating by presidential fiat. Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution says: “He shall have power . . . and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls.” Article 2 does allow that the Congress may vest the appointment power in the president alone, by law – but Congress has not done this in regard to the cadre of new czars appointed by this president.

About the separation of powers, British Philosopher John Locke (whose writings were widely read by our Founding Fathers) said: “The legislative branch cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands.” Allowing the executive to arbitrarily create White House offices, and appoint un-confirmed czars to make policy, clearly violates the principle of separation of powers. Additionally, the Obama Administration will not allow these czars to testify before congressional committees on policy matters, thwarting the legislative oversight function of Congress and violating the system of checks and balances.

Unconstitutional Congress
Congress and health care reform pose another constitutional problem for the current government. The bill recently passed in the House, and the one about to be passed in the Senate, have raised numerous questions about the reach of government and the constitutionality of health care reform. There is absolutely no constitutional authority for the federal government to be taking over the health care system, forcing taxpayers to pay for the health care of others, and requiring individuals to have health care insurance – on pain of fines and incarceration. Various congressional leaders have been scrambling lately to explain from where this authority comes.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), when asked about the constitutional authority for Obama's health care reform proposal, responded: “Are you serious?” Her office later stated that the authority comes from the interstate commerce clause in Article 1, Section 8. This clause allows Congress to regulate only that commerce which crosses states’ borders. The intention of the Framers was that commerce between the states should be free from interference by state governments. According to Robert Levy, Chairman of the Cato Institute, “Instead of serving as that shield against interference by the states, the commerce power has become a sword wielded by the federal government in pursuit of a boundless array of regulatory programs.”

Faced with a similar inquiry, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) said: “In promoting the general welfare, the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress . . . Clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility.” On the general welfare clause in Article 1, Section 8, James Madison said: “With respect to the two words general welfare, to take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators . . . If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one.”

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on the question of constitutional authority for health care reform replied: “We have plenty of authority. I mean, there's no question there's authority. Nobody questions that.” Senator, call your office; there are some people who question that.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) may be one of the most honest politicians in Congress today. When asked by Fox News Legal Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano about the constitutional authority for forcing Americans to buy health care insurance, Representative Clyburn replied: “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”

The People’s Responsibility
Our Constitution has been under continuous attack and is being violated with impunity. So why does this happen? How can the Constitution allow this to happen? The better question is: why do the people allow it to happen? Someone has to stand up and defend the Constitution and if our elected officials are not going to do that, then the people must do it. According to Anthony Gregory of the Campaign for Liberty, “Constitutions alone cannot limit government. What matters ultimately is the Constitution in the hearts and minds of the people. So long as the American public supports unconstitutional actions, such actions will commence. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, as Jefferson noted. The Constitution spells out great limits on the government, but without the support of the people, the document loses its teeth.”

The Enumerated Powers Act has been introduced in Congress by Representative John Shadegg (R-AZ) and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) numerous times. The Act requires that: “Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act.” While this would not stop the Congress from passing unconstitutional laws, it would at least require a conversation about and consideration of that document we once revered in this country. It seems the time is right to finally get the Enumerated Powers Act enacted.

The Preamble to the Constitution - “We The People” By Edward Biamonte

The Preamble to the Constitution - “We The People”
By Edward Biamonte
Photos - Edward Biamonte

It is our right and our duty to question our government about - everything! And the Town Halls represent the best of our nations freedoms. Kudos to Senator McCaskill for opening up the debate with her constituency and for coming to the conservative stronghold called Springfield Missouri in “The Show Me State” !

Split on the issues, the protesters stood peacefully in line while waiting for admittance into the theatre. To be sure the democratic republic of the US is practicing their 1st amendment rights, although no conclusion to the debate is in sight many want reform. Many believe we have to do something and that’s the issue. What are we doing? Many who are fearful of the socialistic agenda of the far left held up signs in protest, while those from the far left protested the deliberation over health care in congress. They just want health care. And, they want the government to pay for it - no debate, just do it- Now!

Blue Dog Democrats have entered the health care debate to voice their opinion in rejection to some of the Obama health care bill and for maintaining a deficit neutral plan that supports a more free capitalist society and to stop any government lead take over of the nations health care system. Senator Claire McCaskill voiced her opinions which led me to believe she is a centrist Blue Dog. She supports a plan that includes across state line purchasing power which is well received by many and is capitalistic in nature but also supports the public option? She wants lower prices for all, which is also well received. She rightly quoted the billions in profits made by the health insurers at the expense of the public. McCaskill talked about Medicaid, Medicare, tax payer penalties created by fraud, insurance companies and the hospitals who have to raise prices to stay in business. And then there’s Tort reform? Oh those greedy trial attorneys and their lobbyist. Capitalism, Socialism and Tort reform!

Obama wants a government plan to make sure the insurance companies have to lower their prices. So what’s wrong with that? Lower prices are good for everyone. Has anything the government has ever done made money or did not cost the tax payers billions more than projected? Does Freddie MAC, Sallie MAE and the US Postal Service ring a bell? And then there's the government panel that decides who, what, where and why; isn’t it a bit socialistic-- and not regulated by competition in the free market?

The last time I looked our Constitution openly supports the free market. Isn’t that why we fought the Revolutionary War against England? The reason there are Tea Parties all over the nation. It appears that millions will March on DC September 12th 2009. Fujah will be there to cover it.

And -- No mention by Obama to support Tort reform!

Missouri has two Senators and both are well aware of the tensions being voiced by the people of the free Republic called the United States America. Springfield's Town Hall meeting was everything we have come to expect. Everyone from the far left to the far right were packed into the Gillioz Theater to ask the junior Senator from Missouri questions concerning the Health Care debate and any other political issue they might need answers to. Typical of Hall Town meetings there were many vocal opponents for and against current Democratic or Republican positions.

Senator Claire McCaskill walked on the stage and the theater of more than 1000 people erupted with resounding applause and boos for the junior Senator from Missouri. The “Show Me State” Town Hall attendants were demanding McCaskill did just that; from the far left and right they shouted at each other and McCaskill their positions while many in attendance tried to get the folks to chill. After a bit of free expression by the crowd the meetings started with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. Once the preliminaries were over Claire began her very brief introduction to a Town Hall that was ready to debate.

The first question to Claire was about her loyalty, was it to the “Show Me State” or President Obama and the Democratic parties agenda? The crowd erupted in applause from both sides of the isle to the question and in large part amid shouts of “we are the people”. McCaskill stated- “my job is to represent the people of Missouri... I have on many times voted differently from my party... This bill must pass a common sense test for me - it’s about what’s in the bill”.

Question 2 - Was about the funding of the bill and it’s inclusion to fund abortion. McCaskill stated she “read the complete Senate bill” and the Senate bill “does not have one federal dollar allocated to fund abortion.” Shouts concerning the House bill were brought up by the audience that does include the funding. McCaskill stated that there are three amendments which are being debated in the house and that the Senate bill in present form is online at www.help.senate.gov which reveals the hundreds of hours put into into the bill with bipartisan efforts.

McCaskill then took time to state typical Democratic talking points (which immediately received boos and cheers from the audience) she stated, “there has been a lot of misinformation about the bill in question” grumbling started from the audience as Claire went on to say “I might have the record for doing the most wide open town hall meetings in the Senate”.

Then Claire took a minute to give Senator Kit Bond a cheep shot for rejecting her invitation to the Springfield Town Hall gathering and for going to a rally in Kansas City instead? Some Dems in the audience applauded her effort to discredit Senator Bond, while many less partisan attendants shook their heads in disbelief - so much for bipartisanship? The junior Senator went on to state “one of the things I have learned from traveling around the state is that there is such negativity and cynicism about government”. The audience erupted again.

Was this a Freudian slip concerning her statement about Kit Bond or just a self implicating or defecating statement about her parties leadership? A simple suggestion or word to the junior Senator, don’t cheep shot your opponent to make yourself look good; Independents and Reagan Democrats hate childish behavior and rhetoric. Stick to the point and answer the questions. This is why there is such negativity and cynicism about government; and why 70% of the independents who voted for Obama will vote against the Dems in 2010 (Rasmuessen non-partisan polls).

It’s the trust factor Claire! Obama, Reid and Pelosi have created a quagmire for the Democratic party. It’s all about deception, fast tracking, the deficit, pork spending, Anti Israeli / Pro-Islamic rhetoric, and a socialist leading far left agenda mandated by 20% of the electorate. Seventy percent of the public are sick of the special interest groups from California, the West cost, East cost and large urban cities like Chicago demanding far left ideology be adopted by the country and the people are fighting back. The federal government is at its lowest approval ratings since the Carter administration that led to the Reagan years.

McCaskill went on, “we need to show we are sincere”… we must pass a health care bill and “that we will have the exact same plan as the rest of the country”. The audience erupted with applause as the statement resonated with the fervor of many who question If the public option is so great, why do federal employees have their own policy and are excluded from the debate? You can see the whole debate online at many of the news outlets like KSPR or the Springfield News Leader’s web site.

In retrospect - For some on the left or right it didn’t matter what McCaskill said, they would shout her down or applaud her which was totally unnecessary and a waste of the publics time. Yet for the majority of the audience they wanted real answers to some tough questions and that is the real issue at hand. Did Senator McCaskill answer the questions or did she refer to her parties talking points?

Senator McCaskill made centrist stands respective of Blue Dogs but referred to the standard talking points and views of many in her democratic party. This pauses one to wonder if we’ll ever see the statement “we need to show we are sincere” come to pass based on truth, facts and tenacity to keep America Free and Strong. Although her stump points were not as blatant as many in the far left, and I liked 50% of what she said-- it’s about what she didn’t say that reminds me of song a from the “The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas” by Charles Durning. “Ooooo I love to do a little side step”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mNDHTfdn1A

Claire to often repeated-- Missouri as you know is split right down the middle... Polls that we have taken reveal the split so it is up to me to make common sense decisions when the polls are so close... The crowd immediately picked up on the fluff. It’s Missouri-- “ The Show Me State ” remember? Politics in 2010-- I it’s going to be a wild ride.

IRANIAN ISLAMIC EXTREMISM

IRANIAN - ISLAMIC EXTREMISM
Part 1 - Voice, her views on the Iranian government and the nuclear power plant.
by Tomas Drawde
Photography by Edward Biamonte

Before working on this story I had to ask myself, why do a story about the Iranian elections, a murdered girl named Neda and the Hijab or burka? And why use the stories to support a fashion feature in a lifestyle magazine? Here’s the back story.

The murder of Neda, the Iranian elections were explosive and captured the news for days. A huge block of Iran’s voters were denied their rights to have their votes counted by their terrorist Islamic state that murdered one beautiful innocent by-stander named Neda during one of many protests. And, after her death the murder of many protesters who were arrested while waiting for trial by Iran’s Islamic extremist jailers.

Also, French President Sarkozy while speaking to the French Parliament stated he want’s the “Hijab banned from France.” Three weeks prior Sarkozy’s statement hitting the press, President Obama delivered an address in Egypt concerning US relations and the Islamic world. In contrasting views, French President Sarkozy want’s the Hijab banned while President Obama wants it accepted and supports law that defends the Burka in public use.

Obama stated, “Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it. So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America…”

His statement caused the publisher of Fujah to ponder the drastic change in US diplomacy, but one we were told was on the way. However, in Ironic contrast-- who would have ever thought a forceful voice for liberty would come from France. And, a tepid response at best from the US by President Obama concerning the hijab, suffrage and murder of innocent Iranians.

With all do respect to President Obama his rhetoric is called political side stepping. Why is he trying to appease a group that are greatly responsible for terrorism around the world (i.e.) Islamic Extremist. Does he realize his appeasing double talk is a direct confrontation to Americans and all who have suffered from Islamic terrorism? Does he not realize the Hijab is a blatant sign of oppression, death and terrorism? Or that extremist only care about their ideological position and they want to purge the world of all who do not believe the way they do?

The fact is - Islam is directly responsible for most of the terrorism around the world. Be it the Saudis or the current Iranian regime, Sunni’s or Shia's they openly promote it’s expansion around the world. Furthermore - US son’s and daughters are being blown up by Iranian extremist as they fight for the liberty of those oppressed by Islamic extremism? If Iran gets enough high grade plutonium, which evidence shows Iran is on the fast track to process, is President Obama so naive the Iranians will not kill millions?

Perhaps President Obama should have stated the facts about the oppression of women who have to wear the hijab. The women beaten and even killed for breaking this and other oppressive Islamic laws. Simply summarized, Obama’s rhetoric, overt political correct ideology and confusing actions are leading many to ponder if they made the right decision on one fateful day in November of 2008. Recently- Fathima Rifqa Bary, a Muslim raised teenager converted to Christianity and fled the state of Ohio and her family in fear of being killed by her father. Honor killings are practiced by many Muslims through out the world. A Florida court will decide the fate of the teen, return Fathima to her family or allow her to stay in Florida.

Fujah decided to fuse politics with fashion to create an edgy editorial about Neda’s death and a fashion feature “Free the Beauty” concerning the hijab or Burka, oppression of women and world politics. But how could Fujah get the information for the editorial? The internet was shut down by the Iranian Government and Western reporters were not allowed in. Information had to come from an insider and what we were getting was little streams of grass root information which in whole has turned out to be very powerful and a valid condemnation to any government that would support the current terrorist regime in Iran. Fujah was able to interview a young Iranian women concerning Iran. In Neda’s honor she speaks candidly concerning her governments Islamic extremism, oppression, women’s rights, Israel, Iraq, the nuclear power plant and the big question Revolution.

Some might ask, what can a 21 year old woman from Iran possibly know anything about the politics of Iran and it’s global relations? Why should her opinion matter? She is the Voice of the youth in the streets. Their whispers matter, they are the heart beat of a new Iranian majority and they want true democracy. Her perception “a grass roots perception, is a common perception held by many in the streets and one that Fujah had no idea existed do to government propaganda by the mullahs and lack of press.

A restaurant owner from where I hail is Persian, he didn’t want me to use his name and he doesn’t use the moniker Iranian do to the extreme negative baggage created by the ruling terrorist. I ask my friend if he would do an interview, he hasn't been to Iran since the Shah was deposed and exiled so he would have no current heart beat on Iran. However, troubled by the recent news he paused a bit to reflect. With a twinkle in eyes he stated “I recently met a young Iranian woman, I will contact her to do the interview.” She agreed, I will call her Neda in respect to the voice that was silenced by a terrorist’s bullet. This is her perception, a grass roots perception, a common perception held by many in the streets and one that Fujah had no idea existed do to government propaganda by the mullahs and lack of press.

Not really knowing what to expect I waited patiently for my Iranian interview, for Neda, to arrive at a local restaurant. The door to the lounge area off the patio opened. Out of the bright light stepped a young small frame tan women in a pastel sun dress. Her delicate shoulders and long tousled hair was far from the black burka / hijab I thought she would be wearing. She walked over to where my friend and I were waiting for her arrival. She engaged us with a beautiful smile and kind greetings. After brief introductions we sat down as her brown almond shaped eyes gave me her full attention. Her English was broken yet surprisingly good and her voice soft, slightly nervous. Her name is Voice to protect her identity. She may want to return home and Fujah want’s to protect her. This is what we talked about:

Fujah: Where are you from?
VOICE: Tabriz, the second largest city in Iran

Fujah: How old are you?
VOICE: 21

Fujah: Have you lived in Iran your whole life?
VOICE: Yes

Fujah: Your English is surprisingly good, where did learn English?
VOICE: In school.

Fujah: Iran is pretty bent on the destruction of the US - how is it that you would have an option to learn English?
VOICE: It’s the largest language group and the second language used by most people, we learned English based on British rules.

Fujah: A great concern many Americans have are the extreme intensions by your current President Akmadinijad, what is your opinion of your President?
VOICE: He doesn’t care about people - all he cares about is power.

Fujah: In the last election - the primary candidates are not really different in view point. How did you vote?
VOICE: I was not there for the recent election but I did vote in the prior election. They reduced the age to allow 16 year olds to vote to get more votes. What I remember, I voted against every thing that was against the government.

Fujah: What I want to get is an understanding of your perception and what your demographic, your age group thinks about the ruling Mullahs and the current government?
VOICE: The President before Akmadinijad, Rafsanjani came up and was in office for 8 years. He came up and talked about change and did not do anything even though he came up wanting change. History repeating, no one does anything.

Fujah: So you’ve seen a lot of hypocrisy, a lot of promises mentioned that were never going to become reality. Why do you think these men run for office, is it power, financial security, establish their families?
VOICE: It’s power and money. Rafsanjani, is one of the richest men in the world because he got a lot of money as president.

Fujah: So basically they’re just spoke persons for the Mullahs? Why would the people pick some body like Akmadinijad? Someone who is seen by most of the world as a complete nutcase, somebody unstable, an extremist?
VOICE: Um- after Rafsanjani, The whole regime felt they were loosing power over people, the whole world. Rafsanjani didn’t do anything different but they wanted somebody to show power, to bring back the power. Akmadinijad was a good choice because he does not care about people and he can and will do anything he wants.

Fujah: Someone who is seen by most of the world as a complete nutcase, somebody unstable, an extremist?
VOICE: Um- after Rafsanjani, The whole regime felt they were loosing power over people, the whole world. Rafsanjani didn’t do anything different but they wanted somebody to show power, to bring back the power. Akmadinijad was a good choice because he does not care about people and he can and will do anything he wants.

Fujah: In your last election many people were disenfranchised and believed Akmadinijad lost the election. We saw people go into the streets in peaceful protest against the government. What is your opinion of this and do you think this is the beginning of something powerful for the people of Iran?
VOICE: In the beginning I was saying this is just history repeating, I did not want to vote but my friends said they wanted to be part of it this time. I wasn’t there at the time of the elections and I was never in college in Iran so I really don’t get where they’re idea is right now. In the beginning it was all about religion and not the people, after the election it was not about religion but all about the people and you know, the people that got killed and arrested, right now it’s all about the people.

Fujah: About the perception of the rest of the world then, they really don’t care do they?
VOICE: No they don’t. When Akmadinijad came up, this whole atomic bomb and atomic energy came up. It seems like they feel like when they have that their supported and they don’t have to care about anything, they wanted to show that they have the power and no one could shake them.

Fujah: Ok - let’s talk about that whole energy issue. Especially with wind, solar, natural gas and oil there is no need for Iran to have nuclear power. Many feel that it’s basically to create the inevitable. When you here about the response of the world community and you lived there, how does it make you feel as an Iranian?
VOICE: Of course it makes me feel bad, but most of the people know that they as Iranians are different from the government.

Fujah: How do we know that?
VOICE: The more we go on and travel the people realize that the people of Iran are different. The people on the outside and inside are trying so hard to show we are different to show the world we don’t want this. Many people want us to be Persia not Iranian, but the world doesn’t know what Persia is? We want to be proud. There’s a lot of channels that are broadcasting from the states like from LA and London. The Iranian channels are mostly entertainment but some are just about politics.

Fujah: They’re are many people that feel there will be a military strike against the new power plant. What is the word on the street in Iran about
the reality of this happening?
VOICE: If someone wanted to they could do it and many of the people would help them.

Fujah: Wow- what your saying is that the people would help to destroy the power plant? Why don’t they do it themselves?
VOICE: They don’t have the power or the support to. If someone were to give them the support they would or they would help them to.

Fujah:So the people are actively trying to show the rest of the world that they are different and want to change the current government? What do you think it’s going to take? I studied a little bit of Iranian history and about Persia. Persia was a name given by the Greeks. Iran really identifies you as a people as a culture, the people in their struggle? What do you think it’s going to take for the people to take your country back? We know there was a revolution to depose the Shah 1979, do you want to return to that, to the time of the Kings or do you want a real democracy like in the west?

VOICE: We have always had a royal family except for the last years after the Shah, I think we are over having a Royal family, we want a real democracy- not something like this a dictatorship. The Son of the Shah, the Prince - he is really trying to help. He says he doesn’t want to be the King or part of the government after this regime. He wants a real Democracy, the prince realizes it’s not working for him to be the Prince or leader of the country anymore. We want something democratic - modern.

Fujah: Do you want it to look like a democratic republic in the US or like the British- what do you want it to look like? What is the word on the street? A Republic that is governed by the people?
VOICE: Yes!

Part -2 September 7th.
Fujah: That’s pretty cool. I‘d like to go in a different direction. There’s this whole political ordeal that we have to talk about concerning the word on the streets about Israel...

Video Link - Will Iran get Nuclear Weapons?
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=8672196&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543040,00.html

Tea Party Protest in DC - Can You Hear Them Now?

Can You Hear Them Now?

1.5 to 2 Million Tea Party Protesters March to the steps of Congress.

Go to DC for a Tea Party! Tea Parties? Isn’t that what older ladies in Red Hats do and what dads enjoy with their daughters that brings smiles from their wives? Or in this case the kind of Tea Party that pre-empted the Revolutionary War and America’s fight for Freedom against the King of England? I had the opportunity to hang out with a bunch of abolitionists as they marched to Freedom Square on Saturday, September 12, 2009.

The drive into DC from North Virginia was uneventful until I reach Constitution Avenue and the Washington Monument. Protesters wearing red, white and blue shirts, hats or costumes were holding signs reminiscent of political rallies during the elections. Protester’s were every where and walking fast to get to Freedom Square. After a bit of searching I found a place to park. The cross street where the protesters seemed to be gathering was more than a mile. Under normal conditions no problem, but I had 60 pounds in gear to carry. I whispered to myself “buck it up and get it moving” as I closed the trunk to my rental and shifted my pack to make it more comfortable.

Arriving at the corner of 14th and Constitution Avenue my legs were burning and my calves were cramping from the weight of the pack, but what I saw when I turned the corner toward Pennsylvania Avenue was amazing. My first perspective from a block away, that I could see, hundreds of protesters congregating. Turning the corner at Pennsylvania Avenue uncovered thousands. Finding a perch above the crowd revealed tens of thousands to what became a huge event of hundreds of thousands of people marching toward Congress. My adrenaline kicked in and energy surged through me as the throng kept me occupied for four straight hours and miles of pounding the pavement before realizing I was exhausted, thirsty and hungry.

Early reports by the DC Fire Chief estimated the crowd at 60,000 - 75,000 but videos reveal the estimate stated by the Chief and what was reported by Bill O’Reilly - as wrong. Time lapse cameras from around the White House and along Pennsylvania Avenue shoot activity on the street. The cameras revealed the three hour, street wide stream of protesters over the eight block walk. Spacial photographic assessments of “1.5 to 2 million” protesters was confirmed by Glen Beck. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sjvc6baor8

http://moderateinthemiddle.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/aerial-views-added-d-c-police-close-roads-to-buses-people-on-footestimate-1-2-millionl-abc-cant-count912-party-on-patriots/

From all over the Continental US protesters proudly stated where they were from and what they were protesting about. It seemed all were in good spirits. The angry mob perspective that was promoted by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was present at the rally. However, the anger was from liberal groups of opposition and exhibited by shouted slurs at the marchers concerning health care reform. The Tea Party laughed and chanted “stop the spending” in direct response. Many of the positive protesters want reform concerning health care. What most are in protest to is the government taking over health care. They see this as a form of social modification through control of the market place i.e. socialism. Many protesters want the ability to use across state lines purchasing for the best possible and cost efficient policies available. Many feel being able to have this purchasing power will result in competition and lower costs in a free market.

Most states have monopolies created by few options. Texas is one state that allows across state line purchasing of policies which reduced rates up to 25 to 30% from national averages. This could help families reduce the cost of health insurance. Still some will not be able to afford any healthcare insurance. The question is how to help families reduce the cost and at the same time help those who cannot afford health care? The debate goes on. Many believe that if a consortium for individual policies is made available across the country with free market providers the volume created by the policy holders would reduce the cost of premiums and offer a program much like what the Federal program has created. The key word is a free market and not a government run public option. When the government competes in the free market and makes the rules this is seen by many as counter intuitive and rightly so. One has to ask the question, is the government led option even constitutional?

Although the marchers were largely white in numbers-- Democrats, Independents and Republicans from all walks of life, skin color and age groups marched side by side in peaceful protest. Chants of “Can You Hear Us Now?” resonated off the buildings walls from the White House to the steps of Congress as citizens practiced their first amendment rights. Signs depicting President Obama and Pelosi were everywhere. The various messages depicted health care reform, energy, Cap and Trade, the stimulus and bailouts. Coupled with all the messages, I found placards voicing their opinions and mistrust of the current administration. 2010 election signs were everywhere. No surprised to see Anti-ACORN rhetoric. As with any demonstration some had views that were a bit extreme while most of the protesters held signs of intelligent design and well thought out protest. http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/index.html

The press was everywhere interviewing and photographing the crowd. Choppers flew overhead recording the enormity of the crowd. If any news outlet reports there were less than hundreds of thousands of people they are falsely reporting the news and trying to down play the event. One thing that caught me by surprise is the out right protest toward the press and the protesters distrust of liberal news outlets. Tired of the “Bias in the Media” the protesters were vigilant to show their disapproval of the media. Refreshingly, the protesters were shooting pictures of the press . A person revealed to me as a protester video taped me shooting the crowd. “We want proof the press were here to see this and to make sure they tell the truth about the event. One man shouted “CNN is reporting there are only about 600 people here - does this look like 600 people to you”? The fact is there were hundreds of thousands of peaceful intelligent protesters exercising their rights. Pew Research released a new report the press's reputation is at a two decade low: Should they be surprised?

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1341/press-accuracy-rating-hits-two-decade-low
The police were everywhere as you can imagine. As I approached Freedom Square the Capital Police had the road blocked to divert people away from entering the parking area and garden situated before the steps to Congress. If you got too close to the yellow tape, as I found out, they tell you move back very aggressively. One cop made this declaration as he put his hand on my shoulder to push me. I pulled my shoulder back and said “easy - easy” as I showed him my press pass. Then I asked this officer a simple open ended question: Help me understand why you have the road blocked? “Just keep moving” he responded. “Let’s try this again- help me understand why you have the road blocked? He replied "I told you to keep moving”.

I couldn’t understand why this Capitol Hill Cop’s attitude was one step away from tazing me. My question was simple and direct and I was only asking for a simple explanation. So heres a picture of the cop who couldn’t answer a simple question with the proper attitude. I took his picture from my hip to record the scowl on his face. I was hitting a nerve but couldn’t understand why? The protesters are not the enemy.

The people were a bit confused as to what they should do as they moved left and right from the blocked entry. I went left and ended up having to walk through a flower bed to get into the parking area and the square. Tens of thousands were already in the square. A two hour steady stream from a packed Pennsylvania Avenue were arriving; could the area hold all the people? The pool area was already surrounded and the lawns in front of Congress were packed. It took 30 minutes to navigate the crowd to get shots of the guards blocking access to the steps of Congress. The crowd cheered the speakers as they rallied and stated rhetorical questions to the President and Congress. To see more visit YouTube and search the 9-12 DC Tea Party.

The response from the White House is largely negative as pundits. The liberal press and David Axelrod spoke on the record stating although the rally was larger than anyone thought it would be “the protesters are wrong and do not represent the views of the broader public
the protesters are out of step with the main stream”. However current polls reveal the heart beat of the nation. And the facts show a different perspective.

The fact is the White House and the Democrat led Congress are out of step with the nation. As one one Black Democrat stated at the protest: “when I voted for Obama this is not the change I was looking for!” http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=9577646&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/index.html

Rasmussen Daily tracking poll shows the President’s approval ratings are at a -4 % low. Only 50% of the nation are “somewhat favorable” of Obama's performance. While polls reveal congressional Democrats at 32% favorable, the GOP is now at 43% and rising. 2010 is expected to create a 30% or more shift toward conservatives which many Independent’s 70% believe will bring balance back to Capital Hill . How's the "change going for you?"
On Sep 18, 2009, at 9:30 AM, George Lamelza wrote:

Bias in Press and the Media - "Toxic Media"

Toxic Media - Toxic Decisions - Toxic Waste! Part I

Toxic Media - Toxic Decisions - Toxic Waste! Part I
by Edward Biamonte - Fujah Magazine - http://www.fujah.com

President Theodore Roosevelt stated "There are, in the body politic, economic and social, many and grave evils, and there is urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them. There should be relentless exposure of and attack upon every evil man whether politician or business man, every evil practice, whether in politics, in business, or in social life. I hail as a benefactor every writer or speaker, every man who, on the platform, or in book, magazine, or newspaper, with merciless severity makes such attack, provided always that he in his turn remembers that the attack is of use only if it is absolutely truthful."

For months I have been thinking about the Media, propaganda, the President of the United States, the Congress and Senate, so called independent voters, moderates, conservatives, and most of all the egregious reporting by 75% of the media destroying any accountability to maintain ethical standards for truth in journalism.

For most of us, roughly 70% of the population, we must adapt the premise there is an “urgent necessity for the sternest war upon them” the media must exposed.

For years I have held the premise many in media are nothing more than ideologues and propagandists. Disgusted by their lack of integrity and quest to promote Ideology - surrogates, puppets, elitist and power hungry Machiavellians are networking their politic and earning them the moniker “Toxic Media”. The media spin for many is so evident one wonders how so many of the public can accept such toxic rhetoric - propaganda, toxic waste!

As an Independent let me clearly state my presupposition - this OP ED is about the press. Concerning Obama - this article is about how the media covers him and not about him personally- but, that does not mean I have to like his policies or give him a pass because he is the media darling of the day. Being the independent spirit I am, because he is the media’s darling, the media has placed a bulls eye on everything Obama says and does.

As propagandist - the press is not doing their job. In Fact - had they done so through out the 2008 presidential election campaign - the current mess we find ourselves in - most likely - would not be happening. Clinton’s robust statement of her opponent “He - Obama - is not ready yet” was ridiculed and denied my many in the popular press. What we learned from history lessons to properly vet every politician - was ignored! When covering a political it should be about the facts - all the facts good or bad. There was such a Toxic difference, a protectionist attitude, in how Obama was covered versus all the other candidates allows us the - John Q Public - the right to point our fingers at the media and say “You Lied to us - You are responsible for everything that is going wrong in our country! Every person in the news or information media needs to be reminded (A) their job is to report the facts so we the people have (All The Truth). Toxic media produces toxic decisions.

From the voting primaries prior to the last election the sharks lost their teeth and the capacity for rational thinking; 75% of the media’s ability for truthful and rational dialogue - lost! The capacity to reason - gone for ever; because they sold their souls to protect Obama; their credibility - forever gone. When one person in the press loses the capacity to unbiasedly analyze and fact check the stories they’re spewing. The story can easily be rejected by truthful and fair debate through the revelation of facts in the media dialogue. One person’s propagated self interest and direct bias toward the country is simple pervasion. However, when 75% of the press media are mitigating for one politician over an other politician giving millions false impressions these elitist have created a Toxic environment. The current media mess begs the question - is it time for the public to rise up and demand a media revolution; demand the Media become Green - to coin another phrase - free of pollution. Time to demand they clean house, throw out the trash and stop spewing their rhetorical flatulence on the air ways!

Prevalent echos of shallow speeches past remind us that how speeches are delivered or how the politician is dressed should not be the most important commentary of the politician as though they are some kind of glorified thespian (super star) - which is really starting to make rational thinkers vomit. The “Hollywood Effect” is old and lately Mr. O is losing his cool as tensions reveal a sinister dark side of one who is thin skinned and likes to eliminate any form of opposition or disagreement to his agenda. However - many of the programmed Obama viewers are starting to wake up and reject the empty visual and oratorical bombastic cues lauded by the popular media.

Cool-aid drinking automatons who once closed their ears to the dissertation of facts are now opening their ears and breaking out of their cycles of personal and media propagated denial. Liberal Bill Maher: "I think President Obama makes a brilliant President. In the sense of a corporate President, not the kind that runs a country. He is great at making speeches, shaking hands and should be the PR rep for our country." As one colleague just recently admitted to me - “Obama looked and talked like someone I could be proud of, I had no idea every time he opened his mouth the economy and stock market would drop 300 points”. The pedagogic fluff of Obama is starting to roost in the minds of every moderate conservative that voted for him. Even moderate liberals are salting down their beers with their tears!

The White House must be hearing the drum beat for the call of Revolution against the ailing Obama administration. A recent Gallup poll revealed a huge fall off of followers. Thirty two percent of the nation are now claiming they are Democrats. Thirty Two percent Republican and a whopping Thirty Four percent Independent. Linda Douglass, former CBS News and then ABC News Washington bureau reporter until 2006, is a Barack Obama senior strategist. It is being reported that she “fixed a deal” for a two hour special for Obama on Friday June 18th 2009. Will this be a typical Obama Press fluff feast; another attempt to keep the life time campaigner in his media mode where he shines the best? As one reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle stated - “the liberal media and Obama should just get a room”. It really should be no wonder - ABC gave 55% more positive coverage for the Stealth Health Bill currently in debate than other outlets and during the 2008 campaign season ABC employees gave 80 % more money to the Obama campaign than any other media outlet said Fox News. Are they trying to ram their investment down our throat? Is it time to Boycott ABC, CNBC and NBC for unethical biased reporting?

The so called independent - rational thinkers - are finally realizing that many things were not what they seem or were told they would be. The so called “vote for Hope and Change” has revealed itself an agist political ideology that has failed in every form of adaptation by governments or states under the guise once again - for all the people - socialism. The face of socialism - redistribution of wealth, communistic reflections, degradations of our 2nd Amendment rights, silencing the voice of free speech, the - so called - Fairness Doctrine, the reversal of the freedom of choice act forcing hospitals who do not do abortions to do them. The limiting of brass for fire arm ammunition, spending money we don’t have, it leaves one pondering - what is happening - how can this happen in a country that prides itself on Freedom and liberty? How did the public become so numb?

History has one answer. It’s all about the information the public is given to process. The reference, propagandist- is the accurate term; the Toxic press coverage by the popular media and the Obama administration is propaganda. To understand the tactics of propaganda one has to look back 60 years to learn from the finest example of Toxic media. And - let me be perfectly clear - if the similarities are prevalent- if it walks like a duck it probably is. For the record - tactical similarities of a Toxic Tyrant - to use a modern phrase - changed the world forever. If the tactics worked for one political group the same tactics of getting the word out might work for another despite the differences of policy. The results are the same - Toxic problems! The popular and liberal press are now a political party - propagating Toxic waste.

Coming soon - Part II - Tyrannical Propaganda / Similar Tactics in the 2008 Presidential Election

Bias in the Press - Dissemination That Destroys Nations - Part II

Toxic Media - Dissemination that destroys nations - Toxic Waste! Part II
by Edward Biamonte - Fujah Magazine - http://www.fujah.com

If the tactics worked for one political group, the same tactics of getting the word out might work for another, despite the differences of policy. Tactics are tactics and can be used for positive, truthful dissemination. One can only ponder how many political groups used the tactics created by Hitler’s media machine that involved deception to a nation and the world?

The real issue - is the dissemination misleading the public? If the dissemination is not completely factual or truthful, the results from such information produces toxic outcomes - toxic problems! My perception, if the popular and liberal press are now a political party they have lost objectivity becoming subjective, opinion-biased, therefore propagating their agenda. While researching propaganda I found a very candid definition at Wikipedia / propaganda which utilizes direct quotes from Hitler's "Mien Kampf", "In World War II Nazi propaganda was institutionalized to create a perception of the Nazi regime– a perception just as the Nazis wanted and planned… Mein Kampf” contains the blueprint of later Nazi propaganda efforts..."

"Assessing his audience, Hitler writes in chapter IV: "Propaganda must always address itself to the broad masses of the people.” The following six paragraphs from the article describe the tyrannical intent to deceive the world and exterminate the Jews.


“All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed.”

“The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses. The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another.”

“The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning. This sentiment, however, is not complex, but simple and consistent. It is not highly differentiated, but has only the negative and positive notions of love and hatred, right and wrong, truth and falsehood."

As to the methods, the tactics employed, he explains:
"Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, in so far as it is favorable to the other side, present it according to the theoretical rules of justice; yet it must present only that aspect of the truth which is favorable to its own side.”

“The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials and those must be expressed as far as possible in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forward.”

“Every change that is made in the subject of a propagandist message must always emphasize the same conclusion. The leading slogan must of course be illustrated in many ways and from several angles, but in the end one must always return to the assertion of the same formula."

"Before World War II, Nazi propaganda strategy stressed several themes. Their goals were to create external enemies (countries that allegedly inflicted the Treaty of Versailles on Germany) and internal enemies (Jews). Hitler and Nazi propagandists played on the anti-Semitism and resentment present in Germany. Reaching out to ethnic Germans in other countries such as Czechoslovakia, France, Poland, the Soviet Union and the Baltic states was another aim of Nazi party propaganda. In Mein Kampf, Hitler makes a direct remark to those outside of Germany. He states that pain and misery is forced upon ethnic Germans outside of Germany, and that they dream of common fatherland…. Throughout Mein Kampf, he pushed Germans worldwide to make the struggle for political power and independence their main focus. Nazi propaganda efforts then focused on creating external enemies. Propagandists strengthened the negative attitude of Germany... Hitler, knowing his nation's disgust with the Treaty, used it as leverage to influence his audience. He would repeatedly refer back to the terms of the Treaty as a direct attack on Germany and its people. In one speech delivered in Berlin on January 30, 1937 he directly stated, “the Treaty makes Germany out to be inferior and “less” of a country than others only because blame for the war is placed on it…”

Wounded and angry from the 2000 and 2004 losses to G.W. Bush, and approximately three years prior to the 2008 election - media elites and liberal ideologues used every opportunity to hide, reject, abase, spin and degrade any positive stories or information concerning any conservative politic. The Democrats hired advertising firms to help them create a campaign that would appeal to the masses. Not that this is wrong - on the contrary it’s was very smart. However, the matter at hand is politic propaganda in the media. Was the coverage by the press of the political parties equal? The editorial process is supposed to be objective - non-biased so the public can get a factual understanding of current issues. Therefore, was the amount of coverage given to the Democratic party the same as that given to all other parties? The facts are egregious and problematic.

Eighteen months prior to the 2006 election I noticed a shift by the Democrats, they went negative about everything starting with the war in Iraq. Just as Hitler used “pain and misery is forced upon Germans,” it was evident Conservatives were responsible for the pain and misery suffered by the American people. This became normal political rhetoric as we moved closer to an election. The problem is how the rhetoric is assimilated and then propagated the by popular media. Did the popular media vet or investigate the rhetoric that was disseminated by the Democrats? It appears the opposite - popular media actually reinforced the information, propagated and disseminated the rhetoric. Research shows the average coverage by the popular media at large was largely in favor of one political party - the Democrats.

NCI Report stated, “Recent data from the 2008 election coverage Dominates PEJ’s First Quarterly… The 2008 Elections May 25, 2007 2008 Presidential Campaign Coverage Percent of Campaign Coverage (Time/Space) Devoted to Each Party Dec. 31, ‘06 – Mar. 31, ’07.”

Sectors: Mostly Democrats Mostly Republicans Both Parties
All Media 61% 24% 13%
Newspapers 52% 29% 16%
Online 67% 24% 8%
Network TV 63% 19% 16%
Cable TV 61% 24% 13%
Radio 72% 18% 8%”

Lexis Nexus database reveals the “Numbers of stories with Candidates names in the headline or lead paragraphs Dec. 31, '06 - Mar. 31, '07:

Giuliani Romney McCain Top 3 Republicans
Newspapers 177 205 196 578
Network TV 89 36 88 213

Clinton J. Edwards Obama Top 3 Dems
Newspapers 477 174 452 1103
Network TV 265 75 220 560”

The facts are in the stats. The first goal of the propagandist - as Hitler stated, “was to create internal and external enemies.” Hitlers internal enemy was the Jews. His media machine blamed the sons of Abraham for everything that was wrong, went wrong or could go wrong in Germany - sound familiar? The obvious pick for the Democrats and liberals should be Bush and the Conservative party. But the media taking sides is abhorrent!

Even though there were many successes by Conservatives and many negatives concerning the Democrats the press buried the negatives concerning the Democrats on the bottom of page 16 or 18 in newspapers. At the same time they were giving more coverage to the Democratic candidates. It appears that the tactic of media blitz was largess - very relevant for at least one political party!

The similarity per tactic to a tyrant over 60 years ago is shocking. Just as Hitler created a media blitz of Press, posters, films, cartoons and flyers that were seen throughout Germany, in 2006 The Left went to work on releasing anti-Bush policy and Iraq War films. Fundraisers began quietly by liberal elitist and non-American businessmen like George Sorros. The Left created liberal online media outlets that allowed donations to be registered by the likes of Mickey Mouse who used non-specific identity debit cards to donate multiple times. Non-profit groups like ACORN campaigned for the Left candidates. However, most noticeable was the free editorial coverage given to the Left by the press; seventy-nine percent of what the popular press covered in total for the month of June went to the Democrats.

Hitler went on a European media blitz starting Berlin “he pushed Germans worldwide to make the struggle for political power and independence their main focus.” He then focused on the world issues and how the world was for him or against the policies that the German people wanted and needed. Is it fair to say that Obama’s tactical planners did the same thing?

What was Obama’s agenda and message? A European tour starting in Berlin? His rhetoric began with "Hope and Change", then came the apologetics for America’s many sins and indiscretions. Then with a strong finish he brought the promise to change global perceptions. Conservatives outlets slammed Obama for posturing the laundry of the US for political gain and blatant political correctness, while the left wallowed in its mire. What was the media’s coverage of the Obama campaign during this period of the election cycle, great coverage without refutation. The pandering made non-ideologues vomit!

The “Total Percent of Campaign Newshole” - or the percentage of media time - coverage given to Obama versus other current issues:
Obama's Trip to Europe 51.2%,
Iraq War as an Issue 7.4
Press Treatment of Obama 6.9
McCain Vice President Search 3.6
McCain v. Obama Polls/Strategy 3.2
Other Foreign Policy Issues 3.0
Total Number of Campaign Stories = 402

“PEJ Campaign Coverage Index: July 21 - 27, 2008 Amid Charges of Bias, the Media Swarm on Obama Overseas…” Barack Obama’s July 24, 2008 speech to a crowd of about 200,000 in Berlin provided a startling campaign visual to punctuate a week of remarkable media attention. A story about the event on CNN.com, complete with video, quoted the network’s European political editor saying Obama “is one of those politicians who reaches parts other politicians don’t reach… Coverage of the trip consumed 51 percent of the campaign newshole for the week of July 21-27, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism’s Campaign Coverage Index… The trip also helped Obama, for the seventh consecutive week, dominate John McCain in the contest for media exposure. The Democrat was a significant or dominant factor in 81 percent of the campaign stories studied compared with 53 percent for McCain. Interestingly, even with all the attention to Obama’s trip, those numbers dovetail closely with the weekly coverage averages since the general election campaign began in June. In that period, Obama has factored in 79 percent of the coverage with McCain at 52 percent.”

Conversely - information concerning coverage of Conservatives back in 2004 revealed coverage of the protagonist - the good guy - in the popular media was almost non-existent.

The 2004 Annual Report - Magazine Content Analysis Story Protagonists and Sourcing March 15, 2004- said,” President Bush was not the main protagonist much of the time in the news magazines. Indeed, “Time” and “Newsweek” were both more than twice as likely to be focused on an entertainment celebrity as on the president as a main protagonist. This was not the case at “U.S. News and World Report”, where one was about as likely as the other. Bush did not even dominate political coverage at any of the news magazines. The three publications were twice as likely to build their political stories around some other federal official or politician as they were around the president.”

The Facts are in the stats! As of June 2009 Newsweek has used Obama on the cover 19 times. NBC has done two White House Specials, ABC just did a two hour special to promote national healthcare and banned any balance by the conservative party to rebut or do advertising against the Obama plan. The NY Times- 73% positive coverage since the election; while other outlets revealed 42% positive coverage for Obama. Conversely, G.W.Bush only received 22% and President Clinton 27% during the same 100 day time frame says Fox News. The media is not being adversarial and they cover personality over policy. While some state the reason for this coverage as greed to boost ratings because Obama is liked by 60% of the public, it is the perception of many that there is ideology, exploitation and greed involved. The exploitation of the American public to blatant propaganda is only compounded by the greed factor making the press contemptuous to its public! The public needs to respond!

While there is nothing wrong with Hollywood or liberal elites supporting a candidate, which is their right as Americans, when the press becomes the machine that mitigates rhetoric they become propagandists which pervade the public with editorial perversion- ultimately eliminating editorial balance. When the press looks the other way concerning facts, the candidate they are protecting proliferates and every element that is wrong or false is propagated; the result? Everyone suffers! When only a few conservative news outlets or talk shows properly proffer information and report the falsehoods or problematic rhetoric to the public - the public is deceived. Seventy percent of the media turned their heads and did nothing to correct their actions.

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in June 2005 found that more than 70 percent believed that the press tended to favor one side of a political debate over another. Secular elites, propagandists, tactical planners, their abased workers prostituted by their unethical elitist handlers are polluting the editorial process in America, the greatest free-voice nation in history. To reiterate one of my earlier statements- I am disgusted by the popular medias lack of integrity and quest to promote Ideology. They are surrogates, puppets, elitist and power hungry Machiavellians networking their politic and creating Toxic Media.

The media spin for many is so evident one wonders how so many of the public can accept such toxic rhetoric - propaganda, toxic waste! The public must respond to this propaganda. The public can start by tuning the propagandist out - simply turning off any station that propagates bias. But how will they know? )Authors: Bernard Goldberg, Dick Morris, Mark Levin and Bill Oreilly are great sources for facts. They don’t mess around.) Also - The Pew Research offers quantitative stats on coverage. If it’s greed that directs the commentary the outlets will have to change to get ratings or find themselves at death's door as the once great NY Times currently finds themselves. Is it time to Boycott, to Tea Party the Democratic advocated media or Government networks? Toxic media propagates one sided direction that leads the public to make Toxic Decisions.

We have viewed histories most blatant abhorrence for the public and the techniques of how it happens; how can we allow complacency and denial control a rational and direct response? We the People - Can Not! Egregious reporting directed by deceptive Machiavellians in the 2008 election cycle compelled voters in the US to make toxic decisions. Coming soon - Part Three - Toxic Media creates Toxic Decisions! Transparency My …! The Outrages Deception by the US House of Representatives Majority (Democrats and Moderate Republicans) HR2454 - The Obama Energy Bill. You will be Shocked! By the way did anyone report it?