Fact vs. Fiction

"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." — Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 1823

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

In Jefferson’s words the Second Amendment has been construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Yet it has constantly been interpreted by metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.

The Second Amendment has most recently been interpreted to grant the right of gun ownership to individuals for purposes that include self-defense. At first it was thought to apply only to the Federal government, but through the mechanism of the Fourteenth Amendment, it has been applied to the states as well. (See District of Columbia et al. v. Heller 2008). The Supreme Court has revitalized the Second Amendment. The Court continued to strengthen the Second Amendment through the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (08-1521). The plaintiff in McDonald challenged the constitutionally of the Chicago handgun ban, which prohibited handgun possession by almost all private citizens. In a 5-4 decisions, the Court, citing the intentions of the framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the incorporation doctrine.

So much for the legal interpretations of the Second Amendment. As of today it is pretty much set that the Second Amendment grants the rights of personal protection to all citizens of the United States. This right can be modified by the states to exclude convicted felons and the mentally ill. Each state has a different interpretation of these exclusions that people of common sense find reasonable, including for most part the NRA.

Recently I posted a Blog where I claimed that guns save lives. I suggest you scroll down through this list to see the various examples of how legally owned guns and Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permits have saved the lives of the owner or other innocents.

One case that sticks in my mind, as a person who will be traveling with my family and dog is a recent case in Albuquerque, New Mexico.Lynne Russell (a former CNN anchor) and her husband Chuck de Caro (a former CNN reporter) were traveling with their two Weinheimer dogs. Due to traveling with the dogs they had to stay in a dog-friendly Motel 6. On June 30, 2015 armed with a .40 caliber handgun convicted felon Tomorio Walton attempted broke into their room to rob the couple. Fortunately Russell and her husband were armed with Rugger .380 handguns and both had legal CCW permits. A shoot out ensued with de Caro wounded three times and Walton killed. No charges were filed against Russell or de Caro. Both Russell and de Caro were well trained in the use of firearms. Lately a second person has been charged with murder in the Russell case. He is Skyy Durrell Barrs, 30, whom Albuquerque police say put the armed intruder up to the attack.

Then we have county sheriffs and city police chiefs across the nation asking responsible citizens to legally arm themselves to help fight off crime in urban areas where the police are overwhelmed.

With the latest shooting of two reporters in Moneta, Virginia the media’s talking heads, left-wing politicians, and people without a clue on firearm regulations in the United States have climbed once again on the gun-grabbing band wagon. I guess the anti-gun news media’s propaganda campaign of calling every criminal with a firearm, regardless of the crime he commits, a “gunman,” has succeeded when pro-gun media does the same thing! He’s not a “gunman” he’s a murderer! If he used a knife, would you call him a “knifeman”?

This example is shown by a case in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma (a suburb of Tulsa) where 18 year-old Robert Bever stabbed to death 5 members of his family included his 5 year-old sister. Of course not much attention was given to this by the national media. Why? Because no gun was used and the media can’t push its anti-gun narrative. So this story gets ignored.

With this in mind let’s look at the murder rates in the United States. Since 1991 when the national murder rate was 9.8 per 1,000 people the rate has been dropping to 4.7 in 2011. That’s a drop of 52%. This rate may be climbing with recent events in Baltimore and the increase in assignations of law enforcement officers since Ferguson’s “hands up, don’t shoot” and “black lives matter.”

According to USA Today:

“After years of declining violent crime, several major American cities experienced a dramatic surge in homicides during the first half of this year.

Milwaukee, which last year had one of its lowest annual homicide totals in city history, recorded 84 murders so far this year, more than double the 41 it tallied at the same point last year.

…

Milwaukee is not alone.

The number of murders in 2015 jumped by 33% or more in Baltimore, New Orleans and St. Louis. Meanwhile, in Chicago, the nation's third-largest city, the homicide toll climbed 19% and the number of shooting incidents increased by 21% during the first half of the year.

In all the cities, the increased violence is disproportionately impacting poor and predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods. In parts of Milwaukee, the sound of gunfire is so commonplace that about 80% of gunshots detected by ShotSpotter sensors aren't even called into police by residents, Flynn said.

"We've got folks out there living in neighborhoods, where . . . it's just part of the background noise," Flynn told USA TODAY. "That's what we're up against."

Criminologists note that the surge in murders in many big American cities came after years of declines in violent crime in major metros throughout the United States. Big cities saw homicides peak in the late 1980s and early 1990s as crack-cocaine wreaked havoc on many urban areas

…

Baltimore and Ferguson effect

So far this year, Baltimore recorded 155 homicides, including three people who were killed late Tuesday evening near the University of Maryland, Baltimore campus. The 2015 homicide toll is 50 people higher than it was at the same point last year.

On Wednesday, Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake fired Police Commissioner Anthony Batts, citing the spike in murders in the city.

The firing also came as the police union was set to release a report hammering the department's response to the unrest in Baltimore following the death of Freddie Gray, who died one week after sustaining a severe spinal cord injury while in Baltimore police custody. Gray's treatment was held up by protesters as an example of the endemic problem of police brutality in the city and beyond.

"We cannot grow Baltimore without making our city a safer place to live," Rawlings-Blake said. "We need a change. This was not an easy decision, but it is one that is in the best interest of the people of Baltimore. The people of Baltimore deserve better."

The Charm City, which is seeing some of the worst violence since the 1990s when it routinely tallied 300 murders annually, recorded 42 killings in May alone.”

According to FBI 2013 report on crime in the United States:

“The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program defines murder and non-negligent manslaughter as the willful (non-negligent) killing of one human being by another.

“The classification of this offense is based solely on police investigation as opposed to the determination of a court, medical examiner, coroner, jury, or other judicial body. The UCR Program does not include the following situations in this offense classification: deaths caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; and attempts to murder or assaults to murder, which are classified as aggravated assaults.”

…

“Supplementary Homicide Data—The UCR Program’s supplementary homicide data provide information regarding the age, sex, and race of the murder victim and the offender; the type of weapon used; the relationship of the victim to the offender; and the circumstance surrounding the incident. Law enforcement agencies are asked—but not required—to provide complete supplementary homicide data for each murder they report to the UCR Program. Information gleaned from these supplementary homicide data can be viewed in the Expanded Homicide Data section.

Justifiable homicide—Certain willful killings must be reported as justifiable or excusable. In the UCR Program, justifiable homicide is defined as and limited to:

· The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty.

· The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.

Because these killings are determined through law enforcement investigation to be justifiable, they are tabulated separately from murder and non-negligent manslaughter.”

…

Overview

 “In 2013, the estimated number of murders in the nation was 14,196. This was a 4.4 percent decrease from the 2012 estimate, a 7.8 percent decrease from the 2009 figure, and a 12.1 percent drop from the number in 2004.

· There were 4.5 murders per 100,000 people. The murder rate fell 5.1 percent in 2013 compared with the 2012 rate. The murder rate was down from the rates in 2009 (10.5 percent) and 2004 (18.3 percent).

· Of the estimated number of murders in the United States, 43.8 percent were reported in the South, 21.4 percent were reported in the Midwest, 21.0 percent were reported in the West, and 13.8 percent were reported in the Northeast. “

This FBI site is loaded with statistics and tables that are far too numerous to post on this blog. I suggest you visit the site and peruse some of the tables for a clearer understanding of what the FBI is reporting.

So what the top five murder capitals of America? According to Neighborhood Scout, a national data base for home buyers and renters:

“That murder rates in major U.S. cities are on the decline is popular knowledge. New York City is often held up as the example: in 1990, NYC had more than two thousand homicides, by 2014 that number was down to just over 300. It’s a common trend of many cities, including Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Dallas, among others. Even cities with especially high murder rates have seen a relative decline: New Orleans ranks 9 on this year’s list, down from 4 last year, and St. Louis improved from 10 to 12.

On our ranking of America’s murder capitals, some cities show up that you might expect: Detroit ranks number 7, St. Louis 12, and Baltimore 13. Until recently large cities dominated murder-capital conversations; now this list is populated mostly by middle-sized cities as well as smaller cities in close proximity to larger ones. The smaller cities either serve or once did serve as industrial satellites to their larger neighbors. These smaller satellites show up on the list, while nearby larger cities sometimes don’t register. Camden ranks at number 2 but nearby Philadelphia does not make the list, Compton ranks 14 and San Bernardino 28, but Los Angeles doesn’t make the list, East Chicago ranks 15 and Harvey 11, but not Chicago proper. Perhaps these inner-ring suburbs and industrial satellites have contributed to the perception of their larger counterparts’ lingering reputations. Misinformed reporting may be to blame as well — using murder counts instead of murder rates, the later which normalize for population size and provide a better indication of your chance of becoming a victim compared to simple counts, which are generally just higher in bigger cities.

As with NeighborhoodScout’s ranking of the 100 most dangerous cities in the U.S., the Pacific-northwest, and the Great Plains don’t have any cities ranked at all. Also, there are no murder capitals in New England. All of the cities on the list, save for those in California, are either on or to the east of the Mississippi River. On the west coast, Oakland is the farthest north.

Big cities can have more murders than small cities, but not as a rate per population. This NeighborhoodScout report factors in population size to determine the number of murders in each city per 1,000 people, thereby normalizing for population and more clearly representing the risk to residents of a city.

While its population is tiny, East St. Louis ranks at #1 with the highest murder rate: 0.86 murders per thousand residents, approximately twenty one times the national average - while Baton Rouge ranks 30th on the list with 0.21 murders per thousand residents, just over four times the national average. We use the FBI’s definition for murder {homicide}, which is “the willful, non-negligent killing of one person by another,” and all cities included on this list are required to have a population of 25,000 or more.” [emphasis added]

So here is the list of the 30 top murder cities in the U.S.

Rank	City
30	Baton Rouge, LA
29	Youngstown, OH
28	San Bernardino, CA
27	Oakland, CA
26	Barberton, OH
25	Poughkeepsie, NY
24	Cincinnati, OH
23	Petersburg, VA
22	Wilmington, DE
21	York, PA
20	East Palo Alto, CA
19	Jackson, MS
18	Wilkes-Barre, PA
17	Birmingham, AL
16	East Point, GA
15	East Chicago, IN
14	Compton, CA
13	Baltimore, MD
12	St. Louis, MO
11	Harvey, IL
10	Newark, NJ
9	New Orleans, LA
8	Trenton, NJ
7	Detroit, MI
6	Flint, MI
5	Saginaw, MI
4	Chester, PA
3	Gary, IN
2	Camden, NJ
1	East St. Louis, IL

Click on the city’s link to see the neighborhoods that are the most dangerous.

NeighborhoodScout’s research reveals the 100 most dangerous cities in America with 25,000 or more people, based on the number of violent crimes per 1,000 residents. Violent crimes include murder, rape, armed robbery, and aggravated assault. Data used for this research are 1) the number of violent crimes reported to the FBI to have occurred in each city, and 2) the population of each city. To view a list of the 100 most dangerous click here. You will be surprised by the facts.

So isn’t it time for the media to begin to present the facts rather than constantly reporting on the emotions of the day.

We Live in an Era of Spin

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” — Edward Bernays, 1928

Today we live in an age of spin. By spin I am not referring to a Ferris wheel or top, but the distortion in the news and how current events and the products we buy are portrayed in our media. We live in an age where we are accustomed to 15 or 30 second commercials telling us what automobile, breakfast cereal, tooth paste, or beer to buy. We are used to these and our brain is able to process 15 or 30 seconds worth of spoken words, images, and sounds very easily.

This world of spin now affects the way we receive our news about politics and national affairs. If you have ever watched some of the news and opinion shows you will see how the talking heads will stick to their preconceived talking points no matter what question is asked of them. They will stick to the agenda that has been approved for them by the political party or politician they support. Even in so-called debate shows where the debate lasts for two or three minutes the opposing parties beat each other over the head with their talking points and rarely address the issue at hand with honesty or candor. In essence we live in a world dominated by PowerPoint.

A recent example is the issue of the terrorist attacks on our consulate in Benghazi and the so-called Romney tape.

Both domestic and foreign intelligence sources have repeatedly stated that the Benghazi was a planned Al Qaeda attack and were not spontaneous protests caused by the so-called anti- Muslim video. The most recent report of this appears in Fox News:

“Intelligence sources tell Fox News they are convinced the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was directly tied to Al Qaeda -- with a former Guantanamo detainee involved.

That revelation comes on the same day a top Obama administration official called last week's deadly assault a "terrorist attack" -- the first time the attack has been described that way by the administration after claims it had been a "spontaneous" act.

"Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy," Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said during a Senate hearing Wednesday.”

However, his statement goes beyond White House Press Secretary Jay Carney and Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, saying the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate was spontaneous. He is the first top administration official to call the strike an act of terrorism. The Fox Report continues:

“Rice appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and four other morning talk shows to say the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans was "spontaneous" and sparked by an early protest that day outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, over an anti-Islamic video.

"It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States," Rice told Fox News. "The best information and the best assessment we have today is that this was not a pre-planned, pre-meditated attack. What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo."

However, that account clashed with claims by the Libyan president that the attack was in fact premeditated. Other sources, including an intelligence source in Libya who spoke to Fox News, have echoed those claims. The intelligence source even said that, contrary to the suggestion by the Obama administration, there was no major protest in Benghazi before the deadly attack which killed four Americans. A U.S. official did not dispute the claim. “

This is spin by an administration that is attempting to avoid embarrassment, yet alone culpability for its lack of providing proper security at the consulate.

We no longer have proper debates in the form of the Lincoln-Douglas debates where the two candidates stood side by side for several hours and presented theirs view on the views on the questions of the day — mainly slavery and the Dread Scott decision. There was no moderator with a specific agenda allowing a mere 90 seconds for a talking points answer. The longer these men went on the more they said and revealed their true thoughts and character. They were versed in the skill of rhetoric, not the use of the teleprompter or PowerPoint. It was up to the public to make up their minds as to who they wanted to vote for based on the fortitude, character, and philosophy expressed by the candidate.

So how did we get to the point in our national debate where we are today?

In the days of the traveling snake oil salesman he had to go from town to town with his wagon load of tonics and elixirs, set up shop and spend the day telling the assembled crowd how his preparations could cure everything that ailed you. When he had finished selling all he could he would pack up and move to the next town where he would start all over again.

In the early 1920’s radios became affordable and almost every home across the land owned one. This gave rise to more and more radio stations and the demand for more and more programing. To support the cost of the stations and programming he radio stations needed to sell air time to sponsors who would sell the products over the this new electronic media.

Unlike the traveling salesman and snake oil peddlers radio stations did not have all day to sell a sponsor’s product over the air waves. They had to do it in 30 seconds or less if they wanted to retain the attention of the listeners — thus entered the growth of the ad agencies and Madison Avenue.

These add men had already been making their living producing advertising for magazines and newspapers. With the printed media ads could contain both words and images, but on radio the commercials depended on words and music, thus the advent of the singing jingles and slogans that we can still see today. This was called branding.

People tended to believe testimonials for products on the radio. The more soothing the voice was more believable the message. This worked especially well with women who listened to the daily soap operas while their husbands were at work and usually made the decisions on what products to purchase for the family. This is why these daily 30-minute dramas were sponsored by laundry soap (thus the name soap opera), breakfast cereal, flour, and other home products.

Spin and propaganda has always been with us to some extent. When Rome burned Nero blamed the Christians and the French blamed Dreyfus for the leakage of French military secrets to the Germans. Both were not only false they were clumsy. When Woodrow Wilson dragged the United States into the First World War he needed an arm of government to spin his war message to the American Public. For this purpose he created the Committee on Public Information AKA the Creel Committee due to its chairman George Creel. It was the mission of the CPI to promote Wilson’s war to the American public through the use of newspapers, magazines, posters and the newly discovered power of radio. It used every medium available to create enthusiasm for the war effort and enlist public support against foreign attempts to undercut America's war aims. Creel was a die-hard Democrat who was quoted as saying; “"an open mind is not part of my inheritance. I took in prejudices with mother's milk and was weaned on partisanship.” Other members of the CPI were the renowned political columnist Walter Lippmann and the Austrian born nephew of the famous psychoanalysis pioneers Sigmund Freud, Edward Bernays. It was Bernays who would go on to become known as the “father of spin.”

Amazed by the degree to which the “democracy” slogan had swayed the public both at home and abroad, Bernays wondered whether this propaganda model could be employed during peace time. Due to negative implications surrounding the word propaganda because of its use by the Germans in World War I, he promoted the term "Public Relations". According to the BBC interview with Bernays’ daughter Anne, Bernays felt that the public's democratic judgment was "not to be relied upon" and he feared that "they [the American public] could very easily vote for the wrong man or want the wrong thing, so that they had to be guided from above". This "guidance" was interpreted by Anne to mean that her father believed in a sort of "enlightened despotism" ideology. This was a far cry from our Founders who put their thoughts and philosophies of government in the Federalist Papers.

Bernays’ public relations efforts helped to popularize Freud's theories in the United States. Bernays also pioneered the PR industry's use of psychology and other social sciences to design its public persuasion campaigns: He is quoted as saying:

“If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits.”

Bernays refined and popularized the use of the press release, following its invention by PR man Ivy Lee, who had issued a press release after the 1906 Atlantic City train wreck. One of the most famous campaigns of Bernays was the women's cigarette smoking campaign in 1920s. Bernays helped the tobacco industry overcome one of the biggest social taboos of the time: women smoking in public. Women were only allowed to smoke in designated areas, or not at all. If caught violating this rule, women would have been arrested. Bernays staged the 1929 Easter parade in New York City, showing models holding lit Lucky Strike cigarettes, or "Torches of Freedom". After the historical public event, women started lighting up more than ever before. It was through Bernays that women's smoking habits started to become socially acceptable. Bernays created this event as news, which, of course, it wasn’t. Bernays convinced industries that the news, not advertising, was the best medium to carry their message to an unsuspecting public. This is a technique that has been refined for today’s mainstream media as lazy journalists buy the spin and ignore the facts.

One of Bernays’ favorite techniques for manipulating public opinion was the indirect use of "third party authorities" to plead his clients' causes. "If you can influence the leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway", he said. In order to promote sales of bacon, for example, he conducted a survey of physicians and reported their recommendation that people eat heavy breakfasts. He sent the results of the survey to 5,000 physicians, along with publicity touting bacon and eggs as a heavy breakfast. This technique was used during the debate over ObamaCare when 50 people dressed in white doctor’s coats appeared on the White House lawn to promote the passage of the bill. This was pure Bernays

Bernays also drew upon his uncle Sigmund's psychoanalytic ideas for the benefit of commerce in order to promote, by indirection, commodities as diverse as cigarettes, soap and books,

In his 1928 book Propaganda Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy:

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”

In the first chapter, Organizing Chaos, of his book Bernays writes:

“In theory, everybody buys the best and cheapest commodities offered him on the market. In practice, if every one went around pricing, and chemically testing before purchasing, the dozens of soaps or fabrics or brands of bread which are for sale, economic life would become hopelessly jammed. To avoid such confusion, society consents to have its choice narrowed to ideas and objects brought to its attention through propaganda of all kinds. There is consequently a vast and continuous effort going on to capture our minds in the interest of some policy or commodity or idea.

It might be better to have, instead of propaganda and special pleading, committees of wise men who would choose our rulers, dictate our conduct, private and public, and decide upon the best types of clothes for us to wear and the best kinds of food for us to eat. But we have chosen the opposite method, that of open competition. We must find a way to make free competition function with reasonable smoothness. To achieve this society has consented to permit free competition to be organized by leadership and propaganda.

Some of the phenomena of this process are criticized—the manipulation of news, the inflation of personality, and the general ballyhoo by which politicians and commercial products and social ideas are brought to the consciousness of the masses. The instruments by which public opinion is organized and focused may be misused. But such organization and focusing are necessary to orderly life.

As civilization has become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which opinion may be regimented.”

In chapter VII, Propaganda for Education Bernays writes:

“The normal school should provide for the training of the educator to make him realize that his is a twofold job: education as a teacher and education as a propagandist.”

In the book “The Father of Spin” by Larry Tye reviewers John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton write:

“Today, few people outside the public relations profession recognize the name of Edward L. Bernays. As the year 2000 approaches, however, his name deserves to figure on historians' lists of the most influential figures of the 20th century.

It is impossible to fundamentally grasp the social, political, economic and cultural developments of the past 100 years without some understanding of Bernays and his professional heirs in the public relations industry. PR is a 20th century phenomenon, and Bernays -- widely eulogized as the "father of public relations" at the time of his death in 1995 -- played a major role in defining the industry's philosophy and methods.”

…

Bernays' life was amazing in many ways. He had a role in many of the seminal intellectual and commercial events of this century. "The techniques he developed fast became staples of political campaigns and of image-making in general," Tye notes. "That is why it is essential to understand Edward L. Bernays if we are to understand what Hill and Knowlton did in Iraq -- not to mention how Richard Nixon was able to dig his way out of his post-Watergate depths and remake himself into an elder statesman worthy of a lavish state funeral, how Richard Morris repositioned President Bill Clinton as an ideological centrist in order to get him reelected, and how most other modern-day miracles of public relations are conceived and carried out."

Many of the new insights that Tye offers have to do with Bernays's relationship with his family and his uncle Sigmund Freud, whose reputation as "the father of psychoanalysis" owes something to Bernays' publicity efforts. Bernays regarded Uncle Sigmund as a mentor, and used Freud's insights into the human psyche and motivation to design his PR campaigns, while also trading on his famous uncle's name to inflate his own stature.

There is, however, a striking paradox in the relationship between the two. Uncle Sigmund's "talking cure" was designed to unearth his patients' unconscious drives and hidden motives, in the belief that bringing them into conscious discourse would help people lead healthier lives. Bernays, by contrast, used psychological techniques to mask the motives of his clients, as part of a deliberate strategy aimed at keeping the public unconscious of the forces that were working to mold their minds.

Characteristically (and again paradoxically), Bernays was remarkably candid about his manipulative intent. "If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it," he argued in Propaganda, one of his first books. In a later book, he coined the term "engineering of consent" to describe his technique for controlling the masses.

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society," Bernays argued. "Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."

….

During Bernays' lifetime and since, propaganda has usually had dirty connotations, loaded and identified with the evils of Nazi PR genius Joseph Goebbels, or the oafish efforts of the Soviet Communists. In his memoirs, Bernays wrote that he was "shocked" to discover that Goebbels kept copies of Bernays' writings in his own personal library, and that his theories were therefore helping to "engineer" the rise of the Third Reich.”

The next time you read an article in a newspaper or magazine or watch one of the numerous news and opinion shows on TV watch with a jaundiced eye and listen with a doubting ear. Consider the person or publication making the statement and the agenda they are promoting. Study history, not from a college professor who no doubt has a personal agenda at work in his classroom, but from various sources. Learn to identify the spin and talking points and demand more honest debate. The hand of Edward Bernays may be reaching out from the grave.

Stand Up and Cheer with Sarah

"Would it not be better to simplify the system of taxation rather than to spread it over such a variety of subjects and pass through so many new hands." — Thomas Jefferson

Last week I attended a Fourth of July parade in a city near me. I was pleased to see so many people lining the curbs as the bands, floats, antique automobiles, and mounted patrols marched by. It reminded me of the days of my youth when my dad would take me to the Cleveland Municipal Stadium on the Fourth to watch reenactments of WWII battles and the fireworks. It was a time when it felt good to be an American.

Recently I complete an on-line course from Hillsdale College on the Constitution. I not only learned things about our Founders and their thinking on issuing the Declaration of Independence, writing the Constitution, and something called the American Mind it was a very enjoyable experience.

America’s Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson said, was the product of “the American mind.” Our Constitution was made with the same purpose as the Declaration—to establish a regime where the people are sovereign, and the government protects the rights granted to them by their Creator. (See my blog on the meaning of the Fourth of July by clicking here)

America is a nation of immigrants, people came here for a multitude of reasons as my grandparents and my father and daughter-in-law did. No other country in the world is comprised of as many immigrants as the United States. When these immigrants came to this country they were not Americans by birth and made a purposeful choice to become Americans. In doing so they became citizens by swearing allegiance to the Constitution and laws of the nation. Once the judge announced their citizenship it was a valid as any person born here. The only thing these naturalized citizens could not do was be president or vice president of the United States. No nation in the world has such a system of government. If you were not born in Germany, France, Switzerland or Japan you are not considered German, French, Swiss or Japanese. This is not the case in the United States. Once you willfully take that oath of citizenship you are an American. There is no ethnic American – people are born to be Germans, French or Japanese, they choose to be Americans.

Lately some of this enthusiasm for America has been lost. People don’t feel good about being an American. We are constantly bombarded by politicians and the media on our flaws and blemishes. We are told we are not exceptional—even by our President—and the principles expressed in our Declaration and Constitution are outmoded. Patriotism is scoffed at by the intellectuals and some in the media. Many school children are no longer taught about our Declaration or Constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance and Preamble to the Constitution are no longer recited as they are considered to be insensitive to the culture of immigrant children. This political correctness, a product of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory, is destroying the American Mind.

Our lase cheerleader for America was Ronald Reagan. He could make you feel good about being an American and by doing so brought the people of this nation together. This drove his critics in the media and academia crazy. His mastermind critics labeled him as uneducated, a flag waver, and a hollow person yet in the 19984 election he won 49 of our 50 states. Only Minnesota, the home state of his opponent Walter Mondale, voted against him.

Lloyd Marcus writes in American Thinker when comparing Reagan to his father, the first black firefighter on the Baltimore fire department:

“Dad once commented to me how it saddened him to see the deterioration of standards in the fire department -- firefighters being slapped on the wrist for not showing up for their shift and for serious lapses of character.

Dad, now 84, is very much like Ronald Reagan. Both men came up the hard way and worked for everything they got. Both epitomized the American Dream. Reagan was an eternal optimist; so is my dad. Reagan loved laughter and jokes. Dad, who lives in Maryland, calls me in Florida to tell me his latest joke. I cannot begin to tell you how grateful I am to still laugh at dad's corny jokes.

Dad is a good guy. Am I naïve or old-fashioned, expecting the good guy to win? Has America changed so dramatically that being good -- a person of character -- is considered naïve?

Public schools are teaching our children that patriotism is ignorant and prejudiced -- rude to the rest of the world. These schools force Gay Pride Day down our kids' throats. But wearing a t-shirt to school with the U.S. flag on it is banned, considered offensive. They teach our kids songs praising Obama while banning "God Bless the USA."

So where are the prominent voices who are standing up and celebrating the goodness and greatness of America? Reagan always touted the goodness of America and how God is with us. Michael Reagan said his dad was America's last great cheerleader. Sadly, I must agree.

Sarah Palin has stood up touting the greatness of America, and look what the Obama administration and the mainstream media have attempted to do to her. Disgracefully, millions of ill-informed Americans view Palin as a nutcase far-right extremist.

Think about that, folks. Because Palin boldly stands up for traditional family values, God, and country, the left has tried to crucify not only Palin herself, but also her entire family. Showing more "kahonies" than many Republican males, Palin continues to be a relentless cheerleader for Ronald Reagan's and my dad's America. But Sarah Palin is only one courageous woman. To conquer the shock-and-awe assault on our country by Obama and his media minions, we need an army of cheerleaders.

To pass patriotism on to our children and our children's children, we need many more American cheerleaders -- teaching character, hard work, education, and the goodness and greatness of this extraordinary, unique, successful experiment called America.”

I could not agree with Mr. Marcus more. Every time I see Sarah Palin on TV she has a positive message about America. This was Margaret Thatcher’s way of being the longest serving prime minister in Great Britain—she made people feel good about being British and by doing so pulled her nation out of a deep recession and drift towards radical socialism.

Palin does the same thing in America. She constantly expresses the American Mind and touts our exceptionalism as Reagan did. Her intellectual critics in academia and the media despise her for this. She is considered a flag waving boob who knows nothing of the world. Yet she managed to serve as mayor of a city and governor of Alaska. When the dull and lackluster John McCain was running for president against the hope and change jingoism of Barack Obama he drew crowds in the hundreds. When Palin joined him on the campaign trail the crowds spiraled to the thousands. People wanted to hear Palin, not McCain. This drove his managers crazy to the extent that their jealously was at the root of their reproaches of Palin.

Do I believe Palin could be president? Perhaps, but not now. The media and masterminds have done such a good job at bombarding her and her family with unfair and untrue criticisms. Sarah Palin is smart enough to know that this is not yet her time. On the other hand I believe she has a role to play at the Republican convention and on the campaign trail with Romney. If he does not take advantage of Palin’s popularity he is not the clever businessman he claims to be. What should matter to Romney and his managers is getting elected, not who captures the spotlight at any given moment.

When the masterminds in the media and academia talk about Palin’s lack of intellectual acumen I think back on the “intellectual” perspicacity of our Founders. How intellectual was Patrick Henry when uttered his famous phase; "Give me Liberty, or give me Death” or Thomas Paine when he authored his pamphlet Common Sense, a book that George Washington used to inspire his troops at Valley Forge? How “intellectual” was Abraham Lincoln when he penned the Gettysburg Address or Ronald Reagan when he said; “Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall”—a statement his advisors did not want him to make? Please don’t confuse intellectualism with wisdom —they are the same. Woodrow Wilson was considered an “intellectual” and look what he did. Barack Obama is considered by his both his supporters and opponents as the smartest president ever and look what he has done?

I will take wisdom, energy, and enthusiasm over intellectualism every day of the week. We need more cheerleaders for America and perhaps Sarah Palin can show the way.

The Untold Story Of Bob And Nancy

The Untold Story Of Bob And Nancy“In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.” — George Washington

We all know about Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. There have been endless reports and opinion columns on the shooting of a young Black man by a neighborhood watchman who claimed it was done in self-defense. So called civil rights leaders have held rallies and demanded justice for Trayvon Martin even to the point of convicting George Zimmerman before he is ever brought to trial.

On the other hand there was a brutal sexual assault and double murder in Tulsa Oklahoma a few weeks ago that went virtually unreported in the main stream or national media.

On May 4^th Tulsa Police have confirmed that an elderly man, who with his wife was brutally beaten by intruders to his home in March, has died.

Bob Strait, 90, was critically injured in the March 13 assault, which took place in the 3300 block of East Virgin Street.

The couple was married 65 years before Nancy Strait, 85, died at a Tulsa hospital from wounds sustained in the beating.

On March 20, 2012 the Daily Mail reported on this brutal attack:

“An 85-year-old woman was sexually assaulted and battered to death by a home invader who also shot her 90-year-old husband in the face with a BB gun.

Nancy and Bob Strait, who had celebrated their 65th wedding anniversary in December, were discovered by their daughter at their home in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Both the pensioners were rushed to hospital where Mrs. Strait, who was nearly blind, died from her injuries.

Mr. Strait, who served in the 101st Airborne Division in World War II, suffered a broken jaw, broken ribs and severe bleeding. He is in a serious condition in hospital. (Editor Note; Mr. Strait died from his wounds on May 4, 2012)

Police have arrested 20-year-old Tyrone Dale David Woodfork in connection with the case.

The Straits' distraught family today paid tribute to the pair, who grew up in poverty in rural Oklahoma during the Great Depression.

They met each other on a blind date on Thanksgiving 1946, married a month later and went on to have six children, 18 grandchildren and about 50 great and great-great grandchildren. They had recently welcomed a great-great-great grandchild.”

…..

“Tulsa police believe burglars broke into the Straits' home either late Tuesday or early Wednesday last week. They were not found until the Wednesday evening.

The home invaders made off with their Dodge Neon, a television and $200.

Woodfork was later found hiding in a nearby house after a witness spotted the stolen vehicle being driven down the road.

He is being held at Tulsa Jail without bail accused of first-degree murder, burglary, assault with a dangerous weapon and two counts of armed robbery.

'This investigation is far from over,' Officer Jason Willingham of the Tulsa police department told Tulsa World. 'We've still got a lot of questions that we still need answered.”

Even Snopes.com published a detailed report of this heinous crime on their truth or fiction web site.

Bob Strait was a paratrooper in World War II. He was with the 101st airborne where he was part of the D-day invasion. He was awarded the Bronze Star.

Nancy grew up in a log cabin in Kenwood, Oklahoma with no running water. She moved to Tulsa to work during the war.

The two met after the war ended.

"They met and three weeks later got married. Friday the 13th in 1946. They've been married 65 years and three months," said daughter Andra.

Nancy was a homemaker who made quilts and homemade jellies. Bob was a welder by trade and did woodworking for a hobby. The two did everything together; grocery shopping, doctor's visits, you name it.

They would do anything for anyone, which makes it so hard to understand why the men who kicked in their back door beat them so viciously just to take their TV, $200 and a bb gun. Nancy didn't make it. Bob had a broken jaw, cracked ribs and a bb lodged in his face, injuries from which he succumbed to on May 4^th.

Tyrone Woodfork, 19, is in custody. He lived just four houses from the Straits. He was on a suspended sentence for a 2010 burglary conviction. Police say they are looking for four or five more suspects.

This is another case of a newspaper in the United Kingdom reporting on a story that outside of the local Tulsa TV stations was not covered. Is it due to the race of the alleged killer or just that the story is not that important? Many people will say it is because this was a black on white crime and like the brutal attack of two reporters for the Virginia Pilot in Norfolk, Virginia the media did not want to “inflame passions” against Blacks. On the other hand a story of a mob of whites attacking a Black man and women would have made headlines in the national media for weeks as did the Trayvon Martin case.

The Rhino Den a local Tulsa blog reports:

“I do question, as the family does, whether they have the resources and support that they need from the Mayor’s office and town leadership. While we are researching this in earnest before embracing this belief, peripherally, Mayor Dewey F. Bartlett, Jr. does not seem very interested in responding to questions about the violent attacks on Nancy and Bob Strait. Ranger Up fans sending the mayor questions on Facebook have been ignored and blocked and emails sent to the mayor’s office have been ignored. The only response we have from anyone in Tulsa is from the police force, which simply has said, “We’re doing the best we can.”

I’m not sure why case is being brushed aside while others have gained prominence. Maybe the mayor’s office is concerned that this will be bad PR for Tulsa, maybe he doesn’t want to face criticism about adequate protection for the citizens of Tulsa prior to an election after he cut 142 police jobs, maybe he simply has incompetent staff running his websites, or maybe he and his staff have been watching too many television shows about veterans and they are afraid we’re gonna go all “PTSD” on them.

What is clear is that they seem to be dropping the ball and appear to be no closer to finding the people responsible for the brutal rape and murder of an 85 year old woman and the vicious beating of her D-Day veteran husband than they were a month ago. And that is completely unacceptable.”

We live in a time when the news media not only has a bias in their reporting they also have practice selective reporting of heinous crimes. The Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman, Norfolk, Virginia, and Tulsa, Oklahoma are perfect examples of this. The Martin/Zimmerman case has been over reported while the Norfolk and Tulsa instances have been grossly under reported.

How tragic and sad it is for a man who parachuted into the flooded fields of Normandy on D-Day, fought in the Battle of the Bulge and won a Bronze Star to watch while his wife of 65 years is brutally beaten and sexually assaulted while he lays wounded from a savage beating at the hands of 19-year old punk.

This is and the Norfolk assaults are a perfect argument for the “Stand Your Ground” law. If two people are being carjacked or if man or woman is subjected to a home invasion by punks they should have the legal right to use any means of self-defense including blowing the head off of the perpetrators without fear of arrest and prosecution. Perhaps if more folks did this the punks would get the message and think twice about facing a Mossberg 500 or a Beretta M9.

The [accused] [animal] Tyrone Woodfork was caught driving the couple’s car around. And yes, Oklahoma has the death penalty, though some might find lethal injection a kinder gentler outcome than what Mr. Woodfork did to the couple, assuming of course he is found guilty.

The Hateful Biased Media

“Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings - give us that precious jewel, and you may take every things else! Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. “The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth — and listen to the song of that syren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?” — Patrick Henry

While browsing media sites for my post on the Sandra Fluke dust up with Rush Limbaugh I came upon some of the most hateful stories and reports uttered by so-called main stream media sites. These reports were posted on the News Busters web site, a division of the Media Research Center. This is a sampling of hateful today’s liberal media can be:

“Howard Kurtz: Bachmann Should Have Expected Verbal Abuse Because She Ran for President.

Michele Bachmann complained that although the media are outraged over an insult of Sandra Fluke, "there is no level of vitriol that's beyond the pale" when the victims are conservative women. CNN's Howard Kurtz questioned that assumption since Bachmann ran for president and should have expected "a lot of criticism." Apparently, running for president nowadays subjects you and your family to vile, obscene, personal insults – and you should simply expect it.

When then-candidate Obama was the target of a fraction of the vitriol Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann received as presidential candidates, the media rushed to his defense and rightfully did not tolerate such invective being a part of the presidential process. [Warning: this article includes uncensored vulgarities to accurately represent what certain members of the media have said about conservative women.] Read More Here.

WaPo's Quinn Slams Rush Limbaugh Audience: 'Have You No Shame'?

In a March 5 post in which she deemed Rush Limbaugh's Saturday apology to Sandra Fluke as insufficient to be rewarded by her holiness, Washington Post "On Faith" feature editor Sally Quinn pounded her electronic pulpit yesterday, condemning Rush's audience for being complicit in Limbaugh's sin of daring to bombastically criticize the Left. Read More Here.

Liberal Radio Host Glad Breitbart's Dead, Would Pour Weed Killer on His Grave

A few days ago, conservative author Ann Coulter summed up the left's reaction to the death of Andrew Breitbart with this statement:  "Even in death he shows liberals in their true colors".  With that, those true colors, the same rage and venom being spewed in Breitbart's direction, continues.

Last week, we saw Rolling Stone publish a piece in which author Matt Taibbi lamented how happy he was for Breitbart to be gone.  We saw Slate columnist, Matt Yglesias, proclaim that "the world outlook is slightly improved" with Breitbart dead. And then there was former editor of the New York Press, and Taibbi cohort, Jeff Koyen, mock writers defending Breitbart as "hitching yourself to a corpse".

Continuing in that same vein of sub-standard decency is liberal radio host, John "Sly" Sylvester of WTDY in Madison, Wisconsin. Sylvester recently aired a 20-minute segment on his radio show which was posted as a Podcast entitled, "Andrew Breitbart:  Dead (thankfully)". Read More Here.

Hypocritical Cable Networks Eagerly Bash Rush But Embrace Crude Bill Maher

Both MSNBC and CNN have devolved into a feeding frenzy over Rush Limbaugh’s crack last week about a Georgetown law student, with hosts on both networks scolding Limbaugh for his words and fantasizing the conservative radio powerhouse will get knocked off the airwaves.

But an MRC review finds those networks had no negative reaction to far more vulgar and sexist language used by HBO host Bill Maher. Instead, both networks have hosted Maher repeatedly (12 times in the past year) in softball formats where the journalists ritually flatter the vulgarian: “Your show is brilliant,” “I love your show,” “You’re the funniest, smartest guy around.”

If either CNN or MSNBC genuinely cared about the use of insulting language toward women, they could stop providing the vile Maher with a regular platform to promote his show and his left-wing views.

[Warning: this article includes uncensored vulgarities to accurately represent what Bill Maher has said about conservative women.]

Here’s what CNN’s Piers Morgan said about Rush Limbaugh on Friday: “Limbaugh’s disgusting comments are the work of an archaic old dinosaur living in a warped, ugly swamp, who thinks it’s okay to degrade decent young women for sport and ratings. Well, it isn’t it. Shame on you, Rush Limbaugh.”

The next morning, NBC’s Today show brought on MSNBC host Al Sharpton to lambaste Limbaugh: “You can’t have him as a major spokesman in your movement and then he says something as offensive and misogynist as this.”

Monday, on MSNBC’s The Ed Show, host Ed Schultz — who last year had to apologize after he called conservative radio host Laura Ingraham a “slut” — urged liberals to exploit Limbaugh’s use of the same term (also with an apology) to get his show cancelled. Schultz fantasized: “If there is a time to get him off the air, this is the push. I mean, if women in this country are serious about what they hear on the free airwaves of America, there’s no better time.” Read More Here.

Onslaught: ABC Airs Eight Limbaugh Stories in Less Than Five Days

Good Morning America's Dan Harris on Tuesday highlighted liberal hopes to turn Rush Limbaugh's "slut" comments into a "Don Imus moment." The March 6 segment brings the total number of ABC stories on the subject to eight in just four and a half days.

Harris played two nasty clips, one showing Jon Stewart mocking the conservative host as a "terrible person." Harris excitedly related, "This morning, liberal groups are going all out. They're mounting an aggressive online campaign to get Limbaugh's sponsors to pull their ads. They are hoping this is Rush Limbaugh's Don Imus moment."

He then played a clip of Stewart excoriating, "I don't get too worked up about the things Rush Limbaugh says, because he is, and has been for many years, a terrible person." Read More Here.

‘GCB’ - Desperately Un-Christian Housewives

In just over 40 minutes ABC managed to degrade Christianity 30 times in its sex-and-sin filled pilot episode of “GCB,” which is anything but Christian. The episode also included an agenda of mocking Texans and conservatives.

The first glimpse of the show reveals the main character’s husband involved in an extra-marital affair. The cheating pair tries to make a hasty getaway, and amidst their flight the other woman performs oral sex on her lover while he is driving. Predictably, this does not end well, as the immoral twosome’s car catapults over a cliff as a result of their stupidity. This is only in the first 50 seconds.

From this moment on “GCB” is an avalanche of depravity, but would anyone expect less from a show originally titled “Good Christian Bitches?” But although the title has changed, an early scene shows the star’s picture in a yearbook labeled “Bitch,” just to underline what the title really means.

This from a Disney owned network that dumped ESPN personalities for politically incorrect statements and wants Rush Limbaugh off the air. Talk about hypocrisy. Read More Here.

Laura Ingraham Busts The View: When Ed Schultz Called Me a Slut Barbara Walters 'Laughed it Off'

As NewsBusters reported Monday, the ladies of ABC's The View were tremendously sympathetic to Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke's tale of woe and misery having been called a "slut" by conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh.

Yet as Laura Ingraham pointed out on Tuesday's Fox & Friends, her being called a "slut" by MSNBC's Ed Schultz last year was a source of great amusement on The View with Barbara Walters acknowledging to great laughter, "Joy Behar on this program has called me a slut"

As the Limbaugh-Fluke-Schultz discussion on Fox & Friends ensued, Ingraham commented, "When it was brought up on The View, Barbara Walters kind of laughed it off. She was like, 'Joy, you call me that word all the time.' And they kind of just laughed. But when Fluke goes on The View yesterday, it was 'Oh, isn't this a tragedy' and 'Oh, isn't this horrible' and 'Rush Limbaugh should be driven off the air.'" Read More Here.

Our nation was founded on the premises of the 17th century philosopher, John Locke that our basic rights are God given and that ordinary citizens are capable of self-governance. The primary role of government is to protect those rights. These ideas were in stark contrast to the prevailing thought throughout most of history that individual rights were granted by the government and only those appointed by the church or members of certain families were capable of ruling the masses.

However, today, as in the 1930's, the concepts of the Founding Fathers are under assault by a small percentage of the population that wishes to exploit the power of government for their own economic and intellectual benefit. Union leaders want the government to force more people to join their unions to help pay their salaries and fund their deteriorating health and pension plans. Environmentalists want to use the power of regulation to impose their urban views of resource and land utilization on the rural population. Some large corporations want to use their political contributions to obtain an advantage in the marketplace.

The Founding Fathers idea of citizen legislators has largely been abandoned as career politicians of both parties benefit from retirement plans that encourage them to stay in office as long as possible.

This assault on the God given rights of ordinary citizens, i.e. the middle class, would not be possible if the middle class was factually informed of the events occurring around them. Unfortunately, a 2007 MSNBC Survey of the political contributions of print, radio and television journalists, found that 90% contributed to the Democratic Party. This bias is reflected in the stories that the American public sees or doesn't see and the editorial slant of those stories.

However, unlike the 1930's, the American public does not need to rely solely on biased journalists for their news. News sources like the Wall Street Journal and Fox News try to adhere to provide both sides of a story. When journalists believe that the role of journalism is to shape public opinion rather than report the facts and 90% of journalists subscribe to one political theory, is it surprising that so many media outlets are having financial difficulties?

Middle class Americans just want the facts. John Locke and the Founding Fathers were correct; we are capable of making our own decisions.

Political Correctness Is Killing Free Speech

If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." — Samuel Adams

Today the New York Times reported that an ESPN anchor was fired and another writer suspended for a so-called “racial” slur:

“ESPN announced Sunday that it had fired one person and suspended another for using an ethnic slur last week in describing Knicks point guard Jeremy Lin. It also said that it had discovered a third use of the offensive phrase, on Friday night.

The fired employee posted a headline on ESPN.com’s mobile Web site that used the phrase in a headline about Lin that appeared from 2:30 a.m. to 3:05 a.m. Saturday, after the Knicks’ loss to the New Orleans Hornets the night before. The phrase had two meanings, one of them an ethnic slur. The name of the employee was not released.

Max Bretos, an ESPN anchor, was suspended for 30 days for using the same phrase during an interview about Lin on ESPNews with Walt Frazier, the Knicks’ TV analyst for the MSG Network. Lin is of Chinese descent; his parents are Taiwanese.

Max Bretos, an ESPN anchor, was suspended for 30 days for using the same phrase during an interview about Lin on ESPNews with Walt Frazier, the Knicks’ TV analyst for the MSG Network. Lin is of Chinese descent; his parents are Taiwanese.

On Twitter, Bretos apologized and said, “My wife is Asian, would never intentionally say anything to disrespect her and that community.”

ESPN apologized Saturday for the two incidents but noted Sunday that it had become aware that a commentator at ESPN Radio New York, which carries Knicks games, used the same phrase Friday after the Knicks-Hornets game. The commentator was Spero Dedes, the Knicks’ play-by-play voice, who is an employee of Madison Square Garden.”

The ESPN editor fired Sunday for using "chink in the armor" in a headline about Knicks phenom Jeremy Lin said the racial slur never crossed his mind — and he was devastated when he realized his mistake.

"This had nothing to do with me being cute or punny," Anthony Federico told the Daily News.

"I'm so sorry that I offended people. I'm so sorry if I offended Jeremy."

The headline — "Chink in the Armor: Jeremy Lin's 9 Turnovers Cost Knicks in Streak-stopping Loss to Hornets" — appeared on ESPN's mobile website at 2:30 a.m. on Saturday and was removed by 3:05 a.m.

We have been using phrases like “chink in the armor” for hundreds of years. It was used in the Middle Ages to describe a weak spot in a knight’s armor where an arrows or spear would be able to kill him. It had nothing to do with racial slurs or insults. Any racial connotation is in the mind of the beholder, not in the words of the speaker.

Of course Rosie O’Donnell’s comment about “slanted eyes” was considered funny. After all Ms. O’Donnell is lesbian lefty so that’s okay.

In another case at Gatwick Airport a cartoonist was detained for over an hour for a so-called racial comment about the clothes a Muslim woman was wearing.

The Daily Mail reports: David Jones, the creator of the popular, animated children’s character Fireman Sam, was recently accused of racism and held by Gatwick Airport (United Kingdom) security for an hour. The situation, which Jones calls an “Orwellian nightmare,” occurred after he commented about a Muslim‘s woman’s clothing.

After noticing how easily the woman, whose face was almost covered in its entirety (she was wearing a hijab), was able to get through the security process without showing her face, Jones, 67, commented, saying, “If I was wearing this scarf over my face, I wonder what would happen.” It was this statement — a short quip — that landed him in hot water.

Here’s how the situation unfolded: When Jones entered the metal detector, his artificial hip apparently set off the alarm. He was subsequently searched and, though nothing was found, a security guard notified him that he was being detained because he had made an offensive comment. Jones, of course, maintained that he had done nothing wrong.

Once he made it to the other side of the checkpoint, officials allegedly accused him of racism. A Muslim security guard had purportedly overheard his comment and said that she was offended as a result. At this point, security staff, an airline administrator and a police officer spent the next hour trying to coerce Jones to apologize. He claims the group told him, “we now live in a different time and some things are not to be said.” What?

Although he has continued to defend himself against racist charges, in the end, he did admit that his comments “could” have been taken offensively and the incident was resolved. He was then able to rejoin his daughters, with whom he was traveling.

“What I said had nothing to do with the woman’s religion. It was the fact that her face was covered and she seemed to have passed through that part of the security process without showing it,” he claims. ”I was adamant I was not going to apologize because I had done nothing wrong.’

Jones, who believes his rights were trampled, is planning to lodge a complaint against the airport and against British Airways.

“Something like George Orwell’s 1984 now seems to have arrived in Gatwick airport. I feel my rights as an individual have been violated,” he explained. “What I underwent amounts to intimidation and detention. I am not opposed to having this level of security but it must be equal for all.”

A Gatwick Airport spokesman admitted that a woman who works in security was offended by Jones’ comments and that the “security team is looking at what happened to ensure the incident was handled in the right way.”

On June 6, 1989 I was arriving at Heathrow Airport on a flight from Frankfurt. When I arrived at passport control I had to get in a line with about 200 people from various third-world counties like Uzbekistan, mostly Muslim. I looked over to my right and the rest of the passengers from my Lufthansa flight were buzzing through the area reserved exclusively for EU passengers. Suffice it to say I was getting very frustrated. After about 45 minutes I arrived at the passport station and presented my passport to a young lady who was manning the station. After flipping through my passport she asked what the purpose of my visit was and I replied “business.” She asked what the business was and I replied “a visit to a UK firm I was doing business with in Wales.” She then stamped my passport and said I was good to go.

This was not enough for me. I asked her if I could ask a question. She smiled and replied yes. I then asked her why I, and American whose uncle had landed 44 years ago to the date on Utah Beach during the invasion of France to liberate Europe from the Nazis, was forces to go through the line with all of these third-world people with documentation problems while the folks who were killing them with bombs and V2 rockets were breezing through with no problems.” She looked at me for a moment and offered a serious apology stating she did not agree with this policy, buy it was the law. I told her I did not blame her, but the policy was a bit skewed and went on my way. I am sure she told her supervisor of the incident. What would happen to me today if I said the same thing?

In yet another recent example of the stifling of free speech by the progressive left was the firing of the conservative writer and commentator Patrick Buchanan by MSNBC.

Cliff Kincaid writes in Liberty Extra:

“Patrick J. Buchanan, who has been a major figure in the conservative movement for over 40 years, was fired from MSNBC after the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) concluded in Washington, D.C. Buchanan was not a featured speaker at CPAC, but his former colleague, Joe Scarborough, was. Scarborough, the co-host of a little-watched MSNBC program “Morning Joe,” is a former Republican congressman who pleases the liberals by making sure he doesn’t sound too conservative on the air. He takes shots at conservatives to make himself more palatable to the left.

Buchanan seems to be considered anathema by some newcomers to the conservative movement, mostly because of his criticism of America’s foreign wars and pro-Israel foreign policy under George W. Bush. One can criticize those stands and his occasional use of inappropriate language on sensitive issues while acknowledging Buchanan’s stature and place in the conservative movement.

An editorial writer at a young age who was trained in journalism, he has an encyclopedic knowledge of U.S. politics. He has written a number of books, some more controversial than others, as a look at the top of his website will attest. He crossed into government service by working for Republican Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and later ran for president himself. At Reagan’s service, Buchanan was a fierce advocate for freedom against communism.

I first met Buchanan while working for Accuracy in Media. AIM founder Reed Irvine admired and respected Buchanan. This was the norm among conservatives who recognized Buchanan as a fighter against liberals in the media and elsewhere. Buchanan asked me to write an article for his newsletter, “Patrick J. Buchanan From the Right,” about the rise of conservative talk radio. I had hosted a radio show in the early 1990s.

While Buchanan was in the Reagan White House as communications director in the 1980s, I had the opportunity to fill in as the conservative co-host of a then-popular CNN program, “Crossfire.” Buchanan had been the conservative co-host and Tom Braden was the liberal co-host. The “crossfire” aspect also included the fact that there were conservative and liberal guests who sat in the middle, getting questions from both sides. I joked that the slogan of the program was, “Don’t talk while I’m interrupting.” I got into trouble with the producers when I asked the Ambassador from Libya to “please shut up” after he insisted at length that Libya was not involved in international terrorism. Nevertheless, the show had a lot of educational value and was great fun. It was advocacy journalism at its best.

The days of “Crossfire” are gone. The show was cancelled and a true “crossfire” on the issues is not permitted any more by some important media organizations which cower in fear when attacked by the left. It is significant that Buchanan has been forced off the air essentially by the same left-wing forces that previously claimed the scalp of Glenn Beck, who departed from Fox News because of his scrutiny of anti-American hedge fund billionaire George Soros. In both cases, the Soros-funded Media Matters and the Van Jones-founded Color of Change played roles in their ouster.

On his Politico blog, Scarborough issued a joint statement with Brzezinski: “Everyone at Morning Joe considers Pat Buchanan to be a friend and a member of the family. Even though we strongly disagree with the contents of Pat's latest book, Mika and I believe those differences should have been debated in public. An open dialogue with Morning Joe regulars like Al Sharpton and Harold Ford, Jr. could have developed into an important debate on the future of race relations in America. Because we believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant, Mika and I strongly disagree with this outcome. We understand that the parting was amicable. Still, we will miss Pat.”

Amicable? I see no evidence of that. Buchanan told Sean Hannity on his Fox News program that he had been the victim of an un-American blacklisting for his views on racial matters, as expressed in his new book, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?

It is significant that black agitator Al Sharpton, who made false racial allegations against white police officers in the notorious Tawana Brawley case, continues on the air on MSNBC while Buchanan has been let go. This has everything to do with the fact that Sharpton, a “Morning Joe” regular, is a loyal stooge of Obama and a faithful Democrat. It seems he will remain a member of the MSNBC “family” no matter what he says or does.

But to speak up for the interests of what Buchanan would call European-Americans, in terms of defending the Christian foundations of the U.S., is a grievous sin to the liberals. This is what the blacklisting of Buchanan really means. It is telling that Scarborough apparently felt compelled to denounce Buchanan’s views while lamenting his leaving the MSNBC “family.”

Another difference is that the buffoonish Sharpton has the intellectual depth of a saucer, while Buchanan has a deep knowledge of history. Buchanan has the intellectual ammunition to argue and win his arguments. Taking Buchanan to task for some of his comments should not mean conservatives have to fall into the trap of reading him out of the media and the conservative movement.”

On the other side of the spectrum are the left-wing protestors who can say anything they want with impunity. A report posted on The Blaze states:

“On Valentine’s Day, according to NJ.com, the union teachers decided to make their grievance personal by protesting in front of the Delsea school board president’s home.

Unfortunately, the school board president was not home—but his children were, including his daughter whose teachers were among those protesting outside her home.

While the group of teachers, support staff and aides – who have been in contract negotiations since 2010 – were demonstrating within the boundaries of the law, school board members are “appalled and disgusted” with the union’s call to picket in front of Mario Christina’s home while his children were present.

Christina, who had no comment following the incident, was not home when the picket line assembled outside his Chew Avenue residence. His daughter, whose Delsea teachers were among the crowd, was home at the time.

The leader of the union protesters, Union President Christine Onorato (who also teaches children at Delsea ), appears to be unapologetic about protesting in front of a student’s home.

“It was a simple expression of our democratic right to express our discontent of not having a contract,” she said. “This was something our membership expressed, and our negotiating team said … we are going to do it.”

Apparently, this teacher’s union thug finds targeting individuals at their personal residence a legitimate tool in the union arsenal—even if inside the home are students of the very teachers protesting outside.

To someone like Onorato, the student(s) inside the home she and her union thugs were protesting are mere collateral damage.”

I could site many more examples of this double standard of “free speech” imposed by the left, but I am sure you can find them by browsing the news. So how did all this political correctness nonsense get started and what is the purpose behind it?

The late Charlton Heston once said, "Political correctness is tyranny with manners” and he was right on target

The rationale of political correctness (PC) is to prevent supposed minorities from being offended (the manners) — to compel people (the tyranny) to avoid using words or behavior that may upset Muslims, homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat, the ugly, or any other minority or special interest group identified by those who define PC. Its primary method is the redefinition or replacement of words and behavior in order to avoid offense, to be sensitive to the feelings of minorities and special interest groups.

Before we can examine PC and its effect on politics, we must first understand PC's origin and purpose.

The concept of PC was developed at the Institute for Social Research, in Frankfurt, Germany, in the early 1920s otherwise known as the Frankfurt School. The institute considered why communism in Russia was not spreading westward. The conclusion was that Western civilization, with its belief that the individual could develop valid ideas, was the problem. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas came from the state, that the individual is nothing. The institute believed that the only way for communism to advance and spread was to help Western civilization destroy itself, or else force it to.

The Institute was founded in Frankfurt am Main in 1923, where it was (and as of 2005 once again is) affiliated with the University of Frankfurt am Main. It was founded by Felix Weil, a student of the Marxian philosopher Karl Korsch, with an endowment provided by Weil's wealthy father. Its first director, Kurt Albert Gerlach, died before making his mark, and was swiftly followed by Carl Grünberg, a Marxist historian who gathered together fellow "orthodox" Marxists at the Institute, including his former pupil Henryk Grossman. Grünberg was followed by co-founder Friedrich Pollock.

Following a non-fatal heart attack, Grünberg was succeeded in 1930 by Max Horkheimer. Horkheimer rapidly became the guiding spirit of the Frankfurt School, a group of thinkers that was born under his directorship at the Institut. Horkheimer edited the group's journal Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung (Journal for Social Research) and wrote essays defining a critical theory of society. [Source: Wikipedia]

Click here to read my April 17, 2011 post about “The Toxic Effect of Cultural Marxism in Our Schools “

The institute said that by undercutting Western civilization's foundations by weakening the rights of individuals through the change of speech and thought patterns, by spreading the idea that vocalizing beliefs was disrespectful to others and had to be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustice, Western civilization could be destroyed. The institute wanted to call its method something that sounded positive — thus "political correctness."

Another communist, Chairman Mao Zedong, in China in the 1930s, wrote an article on the "correct" handling of contradictions among the Chinese people, thus giving us the PC concept of "sensitivity training."

Today we can add socialism to communism. Does the addition of that economic philosophy alter the original intent of PC in any way?

Here are two specific examples of PC and of not being sensitive.

First, a famous PC incident occurred in Washington, D.C. in 1999. David Howard, a white aide to Anthony A. Williams, the black mayor of Washington, D.C., correctly used the word "niggardly" in reference to a particularly small budget item. This reference upset one of his black colleagues, who interpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint. The use of the word "niggardly" was not PC due to its phonetic similarity to the racial slur "nigger," despite the fact that the two words are etymologically unrelated. Howard was not "sensitive" or PC. He actually resigned his job, but was reinstated after a national outcry over the conflation of unrelated terms.

The cited incident (and others like it) raise the question, "Are we now to abandon the use of certain useful words in the English language in the name of sensitivity and PC?"

We can now examine how PC specifically affects politics.

PC particularly serves mediocre politicians and the bureaucrats they appoint. It is used to hold on to jobs, silencing critics and threatening anyone who questions their abilities. If the offended party can strike back with accusation of racism, discrimination, prejudice, and hatred, then PC has done its job. PC is a way of covering up incompetence and corruption. It has worked well in the U.S. for decades: attack the accuser. Benjamin Jealous, president of the NAACP, wrote, "Let me tell you something about political correctness: when politicians start overdoing it with PC, rest assured they're either hopeless at what they do or have screwed everything up big time."

The current uproar about the Health and Human Services (HHS) edict on birth control is a good example of the PC problem. The HHS edict said it wanted to expand "health care preventive services." But that PC phrase included some services that were contrary to the First-Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion. PC tends to eliminate any possibility of the discussion of the rightness and wrongness of a particular action through the restraint of free speech.

As a final example of PC run amok, consider this: Why have "swamps" been replaced by "wetlands"? Why have "rainforests" replaced "jungles"? Are they not the same things? A government that wants to spend taxpayer money on conservation needs to avoid the negative connotations involving parasites and disease, so it redefines/replaces words in order to be more PC. The preservation of wetlands is a much more noble cause than preserving a mosquito-infested swamp.

Let’s look a few other words that political correctness has changed in our lexicon. Government spending is now “investment; abortion is called “choice”, an act of terrorisms by a Muslim on a U.S. Army base is called “workplace violence, male homosexuals are called “gay”, and wealth redistribution is called “equality.”

The continuing necessity for PC and sensitivity indicates that the ideal of societal equality (as defined by the PC-definers) has not yet been realized.

Where, ultimately, can PC take us? One forecast was published in 1949 by George Orwell. In his book 1984, Orwell, characterizing "newspeak," wrote, "The destruction of words is a beautiful thing." Big Brother, the personification of the power of the state, through newspeak "simplified" words (gave them definitions he determined) to better control society. With the simplification of words, the younger generations knew only Big Brother's version of reality. Is PC today's newspeak? Yes!

For over 90 years the left, communists, socialist, progressives, and environmentalists have been changing the lexicon of our language to suit their world view. They believe that by controlling the language they can change the world to their liking. They are the masterminds.