FOX and Foes – by Jacob Laksin

fox

President Obama has yet to decide on deploying more troops to fight the Taliban, but his administration is resolved to defeat at least one pressing security threat: FOX News.

For the past week, the administration has been waging a full-bore political offensive against the cable news network. That campaign officially kicked off last weekend, when two senior administration figures took to the Sunday talk shows to talk down FOX.

Senior presidential advisor David Axelrod appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” where he delivered the judgment that FOX “is not really a news station.” Assuming the role of media critic, Axelrod instructed that ABC should not treat FOX as a legitimate news organization. “The bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way,” Axelrod advised.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel imitated both Axelrod’s anti-FOX potshots and his efforts to dictate media content. During an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Emanuel claimed that FOX is “not a news organization so much as it has a perspective.” Emanuel also lectured his CNN hosts that they should ignore FOX’s news coverage. “More importantly, is to not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following FOX, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization,” Emanuel said.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs joined the battle shortly thereafter. When asked at a press conference whether the White House was right to dismiss FOX as illegitimate, Gibbs stuck by the charge. “We render opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness of their coverage,” Gibbs said, singling out FOX hosts Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity as proof that FOX was not, in the administration’s view, a news organization.

What may have seemed like partisan sniping was in fact part of a broader administration strategy to discredit FOX. White House communications director Anita Dunn, having earlier dismissed FOX as “a wing of the Republican Party,” revealed last week that the White House had devised an offensive campaign against the network. “We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” Dunn explained, adding that “we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

This strategy was approved at the very top. In an interview earlier this week with NBC, President Obama was asked whether it was appropriate for the White House to determine what is and is not a legitimate news organization. That was not appropriate, the president allowed. Nonetheless, he backed the strategy revealed by Dunn. In a clear reference to FOX, Obama suggested that the administration would shun media that are “operating basically as a talk radio format,” in favor of those that are “operating as a news outlet.”

With its ominous undercurrent of meddling in the news business, the White House’s smear campaign should have prompted an outcry from the media. Beyond the specific attacks on FOX, after all, the president and his staff were in effect pushing media outlets to adopt their preferred standard for journalistic legitimacy – a veiled threat to the freedom and independence of the press. Yet, with a few notable exceptions – including the far-Left columnist Helen Thomas, who warned the administration to avoid fights with the media and “not kill the messenger” – much of the news establishment stayed conspicuously silent.

Instead, some liberal journalists turned on FOX. Most shameless in this regard was Slate’s Jacob Weisberg, who took to the pages of Newsweek to denounce FOX and proclaim that the administration was right to ignore its “skewed news.” That would be the same Jacob Weisberg who, in May 2005, decried the Bush administration for complaining about a Newsweek story reporting that guards at Guantanamo Bay had flushed a Koran down the toilet. That story ultimately turned out false and was retracted by the magazine, but when the Bush administration voiced criticism of Newsweek, Weisberg raged that this was an intolerable assault on media independence. President Bush was trying to “undermine the legitimacy of the media, or at least that subculture within it that shows any tendency to challenge him,” Weisberg wrote at the time. Now that the Obama administration has assailed the legitimacy of one of the few media outlets willing to challenge it, Weisberg’s anxiety about media independence has suddenly vanished.

Of course, one reason that FOX has found so few allies in the media is that its political outlook is anathema in the profession. But the stridency and one-sidedness of this outlook is regularly overstated. It’s true that some of FOX’s evening talk shows are often critical of the Obama administration. Even so, left-leaning guests are routinely invited to offer an ideological counterpoint – a courtesy that FOX’s liberal competitors rarely feel the need to emulate. Moreover, the network’s straight-news coverage is indeed “fair and balanced.”

The real gripe of the Obama administration, and of the Left more broadly, is not how FOX covers certain stories, but that it covers them at all. One recent example might be the exclusive video of Anita Dunn aired on Glenn Beck’s program. It showed the communications director praising communist despot Mao Tse-Tung as one of her “favorite political philosophers.” It cannot be entirely coincidental that Dunn unveiled the administration’s FOX-bashing strategy just a day after the damaging revelations on Beck’s show.

Still another example would be the devastating video series on corrupt activist group ACORN produced by young filmmaker James O’Keefe. Ignored by most of the establishment press, the videos became a sensation when they were aired by FOX – with heavy political repercussions for ACORN. The exposé has clearly displeased pleased some in the administration. An unnamed White House official complained to Politico earlier this week that the ACORN scandal took off because FOX covered it “breathlessly for weeks on end.” According to the official, the lesson for the media should be to “make sure that we keep perspective on what are the most important stories, and what’s being driven by a network that has a perspective.” This was special pleading disguised as press criticism: At bottom, it was an appeal for flattering coverage from sympathetic media.

Indeed, for all its distress over FOX’s political biases, the administration does not actually have problem with ideologically slanted coverage – so long as it’s slanted the right way. On Monday, for example, the White House held an off-the-record briefing with MSNBC’s unabashedly left-wing personalities, Keith Olbermann and the Rachel Maddow. That FOX News’s “Special Report” broke the story only underscored the cynicism of the administration’s attacks on the network.

As well as hypocritical, the administration’s attacks on FOX are politically shortsighted. While the Left has long viewed FOX as a “right-wing” mouthpiece, Democratic strategists know better. They point out that 50 percent of FOX’s viewership consists of independents and Democrats – the kind of people that the Obama administration depends on for political support.

Buying into the liberal caricature of FOX can only isolate the administration. Had Obama staffers more closely watched the network’s coverage of the Tea Party protests and the health care town halls, for instance, they would not have been caught blindsided by the growing backlash against the administration’s much-maligned stimulus package and its still-stalled health care legislation. Whether FOX’s coverage meets the administration’s test for legitimacy is irrelevant: They report, their millions of viewers decide.

For that reason, feuding with FOX can only be a losing battle for the administration. Focusing its attention on a news channel, especially at a time of more urgent concerns for the country, makes the administration seem petty and vindictive – even as it boosts FOX’s ratings. If the administration wants to talk only to its loyal supporters, it will be talking to a rapidly diminishing segment of the population. In politics as in television, that’s never a winning strategy.

  • poptoy194990210

    Has the White House nothing more to do than make a fuss about Fox News? You would think they would try to run the Country for the betterment of ALL citizens. But that is what happens with a Kenyan and Two Jews that hate Israel. GOD help them.

  • http://twitter.com/marcuskane1514 Jenny Phan

    Thank for the news. That's great.

    how to download wii games
    downloading wii games

  • bernard112

    Is Obama a good or a bad president? After all this time, what is the answer?

  • bernard112

    Is Obama a good or a bad president? After all this time, what is the answer? http://www.antivirusexpress.com/

  • mojobebop

    the most corrupt, devious administration.

  • antifascist18

    When even (yes, admittedly paid FOX Contributor) Susie Estrogen who is certainly no friend of Republicans or Conservatives attacks Bonzo and his crew, you know he's gone beyond the pale.

    Some are comparing Bonzo, Feigele Rahm, and the rest to the Nixon WH. Wrong,
    Nixon, despite all of his faults loved this country, supported Israel (yeah, even with the anti-semitic remarks directed towards the so-called Jews who would support Jeremiah Wright's “son”), and was a man. Bonzo is neither of any of the above.
    He's not fit to shine Richard Nixon's shoes or Ronald Reagan's boots.

    Oh, one other difference. Nixon was a Man. Bonzo H. Obama is a little coward.

  • ElaineSusan

    This battle with Fox News is the latest in an established pattern of a completely inept administration with regard to American's constitution, sovereignty and strength. We are seeing a take over of our nation by 60's radicals who hate America and her principles. At this point the birth certificate is irrelevant to the issue of whether Obama is qualified to be President of the United States – he and his administration's anti-constitution ideology should be cause for serious questions and deliberations toward impeachment.

  • ElaineSusan

    Worst President of our time, even worse than Carter – which is amazing!!

  • vonschtead

    Interesting that Obama (blessed be his name) has appeared more times on David Letterman (an entertainment venue) than FOX news. Does that make Letterman an official newsman?

  • Fate

    As a history and news junkie, I can say that ALL historians and jounalists are biased. The worst are the ones who claim not to be biased. Because by claiming they have no bias, they are declaring that anyone who disagrees with them is biased and should be ignored. Like the article points out, Fox has recently covered stories that the other outlets tried to supress.

  • http://nationindistress.blogtownhall.com/ A-Voice-In-The-Wilderness

    potus thinks so highly of himself. arrogant, dictator in chief!

  • coyote3

    The article touched on the fact that the by criticizing the organization, they actually enhance it. Fox already leads most other news organizations, so if other organizations follow it, there is nothing some politician say, even the president, that's going to change that. It's the market. Even if the president says Fox is not a news organization, that does not make it so. If you want to say Fox is biased, you have to say that ABC is, likewise, biased, so what?

    It is quite one thing for politicians in this country to point out a the bias of a particular reporter, inaccuracies, etc. It is quite another to challenge the news organization entire basis. This is nothing new, it has been tried before by American politicians, and each time they lost by enhancing the organizations rating/circulation, if nothing more.

  • scarface

    This administration must be taken down…only the actions at the grass roots level can accomplish this task…VOTE …..remove the liars and thievea. Let's send a warning salvo across their bow.

  • tskier

    The issue isn't the issue. The issue is control.

  • gstasse

    An intelligent White House would bend over backward to have reps on FOX to attempt to counter what it calls bias. That they don't is proof they have no responses, no ideas and no plans beyond getting and keeping power. The rest of the media don't or won't cover this story and avoid any confrontation with the administration. So who's biased? Who's incompetent?

    This is a real tragedy for the country, one from which it might never recover because millions of news consumers will never get full, accurate coverage and actually believe FOX is what the paranoid left says it is.

  • Carterthewriter

    You.ve re-appeared from the campfire and with an astute observation about a man thrust into a situation by the Chicago gang with which he has not a clue how to handle the mess they put before him.

  • Carterthewriter

    Amongst all the misstakes made by this administration, this one may be the biggest.

  • melindago

    What tskier said!!!

  • melindago

    The good news is, many more reporters, pundits and commenters have ceased refusing to see the facts within this past week.

    Game on. The statists are going down.

  • nickcarter

    in all sincerity I wish barack obama all the best but truth be told he is not doing a very good job. I understand his advisors are helping him but its really easy to see he is apart of a federation in my personal opinion of corrupts who only care about themselves and the globalization of america

    get out of debt

  • WFB2

    “Focusing its attention on a news channel, especially at a time of more urgent concerns for the country, makes the administration seem petty and vindictive…”

    The Obama Administration IS petty and vindictive. It's a reflection of the narcissisim of our Blunderer in Chief. Narcissism and the inability to tolerate ANY criticism is a character flaw that seems to inflict political tyrants. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were notoriously intolerant of all but lapdog yes men. Obama seems cast in the same mold. It will either be his downfall or the country's depending on how long the suck-up MSM continues to shill for him.

  • WFB2

    “If you want to say Fox is biased, you have to say that ABC is, likewise, biased…”

    There's a big difference here, Coyote. The Left is characteristically arrogant and sees itself as the repository of wisdom and absolute truth: The Way, the Truth and the Light. The left sees itself – not as one wing of a duality – but as the absolute dead-center of Certainty. Thus “bias” cannot possibly be the case where their view of things is concerned. Any contrasting (i.e.; Conservative) viewpoint therefore is extremist by definition. It's their way or the wrong way and they are convinced of this to their core. This is not a pose or affectation for them but just the way things are in their mind. It's their dogma; the core of their secular religion. To oppose them on anything is heresy. They always know what's best for everyone and if you disagree then you can expect their full wrath (“hell”) to be brought down on you. Just ask Rush, Fox, Palin or dozens of others who have been smeared by their pathological hypocrisy.

    Keep this in mind as you watch daily events unfold and you'll understand the dynamics of it if nothing else. The Left lives in a delusional world of its own. Subconciously they try to make that delusion reality – hence their compulsion to remake the world rather than spending time on the psychiatrists couch. IMO

  • coyote3

    No necessarily disagreeing with you. As far as I am concerned the left, and some members of what they try to call the right live in a delusional world. This country was meant to have a government limited by the constitution. If that was done, e.g. no bill introduced without an underlying constitutional delegated power to do what is proposed, I guarantee most of the screaming would come from the left, but there would be a lot of disappointed “conservatives” as well. What the founding fathers intended us to have was a government which could probably best be described as “indifferent.” You think the “hurt” is on now, you ain't seen nothing of the way it is supposed to be.

    This outfit is just the latest and greatest in a long line, but they are here. My point was that while you and I can call the media (any and all) anything we want to call them, the bones of politicians who have tried to attack the very nature of new organizations litter the field. I think it's kinda funny myself.

  • dailyraphirmations

    Hi everybody. My name is Raphael and I blog at dailyraphirmations.com I also love to sing. Do you love to sing too? We'll then sing along with me:
    “Obama don’t allow no Fox New Channel here,
    Obama don't allow no Fox news Channel here,
    We’ll we don’t care what Obama don’t allow,
    gonna include Fox News anyhow,
    Obama don’t allow no Fox News Channel here.
    Rahm’a don’t allow no right-wing radio here,
    Rahm’a don’t allow no right-wing radio here,
    We’ll we don’t care what your Rahm’a don’t allow,
    He’s in too tight with Rachel Maddow,
    Rahm’a don’t allow no right-wing radio here…..

  • bubba4

    Fox is not news.

  • LucyQ

    Obama is wrong to attack Fox News because they are a 'messenger' of sorts. It's true they're part of the GOP as we see the same people who were in the Bush administration work on their news. I rarely watch Olbermann and Beck because they're both too bitchy and if Beck continues to pander to his audience as if they're 5 years old, he won't be on long. Maddow has potential to be interesting but is too nice to be interesting or believable. Hannity is too loose with the truth to be taken seriously.

    To watch anything on Fox and MSNBC is to come to the conclusion again and again that the far right and far left are exactly alike. Let them know about their “inaccuracy,” and they call you a liar. Both networks do the same thing: they play and replay and replay a segment by a righty or lefty and then ask their guest what they think of him/her. This is a very cheap way to “make news” and I think the normal, in the middle American tires of it.

    What ever happened to bin Laden?

  • LucyQ

    Good post, coyote. Nixon and Clinton tried to manipulate the news, too. Reagan was probably the best with the media because he was familiar with it.

  • diginess

    I personally don't blame the the Obama team. I'm tired of hearing crap like references to death panels. I'm also tired of hearing references to communists/socialists. If the Republican party cannot engage in adult discussions without lowering the standard of conversation down to a 7th grade level, then I don't think we need them anymore.
    The truth is that death panels exist today. Now, I don't want some bill to be signed into law without a whole lot of fact checking, pork removal, loophole removal, etc, but our healthcare system is beyond broken.
    Furthermore, if the Republican party's best news organization is Fox (which is owned by an Australian), it is in sad shape. Most of the news media today is a complete joke, so why does Fox have to be worse?

  • diginess

    Oh, so you're a birther? How nice. We elected him, get over it. You try to do anything about it, we'll shoot you. Got it? Good.

  • LucyQ

    It's a pity that in order to be president today and since the 1980's one has to be a multi-millionaire. When we the people fully awaken to the fact that we're getting immoral leaders, we'll demand public financing of elections that will last three months. At least, the leaders won't be any worse than the last 20-plus years or so.

  • thinker1

    “Screw Americans” by 'Bama continues:
    1. Jobs for Muslims, not for us:
    “The White House Friday highlighted a new multi-million-dollar technology fund for Muslim nations, following a pledge made by President Barack Obama in his landmark speech to the Islamic world.”

    2. Algor got millions to build cars in Europe (Finland)

  • thinker1

    Well said!
    Many of them are educated beyond their intellligence, thus idiotic statements with no sense abound….

  • thinker1

    Well said!
    Many of them are educated beyond their intellligence, thus idiotic statements with no sense abound….

  • libral

    i think its not wise to attack obama always , we should praise his good works and criticise and disapprove his bad decisions , i know fox news are not attack based on his race but some people would think that way if they continue only to criticise. so i suggest to make program or discussion showing the positive and negative and the objections of obama admainistration.
    may god bless you

  • Carterthewriter

    Very astute observation without substance as usual.

  • sflbib

    Who do you think you are? Achmed the Dead Terrorist?

  • sflbib

    Re: “Fox has recently covered stories that the other outlets tried to supress.”

    Yes. During the ACORN expose, Breitbart speculated that it would have been interesting to try first to give the story to one of the Leftist media and secretly film their turning it down, THEN break it too on Fox along with the ACORN story.

  • sflbib

    Quote without comment:

    Peter Jennings Knew There Was No Truth
    Written by Evan Sayet
    Tuesday, August 16, 2005

    I think it was Barbara Walters who unwittingly gave away the Leftist media’s secret the other night while supposedly heaping high praise on recently deceased Peter Jennings. Between gushes of admiration and sighs of sorrow Walters waxed poetic about this Canadian-born socialist whose mother had raised him to hate America. On and on Walters went until, near the end, she offered the highest praise a Leftist could fathom: “What made Peter so great,” she said “was that he knew there was no such thing as the truth.”

    If there is no such thing as the truth, then what was Jennings using as the basis for his reporting? Republicans know. He made it up. Or better yet, he, like the rest of the Old Media, simply cherry-picked, spun, and invented whatever was necessary to prove the truth – which is, as Peter knew, that there is no truth.

    This is the key to understanding the outright lies, the forged documents, the pro-every-enemy-of-America copy that is the daily act of the Mainstream Media. The agenda of the liberal newsman isn’t to provide facts and evidence in order to help reasonable people come to factual conclusions, for that would only solidify people’s belief in the truth – truths like America is good and Islamic fascist mass murderers are evil. Instead the modern liberal’s agenda is to provide whatever disinformation is required to disabuse the dolts and bigots of their notion that truth exists.

    “You think America is good? Well we’ll show you it isn’t by rerunning stories of Abu Gharaib for months at a time.” “You think democracy is good? We’ll ignore the horrors of the Arab world and paint a democratic Israel that is the villain.” “You think God is good? We’ll spin every story about religion to make it appear that people of faith are nuts, whack-jobs, and criminals (all religious people except for Islamists as they are to be protected lest someone think Islamic fascist mass murderers are bad).”

    To get Jennings – to get the compliment that Walters thought she was giving her just fallen idol – is to get why Nancy Pelosi gives standing ovations to lie-filled, anti-American propaganda films. It is to get why Dick Durbin ignores atrocities committed against Americans but calls our troops “Nazis.” It is to get why Ted Kennedy screams the most vicious slanders about America at every opportunity. It is to get why the Democrats have become the party of liars.

    After all, when there is no truth then what is a lie, anyway? Besides, they’re lying for a bigger truth (which is that there is no truth) so therefore they’re telling the truth by lying. The mission of the modern liberal – from Ward Churchill to Dick Durbin to Dan Rather to Howell Raines to Nancy Pelosi to Ted Kennedy to Michael Moore to Peter Jennings is to convey “the truth” (that there is no truth) no matter how many lies it takes.

  • foxiscool

    you will shot him? from where? your grandma's basement? you are a pathetic left-wing loon. November 2012 we will vote him out! NOBAMA!

  • sflbib

    Here is an example of REAL journalism:

    “Jennings Flummoxed by More in Prison ‘Even Though’ Crime Down”

    “Peter Jennings seemed baffled by two simultaneous trends: The number of people in prison is rising as the crime rate is falling. Picking up on how the Justice Department reported that the ‘prison population grew 2.9 percent last year [2003] to nearly 2.1 million,’ putting one out of every 75 American men behind bars, a flummoxed Jennings complained: ‘The number went up even though the crime rate continued to fall.’”
    http://www.mediaresearchcenter.com/cyberalerts/

    There’s certainly no “perspective” here.

  • sflbib

    “…Manhattan is one of those trendy places where the new hot media chic thing is not only to dismiss the notion of liberal bias in the news, but actually to say, with a straight face, that the real problem is . . . conservative bias!

    “This is so jaw-droppingly bizarre you almost don’t know how to respond. It reminds me of a movie I saw way back in the sixties called A Guide for the Married Man. In one scene, Joey Bishop plays a guy caught by his wife red-handed in bed with a beautiful woman. As the wife goes nuts, demanding to know what the hell is going on, Joey and the woman get out of bed and calmly put on their clothes. He then casually straightens up the bed and quietly responds to his wife, who by now has smoke coming out of her ears, “What bed? What girl?” After the woman leaves, Joey settles in his lounge chair and reads the paper, pausing long to enough to ask his wife if she shouldn’t be in the kitchen preparing dinner!” — “Bias? What Bias?” by Bernard Goldberg

  • mimibhs

    The administration is shell shocked by Fox News coverage because, as Anita Dunn said on video, they “controlled the media” during the campaign. They hadn't considered they might not be able to continue to do so after their man was elected President of the United States. Bringing their Chicago-style politics to the world stage doesn't seem to be working out too well for them.

    If it wasn't for Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and a very few others, this country would be following the Pied Piper right off the cliff.

  • LucyQ

    According to Gen McChystal, we are 'nation-building' in Afghanistan. The GOP began this plan under GWBush and still fancies it. That means the GOP wants health care for all Afghanis and education and housing while at the same time, they don't want these things for Americans.

    Which one is the liberal, American-citizens-hating party?

  • geneinjersey

    I'll go you one better… This is the most EVIL administration this country has ever experienced. Obama hasn't made poor decisions. He's intentionally taking actions that undermine our country and seek its destruction in hope that his socialist utopia will rise from the ashes. He is purposely trying to bring about the destruction of the United States. Let there be no doubt about it.

  • coyote3

    The fact is, there is no legal standard in this country for what is news and what isn't news. If one person is free to say that Fox News, is not “news”, the another is just as free, and just as credible to say that the New York Times is not “news”. The defintion is just opinion, and the opinion of the White House doesn't make it any more less so.l Actually, I guess the market place sets the definition, and if that is true, then Fox is the winner, big time.

    That said, I don't think much of newspaper men (that includes all news men) period. However, I do not have to have a a permit, from anyone to report the “news” as I see it. If I want to do stories on the number of prairie dog holes in West Tejas, and call it new, I can do that, and if enough people want to read about, they will, or not.

  • coyote3

    No one said they didn't want these things, but our constitution doesn't permit the federal government to be involved in these thing without a specific grant of power, which it doesn't have. As far as the nation building and Republicans are concerned, I oppose it. The military exists to kill people and break things, which they should do more of, not to provide meals on wheels. Democrats are like small pox, Republicans are often like cholera, as far as I am concerned. Just because I don't have small pox, I am not glad to get cholera.

  • LucyQ

    Our constitution may not permit health care, housing and education but the fact is that our gov pays for much of it that it has initiated such as Medicare, medicaid, SSI, Section 8, public schools, student loans, college, to name some things that it obviously does permit.

    I agree with you–our military should not become social workers. They are trained killers, period. I am disgusted with both parties that are equally corrupt. I don't think either one will have a long shelf life. I think in the next few years, a 3rd party of independents will have a better chance of winning than either the GOP or Dems put together.

  • coyote3

    Ah, we are talking about the federal government? The don't have the power to do any of that stuff.

  • LucyQ

    Really? Could have fooled me. I think coyote3 and LucyQ should arrest the federal govt.

  • LucyQ

    Are you one of those fanatic right wingers who think 13-year old American boys should have to go in the military so they won't decide to be homosexuals?

  • LucyQ

    I liked your article about debt. It was knowledgeable, specific and to the point. Thanks for sharing good advice.

  • http://www.tarandfeathers.shugartmedia.com/ Tar_and_Feathers

    Silence! I keel you!

  • coyote3

    Where did you ever get the idea they have the power to do all that stuff? Just because they do it? They rob banks all the time too.

  • LucyQ

    Yes, just because they do it and for decades, it's all right with the presidents and congress's.

  • coyote3

    So just because it is “alright” with the president and congress, that makes it legal? That's not the source of the government's power to do anything. The fact is the government has not “rights”. It only has powers and those powers are delegated by the constitution. If you don't have the power to do something, you are not supposed to do it.

  • ElaineSusan

    Well, no, not really, you miss the point. A man with an anti-constitutional ideology, who promotes ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL principles, authority, appointments, legislation, etc. disqualifies himself from the office of president of the United States… but, perhaps that is too deep a concept for you to grasp, given your response.

  • ElaineSusan

    Touche, thinker1 – simplistically profound. I agree, and am pleasantly amused by your comment – while deeply troubled by its accuracy!!

  • WFB2

    Somewhwere along the line the Left invented Postmodernism/Relativism which includes such elastic dogmas as “situational ethics” and “moral relativism”. Postmodernism came from the Nietsche “God is dead” school and has, for the Left, replaced biblically-based morality and allowed the Left free rein to make everything up on a case-by-case basis. If “God is dead” then, by default, the Collectivist State becomes the Final Authority on all matters. Truth is whatever Big Brother says it is at any given moment on any given issue. Quite Orwellian.

  • USMCSniper

    Obama learned his political strategies from Saul Alinsky who learned them from Al Capone. “When you come to a knife fight bring a gun, or better yet bring a gun to a debate, as you get further with a gun and words than you get with just words.”

  • bubba4

    oh boy…here we go again.

  • coyote3

    Maybe so, but you haven't been able to disprove anything I said, because it
    is the truth.

  • http://www.laughtonroad.co.uk/ Laughton

    They learn bits and pieces from everywhere but truly most are just being themselves and that's just human nature.