Acorn, the community action group, was de-funded by Congress. This group is one that President Obama, when campaigning, said he worked side by side with in community organizing, and they would be part of the decision making process during his administration. In the Stimulus Bill, at one point in the negotiations, Acorn would be getting some $5 billion dollars.
This was a group that used heavy handed measures to intimidate mortgage lenders to give housing loans to unqualified borrowers. This was a group that entered the meetings of private businesses, surrounded the board members with thugs - sending an eerie threat of what would happen unless. This was a group that had an agenda of redistributing wealth through whatever means they found effective.
For some of you, the following is common knowledge: Over the past 2 weeks, a young couple's attempt to reveal corruption within Acorn was enough to effect Congress. At five separate Acorn locations, Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe posed as a prostitute and pimp - seeking a loan for a "house." The house would be used for prostitution. Additionally, (and this is where things get really sad) they couple would be importing 13-15 year old girls from Central America, a slave trade, to fill the brothel.
At each of the 5 Acorn locations, representatives coached the Giles and O'Keefe how to make this happen. How to fill out the forms with occupational information to get approved. How to identify the underage imports so as not to raise suspicion. And to realize they would not be able to claim the girls as dependents at tax filing since Giles was too young to pose as an adoptive mother.
The tapes shown on various nights of Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity were damning. There was no gray area to wonder if the Acorn personnel were confused. They fully understood the proposition and eagerly coached Giles and O'Keefe in the manner of making their "dream" come true. Oh by the way, Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity all report for the same cable news channel - Fox.
This was quite a scoop. Where were the other news agencies? This scandal wasn't being covered by other news agencies. Silence. That is until, some of them, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc, could no longer remain silent and posed the coverage as wondering whether Giles and O'Keefe should be brought up on charges for their tactics. Understand this: there was no outrage that Acorn was facilitating the loaning of taxpayer money to a pimp and prostitute, participating in slave trade of minors for the purpose of prostitution. Rather, they reported this as right-wing pundits attempting to smear Acorn. On the internet, if you Google "Acorn sting" you'll get primarily hits of sites defending Acorn for understanding the plight of inner city blacks who must resort to prostitution to survive, and attacking Giles and O'Keefe for their efforts.
Are you old enough to remember the Watergate Investigations with "Deep Throat"? The reporters who broke that story, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, were heralded as heroes. They refused to divulge their sources. Woodward and Bernstein became iconic during the 1970s as paragons of virtues - representing what the media was meant to do: keep government honest. I don't remember anyone questioning Woodward or Bernstein as being the culprits in view of the actions of the administration. All major networks followed the story, and the American public followed the nightly news with baited breath.
The Acorn scandal? One cable news network, Fox, covers the story. The others ignore it until there is no ignoring it, and then turn the tables by casting aspersions at Giles and O'Keefe. Without apology, they excuse Acorn for enabling and financing prostitution and a slave trade of minors for the purpose of sexual profiteering.
The same is true of the Van Jones story. If you don't know about Van Jones, I'll assume you don't watch Fox. Again, the other agencies ignored the revealing of this Obama czar's past, ethics, and racial hatred toward whites. When he was put in the limelight, he quietly resigned, with no fanfare nor explanation from the President. Compare this to earlier administrations wherein a Presidential post left office. Seems to me it was standard fare for news coverage to examine what was going on.
On 9/12/2009, the Tea Party Express congregated on the Mall at Washington, DC. These were Americans there to protest unresponsive government, irresponsible spending, and the agenda attempting to move America toward socialism. These people want a government by the People, and when they express their concerns, they don't want to be labeled as "Astroturf" or "Dangerous Extremists."
Was this a significant gathering? Well you tell me: When over 1.7 million people take time off work, spend time and money to travel to Washington, DC to make a statement, is that an event worthy of note? That number of people is about the same as the combined population of these cities: Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco (1.9 million). Those are the folks who showed up. (For any given protest, I wonder how many people didn't, or couldn't attend, by who agree with the sentiments of the attending protestors?)
Where was the media coverage? Typically, when there is a protest of this size (or even miniscule in comparison) the press covers it for days. They interest the organizers and turn the event into a big deal. They interview participants asking why they were willing to travel all that distance and make the sacrifice to express their views, and what they hope this will accomplish. They fawn over those who brought their children - highlighting that this is a family event. And then, on the big day, they broadcast aerial shots of the crowd and give color commentary of the event. Did you see the coverage on "mainstream" media? Neither did I. Why the silence?
My point? With the exception of Fox News, other agencies are giving Obama a pass. They are no longer acting as the watch dog on government. Instead of asking the hard questions expected of the media in keeping the public informed, they are covering Michael Jackson, sports, traffic, and the weather. If there happens to be a natural disaster, such as a fire in LA, we'll hear about that too.
Critics of Fox claim it is a right wing tool that doesn't report news but rather make up sensational stories. You need to judge that for yourself, but if you wait for the "mainstream news" or SNL, or Lettermen to endorse it, that's not going to happen. Those folks don't want you to question whether Ted Kennedy was a hero or should have paid the price for killing Mary Jo Kopechne; they don't want you to ask why Obama promised to have US troops out of Iraq within 7 months of being elected, but hasn't done so; nor do they want you to question the government bailout and takeover of companies like GM; and they certainly don't want you to examine the contents of the National Health Care bills until it's too late. Why not? Because 80% of all news agencies and reporters identify with far left politics. They're in favor of a movement toward socialism.
What do I have to gain by voicing this? As I mentioned in earlier blogs, the American I love, our rich democratic heritage, the opportunity to grow through capitalism, is soon going to be referred to as the "good old days" if Congress and the President are not stopped. (I want to reiterate that the Stimulus Plan blame falls in the lap of President Bush as much as Obama.)
Where we used to be able to turn on the news and assume they were covering important stories, that is no longer the case. On television, with the exception of Fox, other news agencies are keeping us fat, dumb, and happy. And that's dangerous.
No comments:
Post a Comment