Let's Tell Lies and Hope No One Checks the Facts

Source: Townhall Online

Media bias is a huge issue in maintaining the freedom of a people. Ghandi once said that if you want to unify a people, a movement, you have to have a newspaper. What he meant was that you had to have a newspaper that would tell the truth. Increasingly, our national media is less interested in truth, facts and data, and more interested in an ideological agenda. Bill O'Reilly puts his finger on one example in this brief article.

Bill O'Reilly

Fox-o-Phobia

Even though some of the Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, didn't much like the press, they gave the fourth estate special constitutional privileges in order for information to pass to the folks. The Founders well understood that a republic must have honest discourse so that voters are kept well informed. Without facts at their disposal, voters are simply blind.

Like most other institutions, the press has had problems over the years with corruption, and now those difficulties are becoming a direct threat to a very important check on political power in America. Let me give you a stark illustration of media dishonesty.

After last week's election results rolled in, some on the left became distraught and went after Fox News big time. Of course, we are used to the growing problem of Fox-o-phobia: an irrational fear of the Fox News Channel. On election night, FNC won the national ratings race, even defeating the network news operations, which is incredible because cable channels are much harder to access than single digit network channels.

Immediately after the votes were counted, the incoming fire began. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote that Fox News held "a victory party" for Republicans on the air. Milbank then stated: "To be fair and balanced, Fox brought in a nominal Democrat, pollster Doug Schoen."

A nominal Democrat?

Well, that is flat-out false. FNC had seven Democrats on the air that night, and I believe Geraldine Ferraro and Joe Trippi might be surprised to see themselves described as "nominal."

So, why did Milbank mislead his readers, and how does he get away with it?

We put the second question to Fred Hiatt, Milbank's editor at the Post. After a few hours of deliberation, he told us he didn't think Milbank had implied that only one Democrat was booked on FNC's election coverage. Either Hiatt is having trouble with the English language, or he really doesn't care. I'm betting the latter. Neither Hiatt nor Milbank would come on my program to explain themselves.

As to why the columnist wants to mislead readers, it's simple. He despises Fox News and wants to spread the loathing. But that's lazy. There are plenty of things to criticize about any national news organization, especially one that broadcasts 24 hours a day. Milbank just wanted to vent and didn't care about being accurate. He cared about being hostile and bitter.

There is nothing anyone can do about dishonest journalism if standards are nonexistent within media operations. The government has no power over us thanks to Tom Jeff and Jimmy Madison. We in the press are supposed to be noble enough to police ourselves.

Even in a nominal way.

Bill O'Reilly

Bill O'Reilly is host of the Fox News show "The O'Reilly Factor" and author of "Who's Looking Out For You?" and Pinheads and Patriots.

Nightmare: The Murthaization of HealthCare

With representatives like this, why would we trust these yokels with running an ethical and efficient healthcare system?

Murtha’s America
by Paul Jacob (From TownHall Online Magazine)

As 2009 drew to a close, the Office of Congressional Ethics ended its investigation of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and several other congressmen associated with PMA Group, a lobbying firm. The Office recommended against a full-fledged House ethics investigation.

At issue? A pattern whereby Congressman Murtha, Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), and James Moran (D-Va.), earmarked hundreds of millions of tax dollars to clients of PMA Group and then, magically, millions of dollars in campaign contributions from PMA and its clients found their way to Murtha’s campaign account, and the campaigns of others involved.

Some will fret that the ethics process is not doing its job. That’s probably true, if not in this particular case, surely in scores of other cases that have resulted in light wrist-slapping, a harshly worded letter or no punishment at all.

But let’s suppose that what Murtha and others in Congress are doing — gathering up our hard-earned tax dollars and distributing them to friends and cronies in hopes of spurring economic growth — is fully legal. Is it right? Is it good? Does it build a strong country and enhance our individual liberty?

Stop laughing.

Wonder as we may about backroom deals and hard-to-find quid pro quo corruption, what about the obvious corruption right smack dab in front of our face? You know, the kind that tends to be fully legal.

Perhaps corruption is too strong a word. But whether the action is an illegal bribe or just a smart, savvy method of parochial, self-interested pork politics — whereby an incumbent uses the public treasury to win friends and influence people — it sure seems crooked.

Murtha argues his earmarks are creating jobs, revitalizing the depressed local economy. It’s not about him; it’s about his constituents. Never mind the earmark-built and maintained John P. Murtha Airport in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where three flights a day take off for Washington under a giant, smiling picture of the congressman.

Murtha’s job creation racket doesn’t create many jobs. According to a Washington Post report, “For all the billions in federal contracts the congressman has steered to the region in the past ten years, now at a rate of $100 million a year, joblessness in his distressed district has not improved.”

Moreover, some of the jobs generated have cost a million dollars — or twice that. For example, Planning Systems, Inc. in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, created four jobs using $7 million in earmarks.

Another company to receive Murtha earmark help was Caracal, Inc., To great hoopla, Murtha delivered the ton of tax dollars to Caracal, claiming, “Today’s ribbon-cutting ceremony is yet another indication that our investment in this region’s economic revitalization is paying off.” After receiving more than $150 million in taxpayer help, the company went under. That’s zero sustainable jobs.

With Caracal out of business, the operative question might be, “‘Paying off’ for whom?” That “whom” now seems to cover a lot of people, for our earmark culture is not limited to Congress. It’s growing. The same economic model behind Murtha’s earmark underpins last year’s stimulus spending and a likely follow-up round this year.

The idea intrinsic to earmarks and government job creation is that politicians and bureaucrats can spend our money better than we can. We just waste our money; they are the great and wise spenders. Though absurd on the face of it, the notion has much to recommend it . . . if you are on the taking end of the practice.

The earmark culture in Congress, so well represented by Congressman Murtha, the new King of Pork, isn’t merely symptomatic of the problem in Washington, it is also
emblematic.

About The Author
Paul Jacob is President of Citizens in Charge. His daily Common Sense commentary appears on the Web, via e-mail, and on radio stations across America.

Economic Meltdowns and the Real Story

This post will really rattle some cages.

Boortz, the author of the piece below, makes a lot of sense. He doesn't address larger issues such as American consumerism and coorporate irresponsibility. But in the narrow focus of it intent, the article is right on target.

The Rest of the Meltdown Story by Neal Boortz

What in the world is going on here?

You’ve seen the headlines, and you heard of the failures and buyouts. Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, AIG; all big names and all in big trouble. Then those mysterious quasi-government agencies with names like Freddie and Fannie become wards of the state and you learn that you and your fellow taxpayers are potentially on the hook for tens of billions of dollars. At the end of the week Washington Mutual is looking for a buyer, and you start to wonder about the security of your own bank and your own savings account. Let’s change that ad copy to WaMu -- boo hoo.

Somewhere in the back of your mind you understand that this is all tied somehow to bad mortgages. If you start reading a bit further to enhance your understanding you run into terms like Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) and credit-default swaps, whatever in the world those are. Read further and you find out that a combination of falling home prices and mortgage defaults have put many investment banks and other financial institutions in deep puddin’. All this reading, all this watching the talking heads on TV, and you still don’t really know what in the world is going on here.

Fear not. I’m here to help. I know … I’m just another talk show host; but the fact is that when the stage was being set for the problems we’re seeing today I was making most of my money as a real estate lawyer .. closing loans for some of the very institutions that are the tank today. This rather unique combination – closing lawyer and radio talk show host – gave me a front row seat to the politicization of mortgage loans that led us to today’s headlines.

OK .. so we all know that a lot of really bad real estate loans were made. The political class would sure love for us to believe that the blame here rests squarely on “greedy” (try to define that word) mortgage brokers and lenders. The truth is that most of the blame rests on political meddling in the credit decisions of these mortgage lenders.

Twenty years ago the buzz-word in the media was “redlining.” Newspapers across the country were filled with hard-hitting investigative reports about evil and racist mortgage lenders refusing to make real estate loans to various minorities and to applicants who lived in lower-income neighborhoods. There I was closing these loans in the afternoons, and in the mornings offering a counter-argument on the radio to these absurd “redlining” claims. Frankly, the claims that evil mortgage lenders were systematically denying loans to blacks and other minorities were a lot sexier on the radio than my claims that when credit histories, job stability, loan-to-value ratios and income levels were considered there was no evident racial discrimination.

Political correctness won the day. Washington made it clear to banks and other lending institutions that if they did not do something .. and fast .. to bring more minorities and low-income Americans into the world of home ownership there would be a heavy price to pay. Congress set up processes (Research the Community Redevelopment Act) whereby community activist groups and organizers could effectively stop a bank’s efforts to grow if that bank didn’t make loans to unqualified borrowers. Enter, stage left, the “subprime” mortgage. These lenders knew that a very high percentage of these loans would turn to garbage – but it was a price that had to be paid if the bank was to expand and grow. We should note that among the community groups browbeating banks into making these bad loans was an outfit called ACORN. There is one certain presidential candidate that did a lot of community organizing for ACORN. I won’t mention his name so as to avoid politicizing this column.

These garbage loans to unqualified borrowers were then bundled up and sold. The expectation was that the loans would be eventually paid off when rising home values led some borrowers to access their equity through re-financing and others to sell and move on up the ladder. Oops.

Right now this crisis is being sold to the American public by the left as evidence the failure of the free market and capitalism. Not so. What we’re seeing is the inevitable result of political interference in free market economics. Acme bank didn’t want to loan money to Joe Homebuyer because Joe had a spotty job history, owed too much money on his credit cards, and wasn’t all that good at making payments on time. The politicians told Acme Bank to figure out a way to make that loan, because, after all, Joe is a bona-fide minority-American, or forget about opening that new branch office on the Southside. The loan was made under politicial pressure; the loan, with millions like it, failed – and now we are left to enjoy today’s headlines. 

So … why aren’t you reading the whole story in the mainstream media? Come on, are you kidding me? Do you really expect the media to blame this mess on deadbeat borrowers and political interference in the free market when it is so easy to put the blame on greedy lenders and evil capitalists? Remember … there’s an election going on. One candidate is decidedly anti-capitalist. Do the math. 

About the author: 

Neal Boortz is a talk show host and columnist for Townhall.com as well as co-author of The FairTax Book. .