Posts tagged with Franklin Roosevelt

Reporters as Prostitutes II

The only differences between many American political reporters and prostitutes is that prostitutes understand what type of business they are in and prostitutes provide something of value to the people who pay them.

One of reasons Barack Obama defeated Mitt Romney is because most political reporters at the Main Stream Media (MSM) are essentially prostitutes. They are partisan Obamista Democrats whose motto is "ours is not to question why. Ours is but to lie and lie." They apparently believe their duty is to make their fellow Democrats look good and the Republicans look bad. If wealthy Republicans want to improve their chances of winning, they will need to invest in media companies and replace the partisan Democrats with either Republicans or with real journalists who believe they have a duty to pressure politicians regardless of party into being truthful.

American reporters should know better than to automatically believe any politicians, particularly those running for president. It wasn't that long ago that President Bill Clinton was caught lying about his affair with an intern and President George W. Bush was claiming that Iraq President Saddam Hussein was about to give Weapons of Mass Destruction to al Qaeda. They certainly weren't the first two presidents to lie. For example, President Franklin Roosevelt lied about the assistance he provided to the British prior to American entry into World War II while he was plotting with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill to get the United States into the war.

American reporters continue to publish stories supporting the late Enron Corporation's global warming scam even though the documents indicating Enron's role in setting up the scam have been available for years. Reporters potentially have access to studies by scientists who question the claims about global warming, but refuse to consult the critics of global warming. Reporters ignore the fact that those who want to profit from trading carbon credits are likely to spend large sums to elect candidates like Barack Obama who support their agenda.

Real journalists recognize that when politicians and government officials try to keep documents secret, it is often to cover up damaging information. For example, in the1960 presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kennedy refused to release his medical records while falsely claiming he didn't have any health problems. We didn't learn until many years later that Kennedy was afflicted with Addison's disease, a disorder that can cause a fatal drop in blood pressure.

When we elect a president we are really hiring a president. We should have access to the same information an employer might request from a potential employee. The news media should seek that information on our behalf.

Unfortunately, most American journalists don't care about whether or not candidates are truthful about their background. For example, there have been cases in the past of journalists who have lied about the education. Thus, it would be reasonable to require presidential "job applicants" to make copies of their college records available to those who decide who to hire for the job.

Barack Obama claims to be healthy like Kennedy did, but refused to make his medical records public to confirm his claim. Obama's body is consistent with the type of body that individuals with potentially fatal Marfan's syndrome often have. Those with Marfan's syndrome can suffer from sudden heart attacks. How can we be sure he doesn't have Marfan's syndrome if he won't make his medical records public.

The presidency has citizenship and a minimum age requirement. Thus it is reasonable to require those applying for the job of President of the United States to submit a birth certificate to confirm he meets the citizenship requirement and is old enough to qualify for the job. However, MSM journalists act like the issue isn't important. They continued to ignore the issue even after Obama posted an obviously forged birth certificate on line.

The forgery lists his "race" as "African" even though the term "African" cannot be used to indicate a specific race. Africa contains two visibly different groups of people. Those who live north of the Sahara Desert have light colored complexions. Those who live south of the Sahara have dark complexions.

The use of the word "African" instead of the term used at the time "Negro[the Spanish word for black]" could indicate Obama has been keeping the document secret for a reason other than where he was born. When Obama was born southern police were still beating civil rights demonstrators. If Obama's complexion was light enough to pass for Hawaiian, his mother might have taken advantage of giving birth in Hawaii to list her son as whatever term was used for native Hawaiians. Obama might have decided to keep the document secret because he wanted to use his complexion to appeal to black voters and didn't want them to think he was really an Hawaiian.

Obama's decision to keep his birth certificate secret might involve an old dictator's trick. A dictator wanting to determine how loyal his supporters are may say or do something questionable to determine who will support him regardless of what he has said or done.

The tendency of the MSM to bias news in favor of their Democratic Party has increased the degree of division between Democratic activists and Republican activists. Those who realize they cannot trust the MSM turn to Republican organizations that also present biased information.

The current situation with the media isn't new. In the 19th Century Noah Webster observed: “The freedom of the press is a valuable privilege; but the abuse of it, in this country, … is a frightful evil. The licentiousness of the press is a deep stain upon the character of the country; & in addition to the evil of calumniating good men, & giving a wrong direction to public measures, it corrupts the people by rendering them insensible to the value of truth & of reputation."

Mark Twain also had a low opinion of journalists. " That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoe making and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poor house."

Reply 16 comments from Agnostick Jonas_opines Alyosha Patricia Davis Donttreadonme Somedude20 Roedapple Deec Media_hookers_for_obama Beatrice and 1 others

What Wisconsin Government Employees Need to Accept

The Wisconsin government employees who are complaining about proposed legislation affecting collective bargaining need to recognize that in a democracy, government employees exist to serve the taxpayers, not the other way around. Unions representing government employees need to accept the fact that a union cannot have equal status with the officials who exercise sovereignty on behalf of the people.

President Franklin Roosevelt generally favored unions, but as he explained the situation in a letter to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937, the situation of unions representing government employees differed from the situation in the private sector..

"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."

I worked for county government for 23 years as a janitor. During part of that time I belonged to the SEIU which represented me until the elected county commissioners decided to stop negotiating with unions. I didn't agree with their decision, but I accepted it because I recognize that in a democracy we "hired hands" cannot have equal status with those who are chosen by the population at large which pays us.

Government employees generally have better job security than private sector employees.

Pay may be lower, but the employer isn't going to move to another state or country. Some government agencies can be shut down, but most must continue to function. Government may have to lay off some employees from time to time, but someone must be available to teach in schools, fight fires, catch criminals or clear snow off the highways.

Consumers of private goods and services have more options that taxpayers. Consumers may stop buying new cars or eating in restaurants. Consumers can switch to less expensive products.

But if taxpayers decide to stop paying taxes, government can take their money or property. Taxpayers don't always have the option of moving to a jurisdiction with lower taxes. They can only band together and vote for officials who will reduce taxes to more affordable levels.

If military personnel attempted to pressure the U.S. government into providing higher pay or other benefits we would recognize the action as a potential threat to elective government. If the military formed an alliance with one party to pressure the other in to giving it what it wanted voters would understandably react against that party.

The fact that the demonstrators in Wisconsin are civilian government employees rather than military employees doesn't change the fact that they are attempting to pressure elected officials into taking orders from them instead of from the people.

Government employees don't have a "right" to collective bargaining because that would allow the minority of government employees to have as much of a voice in government spending decisions as the population as a whole which would violate the "one man one vote" doctrine of the 14th Amendment.

The proper response to the proposed legislation would be to accept it for now and attempt to elect legislators in 2012 who will reverse the legislation. The confrontational approach union members are currently using might be useful for bringing down Middle Eastern governments, but is more likely to strengthen anti-union sentiment among Wisconsin Republicans.