Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Scott Walker on Vision and Message

It’s a little bit of a shame that Scott Walker left the race so quickly. It’s not that he had a chance to win as he demonstrated, but many of his conservative values and leadership perspectives would have been welcome in the field. We’re glad he’s gone and we hope that others will follow him, but for someone so promising in the beginning, his collapse is hard to swallow.

The visual nature of social media means that from time to time we will be sharing messages that should resonate for our audience. To see more of them, which are great for sharing on social media, simply click on the Messages category.

The post Scott Walker on Vision and Message appeared first on Conservative Haven.

via Conservative Haven | RSS Feed http://ift.tt/1GaUDpQ

Monday, October 12, 2015

Prelude? When Bernie and Ben Sort of Debated.

Bernie Sanders and Ben Carson are both second in the current polls for their respective parties. It’s not out of the question that the two could be the nominees, so this “debate” with Wolf Blitzer could be like a prelude to the general election.

We obviously think Carson won, but we’re clearly biased.

The post Prelude? When Bernie and Ben Sort of Debated. appeared first on Conservative Haven.

via Conservative Haven | RSS Feed http://ift.tt/1MuO4zC

Drudge Posts Fake News Story About Climate Activist Living in Freezer

The Drudge Report isn’t the ultimate journalistic standard in the world. It’s a list of links that interest people… LOTS of people. The site is the ultimate tastemaker, kingcrowner, and journalistic trendsetter on the web. Any respectable journalist checks Drudge to see what’s going on in the world, as do millions of others.

This time they dropped the ball. A story that was easily confirmed as fake popped up on Drudge today. “Activist Spends Year in Freezer to Oppose ‘Global Warming’… was enough to get us to click. Within seconds it became clear that it was fake. The name of the activist is Jade Martens. She spent the last 12 months in a 6’x3’x4′ freezer to protest global warming. She did this at the San Francisco Congress Center. There is, of course, no such place. She ate, slept, and even “relieved herself” in the freezer, standing from time to time to stretch.

Her plan is to stay until real action is taken by the Obama administration to halt carbon emissions. If her health allowed, she would stay in for at least another year. A Danish filmmaker, Hans MitzbĂ«rg, is already working on a documentary. At this point, it is so crystal clear that the story is fake that one didn’t need confirmation.

Drudge Fake Story

The site that it linked to was pretty lame as well.

Drudge Climate Activist Story

How could something like this happen, you might ask? Why would Drudge buy into such a story. The answer is in the way the story was sold. While it was clearly positioned to be fake, there was one thing that they put in that made suspended disbelief. Jade Martens is supposed to be a member of Greenpeace. By invoking the big “G” the people circulating the story were able to allow us to put logic aside. If anyone was stupid enough to pull of a stunt like this for the sake of the environment, it would be a Greenpeace radical.

Nobody’s perfect. We don’t fault Drudge for falling for the Greenpeace fallacy. In truth, the reader really didn’t have a chance. It’s like saying that an NFL player committed a stupid crime and the NFL let them back in. Regardless of the crime, we would believe it.

via Soshable http://ift.tt/1LhwM4H

Thomas Sowell on Socialism

Thomas Sowell on Socialism

There’s a strange sincerity in the way that Thomas Sowell speaks in ways that make him seem extremely intelligent while downplaying the concept of intellectual superiority in the process. He truly is one of the great thinkers of our time in any circles, not just as a conservative or economist. Perhaps most endearing is the fact that his words are entertaining as well with a quick wit reminiscent of bards of the past. If Samuel Clemens was a modern day conservative economist, he’d be Thomas Sowell.

The visual nature of social media means that from time to time we will be sharing messages that should resonate for our audience. To see more of them, which are great for sharing on social media, simply click on the Messages category.

via Soshable http://ift.tt/1NCln5l

Understanding the Media’s Agendas During Presidential Election Cycles

There’s a naive notion that has been fading over recent years that the news media is designed to report the news. Most are waking up to the fact that there’s no such thing as “fair and balanced” in American media whether mainstream or alternative. All of it is biased. All of it is driven by agendas.

With that acknowledged, the agendas that drive a Presidential election season are very different from most others. Even in off-cycle election years, the national media is less interested because they have limited control. The local media still has the primary influence over congressional, senatorial, and gubernatorial elections because only so much airtime can be given to them nationally. With Presidential elections, the power shifts.

Before we get into the discussion, it’s important to debunk a common myth. Many, perhaps most believe that the driving force for the agendas is money. More page views online, more viewers on television – the standard profit-generating components of the news are not part of the agenda despite what some will tell you. It’s the other way around. The agenda is the driving force while the revenue generated from it all is a bonus. For example, when GQ posted a racy and insulting headline about Ben Carson, they knew they were going to get a ton of hits. However, the additional dollars they made as a result were not the reason for the article. They truly wanted to hurt the candidacy of someone on the rise.

Donald Trump discussed how he drove ratings through the roof and he was correct. He then said he made CNN and Fox a ton of money, which in the whole scheme of things he did not. Ad time is sold in advance and while CNN did make extra money by running the debate longer and getting more ads in while high levels of viewers were watching, the extra cash was microscopic as a blip on their balance sheet. They love the attention and the ability to shift the mindset of people towards their agenda.

Before you dismiss this, read on.

Estate Run Media

Eric Schmidt

Many countries suffer from the evils of state run media. They don’t get to see what’s really happening in their own country and they only get to see what their government wants them to see in the outside world. Iran, China, and North Korea are the well-known examples but there are dozens.

In America, we don’t have state run media (well, there’s more to it than that, but we’ll discuss that later). We have estate run media. The various media barons control the vast majority of the media we take in on a regular basis. It’s not just Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner. Corporations such as General Electric, Verizon, and Time Warner are able to maneuver the news cycles and entertainment feeds that encompass our informational lives. Throw in the “minor” players like Yahoo and CBS and you can see how easy it is to manipulate the news.

Then, there’s Google. Too much could be written about them, but it would be easier to follow everything the NSA does than to try to decode Google’s massive network of influence.

One tie-in with Google is Alphabet’s (Google’s new parent company) Chairman of the Board Eric Schmidt. One of his startups, The Groundwork, is a high-level technology gun for hire that would be well outside of the league for any political campaign to hire, but one did. Hillary Clinton’s campaign is the only political client for the company and they charged $177k so far. While it’s a lot in the world of political IT, it’s practically charitable work for a company of this pedigree, funding, and skills. Of course, with a backer that is worth $9 billion, there’s no need to make money on the endeavor. It’s all about the agenda.

If you want to see what the symbol for the company is, just look at their website. Creepy.

Legislating from the Computer

Legislating from the Computer

Some will rightfully point out that there’s no way for these various estates to be able to control every word that is spoken, printed, or posted by the individual journalists and they would be absolutely correct. Journalists are a very independent group (my first career was as an old newspaper guy) and they are in the business of swaying, not being swayed.

The part that few realize is that from top to bottom, the political agendas are vetted through hiring, promoting, firing, and demoting. For a common view that most would understand, compare the hosts on Fox News versus MSNBC. I don’t think I need to point out the agendas at work. Rupert Murdoch isn’t feeding them talk tracks into their ear pieces directly, but the News Corp team selected the right people at every level of production. The same is true across the pond at MSNBC. The funny part is that television isn’t event he most stark example of editorial control for the sake of agendas.

Other than legislating from the bench, the worst type of political agenda control is legislating from the computer. This is the practice of swaying the opinions of readers, watchers, and listeners by properly positioning the right stories with the right spin in the right direction at the right time. The Arab Spring was a beautiful example of this in action as the majority of American media portrayed the uprisings as good versus evil when in reality the evil was driving the revolts against oppressive but stable governments. If you were to poll Egyptians about whether or not they would rather have the current situation or the one they had six years ago, the results would be stunning.

By empowering the right people and burying the wrong ones, the powers that be have given license to those tell the stories to do so with their particular spin. I’m not suggesting that the journalists are coerced. Instead, they’re trained. If the GQ editors were presented with a different story titled “F— Hillary Clinton” or “F— Bernie Sanders,” for example, would the story have run? No. The journalist didn’t need coaxing, though. He clearly doesn’t like Ben Carson and he knew that his editors would allow his vitriol on their pages.

Policy might be signed by politicians, but much of it is crafted by journalists.

Progressive versus Conservative Media

Progressive versus Conservative Media

Briefly, there’s a distinct difference between progressive media and conservative media. Progressives take what they’re given. They follow the winds of change very adeptly and can turn on a dime. This was clearly demonstrated in 2008 when their darling, Hillary Clinton, started showing signs of weakness while their new champion emerged. They turned on her so quickly it was blinding.

Conservative media is different. Some would say it’s slower and more splintered. Others attribute this to being more principled. Regardless of the reasons why, the bitter battles last longer and the holdouts stay to the bitter end.

This is an advantage for the Democrats because their media backers, which account for an incredibly higher percentage of mainstream media outlets, are fast to unify behind their winner regardless of who it is.

There’s another big difference in they way they attack their opponents. The left is sneakier, perhaps even smarter in their attacks. They don’t go for the kill. Their goal is balance. Their goal is to prolong the primaries for as long as possible. They want the Republicans to fight each other, which means they will attack the most likely candidates to win with the most ferocity.

Currently, those candidates are Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. Carly Fiorina is mostly off their radar as they don’t see her sticking around throughout. Jeb Bush is weakened, which means they’re backing off attacks on him until he’s able to mount a comeback. Then, there’s Donald Trump. He will only get token attacks. The big guns are being held until the impossible dream of the Democrats comes true. They don’t think he can win the nomination, but if he somehow can, they know they can destroy him. This is why they haven’t marched out dozens of women denouncing him as a misogynist. It’s why they haven’t brought up dozens of examples that would paint him as a racist. It’s why they’ve taken it easy on him, using only editorial rhetoric that can galvanize his base rather than full blown attacks to make his supporters doubt him.

They have so much ammunition stored up to use against him if he gets the nomination that they’re actually hoping he’s the nominee. It will be a an ongoing media bloodbath for the months leading up to the election if he gets the nomination. That’s why they don’t take the types of shots at him that they take on Carson, Cruz, and Rubio. Of the four, Trump is by far the easiest for them to destroy regardless of who is nominated by the Democrats.

Keep in mind that I like much of what Trump is saying. This isn’t an attack against him or his positions. It’s an understanding that no matter what 70% of the Republicans say about a willingness to back him if he’s nominated, the rest of the country will be pushed by mainstream media to completely despise him. I’m not against Trump. I simply realize that he would have less of a chance of winning the general election than any other GOP candidate other than maybe Rick Santorum, Lindsey Graham, and George Pataki. Yes, Bobby Jindal would even have a better chance of winning the general election than Trump.

The Need to Fight

Steve Deace Fight

As conservatives, we have plenty of weapons in our arsenal to guide public opinion. The problem is that the progressives have quite a few more as well as better organization. If we are to win the White House in 2016, we have to consolidate our efforts. The sooner we can rally behind a single candidate, the better.

The agendas are real and they’re powerful. The only chance Republicans and America have of protecting and advancing our future is to recognize what we’re up against and to act accordingly. This is a fight to the end.

via Soshable http://ift.tt/1Mravpz

Sunday, October 11, 2015

Cruz Leapfrogs All but Trump, Carson in Latest CBS Poll

We hate polls, especially this early in. The unscientific approach to them has been proven time and again over the last year to be ineffective in the digital/mobile age with inaccuracies that have many professional pollsters brushing up on skills in other industries. We won’t report on them often unless there’s a shakeup.

The most recent CBS poll has Ted Cruz jumping up to #3 from #6 where he was the last time they polled. Donald Trump and Ben Carson continue to lead by a large margin, but Cruz has made recent moves that may be telling conservative voters that he actually has a chance. That’s been the knock against him from the start; many feel his far-right ideology is too much for moderates in the party to get him the nomination and too much for independents in the general election.

Of course, that doesn’t seem to be a problem for the Democrats who have Bernie Sanders, a candidate as far to the left as Cruz is to the right, leading some polls and Hillary Clinton making a hard left turn in recent weeks. Then, there’s the President Obama factor who has demonstrated during the last two elections that extremism is not something that independents shy away from. In fact, they seem to embrace it more than the moderate positions that GOP candidates have held recently.

Don’t read too much into this poll if you’re a Cruz supporter. He still has a long way to go and his plan is one for the long haul rather than embracing the turn and burn strategy that the two frontrunners have adopted. Polls don’t win elections.

The post Cruz Leapfrogs All but Trump, Carson in Latest CBS Poll appeared first on Conservative Haven.

via Conservative Haven | RSS Feed http://ift.tt/1VMzVUp

Iran is Proving the Nuclear Deal is a Complete Joke

When history looks back on this period of time, it will point to the United Nations’ nuclear deal with Iran as a defining moment that propelled the world into tragedy. US President Barack Obama is playing the role of former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain.

In both cases, the leaders of the free world negotiated deals with the greatest threats to world peace. For Chamberlain, it was an agreement with Nazi Germany. For Obama, it’s an agreement with Iran. Also in both cases, a world that was squeamish about conflict put faith in incompetent leadership over evidence that screamed of war and decrees by madmen who were bent on destruction. In Germany, Adolf Hitler would have his way. In Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei will have his way.

President Obama declared what was required for “peace in our time” in his 2013 inaugural address. Few caught the words other than a handful of conservative journalists.

The irony is that it was an unintended allusion to Chamberlain’s famous quote. Most misquote Chamberlain, who actually said, “peace for our time.” Nevertheless, the gravity of the words were felt and the agreements with maniacal leaders bent on destruction were felt before and will likely be felt again.

This isn’t just an article to restate what others have already said. It’s inspired by things that have happened just this week that individually don’t seem like a big deal but when viewed as a trend it’s clear that we’re heading towards dangerous times now that the leader of Iran is emboldened by… something. Perhaps he’s simply happy that Russia is finally in the mix in Syria. Maybe he’s just doing what he has done in the past by taking harsh actions himself and allowing his underlings to clean up the mess in the court of worldwide public opinion. Perhaps he’s closer to having nuclear weapons than we ever knew and the UN negotiations bought him the time he needed.

Regardless of what has prompted his sudden renewal of bold and damaging actions, it’s clear that they are escalating. Here are some of the things that the country has been doing this week alone.

It’s with this final piece of news that the tragedy of this agreement comes to light. The United States has long held a stance that hostages are not a part of negotiations with enemies because doing so would put other Americans at risk. If an enemy force wants a stronger hand in negotiations, they simply need to kidnap Americans as negotiating tools. This policy makes sense.

There are two problems with this. First, the men who are being wrongfully held by Iran were not kidnapped or captured to be pawn pieces. They represent a fundamental policy within the Iranian government to always assume deceit on the part of Americans or other nationals in their lands. If one does their research, they will find that these men are not spies. They are not terrorists. They are pastors, journalists… everyday people who weren’t attempting to usurp the government in Iran.

The fact that they are being held for years despite false evidence and idiotic claims is a demonstration that this country will never honor the nuclear deal. They operate through lies and positioning of their own set of values that is contrary to everything the nuclear deal is supposed to represent. Three things should have been absolute portions of the agreement:

  1. Unconditional release of Americans and other nationals who are being wrongly held based upon the judgement of a United Nations investigation. If Iran is not going to obey the United Nations’ human rights laws, they are demonstrating that they will not honor the nuclear deal.
  2. Acceptance of Israel’s right to exist. Their unwillingness to acknowledge Israel is another crystal clear sign that they do not want peace. They are building nuclear weapons specifically to shift the balance of power so they have the might to win against Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other nations that are opposed to them. The fact that they consider Israel (and the United States) to be their mortal enemies makes this deal untenable.
  3. Acknowledgement that they were building nuclear weapons in the first place. At this point, they continue to lie about the very nature of their nuclear program. Making a deal based on falsehoods by the primary player is ludicrous. If they won’t admit they were pursuing the bomb, what makes us believe they will admit to continuing to pursue the bomb?

The second problem with not negotiating for the release of the wrongly imprisoned is that Bowe Bergdahl clearly demonstrated that this policy is not real. We negotiated for a traitor. That makes the policy claims by the White House an insult to the lives that they are allowing to be destroyed by the Ayatollah’s regime.

Ayatollah Khamenei and Adolf Hitler

As the politics behind the Iran deal continue to get uglier, at what point will people realize that the Ayatollah has no intentions of honoring it? Peace requires strength to be real. Obama is demonstrating the weakness of Chamberlain while the Ayatollah is demonstrating the deceptiveness of Hitler.

The NY Post is correct:

via Soshable http://ift.tt/1Mqlks3

Jesse Ventura whines about the two-party system’s destruction

As a WWF wrestler, Jesse “The Body” Ventura captivated crowds with harsh talk and fake wrestling moves. That experience helped him have a relatively successful career in both politics and reality television. Now, he’s sounding off again, presumably to get another gig.

Supporters will say that he was simply speaking the truth when he decried the two-party political system of the United States. He said he hoped that Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders would be the destruction of their parties. While we admit that he has clear justification to be angry about the way that government operates in our country, his rhetoric is lost in the hype of selfishness when he declares that he doesn’t fit in with either party.

There are plenty of constructive critics who have real solutions to offer for debate. Ventura’s solution of destruction of the current parties and building others up that suit him better smell more political than the system he’s railing against.

The post Jesse Ventura whines about the two-party system’s destruction appeared first on WeHeartWorld.

via WeHeartWorld | RSS Feed http://ift.tt/1LdIU6J

Bob Schieffer doesn’t like how Hillary Clinton is running for President

Old school newsman Bob Schieffer of CBS News fame had a little to say about the Hillary Clinton campaign when asked a few questions during his lifetime achievement award acceptance. The many who has reported on decades of Presidential elections thought that Clinton’s campaign was as artificial as it gets.

He sounded almost like a politician dodging a question when asked about the validity of her email investigation. Instead of answering the question, he ranted about how much money the campaign was spending, how it seemed artificial to try to humanize her to voters, and how people are seeing through the “listening tours” she’s been using to justify shaking hands and kissing babies.

We will see if his condemnations turn out to be valid. The first debate is almost here.

The post Bob Schieffer doesn’t like how Hillary Clinton is running for President appeared first on Uberly.

via Uberly | RSS Feed http://ift.tt/1VM234W

I Finally Understand Why Hillary Clinton Can’t Be President

There has been something about Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that has bugged me for 24-years. As a lifelong Democrat and someone who like President Bill Clinton despite his misogynistic ways, one would think that I would embrace his wife with even more fervor. I haven’t.

It actually scares me to think that she could be the nominee. I knew in my heart that I didn’t want her to win against Barack Obama in 2008 (I was a Dennis Kucinich supporter, if you must know), but I never really knew why. It wasn’t trust; I didn’t trust candidate Obama very much, either. As it turned out, he’s had less of a trust issue than I had anticipated and more of an effectiveness issue than I could have imagined, but this isn’t about him. It’s about Hillary Clinton, the mysterious nagging feature about her, and why she can’t be President.

While watching this week’s news cycle, it finally came to me after all of these decades. In fact, it hit my like a Randy Johnson fastball to the head, only without the concussion. In a nutshell…

Hillary Clinton wants to be President for the sake of being President, not to fix the country.

In that way, she reminds me of Donald Trump. I look at Bernie Sanders, Ben Carson, and Ted Cruz and I see an earnest desire to be President in order to do what’s right. While I don’t agree with Cruz or Carson, I respect their motives. With Trump and Clinton, I see three similarities that are dangerous and should prohibit them from ever winning the White House if the American people aren’t suckers for their sales pitches.

  1. They have no convictions of their own. Never have I seen candidates change their positions more often than these two. They have a very clear willingness to say whatever their political advisers tell them that the uninformed voters in America (of which there are way too many) are itching to hear. Build a wall. Black lives matter. Obama’s a Muslim (wait, they both said that).
  2. They are driven by ego rather than principle. It’s not important to them that they make campaign promises that they can keep. It’s only important that they make campaign promises that can get them into the White House. For some candidates (maybe even most), this election is about the country. For Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, this election is about them.
  3. Failure after failure after failure… Donald Trump, despite his billions, is very much like Google. He did one thing very well by taking his father’s millions and turning it into billions through real estate. Then, he failed miserably at pretty much every other big idea he ever had. I could write a book about his failures, but this is about Hillary. Her failures are more subtle. It’s really not what she tried to do and failed at, though there are many of those. It’s what she accomplished. As First Lady, US Senator, and Secretary of State, one would think that she could list something impressive that she has accomplished. I wasn’t on the list to get a copy of her book but I haven’t seen anything that stands out.

I’m a Progressive but this is a conservative blog so I won’t try to sell you on Bernie Sanders. I will, however, give you conservatives the satisfaction of knowing that some of us Progressives would rather see Ben Carson or (gulp) Ted Cruz in the White House than the unprincipled and incompetent Hillary Clinton.

The post I Finally Understand Why Hillary Clinton Can’t Be President appeared first on Conservative Haven.

via Conservative Haven | RSS Feed http://ift.tt/1ZqGT0T