Distrusting the Press

By Alan Caruba

Some of the happiest years of my youth, after college and the U.S. Army, were spent as a journalist. My first job was as a reporter for a weekly newspaper and, after the editor left to join a daily six months later I became the editor. That was my first insight into the quality of journalism in the late 1960s. Suffice to say I had no training in journalism beyond what I learned on the job.

What journalism didn’t do is provide a living wage even in those halcyon years and to borrow a phrase from Mae West, a 1930s sexpot, “Like Snow White, I drifted.” In my case it was a natural transition into public relations. What that taught me was that newspapers and other news media could not exist without PR practitioners.

We developed the stories and we fed them to editors and reporters. Very little of what one reads in the news media represents anything generated by individual journalists with the exception of sports, crime reports, and obituaries. What we did then and do now is not unlike the legion of “public information officers" for government agencies and those hired to keep politicians in the news and hopefully out of jail.

Though it may seem counterintuitive, the first thing one learns in PR is to tell the truth because anything else will inevitably come back to bite the client. There are, of course, exceptions. PR undertaken for environmental, consumer, and other advocacy groups skew the information they provide. The Greens and consumer groups thrive on creating scare campaigns.

For the vast bulk of PR, whatever “spin” is involved is devoted to providing facts to reporters who lack the time or expertise to develop them on their own. For example, the details of how any particular industry functions are known to the ubiquitous trade associations, but rarely to a reporter. Unless they grew up or worked in a farm state, anything involving agriculture is a total mystery to them. Most news involving chemistry is likewise terra incognita to most reporters. News about health issues is frequently devoted to some disease guaranteed to kill you. Or not.

When on September 20th the Gallup polling organization announced that distrust, if not outright disdain, of the news media “hit a new high this year, with 60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly” it became news.

This is, however, not a new phenomenon. In 2005, the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard released a study that indicated a rising mistrust of the press. The confidence that existed in the 1970s and 1980s turned into a deep slide in the 1990s. As that decade began, 74% expressed a great deal or some confidence in the press. A decade later that number had fallen to 58% while confidence in other institutions had remained stable.

The press, however, has long been in denial and I chalk that up to human nature. Those who still have jobs after a decade of newspapers folding, cost-cutting, and the growth of the Internet as a source of information not controlled by the media, are aware of the loss of confidence but tend to regard it as a “shoot the messenger” response to what they are reporting

Another factor that is rarely addressed is the way a generation or two of journalism school graduates were exhorted to be “change agents”, literally manipulating the news to advance various social and political goals. In a very real sense they engage in PR more than PR professionals!

The media that fell in love with Obama in 2008 and attacked the McCain-Palin ticket are still heavily invested in “the messiah.” Their problem is 23 million unemployed Americans with an official unemployment rate of over 8% for 43 straight months that is closer to 15% in reality, dismal economic growth, inflation, and other factors that individual voters feel directly. Many who voted for Obama in 2008 will stay home in 2012. Others will vote for Romney simply to be rid of him.

Events like the post-9/11 anniversary that sparked a huge anti-American Muslim explosion from Morocco to Indonesia anger Americans in deep, often unexpressed ways. We have been a superpower since the end of World War II and now that status has been jeopardized by nearly four years of Obama’s performance internationally and domestically. He hasn’t solved problems, he has exacerbated them.

In political terms, there is still a long time until November 6, Election Day, but the killing of an American ambassador in Libya, the siege of the Cairo embassy, and other events will play a large role in the collective consciousness of voters. The fact that the administration tried to pass it off as due to an amateur film that no one saw until finally admitting they were terrorist attacks will linger in voter’s memories. People do not like being lied to and the mainstream press was carrying water for the administration.

Nothing that the press has thrown at Mitt Romney has stuck. He may not be a rock star, but he is seen as a very decent man. The press doesn’t get it. They thrive on celebrity news, not on a serious analysis of Obamacare or economic issues. Their liberal bias is eating their credibility like termites.

It is likely to get worse for them in the run-up to the election and afterward. If Obama gets elected—an unlikely outcome—they will get the blame. If he is defeated, attacks on a President Romney will anger readers and viewers eager and anxious for some real change.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

The Courts and the EPA

EPA headquarters in DC

By Alan Caruba

A bit of news that slipped beneath the radar on September 11th was the announcement by the Competitive Enterprise Institute that it had filed a legal suit in the federal district court for the District of Columbia challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to shield a senior official’s practice of hiding public service communications on private email accounts that only he controls and can access.

The EPA official is EPA Regional Director 8 Administrator James Martin, a former senior attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund. This and many other Freedom of Information requests have been ignored by the EPA and other branches of government. On Monday, the CEI also filed a lawsuit against the Treasury Department that has been stonewalling inquiries regarding internal documents related to a “possible effort” to enact a carbon tax during Congress’ forthcoming lame-duck session.

The last thing America needs is an utterly bogus tax on so-called greenhouse gas emissions. A similar law is wreaking havoc on Australia’s economy. And, since there is no “global warming” and carbon dioxide does not cause warming, such a tax is just one more way to grab more revenue.

Because of the hundreds of thousands of regulations the EPA has promulgated, the agency is constantly in court responding to law suits brought by states, by trade associations, and by corporations, but mostly by environmental organizations.

The EPA actually encourages environmental groups to sue in order to enter into consent decrees to “settle” the case in a manner they prefer. For decades, environmental groups have reaped millions in taxpayer dollars by accommodating the agency in this fashion. A case in point is the Environmental Defense Fund that received $2.76 million in grants over the last decade while at the same time suing the EPA over various issues.

The Wyoming-based Budd-Falen law office has documented more than 3,000 law suits against the EPA by a dozen environmental organizations over the past decade! During the same time period, the Environmental Law Institute that created a citizen’s guide to suing the EPA has received $9.9 million in grants!

It is especially ironic that the courts have often become the only protection Americans have against the Environmental Protection Agency. Despite the EPA’s inflated bogus claims that it is saving lives, the reality is that—particularly during both the Clinton and Obama administrations—it has existed to destroy many elements of the nation’s economy, with a special emphasis on the provision of the energy upon which everything depends.

In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, “EPA Smack-Down Number Six”, we learned that a decision by the D.C. Circuit court “marks the 15th time that a federal court has struck down an Obama regulation and the sixth smack-down for the Obama EPA. This tally counts legally flawed rules as well as misguided EPA disapprovals of actions by particular states.”

The court ruling “saved Texas from an arbitrary and capricious EPA rejection of its permitting process for utilities and industrial plants” and asked “Why do federal judges constantly have to remind EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson” of the basic principle that even regulators must follow the laws of the United States?



Obama and Carol Browner

 Ms. Jackson is an acolyte of Carol Browner who served as EPA Administrator during the Clinton years. These days Ms. Browner is one of the many shadowy, behind the scenes, “czars” of the Obama administration, accountable to no one except the President. Many were surprised to learn that she was also a member of the Commission for a Sustainable World Society for the Socialist International. When that was revealed her biography was taken off its website.

In war you target a nation’s energy facilities. This explains why the Obama administration has targeted coal-fired plants that generate nearly half of the nation’s electricity.

Courts, however, are composed of judges trained in the law, but often ignorant of science. In an egregiously bad judicial decision the Supreme Court in 2007 ruled that carbon dioxide (CO2) and other “greenhouse gases” were deemed “pollutants” under the Clean Air Act.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is vital to all life on Earth because no vegetation can exist without it. Moreover, there is no need to limit so-called greenhouse gases to fend off global warming—now called climate change—because there is no global warming. It was a huge hoax, but that doesn’t deter the EPA from basing its regulations on it.

In a recent case, a D.C. Circuit Court decision was based on a Clean Air Act that empowers the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in “upwind” states “without regard to the limits imposed by the statutory text” thus vacating the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that forces reductions from plants in 28 states in the eastern half of the nation. It was challenged by several states including Texas, Alabama, and Georgia.

An illustration of how the EPA justifies its insane attack on the generation of electricity can be seen in its estimates that the rule would have prevented up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, and 19,000 cases of acute bronchitis annually. Such figures are simply plucked from thin air, having no relationship to reality than a ruling that a child story’s fairy dust can kill you.

Indeed, in 2011, the House of Representatives approved legislation aimed at ensuring that the EPA cannot regulate “farm dust.” H.R. 1633 would prevent the EPA from issuing any new rule in 2012 that regulates coarse particulate matter. It passed on a vote of 268-150. Thirty-three Democrats joined with Republicans.

The EPA has become a major threat to property rights nationwide in addition to its relentless attacks on the energy sector. It is a very costly agency in terms of what Congress calls “major rules” that are defined as costing the private economy more than $100 million annually. In August 2010 Speaker of the House, John Boehner, sent President Obama a letter pointing out that the administration had been creating regulations that cost ten times more.

Of the seven rules that broke the $1 billion barrier, four of them were from the EPA. The total cost of EPA regulations hit $104.5 billion versus $5 billion for the entire rest of the government!

If the Romney/Ryan ticket is elected, the nation’s energy sector will be permitted to help turn around the nation’s lagging economy, avoiding the needless shut-downs of plants that generate the electricity that is the lifeblood of the economy, ending the attacks on coal and opening up exploration and drilling for oil and natural gas that will contribute billions in addition to the jobs that will be created.

With the departure of Ms. Browner and Ms. Jackson, the EPA can then be administered by someone less crazed with the intent to destroy the nation.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

Many Efforts to Alter Presidential Eligibility Requirement

Obama is Hope-Less

By Alan Caruba

 

On October 9, 2009, barely nine months after his inauguration on January 20th, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Obama. At the time, the committee said it was being awarded “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”

Only a fool would say that Obama’s international diplomacy has worked. The siege of our Cairo embassy hoisted the flag of al Qaeda. Our Ambassador to Libya has been killed. Syria’s dictator kills his own people with abandon. The Iranians have not stopped working toward being able to make their own nuclear weapons and from Morocco to Indonesia, in a large swath of the world there are rallies whose slogan is “Death to America.”

While President Obama’s performance in office will be dissected by future historians, those of us who have to live through the experience day to day are often left wondering why he chose to pursue various policies.

A big part of the answer is that Obama is a dedicated Marxist. The recent tape of his 1998 discussion of the “redistribution of wealth” is pure Communism. It isn’t garden variety Socialism. A large part of the U.S. population has had some difficulty understanding what Obama was doing because they have never encountered Marxism so directly before.

The U.S. has been adopting “progressive” policies and programs since the days of Teddy Roosevelt and his nephew Franklin D. Roosevelt and it must be said that even Republicans in the White House and Congress embraced them.

The result are “entitlement” programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that have so distorted the economy that it is now impossible for Congress to balance a budget in which more than half is devoted to these programs before a single dollar is spent on defense and other domestic programs..

At the very beginning of the nation, Benjamin Franklin warned that “When the people find they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

The result of Obama’s first term has been the piling up of the kind of debt never seen in the entire history of the nation even during World War II. While it is true that Obama arrived as the wreckage of the 2008 financial crisis lay all about, the actions he took were odd.

The crisis which too conveniently occurred at the very end of George W. Bush’s second term during the 2008 presidential election campaign was the result of government policies reaching back to the days of FDR when the government decided to manipulate the nation’s housing sector by creating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase mortgages issued by the nation’s banks.

When the crisis occurred, these “government sponsored entities” owned fifty percent of all mortgages and had been bundling them into assets sold to banks and investment firms. They would be dubbed “toxic assets” of unknown origin and no real value. They killed Lehman Brothers and required a massive bailout of major banks and investment firms.

Few argue that major banks had to be saved, but Obama had no need to seize control of General Motors and Chrysler. They could have gone through an ordinary bankruptcy procedure and emerged the better for it. Obama, however, was not concerned about the auto companies so much as he was concerned about the auto unions. In the process, the company’s creditors and stockholders were shunted aside. Americans have always opposed the nationalization of its industries. It is Communism.

As the U.S. economy began to fail, unemployment climbed to Great Depression heights, people lost their homes, the food stamps program expanded exponentially, and as unemployment benefits ran out, people signed up for Social Security disability benefits in huge numbers. The Federal Reserve, an independent banking cartel, announced “quantitative easing” that involved printing money out of thin air to infuse it into the economy. This devalued the U.S. Dollar and we are now to be subjected to a third such failed effort.

For the first time in the nation’s history, our credit rating was reduced and that process continues. If Obama is deliberately trying to destroy the economy, he is succeeding. All talk of “redistributing wealth” is pure Communism.

In the area of foreign affairs, Obama took credit for the U.S. withdraw of troops from Iraq that the Bush administration negotiated and then up’d the ante by inserting more troops in Afghanistan while setting a date for withdrawal; a war that the U.S. was losing and continues to lose. Even the troops Obama “surged” into Afghanistan have been withdrawn.

Our NATO partners are all bailing out as swiftly as they can, but Obama will let the Taliban kill our soldiers through 2013 insofar as they know the NATO coalition will be gone and no retribution will be exacted.

Indeed, the only retribution of any sort one can point to was the assassination of Osama bin Laden for which Obama took full credit over and over again. Did this possibly anger Muslims in the Middle East? Unquestionably. But the notion that Obama has an al Qaeda “kill list” that he personally was pursuing with antiseptic drone attacks evokes some very scary thoughts about this President.

The biggest failure is the one filling the front pages of newspapers and the television screens. His outreach to Islamists was greeted with the most predictable response ever. Apologizing for America. Bowing to the Saudi King. They perceived he was weak and it was an invitation to overthrow dictators and replace them with the Muslim Brotherhood. The “Arab Spring” was never about democracy and never about freedom. It was about Sharia law.

The son of a Muslim father, raised in a Muslim nation as a youth, attending mosques with his Muslim step-father, and on record to support Muslims, should surely have known that a holy war had been pursued for over three decades by the time he took office.

Even so, the White House completely failed to heed the inherent danger of the 9/11 anniversary and our Libyan Ambassador paid for it with his life, along with three of his staff. Obama’s policy appears to be one that says if we do nothing, maybe they will leave us alone. They didn’t. They won’t. Instead, as our embassies were under siege, the President was attending fund-raising events and appearing on television with David Letterman.

In line with his intent to destroy the nation, his administration’s target of choice was the energy sector and coal mines and power plants are shutting down across America. The massive amount of federal land has been off-limits to drilling for oil or gas, but fortunately it is occurring on privately owned lands. By deterring the building of the Canadian oil pipeline Obama killed an estimated 20,000 jobs that would have been created and thwarted the oil that would be transported to U.S. refineries.

In addition to the “stimulus” the Obama administration threw billions at the most loony forms of energy, solar, wind, and biofuels. At one point, he even suggested pond scum, algae, as an energy source worth funding. GM’s electric cars cost $49,000 each and have few buyers other than the U.S. government.

In concert with the Departments of Energy and Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency was unleashed to pursue an orgy of regulation-making that has required the House of Representatives to vote to rein it in for fear of the economic destruction that would ensue. This legislation and every budget Obama put forward to Congress has been defeated or stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Obama is counting heavily on the short memory span of most Americans, understandably concerned with their own problems, but their problems are entirely the result of his administration’s policies.

The pundits are wondering for whom distressed Americans will vote. Most assume they will vote for Obama, but Americans do not like being out of work with no prospect of new jobs or living with their parents after four debt-filled years of college.

And, lastly, there are disquieting reports that Obama administration departments and agencies are purchasing massive amounts of ammunition. The only people they would be used against are Americans.

None of this bodes well for the first Communist President of the United States, but with any luck a majority of voters will choose a successful venture capitalist to replace him and to do what Republicans have had to do since the days of FDR, clean up the mess that Democrats have left behind.

© Alan Caruba, 2012

Rockin' the Star Spangled Banner

Cartoon Round Up

Reagan on Why we must Fight for Liberty