Tag Archives: Intimidation

Do Not Let Them Intimidate You.

The mood was somber on the Morning Joe set at MSNBC this morning. Their high hopes for this administration have been dashed leaving the crew shaking their heads in sadness. The growing scandals, followed by attempted cover-ups, lies and bullying by the Obama administration were more than even they could justify. The few attempts to explain away the actions of the DOJ, IRS, HHS, State Department and the White House were winced at by others on the set.

Though not surprising to many on the outside, this fall from grace by the administration, is revealing what many said but was previously scoffed at by the Mainstream Media; that the emperor has no clothes and if you mention it they will use strong arm methods to squelch your speech.

The growing list of intimidation tactics.

NBC’s investigative reporter Lisa Myers admits what few on the left want to believe or admit, that this administration has a history of intimidating those who speak against or even question their policies including reporters. The thinned skin Team Obama are intolerant of those who might distract from their story and the approved narrative.

Unfortunately, many in the general public who depend on their thirty minute nightly news program to inform, will remain woefully in the dark about these growing scandals. Now, more than ever, it’s time for those who more closely follow current events to spread the word, to share information. While news organizations, like the AP, may now finally begin speaking more loudly in light of their recent run in with Holder’s DOJ, others will continue to shrink from publicizing the truth in fear of negative reprisal. As individuals we must not let the intimidation tactics of this administration keep the public in the dark. If your friends haven’t heard about these atrocities, the strong arm tactics, the out and out lies perpetrated by this administration it’s time  to speak up. These non-partisan issues should outrage every American.

Talk to people.Tea Party

Remind them why it is important for reporters to ferret out the truth and keep government officials honest. Let them know that while singling out one group of people who have ideas contrary to the government might seem good today, tomorrow the tables may turn and your group’s ideals may become subject to special government scrutiny. Tell them that while government officials, just like all of us, can make mistakes like in the Benghazi situation, we must take responsibility for our errors and not compound the mistakes by telling lies or blaming others. Inform them of the Chicago style politics used to force acceptance, and promotion, of the very divisive Obamacare.

Even if you are worried about being selected for unwanted attention by the government, speak gadsden flagup. Do it for your kids and for our future.

If you want to fly a Gadsden flag – Fly it. If you want to meet with fiscal conservatives at a “Lower Taxes” meeting – Do it. If a Tea Party rally inspires you to write about the Constitution -Write. Be brave.

The price of freedom is constant vigilance.

Do not let them intimidate you.

 

Ayn Rand’s Answer to the Left’s Bullying

r-AYN-RAND-large570

Smug, self-righteous leftists bully anyone who dare disagree with their doctrinaire suppositions. This is a cynical but effective ploy that is socially castrating millions of sane, but otherwise intimidated potential critics. Rational, logical, and clear-thinking Americans are silencing themselves for fear of being ostracized by the true believers of various marxian faiths.

The leftist Thought Police wield the weapon of political correctness to silence any and all criticism of the left’s campaign to hijack the U.S. government to accomplish its authoritarian ends. The best way to counter-act such shameless political correctness is contained in an excerpt of Ayn Rand’s non-fiction work “The Virtue of Selfishness“:

In our political life, the Argument from Intimidation is the almost exclusive method of discussion. Predominantly, today’s political debates consist of smears and apologies, or intimidation and appeasement. The first is usually (though not exclusively) practiced by the “liberals,” the second by the “conservatives.” The champions, in this respect, are the “liberal” Republicans who practice both; the first toward their “conservative” fellow Republicans – the second, toward the Democrats.

All smears are Arguments from Intimidation: they consist of derogatory assertions without any evidence or proof, offered as a substitute for evidence or proof, aimed at the moral cowardice or unthinking credulity of the hearers.

The Argument from Intimidation is not new; it has been used in all ages and cultures, but seldom on so wide a scale as today. It is used more crudely in politics than in other fields of activity, but it is not confined to politics. It permeates our entire culture. It is a symptom of cultural bankruptcy.

How does one resist that Argument? There is only one weapon against it: moral certainty.

When one enters any intellectual battle, big or small, public or private, one cannot seek, desire or expect the enemy’s sanction. Truth or falsehood must be one’s sole concern and sole criterion of judgment – not anyone’s approval or disapproval; and, above all, not the approval of those whose standards are the opposite’s of one’s own.

Let me emphasize that the Argument from Intimidation does not consist of introducing moral judgment into intellectual issues, but of substituting moral judgment for intellectual argument. Moral evaluations are implicit in most intellectual issues; it is not merely permissible, but mandatory to pass moral judgment when and where appropriate; to suppress such judgment is an act of moral cowardice. But a moral judgment must always follow, not precede (or supersede), the reasons on which it is based.

When one give reasons for one’s verdict, one assumes responsibility for it and lays oneself open to objective judgment: if one’s reasons are wrong or false, one suffers the consequences. But to condemn without giving reasons is an act of irresponsibility, a kind of moral “hit-and-run” driving, which is the essence of the Argument from Intimidation.

Observe that the men who use that Argument are the ones who dread a reasoned moral attack more than any other kind of battle – and when they encounter a morally confident adversary, they are loudest in protesting that “moralizing” should be kept out of intellectual discussions. But to discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality is to sanction it.

The Argument from Intimidation illustrates why it is important to be certain of one’s premises and one’s moral ground. It illustrates the kind of intellectual pitfall that awaits those who venture forth without a full, clear, consistent set of convictions, wholly integrated all the way down to fundamentals – those who recklessly leap into battle, armed with nothing but a few random notions floating in a fog of the unknown, the unidentified, the undefined, the unproved, and supported by nothing but their feelings, hopes and fears. The Argument from Intimidation is their Nemesis.

In moral and intellectual issues, it is not enough to be right; one has to know that one is right.

The most illustrious example of the proper answer to the Argument from Intimidation was given in American history by the man who, rejecting the enemy’s moral standards and with full certainty of his own rectitude, said:

“If this be treason, make the most of it.”

(Ayn Rand, July, 1964)

The Obama Enemies List




Rory Cooper, writing at “The Foundry,” said, “In 1971, America was introduced to President Richard Nixon’s ‘Enemies List’.” “In 2012, President Obama’s campaign has managed to make Nixon’s list look quaint, legitimate and even routine.”
At Obama’s “Truth Team” web site we get this: “A closer look at Romney’s donors reveals a group of wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records. Quite a few have been on the wrong side of the law, others have made profits at the expense of so many Americans, and still others are donating to help ensure Romney puts beneficial policies in place for them. Here’s a look at just a few of the people Romney has relied on:” The site then lists eight people and their transgressions.

Cooper continues, “…Obama has relied on a vast grassroots network to coerce, bully, boycott and vilify individuals lawfully taking part in the political process ….” “Shouldn’t every American be protected against the heavy hand of governmental intimidation? The President must explain his intimidation of people who have lawfully participated in the political system and have borne no electoral injustice to our nation other than participating in lawful industries the President finds objectionable and supporting organizations and campaigns the President opposes.”

Kimberley Strassel, writing in The Wall Street Journal, says, “You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check. Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for ‘betting against America,’ and accuses you of having a ‘less-than-reputable’ record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.”

Any president who threatens a private citizen for his politics is engaging in government intimidation. But that fact did not stop Obama and his supporters. While the eight individuals listed are wealthy, all are private citizens. None of them is a criminal, holds an elected office, or has anywhere near the power of Obama. The only “crime” they committed is that they gave money to Romney.

Besides his list, Obama has threatened insurance and oil companies, as well as Wall Street firms. He has let it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll US elections. In the name of “full disclosure,” Obama has authored a (yet to be released) executive order that will require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts.

Obama and his campaign have justified their actions by saying that it has a right to “hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable.” But that is a stretch as Romney’s name doesn’t appear on the list – only donors.

Obama swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation.

And where, you ask, is the MSM? They are, as usual when it comes to Obama, absent. The MSM, so far, has given this tactic a pass, has not made a “big deal” of it. Will it take the presence of the name of someone in the MSM before it will defend Constitutional freedoms? Don’t hold your breath. No liberal MSM person will ever appear on Obama’s enemies list.

For much more information on Obama’s “enemies list,” please visit this source and this source and this source.

But that’s just my opinion.

Cross-posted at RWNO, my personal web site.

Media Manipulation of George Zimmerman Tapes Still Driving the Trayvon Martin Narrative

This morning, during the 8am hour, the faithful listeners of the Bob Miller show on KPAM 860am were posed with a thought experiment. Evidenty George Zimmerman is having difficulty leading a normal life these days, and he’s launched a website to accept donations to cover expenses and pay his legal fees: http://www.therealgeorgezimmerman.com/. On his show, Bob Miller posed the question, “Would you contribute to George Zimmerman’s legal defense fund, and why or why not?”

A caller at around 8:12 am (audio will be posted as soon as it’s available) told Bob that there’s no way that he would contribute, despite the knowledge of Zimmerman’s financial hardships, because, “I saw the tape from the police station on ABC News, and he didn’t have a scratch on him.”

Bob corrected him and said the CNN tape clearly shows a deep gash in the back of his head, and the caller joked with Bob that he had completely derailed his argument.

 

Here’s the real takeaway from this snapshot in time. The general news-watching public is clearly still under the massive sway of several main stream news organizations that have either refused to clarify the grainy video (in the case of ABC), misquoted the 911 tape (CNN), or have actively altered the 911 recording (NBC).

5440fight.com examined this situation recently (h/t Conservative Mom):

With the tragic death of Trayvon Martin, the Democrats and media have found the story they needed to exploit in order to prove their position that America’s justice system is racially biased towards White Supremacy, just like Bell’s “Critical Race Theory” asserts, and that Obama is not a radical or racist for subscribing to this ideology.

So far, blame for the incident has been cast on Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, the Koch Brothers, and even the hoodie Martin was wearing.   Obama said that America needs to do some “soul searching” about the supposed racist guilt of our society, remarking, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon Martin.”

Over at Breitbart.com, John Nolte examines the actions of NBC, CNN and ABC and how they’ve shaped the debate over the shooting of Trayvon Martin:

[NBC’s]Editgate, however, is something much, much worse.

In the case of ABC News, even though the network knew it had the capability to eventually enhance surveillance video of Zimmerman’s arrest, the network still chose to release the un-enhanced video with this declarative headline: “Trayvon Martin Video Shows No Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman.”

Translation: Zimmerman is a liar who hunted down and murdered an unarmed teenager.

What CNN did was even worse. “The Most Trusted Name In News” told America that, according to their audio expert, Zimmerman called Trayvon Martin a “fucking coon” just prior to shooting him. They’ve since backpedaled, but the gasoline had already been gleefully thrown on the racial fire. And like ABC News, here’s another situation where a major network shot their biased mouths off, knowing there was better technology at their disposal to report something closer to the truth later.

Translation: Zimmerman is a racist who killed an unarmed teenager because he was black.

But the Editgate gold medal goes to NBC News. The Peacock Network didn’t “misinterpret” what was in front of them and they didn’t jump the gun. What NBC did was ALTER what they had to make Zimmerman look racist.

On the storied ”Today Show,” NBC News told America Zimmerman said this on the 911 call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

When the truth is that the unedited audio actually went like this:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

TRANSLATION: George Zimmerman racially profiled the unarmed black teenager he shot.

Make no mistake. These efforts have been deliberate and for a clear purpose. It has already been proven over and over again that the mainstream media are not simply in the tank for Obama, but actively assisting in disseminating the talking points directly from the White House. (See Journolist 1 and Journolist 2 for examples.)

And if the White House wants to exploit racial tensions as a wedge issue, the legacy alphabet networks are all too happy to participate.

It’s just too bad that so many of the general public are either oblivious or indifferent to the collusion and tricks by the mainstream media. This is how a caller in to a local radio show can STILL be completely unaware that the information he was fed was a complete fraud.