Rather-be-biased takes jabs at Trump and Fox (tin foil hat zone)

Then referring to the Fox Trump dust-up, Dan Rather told the same network he could not be sure that Trump and Fox did not preplan their dispute.(conspiracy zone) Rather went on to compare Trump to George Wallace, Barry Goldwater, Perot, denying he was directly comparing them of course. (Maddow had already done a Nixon-media comparison to Trump vs. Jorge Ramos)

Too bad it went against their narrative that the Fox is in collusion with Trump and that Fox decides, or runs, elections on the right. But immediately coming to mind is Obama’s sycophant media advocates who thought it was their job to get Obama elected.

Dan Rather ‘Suspicious’ Trump and Fox Are Faking Feud

By Mark Finkelstein | August 26, 2015 | MRC Newsbusters

When it comes to fake news stories, if anyone’s an expert it’s Dan Rather . . . The disgraced former CBS News anchor has a new twist on the vast right-wing conspiracy. Instead of plotting against poor innocents like Bill and Hillary, those conspiratorial conservatives are now creating phony feuds among themselves!

On Rachel Maddow’s show tonight, Rather declared himself “suspicious” about the battle between Donald Trump and Fox News, suggesting that Trump and Roger Ailes might have “gotten together and planned out” the feud for their mutual benefit.

For good measure, Rather went on to analogize Trump to segregationist presidential candidates George Wallace and Strom Thurmond.

Note: while floating his conspiracy theory, Rather admitted that he was “without very much evidence.” But when has that ever deterred Dan from attacking a Republican?

**See video interview

RACHEL MADDOW: Could Donald Trump, or could any of these candidates win the Republican nomination while also being at war with the Fox News channel specifically? Never really had anything like the Fox News channel in a previous era in history. It seems to me, that I believe that there can’t be a nominee without Fox’s support.

DAN RATHER: I tend to agree with that. However, Trump is raising that question anew. Now, having said that, and keeping in mind that reporters such as myself get paid not to be cynical, never cynical, but to be skeptical.

I’m a little suspicious, without very much evidence, but I’m a little suspicious of this battle between Trump and Fox. What we do know is that Trump is really smart. As I said when he started this run, don’t underestimate him. And Roger Ailes, whether you agree with his politics or not, another smart guy. Whether they’ve gotten together and planned this out or not, it works to their mutual benefit right now. Fox can argue, listen, we don’t give sweetheart deals to every Republican candidate and Trump can say: I tell you I’m independent and when I say I’m independent I’m really independent. Cause look at even Fox.

Original see posted at Newsbusters.org

Dan Rather is “a little suspicious.” Well, Dan, we’re more than a little suspicious of you. Keep that tin foil hat shined up,  I’ve a feeling you are going to need it.  Trust me on that,  just a feeling.

I’m learning a lot: Trump is now conspiring with Hillary Clinton, and he’s plotting with Roger Ailes at the same time. Oh, Donald is busy.  And according to some, many of  the pointy hat left, he’s conspiring with the RNC — has been since the Dark Ages.  Rachael said he was created by Fox — who is just a mediabot for RNC.  (that’s a double one) And he cannot get elected without Fox’s approval, per Maddow.(con-spir-acy)  So there we are.

So if Fox is not “rubber stamping” Donald, get ready for Trump’s crash and burn– unbeknownst to him, wait… he must know —  because, presumably if Fox made Trump, they can take him out. But so everyone throws a hissy fit if conservatives simply say, Fox tried to take Donald down. We’re nuts for suspecting that. But the rest of that Wallace, Goldwater, Perot, down the twisty road to the Fox conspiracy stuff….. woo-hoo-hoo!

They haven’t mentioned where Jeb Bush is in all this but it has to be coming. (Rather is drawing the schematic) The network who ran/runs interference for Obama. Is there a complete meltdown coming?

Obama’s Declaration of Socialism

Obama mentioned the Declaration of Independence, but his inaugural speech was all about collectivism. The philosophy behind the Declaration is rooted in individual freedom. Obama has it exactly backwards.

The “rights” movement of the left has been transformed into redistribution and class warfare, combined with the welfare state. The real “social justice” they talk about is economic redistribution. His campaign didn’t even address individual “freedom” as he calls it — unless that is about killing babies — it was all about the collective. Collective being the sum total of the special interests he panders to.

Obama said:

1)What makes us exceptional – what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth.

2)My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction – and we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service.

Not self-executing? Remember, “you didn’t build that… somebody else made it happen.”

Individualism is out the window, long gone in his politics of division and class warfare. It is the politics of materialism. Their “social justice” is really redistributive justice. I suppose he will finally admit that is what his “fairness” doctrine is all about in his second term, unchained from the voters.

As Goldwater said decades ago, the left is driven by materialism. Even the morality they speak of has an element of materialism. Don’t you find it ironic that Obama only mentioned the Constitution he swore to uphold in passing.(…that thing) He seems to think backwards. But just as MLK Jr. used the Declaration, Obama wraps his speech with it. Then again, imagine a Liberal like Obama giving a speech based on the Constitution?

He adds:

“The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

But exactly what is Obama giving us? A mob and a king. A king backed by a mob, with an absent and complacent free press. It works for him… quite literally. And a king that sanctions and endorses mob rule – if it’s within the orthodoxy of central authority.

So we see, with Obama our fight is not just against his bucket list of policies, but against a philosophy, an ideology and a political movement behind it, driven from top. (campaign org turns lobby)

He frames it trying to disguise it, and then throws a straw man in to add credibility

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

“Demands of today’s world” — whatever all that is — compared with fascism or communism, good comparison. (sarcasm) Or better comparing technology, markets, goals, ideas and personal struggles compared with fascism. From the Socialist-in-chief himself. That should make anyone chuckle. (one of those struggles is against institutionalized ideology of the Left.) But it is different when its a foreign country or an outsider that is pursuing the philosophy. When its inside your own country from the top down it’s quite different. Did the Nazis extinguish Hitler or his policies? You know the answer.

In fact, it was just the opposite; they gleefully went along and approved. Sound familiar? Just because a charismatic type A person can make a good sounding case doesn’t mean it is the best idea. ObamaCare is a glaring example, and the stimulus would be another. When the smoke cleared it wasn’t as good, or popular as it sounded. We even had Pelosi telling us they had to pass it before we know what’s in it. They tried to do it on amnesty but were stopped.

Goldwater said:
“[One] cannot be economically free, or even efficient, if he is enslaved politically; conversely, man’s political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State.”

And that is precisely what Obama has in mind and endorses, political slavery — individually and collectively.

Much of the equality or fairness Obama speaks about is really egalitarianism of the economic kind, just dressed in a fancy “fairness” package. And the left suffers under its own false pretenses about  conservatism. It is not simply an economic theory. But that is basically what the lefts ideology ends up being, a doctrine of economic egalitarianism. Or collective materialism. With a few words about civil rights thrown in, which they think they can keep on creating to suit their politics.

The Left feels it is their exclusive job to equalize, or that is what their rhetoric suggests. Enforcing that fairness just happens to lead to more power and control for ruling class elites. It also tends to get expensive to purchase all the votes to keep all that “fairness” flowing.  Sounds like another one of his “investments”.

Note: please don’t give me the ‘definition of socialism’ lecture. Do the math with the modern left(post 60’s), the green movement, EPA dictates, green industry, and Kelo’s decision. Then connect all the dots. And remember even Hitler did not want to abolish “private property”, rather everyone should understand that they are an “agent of the state.” So spare the academic arguments.

Same old socialism… different year

  

Sandy or Frankenstorm…. maybe a big storm but probably pales next to the one brewing in DC for Obama’s 2nd Occupation.

This election harckens back to Goldwater’s root ideas. The same mentality is in place with the left only on an even larger scale. Here was an article I had that was posted on Pepperhawk farm’s blog. It really is worth remembering how the left sees everything.

And it is interesting now, after the election, how the left defines what Obama’s reelection apparently means. He may have won but he doesn’t get to redefine and interpretate what it means to us. He outslicked a lot of people but behind it all they are still the same old stale Marxist ideas.

You know, the ones he really wouldn’t talk about. Instead he used words like “an economy built to last;  fair shot;  level playing field;  you didn’t build that; spread the wealth around.”
 
See article from earlier this year for some background

http://pepperhawkfarm.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/who-is-right-tea-parties-or-occupiers-by-privatebullright-contributor/

The road to serfdom is paved with Obama’s golden tongue, built on old ideas that enslaved people for years — not on good intentions. And no, Obama “didn’t build that” either. He didn’t build anything; he’s just marketing old ideas. He’s perfecting that, as they project the “old ideas” mantra onto their opponents.

“This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”
While they will be talking about his win and what it means, what is lost is the truth.

I saw a new book. A Catholic who was involved with the left decades ago, and came through research in economics to see ties between theology and free markets, in the affects on people.

Defending the free market: the moral case for a free economy

by (Fr) Rev. Robert Sirico

From the book preview: (Laissez Faire Club)

The Left has seized on our economic troubles as an excuse to “blame the rich guy” and paint a picture of capitalism and the free market as selfish, greedy, and cruel. Democrats in Congress and “Occupy” protesters across the country assert that the free market is not only unforgiving, it’s morally corrupt. According to President Obama and his allies, only by allowing the government to heavily control and regulate business and by redistributing the wealth can we ensure fairness and compassion.

Exactly the opposite is true, says Father Robert A. Sirico in his thought–provoking new book, Defending the Free Market: The Moral Case for a Free Economy. Father Sirico argues that a free economy actually promotes charity, selflessness, and kindness. And in Defending the Free Market, he shows why free-market capitalism is not only the best way to ensure individual success and national prosperity but is also the surest route to a moral and socially–just society.
(link to find book )

Rarely are you ever going to hear anything positive about the economy or markets from the left. They do make the argument for control for those reasons. This makes the “moral” case for the free market.

But I noticed, as Goldwater showed decades ago, that it is curious how the left despises economics yet bases so much of its politics on economics. (class warfare et al) And seems to seethe with resentment toward economics through their politics.

I almost want to label it all “political economics” (politiconomics) after hearing what Goldwater and others have to say about it, and on my own observations. I don’t know the accuracy of that term but it works for me. They despise it as a threat when it holds so many of the answers to the problems they claim to be concerned about. Though in reality their objective is control. The problem is not economics or the markets, but their need to control it.If Sirico makes the moral case for free markets, then what is liberals’ case for control?

I think we certainly need to hear the “moral case” for anything right now.

It is the same old socialism just dressed a little different, with a different spokesman. The same socialism ideas that brought us Reagan and his “A Rendezvous with Destiny” speech, or A Time for Choosing. He carried the torch. Reagan talked about the Shining City, but these days the beacon is growing dimmer not brighter. (and its not for lack of green energy)