Type to search

Why Conservatives Love Trump’s Attacks On Journalists

Featured Post Media National News Top News US

Why Conservatives Love Trump’s Attacks On Journalists

Trump, Conservative, Press

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters for America.

Over the past five days, the White House chief strategist called the press the “opposition party” and threatened to destroy it, the press secretary barred major news outlets from a press gaggle while opening the door to right-wing outlets, and the administration announced it would be giving a plum Oval Office interview to a Breitbart reporter considered among the administration’s most sycophantic media boosters.

The Trump administration’s press strategy is clear: delegitimize mainstream news organizations, especially those that produce critical reporting that jeopardizes its efforts, while lifting up unabashed propaganda outlets.

And his fans love it.

“I want you all to know we are fighting the fake news. It’s fake, phony, fake!” President Donald Trump said in a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). “They are the enemy of the people. Because they have no sources. They just make them up when there are none.” His supporters responded to Trump’s six-minute attack on the press with laughter, cheers, and chants of “USA! USA!”

While some conservative media figures are speaking out against the Trump administration’s efforts to manipulate coverage and damage the institution of the press, many more can’t get enough of the way he treats journalists with utter contempt and grinds them into the dirt.

And those opinions are mimicked by their audiences. Seventy-three percent of Republican voters approve of the way he talks about the media, according to a recent poll. Nearly four out of five trust President Trump more than the press to tell the truth.

But those views are wildly out of step with the rest of the American public, which overwhelmingly disapproves of Trump’s conduct and trusts him less than the media.

This divide is the result of extremely successful efforts by Republican activists, politicians, and conservative media outlets to convince conservatives that the mainstream press is liberal and deceitful and that only avowed right-wing sources can be trusted to provide the facts.

Those attacks first boiled over at the Republican National Convention in 1964, which followed weeks of vitriolic criticism against the press by Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) and his supporters. Goldwater had been widely castigated by columnists and commentators for his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, generating a backlash from activists who believed (quite accurately) that reporters had taken sides against segregation over the previous decade.

As conservatives triumphed over the moderates who had controlled the party for decades and installed the Arizona senator as the party’s nominee, activists raged at and even assaulted the purportedly liberal press. Former President Dwight Eisenhower’s exhortation from the podium to “scorn the divisive efforts of those outside our family, including sensation-seeking columnists and commentators” drew wild applause and jeers from the crowd.

This anti-press animus would enter the White House with Richard Nixon’s election in 1968. As Mark Feldstein detailed in June:

Just a few months after [Nixon’s] election, he dispatched Vice President Spiro Agnew to launch a public assault on the “small and unelected elite” of journalists who held a “concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history.” Nixon publicly said that he hadn’t heard Agnew’s speech. In fact, he had privately approved it word-for-word ahead of time, chortling that it “really flicks the scab off.”

In addition, Nixon invited top broadcast executives to the White House and told them that “your reporters just can’t stand the fact that I am in this office.” Press Secretary Ronald Ziegler declared that all of the TV networks were “anti-Nixon” and would “pay for that, sooner or later, one way or another.” Another top adviser, Charles Colson, told the head of CBS News that Nixon’s administration would “bring you to your knees” and “break your network.”

“The press is your enemy,” Nixon told Adm. Thomas H. Moorer, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a private meeting in February 1971. “Enemies. Understand that? . . . Now, never act that way . . . give them a drink, you know, treat them nice, you just love it, you’re trying to be helpful. But don’t help the bastards. Ever. Because they’re trying to stick the knife right in our groin.”

Given his criminal activity, Nixon was right to fear the press. The dogged reporting of Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward eventually forced his resignation — giving conservatives a new data point in their grievance against the media.

As conservative politicians lashed out, conservative activists tried to build their own outlets. A central premise of such outlets was that they were needed because, as Agnew claimed, the press was irreparably liberal.

Two decades before Roger Ailes founded Fox News and began building it into a conservative media juggernaut, the former Nixon aide served as news director of the fledgling Television News Inc., a conservative news outlet that claimed nonpartisanship but was funded and led by right-wingers.

But TVN was unable to find an audience, bled millions of dollars, and lasted only a couple years. And as Republican presidents racked up victories in the years to come, the impetus behind purely right-wing outlets — outside of a handful of conservative magazines and journals that largely served elite audiences — dissipated.

But in 1992, Bill Clinton unseated President George H.W. Bush, whose campaign spent its final months urging supporters to “Annoy the Media: Re-elect Bush.” Clinton’s victory unleashed a new, grass-roots-focused wave of right-wing talk radio hosts, led by Rush Limbaugh.

These radio hosts provided conservative news, opinion, and talking points to a broad audience, while simultaneously targeting individual Democratic lawmakers for defeat. They were an alternative news source that sought to delegitimize both the new administration and the press that covered it. The result was the “Limbaugh Congress” of 1994, which made the radio host an unofficial member of the House Republican caucus.

Two years later, Fox News was founded. Its “fair and balanced” mantra implicitly suggested that the network’s competitors were not. And the hosts and anchors have spent the last two decades making that subtext text, attacking other journalists and media outlets on a regular basis and constantly suggesting, as Agnew insisted decades before, that the press consists of untrustworthy liberals.

In Fox’s wake, new outlets like Breitbart have risen, all seeking to mimic Fox’s success in attracting conservative audiences by condemning the rest of the press. The result has been plummeting trust in the press among Republicans.

Once that effort was complete, the stage was set for Trump’s ascendance.

“The conservative alternative media, and I’m part of that, grew up and I was very proud of that and I assumed that what we were doing was informing people, making people smart, giving people factual information, telling them the other side of the story,” conservative radio host Charlie Sykes said last year. “And unfortunately what’s happened is it has morphed into this alternative reality whereas Joan says, we live in these different silos. And having discredited the mainstream media, now what do we have? We have the InfoWars, we have the Breitbarts, we have the Drudges, in which information is passed, things that that bear no resemblance to reality whatsoever.”

Trump and his advisers are trying to crystalize those changes. They want to convince as many of their supporters as possible that only Trump can be trusted. And after years of conditioning from this decades-long campaign, they have frighteningly little work to do.



  1. Godzilla February 27, 2017

    The whole issue is a misrepresentation of the facts. The 24 hour cable news media is what has destroyed the media’s reputation, it brought out the bias, especially the liberal bias. CNN is all but a grocery store tabloid, along with MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS, to name a few. Because of politics, it’s nearly impossible to find real facts on most anything. Government statistics are skewed, polls are rigged, news reports are politically slanted, facts are altered to fit the agenda. The death of the media was inevitable.

    The few who do believe the nonsense written or spoken by the media, any of it, are brainwashed dolts and the words fit their utopian fantasy’s. Brietbart and other Conservative media sites are the result of the media bias that has been around for decades became the nail that is closing the coffin on Liberal biased media. Liberal’s no longer control the narrative. RIP!

    1. I Am Helpy February 27, 2017

      Sorry, nobody cares about your moronic opinion, guy who mostly just posts Stormfront memes.

    2. Aaron_of_Portsmouth February 27, 2017

      Godzilla, you’re as sick as ever. Nothing it seems can revive your dead soul—at least no earthly agent can help you. But you just keep on with your demonic drivel.

    3. Sand_Cat February 27, 2017

      You are certainly an “expert” on misrepresentation of facts. We have one in the oval office; don’t need you to lie to us as well.

    4. Independent1 February 27, 2017

      Hmmm!! It’s kind of interesting that even some news anchors at Fox don’t agree that CNN is liberal biased and ‘fake news’.

      Here’s Shepard Smith essentially calling Trump a liar!!

      Fox News’ Shepard Smith: ‘CNN’s reporting was not fake news’

      “CNN’s reporting was not fake news,” continued Smith, seen in video below.
      “Its journalists follows the same standards to which other news organizations, including Fox News, adhere. Senior administration officials regularly speak without attribution so that the public can be informed of what our government is doing — off the record. Just as CNN reports Priebus sent officials to speak off the record against the Russia/Trump campaign reporting.”


    5. Independent1 February 27, 2017

      And here’s just one example of what right-wing propaganda sites are really like:

      ‘Lying Liars Lie’: Ex-Breitbart Editor Ben Shapiro Rips Into Trump Campaign Over Lewandowski Battery Charges

      An excerpt from ex-Brietbart editor Ben Shapiro:

      “Lying liars lie,” Shapiro said. “This is the Trump campaign where lies are told then lies are told to cover up the lies and then finally new lies are told in order to cover up the lies that were told about the lies.”



    6. Independent1 February 27, 2017

      And fox itself is the king of liars: 60% or more of what Fox broadcasts are lies:

      ‘Pants On Fire’: Analysis Shows 60% Of Fox News ‘Facts’ Are Really Lies

      MINNEAPOLIS — Analysis of Fox News suggests that the TV news network is a leader in lying to the American public, beating out CNN and MSNBC for the amount of falsehoods broadcasted.

      The analysis comes from Punditfact, a partnership between the Tampa Bay Times and Politifact.com, which maintains scorecards on the accuracy of major TV news networks. As of January, about 60 percent of facts reported by Fox News were false.

      Criticizing the accuracy of Fox News is not a new pursuit — comedians like Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert built substantial portions of their career out of spotlighting the network’s lies and misdirection. Stewart is so well-known as an opponent that he made headlines in March for admitting Fox had actually been correct in one, specific instance.


      1. FireBaron February 28, 2017

        Indy, that’s why at their last FCC license filing, they classified themselves as an Entertainment and not an Information outlet.

        1. Independent1 February 28, 2017

          Yes, but like brainwashed sheeple, right-wingers dutifully believe all the propaganda that Faux news can concocted and publish!!

    7. Independent1 February 27, 2017

      And are you getting ready to put on the Swastika there lizard?? Trump is leading you right down the path to Nazism!!! Are you ready???

      Let’s trash the media so the only source the people will have for news are the lies of the Administration. Just like Ben Shapiro, ex Editor of Brietbart described:

      Tell one lie after another if needed to make the previous like not look like a lie!!

      Are you ready for all that there lowlife???

      Have you been practicing your goose step???

    8. FireBaron February 28, 2017

      CNN a grocery store tabloid? Last time I checked, it was Faux that decided to make up their own “facts” regarding Sweden’s report on major crimes (hint – it dropped precipitously over the past 20 years) and terrorist attacks (hint – the only terrorist attacks documented in the past 20 years were by neo-nazis). Then again, your orange-headed deity you all bow down to is a firm believer in inventing his own facts whenever the truth becomes an inconvenience for him.

      By the way, have you moved out of your mommy’s basement yet?

    9. Sand_Cat March 2, 2017

      Yes, it really is about “misrepresentation of the facts.” So why don’t you and the other “dolts” stop doing it?

  2. Lynda Groom February 27, 2017

    Of course they love it. Such nonsense distracts the rubes from the scewing they are about to receive. Due to the lack of direction from the MSM you have to do much of the work yourself in order to get past the plethora of fake and misleading news.

  3. Aaron_of_Portsmouth February 27, 2017

    The latent Nazi sentiments long dormant in Breitbart, CPAC, the GOP, Trump, and Bannon have heard a call from the netherworld, and like ghouls from the graves have been summoned by the trumpet of Trump.

    This may sound melodramatic, but if we just stop and reflect on what has been stirring since 2008, it should be clear that a soulless funk has descended across America, and extending its reach across national borders and across the oceans.
    This evil force can be suppressed, but only if those who recognize the origins of this dreadful malaise take the necessary steps to counteract the sickness unleashed as of Nov. 2016.

    1. Just A Citizen February 27, 2017

      Are you suggesting we should drown all the socialists and Progressives?

      Man, that is a lot of people.

      1. Sand_Cat February 27, 2017

        “Drown”? Really?
        Sorry, but [real] facts are facts, and Trump makes his “facts” up, after which they are eagerly lapped up by his followers as manna from heaven. Not quite sure what you’re trying to say here (an attempt at irony?), but I think you’re way off base.

        1. Just A Citizen February 28, 2017

          “The evil force can be suppressed,…..” Only if we drown those who are the evil force. The Socialists and Progressives.

          Not irony at all. Although I guess you could get that with only a minor stretch.

          1. Sand_Cat February 28, 2017

            Sorry…where was this? Don’t see it in the comment you answered. Was that edited? Do you feel Socialists and Progressives are “an evil force”?
            By the way…did a bit more research. Couldn’t find anything on “Carbon Forcing” that you mentioned as a factor not being considered in the AGW debate. What is it?
            Also found considerable evidence that EXXon scientists were among the first to sound the alarm about human-caused global warming; the company chose to attempt to “spread doubt” about the science rather than finding any reputable science with which to dispute it, and the evidence is that they haven’t found any yet.
            People “wanted” cigarettes because they were addicted; the expressions about “coffin nails,” etc. came long after the Tobacco Industry’s fraud was exposed. It’s true that after one smokes for a while, it becomes (physically) clear that it’s not doing you any good; I can attest to that personally. But by the time this happens, one is thoroughly addicted, something the tobacco industry repeatedly denied was possible. Quitting becomes a nightmare of failed attempt after failed attempt, weight gain, and multiple other problems.
            Finally, if you gave a poison to someone who you knew planned to use it to kill themselves because they “wanted it,” I wouldn’t want to be your defense attorney. The tobacco industry has clearly and knowingly committed mass murder for profit. I ask again: what makes you think the fossil fuel industry is any different?
            Do you feel Socialists and Progressives are “an evil force”?

          2. Just A Citizen February 28, 2017

            Sand Cat

            Socialists…yes. No doubt there.

            Progressives is harder to say. Some for sure. But the term is used by many and they all have a different view of what it means. To some it is simply making progress as in changing to meet new needs.

            To others it carries an onerous political goal of forcing those of us who disagree to live as they want us to live.

            So let me summarize this way. The concept of Altruism, as first described by its inventor, supports most of these “statist” ideologies. So I view Altruism as the real evil. Because I find the notion that someone can be sacrificed by a group for what the group views as beneficial to them as evil.

            And yes, I made the comment in response to someone else who suggested that the evil needs to be eradicated. Guess you had to be there to appreciate it.

            Re; Exxon and AGW. I never said Exxon didn’t ignore it and they may have funded groups or activities to cast doubt. My main point was that there is a significant difference between their actions and those of the tobacco companies. Although the govt. was also complicit in the tobacco issue. It was the govt. who set the standard for allowing tobacco’s scientists to control the work on health.

            CO2 does not directly impair human health. Unless you prevent air from getting into the room. Smoking does.

            CO2 is a natural occurring gas and an essential part of the life cycle.

            The science controlling the AGW debate, and thus policy formulation, was done by Government scientists. Not the industries. So Govt. has had the ability to simply use its own science to act without worrying about anyone else.

            Obviously having contrarian conclusions running around makes it harder. But this is not the same as the controlling agent hiding the evidence. In this case the lawyers are really complaining that an entity that could be harmed by legislation is trying to defend itself. That somehow, trying to make a contrary argument is illegal, even if you know better. Lying in public is not a crime. Lying under oath is.

            Tobacco lobbied Congress to allow it to police itself completely. It wasn’t until non govt. science came to light refuting the Tobacco science that things got dicey. Eventually leading to discovery that the T. Companies had hidden results and lied, under oath. Congress did not grant permission to Exxon or any other entity to determine if CO2 was causing warming or if AGW was even real.

            This is why I think the lawsuits are BS. Mostly for career enhancement of a few high profile Democrat AG’s. State AG’s seem to like to do that kind of thing, R’s and D’s.

            Carbon Forcing. I saw this term used to describe the reality that it takes an increasing concentration of CO2 to get the same change in temperature. So lets say the increase from 300 to 400 ppb in CO2 has increased the temp 2 degrees. Using simple and made up numbers of course. If the Carbon Forcing is a factor of two then it would take 600 ppb in CO2 to get the next 2 degree rise in temps (+100 ppb for the first 2 degrees and +200 ppb for the next 2 degrees).

            The other issue with the first global warming predictions was the assumption of positive feedback loops. The history of earth is one of negative feedback loops. Here is where I challenge the skeptics, however. Because the time frame for the negative loop could be so long as to be irrelevant to us. The cycle of ICE to Moderate Climate, for example can last millions of years. So if the planet did get to hot it will eventually cool. But HOW LONG will it take? Too long…

            Now once again on the AGW issue. The “credible” skeptics are also scientists. And there are far more than the media or Mann are willing to acknowledge. But here is the important part.

            They do not claim that the climate has not warmed. They do dispute the accuracy of the reported increase. They challenge the utility and accuracy of a “Global Mean Temp” or use of the “Anomaly” as if that were a temp. They challenge the accuracy of some data and the time sets used. But in their own analysis they also admit there has been warming.

            They also challenge the accuracy of the models and some of the assumptions used to develop the predictions. This is where I found the discussion on how Carbon Forcing had not been adequately modeled. In a nutshell they disagree the degree to which CO2 was blamed for the predicted temp. increase.

            So it is not AGW they dismiss, but the extent to which Humans are contributing to GW.

            I might add that since I first dove into the weeds on this the skeptics caused many people to look at other things. We have now completely new information on how our climate and weather forms as well as possible sun cycle relationships. The science is NOT SETTLED, in other words. Not real science.

            Now this does not mean one should say it is a hoax because science is not settled. It could turn out that all of Mann’s predictions are correct but for reasons entirely different from those he used. That is how science works sometimes.

            My analogy: People say you can’t see the forest for the trees. But if not for the trees there is no forest. Some see the forest and not the trees. But study of the trees can tell us how the forest will react over time.

            So somebody concludes the forest is getting sick. They then conclude it is due to the weather. Then someone studies the trees and finds that a pathogen is spreading that is not related to weather, but the age of the trees. You get the same end result but for entirely different reasons.

            Good discussion Sand Cat. Thanks for following up on the global warming stuff. I forgot we had talked about that. I appreciate the fact you took time to look into it. Not many on these sites would do that.

          3. Sand_Cat March 1, 2017

            Science is never really “settled.” This leaves Exxon and the tobacco companies free to lie and distort what is settled to serve their own interests, and cripples honest scientists in replying, all to public confusion and misinterpretation (Exxon’s goal, obviously).
            And again, as a result of the disinformation put out, many, many people do believe and continue to claim that the warming ISN’T happening, and disputing the science about human contributions IS in fact the fall-back position for those with the discernment to see that their denial of the warming was no longer credible. I know it’s not an entirely fair question, but most of the alternative explanations – sun cycles, etc. – have been disputed with real data, so what is the cause? Shouldn’t many of the skeptical scientists – and many are in the pay of denier organizations, regardless of their reasons – give consideration to the obvious?
            What is the evidence to support carbon forcing and the other suggested factors? And if we keep dumping the increasing quantities of CO2 as the industries clearly want, and will lobby and lie for, sooner or later we’ll reach the point where it does increase temperature. And is carbon forcing settled science – or as settled as science gets? It would be a hell of a thing to reach the dangerous point (we’re there already according to some authorities) and discover those who suggested it are wrong, because we won’t be able to get rid of the CO2 for a long time. I believe there is evidence to dispute it. Many have tried to say that the condition will be self-correcting, because CO2 is good for all the forests and other natural sinks we’re busily destroying, and they’ll grow faster and use up the excess. There is also evidence that when CO2 reaches a certain point, the efficiency of photosynthesis declines.
            Finally, since we started on the topic, Corporations like Exxon – and there are many – are a far greater force for evil than socialism, at least in the current world. What do you think they’re doing, other than forcing the rest of us to serve as experimental subjects to help them externalize their costs and increase their bottom line? Tillerson and company can afford to move where the effects of GW are lower, to live in air-conditioned houses, etc.. Can you? I can’t. The vast majority of people in this country and the world can’t.
            But I guess this will likely never be settled: the denial will continue, even if the global temperature doubles.
            Thanks again for the discussion.

          4. Just A Citizen March 1, 2017


            Do you really think that those denying any warming at all or claiming it is nothing but a hoax have read any of the science? Including that of the skeptics?

            And more importantly, so what if they are being influenced by distortions? My God man, the Govt. controls far more media than Exxon. That is NOT A CRIME. Are you one of these folks who is going to criminalize disagreements or even worse, start a war over environmental goals?

            If you think corporations are more evil than Socialism you are a lost sole. It is in fact the power of govt. which gives them any leverage at all. The same Govt. you would use to install socialism. Socialism destroys individual Liberty. Corporations may want my money but they cannot force me to give it to them.

          5. Sand_Cat March 2, 2017

            So the gloves come off. I’m sorry.
            Those denying the warming have read summaries of the skeptics’ claims “enhanced” and released by Exxon- Mobil and its confederates.
            So, it’s not a crime to spend millions or billions publicizing views as fact that you do not yourself believe concerning matters that affect most of the world? Maybe not, but it certainly should be. You keep insisting these are “disagreements,” but you’ve made it clear it doesn’t matter to you if in fact EXXON AGREES with the science but spends a great deal of money to lie about it in order to assure its own revenue and power. I think there’s likely to be a crime in there somewhere, even with our notoriously lax laws governing corporate activity and personal responsibility – the GOP / “conservative” shibboleth – of corporate officers for the decisions they make.
            And why don’t you cite some grave harm that seriously threatens the US because of Socialism? What we in fact have – and what most “conservatives” seem to support – is Socialism that benefits corporations and wealthy individuals, with an especially brutal and merciless form of crony capitalism for the rest, aggravated by various forms of built-in discrimination, some of them illegal but seldom enforced.
            You keep talking about the government and all the evil it’s done. WHO DO YOU THINK OWNS THAT EVIL GOVERNMENT? Our government is – on almost all issues – bought and paid for by corporations, and has been for decades. Did you know that the US government compensated Ford and GM for the destruction of their German factories in WW2, bombed because they were producing trucks and other military equipment for the Nazi government? Just who do you think the government works for, when the desires of huge majorities of citizens are ignored in favor of what benefits the tiniest percentage of them, plus the corporations in which they own stock?
            And all the talk about “liberty” in the end comes down mainly to money, as your last sentence makes clear. A wise person once said that when people complain that “it’s not the money, it’s the principle,” it’s usually the money. WHO DO YOU THINK forces taxes and fees that affect you up to cover the huge amount that corporations and the wealthy should owe but have bribed the government to collect from YOU instead? You have the leisure to post on this and possibly other sites, and read and consider all these issues; doesn’t seem like you’re hurting for money any more than I am.
            The other components of “liberty” also seem mainly for corporations, judging by their actions when those who constantly blather about it gain power:
            1) The “liberty” to pollute the air, water, and land on which we all depend with minimal or NO consequences whatsoever to them. The “liberty” to risk destroying the food sources for billions and flooding or drying out the homes of billions more fits in there, too.
            2) The “liberty” to have no financial, ethical, moral, or legal obligations to anyone but their stockholders and – of course – their upper management, or the nearest approximation of that which can be achieved. As well as anything else, this covers selling known lethal products and lying about it. The government
            may, as you claim, have allowed the tobacco industry to do the
            research, but the government didn’t make them LIE ABOUT IT.
            2) The liberty to discriminate against anything or anyone in any way they choose for any reason – or no reason – whatsoever with no legal consequences. This applies to individuals as well, especially wealthy ones, or those claiming to be “Christians” who by their actions flout every day of their lives everything the man they call god is purported to have said about human relations . But don’t think that religious “liberty” – even of the real type protected by the Constitution – applies to Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, or – gasp – atheists.
            3) Finally, and perhaps most damaging of all, the “liberty” to exploit all the protections in the Constitution and its amendments promised to “persons.” I’ll say that again: PERSONS. Corporations are simply a means of escaping all the responsibilities and consequences applicable to PERSONS while enjoying all the protections due to PERSONS.
            I’m not a flatfish or the bottom of a shoe, by the way :>), whether lost or not.
            I wouldn’t use the government to “install Socialism,” or at least any more than we have, which is a tiny amount blown into a threat to our existence by the hysterical raving of right-wing lunatics. I gave you more credit for intelligence and rationality. Was I wrong to do so?

          6. Just A Citizen March 2, 2017

            Sand Cat

            I fear you have fallen to far down the rabbit hole. Your frustration with what happens in clouding a rational review of why and how.

            For example, that list of “liberties” you wrote regarding one group harming another is not a list of liberties at all. And I know nobody who has ever claimed them as such.

            Corporations are not people, and no court has actually made that ruling. The first court ruling assigning a “characteristic” of person to corporations was actually a “liberal/progressive” court. The court had ruled that corporations could not be sued because they were not people. So the new progressive SCOTUS overturned the old rulings, by declaring that corporations held certain characteristics of people and thus could be sued. Typical flawed argumentation by a left leaning court, in my view. They could have simply stated that Corporations exist by Govt. grant and therefore Govt. can decide to allow them to be sued.

            You will have heart burn with this but neither Corporation nor the Rich OWN our Govt. They may certainly have greater influence over some members of the Legislative branch. And maybe a POTUS now and then. But the guts of our Govt. is the bureaucrats, and I have never found many of them to be “owned” by anyone.

            Besides, if the Corporations OWNED our Govt. how is it that the lobbying of the Wilderness Society, Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, etc. etc. managed to get all those laws like Endangered Species Act passed?

            I am not disputing our Govt. is all screwed up. But I believe you are over hyperventilating over the symptoms and not the cause.

            If the Federal Govt.’s power to control were scaled back there would not be as great an incentive to control its power. The more power people seek to control the Rich, Powerful, etc. the more those people react and use it to protect themselves or use it against you.

            And yes, I recognize that some powerful people in the olden days used Govt. to get things they wanted. That corruption is as old as mankind. Which is kind of my point. Where are all the angels?

            Not sure what your reference to flatfish or the bottom of shoe is about.

            Oh yeah. Socialism is a much greater threat because there is no means to come back from there without violent revolution. Corporatism, crony capitalism, mixed economy, or what ever you want to call it can be corrected within the boundaries of our system. Socialism also undermines the very premise of our Nation, that of individual freedom and liberty. When a group can TAKE my property or dictate how I must live then that is evil.

            Socialism cannot exist in the USA without use of force by Govt. Again making it evil. The crooked politicians and power seeking Mercantilists have little power without Govt. either. But I still have my right to property and my life. That is gone with socialism. Thus I see one as more evil than the other. That does not mean I condone both.

            By the way, the political/economic system we have had since the late 1800’s, this blending of govt. and business, was called fascism in the dictionaries of the early 1920’s. Once Govt and business, whether business for profit or not profit, starts forming partnerships and picking winners and losers we have a basically fascist system. When it is used to further National goals first it is more fascist and when National goals are ignored for global goals, it is more socialist. But both are variations of the socialist movements. That is where the means of production is place either in the hands of govt. or under its control.

            Did want to address your concerns about pollution in all its forms. Pollution that actually causes harm, financial or personal, is a violation of underlying moral principles. It should be “illegal” in that our laws should be based on the same moral principles. That being we do not initiate harm to others, because it violates basic rights of life and property. My personal view is we don’t need massive agencies to enforce this idea. We need simple laws enforced by the “courts”. I would eliminate the EPA, for example, in favor of greater funding for DOJ and the Court system.

            Yes, I believe you should be able to discriminate against anyone you choose. It is a “right” to choose who you associate with. And Govt. should not take that right from you just because you have a business. These kinds of issues are best handled by cultural evolution and not govt. intervention.

            At the same time Govt. agencies and institutions should not be able to discriminate. Because Govt. is not the same as Individuals. We create and constrain Govt. in order to protect our individual freedoms. Primarily from Govt. itself.

      2. FireBaron February 28, 2017

        Why limit your attacks to socialists and progressives? Why not against the right-wing, too? Or are you one of those who are convinced that all Conservatives walk on water, held in the hand of the Lord, and who can do no evil or ill? If so, why don’t you go back over to Fox or Brietbart where they love you.

        1. Just A Citizen February 28, 2017


          Not at all. I should have said lefties. Because many conservatives are left of center as well. They just have different things they want to control about my life.

          The modern true Conservative is far closer to the traditional Liberal than those claiming the title today. Liberalism was never about creating a welfare state.

  4. Sand_Cat February 27, 2017

    They may or may not be out of step with everyone else, but Trump supporters and those who trust him more than ANYONE are astoundingly ignorant and gullible.

  5. Bosda, The Raccoon Philosopher February 28, 2017

    “Why Conservatives Love Trump’s Attacks On Journalists”

    Here’s freedom to them that would read,
    Here’s freedom to them that would write,
    There’s none ever fear’d that the truth should be heard,
    But they whom the truth would indite.
    ~~Robert Burns

    Explanation plain enough?



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.