Over on the American Thinker Blog, Lance Fairchok reports what we already know. There is collusion between the political and media rails of our society. This, my friends and readers, is why we pitch a fit about the Big Liberal Media.

This is especially prescient because of the recent discussion here on the WynnBlog regarding Second Amendment rights. It has long been my position that First Amendment rights to free speech are as potentially dangerous—if not more so—than the Second Amendment right to possess weapons. Yet, we require no license from the government to exercise one’s right to free speech. Any schmuck former political operative can end up hosting a supposedly objective news program one one of the dinosaur media’s networks.

And just as some irresponsible idiots can abuse their Second Amendment freedoms and do great harm, even evil, some of the talking heads America relies on for news and information abuse the right of free speech and abandon all objectivity for the sake of politics.

From the column:

Every morning, a group of old friends have a nice chat. ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, CNN’s James Carville, CNN commentator Paul Begala, and Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel have a wide ranging conference call, usually starting just before dawn. Democrat Pollster Stan Greenberg is a frequent participant. They examine current events and how they fit into the new administrations policies. They determine how to best get their message to the public.

***

When they next appear on various programs as interviewers or interviewees, their comments do not conflict with each other. They have coordinated the broad themes and the topics, and after that early morning phone call they coordinate with their personal networks and associates, influencing and coaxing the comment and reportage on specific issues nationwide.

But why should this bother us? Shouldn’t we all just get along?

From an information consumer’s standpoint it is disturbing that several main networks are so tuned into White House message shaping. How can the citizen expect accurate analysis and reportage when the “journalists” that present it are so tied into the party in power? Obviously they cannot, as we have so clearly seen in the blatant bias and advocacy of last year’s campaign media coverage. The “prevailing political and media interpretation” is a nice way to say “political message.”

Those in the media should remember that it is the nature of those in power—from any party or political persuasion—to do everything possible to retain it. If you choose to be willing accomplices, there will be a price to pay, which we are already seeing with the mass downturn in traditional media viewership and readership. When you start doing your jobs—objectively—you might save the industry…and maybe the country. If you choose to stay in either party’s back pocket, you will feel the considerable heft of their backsides bearing down upon you eventually.

Oh, and there will be new permit program established to authorize you to exercise your First Amendment rights. You will be required to take an 8-hour training course at a cost of approximately $60, provide pictures and fingerprints to your local sheriff’s office (at a cost of approximately $35), undergo a background check, and pay a fee of $100 per five year period of licensure. The line forms to the right (or would you be more comfortable on the Left?).

The McCarville Report shares (via ABC News) that the Obama Administration’s Attorney General is beginning to ramp up its gun control efforts. First up? Reinstatement of the so-called “assault weapons” ban (which generally means that if a gun is big and scary looking, the government won’t let you legally own one). Of course, Dear Leader just happens to consider semi-automatic hunting rifles “assault weapons,” too.

[Despite the emphasis on "assault weapons" as instruments of destruction, FBI data does not support the contention they are used regularly to commit crimes. Furthermore, the definition of "assault weapons" as used by Holder et al includes semi-automatic hunting rifles.]

We knew it was coming. What shall we do about it?

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;
the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
-Winston Churchill

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, looks like we’re going to get a triple-decker on that proverbial cr@p sandwich. And we are having it forced down our throats by the Obama administration because “it’s good for us.” I have visions of myself sitting at the kitchen table, sandwich on the plate in front of me, shaking my head defiantly that I will not eat it. Mama Obama smiles at me and tells me I can either eat it now or have it cold for breakfast. This, my friends, is the result of a squandered majority and a flubbed election. In short, this is what happens when you run John McCain as the Republican nominee for president. Let’s learn a few lessons here.

But my main point in posting is this: Obama’s policies are decidedly socialistic, I don’t care how he dresses them up. They are not fresh and new, though they might fall from the lips of a charismatic Beautiful Person. They’re all old and tired. And they will fail again, causing great pain upon the masses, as they always do. That’s the problem. Recessions are no fun, but they come when a booming economy slows down. In the socialist paradigm, there’s no boom to bust. It’s all just perpetual drudgery due to the loss of, first, economic freedom, then political freedom, and, ultimately, all freedom. This kind of expansion of the federal government, especially at the hands of Obama surrogates who so obviously lack character, is the first step toward the Gulag.

As for me, I’ll take the ups and downs of capitalism and the free market. Mainly because socialism has no ups. Just a steady and interminable march downward.

Under socialism, the producers pay for the non-producers. Apparently, at Langston University, the responsible thinking persons pay for the brain-dead losers.

In a story on NewOK.com, it is reported that because some skull-full-of-jello fired a gun on the Langston University campus, rules are being changed to improve safety on campus. The changes?

• a safety hot line,
• hiring more police officers, and
• a random apartment search policy.

Absolutely none of the above measures will do anything to make campus safer. A safety hotline (isn’t that 911) and more police may help clean up after someone’s been shot. And the random apartment search is ludicrous in a free society. But I’m sure everyone feels better now that there’s a new policy.

And to illustrate how maligned guns are in this society (instead of the morons who accidentally fire them (by the way, guns do not go off accidentally unless they are seriously damaged)), just pretend that, because they found some crack or meth or weed on campus, university officials decide there will now be random apartment searches. See the disparity?

Students, time to move off campus where you can legally have a gun for protection (kept out of reach of idiots who “accidentally” fire them) and where you are safe from your “protectors” searching through your personal effects to make sure you don’t have a gun (or maybe eventually a Bible, or maybe pen and paper, Winston). This is just an example of how the government will erode your rights for your own good if you will let them. Sure, we’ll help you afford college. Sure, you can live on campus. Oh, but wait, you cannot defend yourself with a gun if someone attacks you. But, it’ll be OK because we have an emergency hotline you can call and get one of our many police officers to mop up the blood. Oh, and we’ll be pilfering through your things on a regular basis. We’ll only need this phone hotline until we get the telescreens installed. Now don’t you feel safe?

I’ll be interested to see if the many who have been writhing in anguish over eavesdropping on terrorists will make a peep about this.

P.S. Anyone who’s ever tried to get an open record from a university is probably laughing (if it didn’t hurt so much) at this whole situation. One must move heaven and earth to have access to documents that are public by law, yet the university regularly tramples students’ 2nd and 5th Amendment rights with no outcry. I think I’m gonna be sick.

Posting this picture, The Dish Rag blog by Elizabeth Snead at the L.A. Times website asks,

“How did Newsweek get Sarah Palin to pose with a rifle?”

Her answer is that Newsweek didn’t; it’s an old file photo. That said, methinks you wouldn’t have to twist Palin’s arm for a pic with a rifle. She could probably bring a few of her own.

Then Snead asks:

Hey, is that even the right way to hold a rifle? Can’t you shoot your foot off like that?

As I prepared to comment and let her know her mistake, I discovered that nearly all of her commenters decided to let her know that 1. it’s not a rifle; it’s a breech-loaded, over-under shotgun, and 2. that is a perfectly safe way to carry it.

My eyes aren’t good enough to tell whether it’s an over-under or double-barrelled; regardless, it’s broken over, so there are some real solid indications that it’s a shotgun.

And by the way, Newsweek, you just endeared most of the country to Palin with that picture.

What he said…

He’s so articulate and bright and clean and nice looking.

Via Midnight Blue.