Tax Day Tea Party Comic

Media Bias: The Poor Coverage of the Tea Party Protests

The Main Stream Media is absolutely biased. One need to merely compare not only the Presidential coverage, but now the Tea Party coverage. Over 200,000 individuals protested the size of government and debt, in 600+ locations across 300 cities all over the nation, and it had barely any coverage. The New York Times and the Boston Globe ignored the event entirely. Other networks barely gave it airtime. CNN decided to even have what they call a ‘reporter’ (who really seemed like an Obama Administration official) attack individuals at the site, and blame it on the vast right-wing Fox News conspiracy (what a joke). This is objective reporting?

No wonder CNN is incredibly behind in the ratings. Such insane biased reporting has NO room in the main stream media. The woman should simply be fired and forced to find another career.

Let us compare this daft empty hollow reporting with how Cindy Sheehan was treated. She received over a hundred mentions in the New York Times, and was protesting Bush’s ranch with a few dozen left wing code pink socialist. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN A COUPLE OF DOZEN TRUE RADICALS OVERRIDE IN COVERAGE THE PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS?

It is absolutely mind blowing. To add to this the spin placed upon the events by the left numbs our reason even more.

1. They first spoke of a counter-protest by liberals. This was simply an epic failure (the only counter protest I experience was a guy with an Obama/Biden bumper sticker giving me the finger as he drove by me holding an American flag… I assume he was flipping off the flag).
2. Then they tried to blame it as a vast right-wing conspiracy planned up by GOP bosses and Fox News. Are you kidding me? What insane ignorance. This was an organization plotted by blogs, twitter accounts, phone-calls, and facebook. To discredit it as anything else is politically poisoned judgment.
3. Then they tried to paint it as angry conservatives protesting taxes. WHAT INANE IGNORANCE! THE PROTEST WAS AGAINST THE GROWTH OF GOVERNMENT, RECKLESS PORK BARREL PROJECTS AND SPENDING, $11,000,000,000,000.00+ IN NATIONAL PUBLIC DEBT, AND THE IMPENDING TAX INCREASES THAT MUST FOLLOW TO PAY FOR THIS DEBT! They may try to paint it as a partisan event, but this only discredits their ailing industry further (the Chairman of the Republican Party was not even allowed to speak at an event).

Perhaps if they actually went out, and did real reporting and journalism (i.e. their job), they would have discovered the actual message, instead of taking a lead from leftist blogs.

Seriously, regardless of your political convictions, clean your judgment and evaluate this honestly. Hundreds of thousands of individuals protested the size of government, the debt, reckless spending, and other anti-liberty based actions. How in the world does this merit less coverage than a fringe-leftist Cindy Sheehan, and her dozen or so campers?

It simply corrodes reason. The Media is biased.

Also, these claims of ‘Faux News’ as the source of political evil in the world is ridiculous. Fox News has more Independent and Democrat viewers than CNN and MSNBC. Simply look at the viewership, and determine whom has the most balanced audience:

2008 summary regarding Television News Viewership.* FNC: 39% Republican, 33% Democratic, 22% Independent
* CNN: 18% Republican, 51% Democratic, 23% Independent
* MSNBC: 18% Republican, 45% Democratic, 27% Independent

PS: Did anyone notice how peaceful the assembly of 200,000+ patriots was? No stories regarding fires, or broken windows, or arrests…

UPDATE: A video displaying that female ‘reporter’ getting a lashing from Tea Party supporters.

Miami, FL: Doral Post Office Tax Day Tea Party

• OVER 300,000 PATRIOTS MET IN HUNDREDS OF CITIES ACROSS THE NATION TO PROTEST THE EVER GROWING GOVERNMENT, THEIR RECKLESS SPENDING, THE $11,000,000,000,000.00+ IN NATIONAL DEBT, AND THE IMPENDING TAX INCREASES THAT ARE SURE TO FOLLOW SUCH RECKLESS SPENDING.
• 5,000 to 10,000 in Atlanta, Oklahoma City, Olympia, Wash., Lansing, Mich., and Sacramento
• 1,000 Washington D.C.
• 10,000 Tennessee
• 1,000 Rochester N.Y.
• 4,000 people  Cincinnati
• 8,000 Madison, Wis.,
• 5,000 Oklahoma Capitol
• 4,000 Chicago party. Even
• 1,000 at tiny Rhode Island
• 5,000 Olympia WA
• 2,500 Boise, Idaho
• 1,500 Austin, Texas.
• 7,000 Lansing, MI,
• 3,000 Hartford, Conn.,
• 1,000 Market Square in Pittsburgh, Pa.
• 3,000 Des Moines, Iowa
• Tens of Thousands at the Alamo Texas and Atlanta Georgia
• 2,000 Jacksonville FL (wagons of tea into the St. Johns River).
• 3,000 Miami FL (MDPD estimates)
• These are only SEVERAL of the over 700 Tea Parties held across 300 cities all across the nation!

WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE A COMIC STRIP OF YOUR EVENT? EMAIL PICTURES OF THE EVENT TO LGOEN001@FIU.EDU, AS WELL AS THE LOCATION, AND THE ESTIMATED ATTENDANCE, AND I’LL DO IT FOR FREE!

Miami FL: Doral Tax Day Tea Party

Miami FL: Doral Tax Day Tea Party Pg. 2

DON’T FORGET, THERE WILL BE A SECOND MIAMI TEA PARTY PROTEST:

Sunday, April 19th, 12:00-5:00 PM

City of Miami Courthouse, 73 W. Flagler St. (Right at the Government Center)

Tax Day Tea Parties

Tax Day Tea Party Protests, All Across the US

Thousands of normal every day citizens are gathering in States across the nation to protest the massive and growing size of the government. Tired of the $11,000,000,000,000.00+ of debt tossed upon the People?

Feel free to join us at the Miami protest location, today at the Doral Office Post office, from 6:00pm-8:00pm.

Hope to see you there!

Total Public Debt, as of April 2nd, 2008

Total Public Debt, Outstanding, as of 4.2.09:

$11,110,654,357,209.33

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

 

So Democrats, how do we cut this debt, let alone the future

 

$8,000,000,000.00+

yearly interest payments on the debt…?

 

Your share of the public debt: $36,000.00+

 

Enjoy…?

A Comparison Between Modern and Classical Liberalism: Is Modern Liberalism Truly Liberal?

Leonard O Goenaga

POT3302, Political Ideologies

Professor Boronat

March 9th, 2009

A Comparison Between Modern and Classical Liberalism: Is Modern Liberalism Truly Liberal?

A few days ago, Pat Buchanan, a well-known conservative commentator, released an article expressing how America is not on the path to Socialism, but is already there. With the climate of car and bank bailouts, trillion dollar stimulus plans packed with perceived liberal-programs, one is left to examine the claim seriously. Conservatives and Republicans alike have echoed the critiques of Obama as a Socialist, and echoing Rahm Emannuel’s statement that ‘we can’t let this crises go to waste’, one is left to wonder more. On what are President Obama’s policies modeled after? Are they truly socialistic? Or, are they truly of the Liberal tradition, known currently as Modern Liberalism? If so, how ‘liberal’ is this modern liberalism, and does it show any influence from the Social-Democratic movement within and abroad? This paper seeks to examine the similarities and differences between classical and modern liberalism, as well as survey the possibility of Social-Democratic thought on Modern Liberalism, and thus examine how ‘liberal’ modern liberalism actually is.

Before we can proceed to analyze any potential socialist narratives of the Obama administration, and with it this New-Left movement in modern liberalism, we must first move into defining terms. We will first start defining several traits of Liberalism as a whole, as it settled the background for Modern Liberalism’s arrival, and accommodate the majority of reference points Modern Liberals use to justify their system as essentially liberal. In our comparative analysis, we will first analyze key themes within these traditions, followed by key thinkers. To begin, we define Liberalism as a whole, as “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties,” (Meriam-Webster). In more simplistic terms, Liberalism can be defined as the political ideology of preserving the individual’s liberty. This begs the question, what is liberty? Liberty is interchangeable with freedom, and it may be defined as “the ability to think or act as one wishes,” (Heywood 29). In other words, Liberalism attempts to first argue that the foundation of society is founded upon by a social-contract amongst individuals (see Locke’s Second Treatise), and that these individuals engage in said contract to best preserve their ability to think and act as they wish. John Locke, the father of this tradition, affirms this notion, arguing that “creatures of the same species and rank…should also be equal amongst another,” and that “every man has a property in his own person…nobody has any right to but himself,” (Locke 8, 19). Individuals are thus of prime importance (being all made in the image of God, and thus maintaining equality in design and self-ownership), both in political power (such as the establishment of a social contract and civil society), and economic pursuit (owning one’s own labor, and the freedom of pursuing the fruit of ones labor). Although such a brief attempt to summarize Liberalism is overtly not complete, we can see core themes that set the foundation for Liberalism: The Individual, Freedom, Reason, and Justice (Heywood 27). We have already established, given Locke’s argument of divine design and self-ownership that individuals are at the root of Liberalism. In addition, we have mentioned the purpose of individuals instituting government, via the social-contract, is to preserve their ability to pursue their aims and preserve their liberty. An additional foundation to this system is one’s access to reason. The individual’s ability to reason is central in engaging in society, making economic decisions, and establishing government and society. “reason…teaches mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions,” (Locke 9). One final liberal theme of importance is the concept of justice, or “a moral standard of fairness and impartiality,” (Heywood 32). Naturally, a combination of individualism, freedom, access to reason, and the pursuit of justice leads one to devise a concept of equality amongst individuals. It is from this idea of equality, as well as a morphed idea of justice, that Modern Liberalism begins its revision.

Having analyzed the central Liberal ideas of individualism, freedom, reason, justice and equality, we may now explore the political direction it led to, known as Classical Liberalism. Before analyzing Classical Liberalism’s defining themes, it would work to our advantage to summarize the initial aims of the liberal state (having hinted to it above. In Political Ideologies, Andrew Heywood properly sums these aims of the Liberal state as being first “being created by individuals and for individuals…Second, social contract theory portrays the state as an umpire or neutral referee in society,” (Heywood 37-38). The characteristic of the government is thus a passive role, or as Locke properly sums it as a ‘night watchman’. This implies a minimist state, which both preserves one’s civil liberty (freedom from government), and protects one from the state of war (individual or foreign aggression, and governmental coercion). The Classical Liberals best wish to preserve this separation of government and the privacy and liberty of individual, both politically, socially, religiously, and economically. Society is generally atomistic, and made up of reason-driven individuals. Classical liberals believe, given the liberty of the individual, man is best designed to maximize his freedom to allow him maximized reason. This belief in the egoistical individual roots a system of economic and moral efficiency, arguing that since man is best enabled to handle his own economic and moral choices, he should be protected in-as-much as he doesn’t stumble over the boundaries of another man’s liberties. In addition, Classical Liberals believe in the existence of natural rights, found in the form of negative rights. Jefferson explained these national rights as seen in the Declaration of Independence, “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. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” (Jefferson 3). Besides the utter importance of natural rights, and egoistical individual, Government is designed as a ‘necessary evil’. The Classical Liberal ideal is then, the least government possible, the absolute protection of natural rights, and the freedom of egoistical individuals to pursue their aims without fear of attack or coercion from governments. This leads way to an acceptance of laissez faire economic principles, as advocated by Adam Smith and David Ricardo. The Liberal political model was extended to the economic realm, where reasonably, individuals should also be free to pursue economic aims. “Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man or order of men,” (Smith 466). The economic functions best when the government governs least. Due to man’s access to reason, and egoistical individualism, Classical Liberalism sought to embrace and maximize the ideas of Adam Smith and free markets, arguing that the preservation of man’s liberty naturally meant a preservation of his economic endeavor. It from the perceived failures of a supreme laissez faire approach (the Social Darwinism of the 19th century), as well as a different understanding of justice and equality, that the schism between Classical and Modern Liberalism occurred.

Finally arrived at Modern Liberalism, we must recap our finding. In the end, Liberalism wishes to preserve the liberty of man’s actions and desires; in-so-much that they do not trample the natural rights of his/her fellow man. Liberalism advocates the individual as the center of political power and society, as well as emphasizing man’s reasonable nature, his God-given status of equal and free, and the justice of maximizing man’s individual liberty. Classical Liberalism takes from these ideas, emphasizing a passive and minimal role for government, as well as focusing on a free market laissez faire styled economy. From this, Modern Liberalism is born in the wake of grievances against the perceived discriminative nature of laissez faire economies, and a different notion of justice. These are found in the arguments that Social Darwinism and laissez faire policies do not necessarily make one free, but rather produce inequalities. In other words, the policies made individual’s access to pursuing their freedoms unequal, or as popularly proposed, the playing field in which individual access their freedoms is unfair. Maintaining the individual as primal importance, Modern Liberals thought that through using government, as seen in the 20th century in the endeavors of FDR’s New Deal, Johnson’s Great Society, and JFK’s New Frontier, society could maximize an individual’s freedom. The focus here was now individuality, or “self-fulfillment achieved through the realization through the realization of an individual’s distinctive or unique identity or qualities,” (Heywood 55). J.S. Mills, in On Liberty, attempted to emphasize the individuality and self-actualization of an individual, “the only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs,” (Mill 22). This idea of self-actualization and individuality formed the bridge into modern liberalism: the goal is to provide the environment which best allows the individuality to experience freedom, or actualize themselves. From here, thinkers such as T. H. Green advocated a review of the notion of liberty. This led to the idea of positive freedom, which were rules made not to protect an individual from government (negative rights), but to advance one’s access to fulfilling and advancing their liberty. This came into fruition within the idea of FDR, whom working within the depression, advocated for a positive role for government. The idea was to utilize the government to ‘level the playing field’, by helping the disadvantaged poor. By implementing welfare-state policies, such as social security and welfare, it was argued that the government could pull individuals from the entangled restraints of poverty and social inequality that prevented them from actualizing their liberty. As justice was earlier mentioned, Government now took the responsibility of enacting social justice, or “a fair or justifiable distribution of wealth and rewards in society,” (Heywood 33). In addition to redistributing wealth and providing social services that arguably ‘leveled the playing field’, the role of government in economics grew. In The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, economist J. M. Keynes argued that the government could take a positive role of by regulating demand via fiscal policy. Although an opposite to the ideals of classical liberalism, Keynesian economics further added to the ability of Modern Liberalism to ‘level the playing field’. We thus see the following themes within Modern Liberalism: Individuality, positive freedom, equality, welfare state, and social justice.

(click to read more)