Churchill & FOX

[Flanders]

I immediately thought of FOX’s fair & balanced B.S. after reading this:

The way Churchill was handled is a powerful warning of the dangers of the BBC believing it is being balanced by excluding the voices of those who do not represent conventional wisdom.

XXXXX​

There is no written evidence that Churchill asked the BBC for the opportunity to speak out against appeasement. However, he did complain to a young BBC producer who visited him on the day after Chamberlain returned home from Munich. A memo records their meeting. They spent hours discussing the Nazi threat and “Churchill complained that he had been very badly treated… and that he was always muzzled by the BBC”. The producer was called Guy Burgess. The man who would become his country’s most famous traitor tried to reassure the man who would become its saviour that the BBC was not biased.

Nick Robinson: Winston Churchill's bitter battle with the BBC
By Nick Robinson
7:00AM BST 14 Oct 2012

Nick Robinson: Winston Churchill's bitter battle with the BBC - Telegraph

The question of constitutional eligibility is an important issue that cannot be compared to the monumental events leading up to WWII, but the principle involved is exactly the same. Hussein’s eligibility is not a crackpot conspiracy theory any more than Churchill’s views were, yet FOX treated eligibility as such by commission and by omission. Whenever FOX talking heads did mention the issue they used the derogatory phrase “Birther” to denigrate every eligibility-doubter who simply wanted the Supreme Court to settle the issue one way or the other.

Incidentally,—— thanks to the Supreme Court —— Hussein’s eligibility has been removed from the media menu in his bid for reelection. It’s one of those instances of judicial activism where the Court decides the matter by doing nothing.

Hopefully, a lot Americans are beginning to notice that freedom of speech is under attack:

Free speech is dying in the Western world. While most people still enjoy considerable freedom of expression, this right, once a near-absolute, has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views. The decline of free speech has come not from any single blow but rather from thousands of paper cuts of well-intentioned exceptions designed to maintain social harmony.

XXXXX​

It appears that the one thing modern society can no longer tolerate is intolerance. As Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard put it in her recent speech before the United Nations, “Our tolerance must never extend to tolerating religious hatred.”

A willingness to confine free speech in the name of social pluralism can be seen at various levels of authority and government. In February, for instance, Pennsylvania Judge Mark Martin heard a case in which a Muslim man was charged with attacking an atheist marching in a Halloween parade as a “zombie Muhammed.” Martin castigated not the defendant but the victim, Ernie Perce, lecturing him that “our forefathers intended to use the First Amendment so we can speak with our mind, not to piss off other people and cultures — which is what you did.”

Of course, free speech is often precisely about pissing off other people — challenging social taboos or political values.

Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech
By Jonathan Turley, Published: October 12
The Washington Post

Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech - The Washington Post

The irony is: The public is attacking the media while the government attacks freedom of speech. The fact that the government is not attacking freedom of the press should tell everybody the government is quite pleased with the media, and WHY NOT? None of today’s massive problems, countless betrayals, loss of individual liberties could have occurred without media help.

The Affordable Care Act is a classic example of media decision makers and big government liberals working towards the same end; that end is the largest, most tyrannical, federal program ever devised in the sewers of the nation’s capital.

Finally, the public gets to ask the questions at Tuesday’s presidential debate. I’d sure like to see somebody ask if death panels only became necessary in order to give four million more people tax dollar incomes? It seems to me that four million more “healthcare professionals” in the system should improve the overall quality of care; thereby, making death panels unnecessary. That is the not the case. Bottom line: Patient care will deteriorate in direct proportion to the incomes paid to 4,000,000 more people being seated at the public trough.

Four million is a minimum number. In ten years it will probably be an additional eight million. Anybody who will turn 65 in 2022 should be scared stiff right now. Logically, and economically, death panels must lower the age for denying treatment. It’s either lower the age or fire a few million in order to reduce costs. Guess which way the government will go?