Wednesday, March 21, 2012

The "Main Stream Media's" Treatment of Obama

To those people that actually pay attention, it is not a huge surprise that the main stream media has given preferential treatment to a liberal President. However, in the case of Obama, the main stream media's preferential treatment has been so biased, that it has become detrimental to the American people. The case and point was the media's treatment of Obama's assassination of an American citizen over seas. The decision to kill an American citizen without due process of law was, to say the least, a huge story. Eric Holder even openly defended the Obama Administration's decision in a speech at Northwestern University School of Law, arguing that the U.S. government doesn't legally need judicial review to kill terrorist operatives overseas--even when they're Americans. You would think that such a radical policy decision and stance deserves careful and scrutinizing attention by the media. However, that was not the case. As the last article linked points out, what if Bush would have made that type of policy decision? Do you think the main stream media would have jumped all over the story? The clear answer is, of course they would have, and rightly so.

But, to brush such a sweeping story aside, is absolutely detrimental to the American people. Sadly, unless the main stream media brings things to the attention of the majority of Americans, no one will pay attention. The same majority of Americans have become desensitized to their liberties being stripped away by our out of control federal government. It takes a bull horn screaming in their face "Wake up! Your government has just made a policy decision that they can kill you without judicial review!!" before they will even bat an eye. But, when the main stream media is too busy pandering to their favorite liberal son, they are essentially asleep at the bull horn and a massive power grab goes unnoticed by the slumbering American people.

The question must be asked of the main stream media; what is more important, advancing your liberal policy agendas, or protecting the most basic fundamental freedoms of Americans?


  1. Well, I'll skip over the "bias" handling of Obama by the media [Why is fox news not main stream?] and get to the meat of the issue here: The decision to execute an american citizen.

    Part of me strongly agrees with you - this is a very slipper slope.

    Now, on the other hand, there is some precedence. For example, during World War II, German-Americans were known to enlist as Nazi Soldiers, especially before the United States entered the war. When we did, we certainly moved to kill those Americans (and sometimes did so directly).

    It's very hard to draw a line, but I do agree - it's never something that should be skipped over. We need to make sure we never allow the Government to think it has that right all the time.

  2. OK, so Conservatives have 1 source, a cable news network. Now, what about ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, and a huge majority of the nation's newspapers? I think it is pretty heavily weighted towards the left and has been for several decades now. I've heard many theories on why this is, but the most credible to me was that most journalism schools are left leaning and thus crank out lefty journalists.

    But, as for the issue, I really don't care if there is precedent for it. Unconstitutional precedent doesn't make something constitutional. I think the Constitution is pretty clear on this issue: The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment asserts that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

    Does it really get any clearer than that?

  3. The second amendment says that guns should go to a well-regulated militia. I think that's pretty clear, but obviously there are some "up for debates" about even the plain text. The issue is even less clear, because "due process of law" might not always be the same and is different even for our OWN military. Enemy soliders? That's going to have a different standard too.