Ethics

Survey of Broadcasting: Assignment 2, Question 2. Discuss the legal definitions of obscenity and indecency. Consider how contemporary/local community standards are ascertained.

Posted on June 30, 2011. Filed under: Broadcasting, Ethical Practices, Ethics, Policies, Radio | Tags: , , , , |

The definition of obscenity that currently applies to broadcasting was set forth in the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Miller v. California.

For a radio or television broadcast to be considered obscene, it must meet a three-part test:

  1. Contain material that depicts of describes in patently offensive way certain sexual acts as defined in state law;
  2. Appeal to the prurient interests of the average person applying contemporary local community standards, where prurient means tending to excite lust;
  3. Lack of serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value.

Indecency is content that is not obscene as set forth in the Miller v. California Supreme Court decision but still contains offensive elements. The common legal definition of broadcast indecency is as follows:

“Something broadcast is indecent if it depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in a fashion that’s patently offensive according to contemporary community standards for the broadcast media at a time of day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.”

Nudity and the use of words that describe sexual or excretionary acts are not obscene per se, however, they may be classified as indecent.

Contemporary community standards are ascertained or determined by jurors in obscenity and indecency cases prosecuted and brought before the courts.

Perversion for Profit: Part III

Perversion for Profit: Part IV

Community standards change overtime, by location and who makes up a jury in a specific case.

With the world-wide web or the internet linking people in many communities, what are contemporary community standards?

Today the prosecution of obscenity and indecency cases is considered normal.

Yet the ancient Greeks and Romans would consider the prosecution of obscenity and indecency as bizarre.

The determination of community standards appears to be both arbitrary, capricious and ever-changing.

Technology in the form of VCR, cable television and the internet have made eroded community standards and made the prosecution of obscenity cases difficult.

Jurors hearing an obscenity case will compare the evidence presented in court with what they have seen on cable television and over the internet or with videos that have watched in their homes.

The perverse unintended consequence is there are no contemporary community standards.

The Seven Words

Censored South Park F Word Scene

Background Articles and Videos

Should Obscenity be Illegal?: Lady Chatterley, Milk Nymphos, & John Stagliano

Censored! The First Amendment, Sex, and Obscenity

“How Obscene is This” Panel 2 | The New School

Obscenity and the Supreme Court

Perversion for Profit 1/2

Perversion for Profit 2/2

Perversion for Profit: Part III

Pt 1 PornHarms.com founder Patrick Trueman, Attorney at Law, at Briefing on Capitol Hill

Pt 2 PornHarms.com founder Patrick Trueman, Attorney at Law, at Briefing on Capitol Hill

Southpark Kyles mom a bitch with lyrics

I’m Gonna Kick His Ask

 

Obscenity

“…An obscenity is any statement or act which strongly offends the prevalent morality of the time, is a profanity, or is otherwise taboo, indecent, abhorrent, or disgusting, or is especially inauspicious. The term is also applied to an object that incorporates such a statement or displays such an act.

In a legal context, the term obscenity is most often used to describe expressions (words, images, actions) of an explicitly sexual nature. The word can be used to indicate a strong moral repugnance, in expressions such as “obscene profits”, “the obscenity of war”, etc. It is often replaced by the word salaciousness.

According to Merriam-Webster online dictionary, that which is obscene (i.e.: an obscenity) is quite simply defined as repulsive, or disgusting to the senses.[1]

The definition of what exactly constitutes an obscenity differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities. Many cultures have produced laws to define what is considered to be obscene, and censorship is often used to try to suppress or control materials that are obscene under these definitions: usually including, but not limited to, pornographic material. As such censorship restricts freedom of expression, crafting a legal definition of obscenity presents a civil liberties issue.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States states:

Congress shall make no law (…) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thus, the United States of America has constitutional protection for freedom of speech, which is not interpreted to protect every utterance, despite the lack of exception clauses (rare in a national constitution) in the text of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has found that, when used in the context of the First Amendment, the word obscenity is usually limited to content that directly refers to explicit sexual acts that are publicly accessible, though it has at times encompassed other subject matters, such as spoken and written language that can be publicly transmitted and received by the general public.

The legal term of obscenity is usually denoted to classify a distinction between socially permitted material and discussions that the public can access versus those that should be denied. There does exist a classification of those acceptable materials and discussions that the public should be allowed to engage in, and the access to that same permitted material—which in the areas of sexual materials ranges between the permitted areas of erotic art (which usually includes “classic nude forms” such as Michelangelo’s David statue) and the generally less respected commercial pornography. The legal distinction between artistic nudity, and permitted commercial pornography (which includes sexual penetration) that are deemed as “protected forms of speech” versus “obscene acts”, which are illegal acts and separate from those permitted areas, are usually separated by the predominant culture appreciation regarding such. However, no such specific objective distinction exists outside of legal decisions in federal court cases where a specific action is deemed to fit the classification of obscene and thus illegal. The difference between erotic art and (protected) commercial pornography, vs. that which is legally obscene (and thus not covered by 1st Amendment protection), appears to be subjective to the local federal districts inside the United States and the local moral standards at the time.

In fact, federal obscenity law in the U.S. is highly unusual in that not only is there no uniform national standard, but rather, there is an explicit legal precedent (the “Miller test”, below) that all but guarantees that something that is legally obscene in one jurisdiction may not be in another. In effect, the First Amendment protections of free speech vary by location within the U.S., and over time. With the advent of Internet distribution of potentially obscene material, this question of jurisdiction and community standards has created significant controversy in the legal community. (See United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 1996))

Even at the federal level, there does not exist a specific listing of which exact acts are to be classified as obscene outside of the legally determined court cases. Title 18, chapter 71 of the USC deals with obscenity, the workings out of the law described in this article, most notably the aforementioned Miller test.

Former Justice Potter Stewart of the Supreme Court of the United States, in attempting to classify what material constituted exactly “what is obscene”, famously wrote, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced…[b]ut I know it when I see it…”[2]

However, in the United States, the 1973 ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in Miller v. California established a three-tiered test to determine what was obscene—and thus not protected, versus what was merely erotic and thus protected by the First Amendment.

Delivering the opinion of the court, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote:

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[3]

Justice Douglas wrote a dissenting opinion that eloquently expressed his dissatisfaction with the ruling:

The idea that the First Amendment permits government to ban publications that are ‘offensive’ to some people puts an ominous gloss on freedom of the press. That test would make it possible to ban any paper or any journal or magazine in some benighted place. The First Amendment was designed ‘to invite dispute,’ to induce ‘a condition of unrest,’ to ‘create dissatisfaction with conditions as they are,’ and even to stir ‘people to anger.’ The idea that the First Amendment permits punishment for ideas that are ‘offensive’ to the particular judge or jury sitting in judgment is astounding. No greater leveler of speech or literature has ever been designed. To give the power to the censor, as we do today, is to make a sharp and radical break with the traditions of a free society. The First Amendment was not fashioned as a vehicle for dispensing tranquilizers to the people. Its prime function was to keep debate open to ‘offensive’ as well as to ‘staid’ people. The tendency throughout history has been to subdue the individual and to exalt the power of government. The use of the standard ‘offensive’ gives authority to government that cuts the very vitals out of the First Amendment. As is intimated by the Court’s opinion, the materials before us may be garbage. But so is much of what is said in political campaigns, in the daily press, on TV, or over the radio. By reason of the First Amendment—and solely because of it—speakers and publishers have not been threatened or subdued because their thoughts and ideas may be ‘offensive’ to some. [4]

In U.S. legal texts, therefore, the question of “obscenity” presently always refers to this “Miller test obscenity”. As articulated in several sections of 18 USC Chapter 71, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional to legally limit the sale, transport for personal use or other transmission of obscenity. However, it has ruled unconstitutional the passing of law concerning personal possession of obscenity per se. Federal obscenity laws at present apply to inter-state and foreign obscenity issues such as distribution; intrastate issues are for the most part still governed by state law. “Obscene articles… are generally prohibited entry” to the United States by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.[5]

At present, there are only two legally protected areas of explicit commercial pornography. The first is “mere nudity” as upheld in “Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (1974)” whereby the film Carnal Knowledge was deemed not to be obscene under the constitutional standards announced by Miller. As declared by the judge at trial “The film shows occasional nudity, but nudity alone does not render material obscene under Miller’s standards.” This was upheld time and again in later cases including “Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville FL, 422 U.S. 205 (1975)” in which the city of Jacksonville stated that showing films containing nudity when the screen is visible from a public street or place is a punishable offense. The law was determined to be invalid as it was an infringement of First Amendment rights of the movie producer and theatre owners. The second is single male to female vaginal-only penetration that does NOT show the actual ejaculation of semen, sometimes referred to as “soft-core” pornography wherein the sexual act and its fulfillment (orgasm) are merely implied to happen rather than explicitly shown.

In June 2006, the U.S. Federal government in the district of Arizona brought a case against JM Productions of Chatsworth, California in order to classify commercial pornography that specifically shows actual semen being ejaculated as obscene. The four films that were the subject of the case are entitled “American Bukkake 13”, “Gag Factor 15”, “Gag Factor 18” and “Filthy Things 6”. The case also includes charges of distribution of obscene material (a criminal act under 18 USC § 1465 – “Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution”) against Five Star DVD for the extra-state commercial distribution of the JM Productions films in question. The case was brought to trial on October 16, 2007. At the first date of trial, the US DoJ decided not to pursue the JM obscenity case any further, leaving the matter without resolution, possibly fearing the formal establishment of films depicting ejaculation as a nationally protected material if the trial was decided in favor of JM Productions.[6] While the US DoJ decided to abandon its legal pursuit of the JM productions, U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver has forced the legal case against Five Star DVD distributors to continue, whereby the legal classification of whether “sperm showing through ejaculation” is an obscene act and thus illegal to produce or distribute will be definitely answered in order to convict Five Star of being guilty of “18 USC 1465 – Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution”.[7] The jury found that Five Star Video LC and Five Star Video Outlet LC were guilty of “18 USC 1465 – Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution” for having shipped JM Productions’ film “Gag Factor 18”.[8] However, the specific content in that film that the jury deemed to actually fulfill the legal qualification of being “obscene” has not been specifically stated at this point.

Obscenity v. indecency

Main article: Indecency

The differentiation between indecent and obscene material is a particularly difficult one, and a contentious First Amendment issue that has not fully been settled. Similarly, the level of offense (if any) generated by a profane word or phrase depends on region, context, and audience.

Non image-based obscenity cases in the USA

While most of the obscenity cases in the United States have revolved around images and films, there have been many cases that dealt with textual works as well.

The classification of “obscene” and thus illegal for production and distribution has been judged on printed text-only stories starting with “Dunlop v. U.S., 165 U.S. 486 (1897)” which upheld a conviction for mailing and delivery of a newspaper called the ‘Chicago Dispatch,’ containing “obscene, lewd, lascivious, and indecent materials”, which was later upheld in several cases. One of these was “A Book Named “John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure” v. Attorney General of Com. of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966)” wherein the book “Fanny Hill”, written by John Cleland c. 1760, was judged to be obscene in a proceeding that put the book itself on trial rather than its publisher. Another was “Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115 (1973)” whereby the court most famously determined that “Obscene material in book form is not entitled to any First Amendment protection merely because it has no pictorial content.”

However, the book was labeled “erotica” in the 1965 case (206 NE 2d 403) and there a division between erotica and obscenity was made—not all items with erotic content were automatically obscene. Further, the 1965 “John Cleland’s ‘Memoirs'” case added a further qualification for the proving of “obscenity” — the work in question had to inspire or exhibit “prurient” (that is, “shameful or morbid”) interest.

In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Grove Press, Inc. v. Gerstein, cited Jacobellis v. Ohio (which was decided the same day) and overruled state court findings of obscenity against Henry Miler’s Tropic of Cancer. A copyright infringing “Medusa” edition of the novel was published in New York City in 1940 by Jacob Brussel; its title page claimed its place of publication to be Mexico. Brussel was eventually sent to jail for three years for the edition,[9] a copy of which is in the Library of Congress.

In September 2005 an FBI “Anti-Porn Squad” was formed, which has initially targeted for prosecution websites such as Red Rose Stories (www.red-rose-stories.com, now defunct), one of many sites providing text-only fantasy stories.[10] Other websites such as BeautyBound.com have closed themselves down despite not being targeted, due to these risks and legislative burdens.[citation needed]

Past standards

These standards were once used to determine exactly what was obscene. All have been invalidated, overturned, or superseded by the Miller Test.
  • Wepplo (1947): If material has a substantial tendency to deprave or corrupt its readers by inciting lascivious thoughts or arousing lustful desires. (People v. Wepplo, 78 Cal. App.2d Supp. 959, 178 P.2d 853).
  • Hicklin test (1868): the effect of isolated passages upon the most susceptible persons. (British common law, cited in Regina v. Hicklin, 1868. LR 3 QB 360 – overturned when Michigan tried to outlaw all printed matter that would ‘corrupt the morals of youth’ in Butler v. State of Michigan 352 U.S. 380 (1957))
  • Roth Standard (1957): “Whether to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest”. Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476 (1957) – overturned by Miller
  • Roth-Jacobellis (1964): “community standards” applicable to an obscenity are national, not local standards. Material is “utterly without redeeming social importance”. Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 US 184 (1964) – famous quote: “I shall not today attempt further to define [hardcore pornography] …But I know it when I see it”.
  • Roth-Jacobellis-Memoirs Test (1966): Adds that the material possesses “not a modicum of social value”. (A Book Named John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure v. Attorney General of Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966))

Under FCC rules and federal law, radio stations and over-the-air television channels cannot air obscene material at any time and cannot air indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.: language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.

Many historically important works have been described as obscene or prosecuted under obscenity laws, including the works of Charles Baudelaire, Lenny Bruce, William S. Burroughs, Allen Ginsberg, James Joyce, D. H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, Samuel Beckett, and the Marquis de Sade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIqshWvIO7M

Decency

“…Decency is the measure of an object’s worth and value.[citation needed]

The category of issues that includes matters of “sex and decency in advertising” is a constant and ubiquitous problem concerning products, services, concepts, claims and imageries eliciting reactions of distaste, disgust, offense or outrage when mentioned or presented in advertisements.[1] Issues such as decency are more difficult to define and handle because they reflect a large variety of personally subjective, culturally related and historically changing values and attitudes.[1] The types of controls and their shortcomings present dangers for freedom of commercial communication.[1] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecency

Miller v. California

“…Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) was an important United States Supreme Court case involving what constitutes unprotected obscenity for First Amendment purposes. The decision reiterated that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment and established the Miller test for determining what constituted obscene material.

The appellant, Marvin Miller, operator of one of the West Coast’s largest mail-order businesses dealing in sexually explicit material, had conducted a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of illustrated books, labeled “adult” material (also referred to in the vernacular as pornography). He was found guilty in the Superior Court of Orange County, California (the state trial court) of having violated California Penal Code 311.2 (a), a misdemeanor, by knowingly distributing obscene material. The conviction was affirmed by the California Court of Appeals. As stated in the preface to Chief Justice Warren Burger’s majority opinion, the

Appellant’s conviction was specifically based on his conduct in causing five unsolicited advertising brochures to be sent through the mail in an envelope addressed to a restaurant in Newport Beach, California. The envelope was opened by the manager of the restaurant and his mother. They had not requested the brochures and complained to the police.

According to the Court’s decision, the materials in question primarily… consist[ed] of pictures and drawings very explicitly depicting men and women in groups of two or more engaging in a variety of sexual activities, with genitals often prominently displayed. Since the Court’s decision in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), the Court had struggled to define what constituted constitutionally unprotected obscene material. Under the common law rule that prevailed before Roth, articulated most famously in the 1868 English case Regina v. Hicklin, any material that tended to “deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences” was deemed “obscene” and could be banned on that basis. Thus, works by Balzac, Flaubert, James Joyce, and D. H. Lawrence were banned based on isolated passages and the effect they might have on children. Roth repudiated the Hicklin test and defined obscenity more strictly, as material whose “dominant theme taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest” to the “average person, applying contemporary community standards.” Only material meeting this test could be banned as “obscene.”

Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, First Amendment “literalists,” chafed at the Roth test and argued vigorously that the First Amendment protected obscene material. In subsequent cases the Court encountered tremendous difficulty in applying the Roth test, which did not define what it meant by “community standards.” For example, in the 1964 case Jacobellis v. Ohio, involving whether Ohio could ban the showing of a French film called Les Amants (FRENCH FOR The Lovers), the Court ruled that the film was protected by the First Amendment, but could not agree as to a rationale, yielding four different opinions from the majority, with none garnering the support of more than two justices, as well as two dissenting opinions. In his concurring opinion in Jacobellis, Justice Potter Stewart, holding that Roth protected all obscenity except “hard-core pornography,” famously wrote, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

In Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413 (1966), a plurality of the Court further redefined the Roth test by holding unprotected only that which is “patently offensive” and “utterly without redeeming social value,” but no opinion in that case could command a majority of the Court either, and the state of the law in the obscenity field remained confused.

Pornography and sexually oriented publications proliferated as a result of the Court’s holdings, the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s flowered, and pressure increasingly came to the Court to allow leeway for state and local governments to crack down on obscenity. During his ill-fated bid to become Chief Justice, Justice Abe Fortas was attacked vigorously in Congress by conservatives such as Strom Thurmond for siding with the Warren Court majority in liberalizing protection for pornography. In his 1968 presidential campaign, Richard Nixon campaigned against the Warren Court, pledging to appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Warren Burger came to the Court in 1969 believing that the Court’s obscenity jurisprudence was misguided and governments should be given more leeway to ban obscene materials. In consideration of Miller in May and June 1972, Burger pushed successfully for a looser definition of “obscenity” which would allow local prosecutions, while Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., who by now also believed the Roth and Memoirs tests should be abandoned, led the charge for protecting all “obscenity” unless distributed to minors or exposed offensively to unconsenting adults. Decision of the case was contentious, and Miller was put over for reargument for October term 1972, and did not come down until June 1973, with Burger prevailing by a bare 5-4 vote.

The decision

The question before the court was whether the sale and distribution of obscene material was protected under the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee. The Court ruled that it was not. It indicated that “obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment”, thereby reaffirming part of Roth.[1]

However, the Court acknowledged “the inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression,” and said that “State statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited.”[2] The Court, in an attempt to set such limits devised a set of three criteria which must be met in order for a work to be legitimately subject to state regulation:

  1. whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
  2. whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[3] specifically defined by applicable state law; and
  3. “whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”[4]

This obscenity test overturns the definition of obscenity set out in the Memoirs decision, which held that “all ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance . . . have the full protection of the guaranties [of the First Amendment]” and that obscenity was that which was “utterly without redeeming social importance.”[5]

The Miller decision vacated the judgment of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of California and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings consistent with the First Amendment standards established by the opinion.

Effects of the decision

Miller provided states greater freedom in prosecuting alleged purveyors of “obscene” material because, for the first time since Roth, a majority of the Court agreed on a definition of “obscenity.” Hundreds of “obscenity” prosecutions went forward after Miller, and the Supreme Court began denying review of these state actions after years of reviewing many “obscenity” convictions (over 60 appeared on the Court’s docket for the 1971-72 term, pre-Miller). A companion case to Miller, Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, provided states with greater leeway to shut down adult movie houses. Controversy arose over Miller’s “community standards” analysis, with critics charging that Miller encouraged “forum shopping” to prosecute national producers of what some believe to be “obscenity” in locales where community standards differ substantially from the rest of the nation. For example, under the “community standards” prong of the Miller test, what might be considered “obscene” in Massachusetts might not be considered “obscene” in Utah, or the opposite might be true; in any event, prosecutors tend to bring charges in locales where they believe that they will prevail.

The “community standards” portion of the decision is of particular relevance with the rise of the Internet, as materials believed by some to be “obscene” can be accessed from anywhere in the nation, including places where there is a greater concern about “obscenity” than other areas of the nation.

In the years since Miller, many localities have cracked down on adult theatres and bookstores, as well as nude dancing, through restrictive zoning ordinances and public nudity laws. These types of actions have been upheld by the Supreme Court. Additionally, in 1982’s New York v. Ferber, the Court declared child pornography is unprotected by the First Amendment, upholding the state of New York’s ban on that material. In the recent Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition case, however, the Court held that sexually explicit material that appears to depict minors might be constitutionally protected.

In American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland, plaintiffs American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, joined by various publishers, retailers, and web site operators, sued Ohio’s Attorney General and Ohio county prosecutors in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged that Ohio Revised Code §2907.01(E) and (J), which prohibited the dissemination or display of “materials harmful to juveniles,” unconstitutionally violated both the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Plaintiffs specifically challenged the statute’s definition of “harmful to juveniles,” as well as the provisions governing internet dissemination of those materials. The court held the statute unconstitutional because the statute’s definition of “material harmful to minors” did not comply with Miller. Defendants appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit. …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIqshWvIO7M

Community Standards

“…Community standards are local norms bounding acceptable conduct. Sometimes these standards can be itemized in a list that states the community’s values and sets guidelines for participation in the community. Alternatively, informal standards may be imprecisely described as “I’ll know it when I see it.”

Often, such standards are invoked in legal situations to resolve disputes, especially around pornography. Critics argue that puritanical moralists have used community standards to wrongly punish minorities such as homosexuals or those in interracial marriages.

Colleges and universities enforce their standards through conduct offices in their Student Affairs divisions. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_standards

Obscenity vs. Freedom of Expression: The John Stagliano Trial

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Survey of Broadcasting: Assignment 1, Question 3: What were the events that led up to the “quiz show scandals”? What were the major effects after the scandal broke?–Videos

Posted on June 20, 2011. Filed under: Advertising, Broadcasting, Business, Communications, Ethical Practices, Ethics, Game Shows, Issues, Law, Movies, News, Politics, Television | Tags: , , , , , , , |

III. What were the events that led up to the “quiz show scandals”? What were the major effects after the scandal broke?

Where Knowledge Is King and The Reward King Size

The concept of winning a large sum of money on a quiz show by correctly answering a series of questions was not new to either television or radio. However, what was new and attracted a large percentage of the viewing audience was the television show, “The $64,000 Question”, that first aired on CBS on June 7, 1955. The contestants would be asked a series of progressively more difficult questions. If they answered correctly, they proceeded to the four big payoff questions: $8,000, $16,000, $32,000, and lastly the $64,000 question.

CBS-$64,000 Question-1956

$64,000 Question

The contestants answered their questions in isolation booths. Armed guards watched over the box that contained the questions that only the editors knew what the questions and correct answers were.

The $64,000 Question show was sponsored by Revlon. Revlon as a direct result of the show saw its sales skyrocket. The other networks quickly followed with their own big money shows. NBC aired “The Big Surprise” where contestants could win $100,000. CBS quickly responded with “The $64,000 Challenge” with a top money prize of $128,000. The show “Break the Bank offered a top prize of $250,000.  Finally, NBC had the show :”Twenty-One” where there was no limit as to the amount of money a contestant could win.

64 THOUSAND DOLLAR CHALLENGE SONNY FOX part 2 VINCENT PRICE

 

Twenty One: Stemple vs. Van Doren–Part One

Rumors began to circulate that the producers tried to keep popular contestants on the shows by “controlling” the questions asked and even coaching contestants to look nervous and tense while answering.

One contestant on “Twenty-One” charged that he was encouraged to take a dive or intentionally lose to another popular contestant, Charles Van Doren, a 30-year old English instructor at Columbia University. Van Doren stated that the quiz show was honest. The New York City district attorney’s office investigated the allegations and a grand jury was impaneled to hear the mounting evidence.

A losing contestant on NBC’s “Twenty-One” sent three self-addressed letter containing the questions and answers to an upcoming show by registered mail. These unopened envelopes were presented to the grand jury as evidence. Other contestants came forward indicating they too had been given the answers. In 1959 the House of Representatives conducted a hearing on the matter. One of the witnesses was Charles Van Doren who finally admitted that he too was given the answers and was coached.

By 1960 all the big money shows were taken off the air. The networks took  more control over program development and less power and control was given to the producers and sponsors of network shows. In the next few years, the networks attempted to restore their reputation and gain back the viewing public’s trust by broadcasting such shows as CBS Reports. Several networks also placed limits on the amounts of money contestants could win on quiz shows that were not rigged. These limits were repealed in 2008.

The Congress of the United States also passed amendments to the Communication Act of 1934 that were designed to prevent any one from fixing quiz shows in the future.

The Federal Communications Commission also ordered that the host of “Twenty-One”, Jack Barry, and the producer, Dan Enright, sell their  radio station in Hollywood, Florida, WGMA.

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Twenty One: Stemple vs. Van Doren–Part Two

 

Twenty One: Stemple vs. Van Doren–Part Three

 

 

21-Quiz Show Scandals

 

Quiz Show Scandals

 Quiz Show Trailer

Quiz show scandals

“…The American quiz show scandals of the 1950s were a series of revelations that contestants of several popular television quiz shows were secretly given assistance by the show’s producers to arrange the outcome of a supposedly fair competition.

In 1956, the game show Twenty-One, hosted by Jack Barry, featured a contestant coached by producer Dan Enright to make the other contestant win the game. This was brought into focus in 1958 when Enright and Barry were revealed to have rigged the show and caused networks to cancel the quiz shows. This element of the scandal was portrayed in the 1994 movie Quiz Show.

As a result, many contestants’ reputations have been tarnished. The United States Congress passed the 1960 amendments of the Communications Act of 1934, preventing anyone from fixing quiz shows. Due to that action, many networks imposed a winnings limit on game shows, such as Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy! and The Price Is Right (the limits were repealed by 2008). The scandal even resulted in the declining ratings of shows that were not rigged, such as You Bet Your Life.

Twenty One

“…Twenty One is an American game show that aired in the late 1950s. While it included the most popular contestant of the quiz show era, it achieved notoriety for being a rigged quiz show which nearly caused the demise of the entire genre in the wake of United States Senate investigations. The 1994 movie Quiz Show is based on these events.

In 1982, a pilot for a new version of the game (titled 21) was taped with Jim Lange hosting, but was not picked up. A new version aired in 2000 with Maury Povich hosting, lasting about five months on NBC. …”

“…Overview

The initial broadcast of Twenty One was played honestly, with no manipulation of the game by the producers. Unfortunately, that broadcast was, in the words of producer Dan Enright, “a dismal failure”; the first two contestants succeeded only in making a mockery of the format by how little they really knew. Show sponsor Geritol, upon seeing this opening-night performance, reportedly became furious with the results, and threatened to pull their sponsorship of the show if it happened again.

The end result: Twenty One was not merely “fixed”, it was almost totally choreographed. Contestants were cast almost as if they were actors, and in fact were active and (usually) willing partners in the deception. They were given instruction as to how to dress, what to say to the host, when to say it, what questions to answer, what questions to miss, even when to mop their brows in their isolation booths (which had air conditioning that could be cut off at will, to make them sweat more).

 Charles Van Doren

Charles Van Doren, a college professor, was introduced as a contestant on Twenty One on November 28, 1956, as a challenger to then-champion Herbert Stempel, a dominant contestant, though somewhat unpopular with viewers and eventually the sponsor. Van Doren and Stempel ultimately played to a series of four 21-21 games, with audience interest building with each passing week and each new game, until finally the clean-cut, “All American Boy” newcomer was able to outlast his bookish, quasi-intellectual opponent, who at one point after the game was referred to backstage as a “freak with a sponge memory”. The turning point came on a question directed to Stempel: “What film won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1955?” Stempel legitimately knew the answer to that question was Marty, as it was one of his favorite films. The producers ordered him to answer the question with 1954’s Best Picture winner, On the Waterfront. Stempel later recalled that there was a moment in the booth when his conscience and sense of fair play warred with his sense of obligation and that he almost disrupted the scripted outcome by giving the correct answer. Stempel ultimately did as he was instructed, which opened the door for Van Doren to win the game and begin one of the longest and most storied runs of any champion in the history of television game shows.

Van Doren’s popularity soared as a result of his success on Twenty One, earning him a place on the cover of Time magazine and even a regular feature spot on NBC’s Today show; at one point, the program even surpassed CBS’ I Love Lucy in the ratings. He was finally unseated as champion on March 11, 1957, by a woman, Vivienne Nearing, after winning a total of $143,000.

In the meantime Stempel, disgruntled over being ordered to “take a dive,” attempted to blow the whistle on what exactly was going on behind the scenes at Twenty One, even going so far as to have a federal investigator look into the show. Initially, little came of these investigations and Stempel’s accusations were dismissed as jealousy because there was no hard evidence to back up his claims. But by August of 1958 Dotto, a popular CBS daytime game show, was abruptly canceled after a contestant found a notebook containing the answers to every question that was to be asked to Dotto’s current champion, future journalist Marie Winn. Suddenly, Stempel’s allegations began to make more sense. Even so, the public at large didn’t seem to want to accept the dishonesty until Van Doren, under oath before a House hearing, ultimately confessed to being given answers to all of his questions before each show.

Twenty One was canceled without warning after its broadcast of October 17, 1958. A nighttime version of Concentration took over its time slot the following week. The scandal forced producers Barry and Enright into virtual exile. Barry would not host another national TV show for more than a decade, and Enright moved to Canada to continue his production career.

Aftermath

The scandal also caused the Federal Communications Commission to mandate the sale of Barry-Enright’s radio station in Hollywood, Florida, WGMA. The station was purchased by its general manager, C. Edward Little, who promptly affiliated the station with the Mutual Broadcasting System. After serving for a time as the head of Mutual’s affiliates association, Little became the president of Mutual from 1972-1979. During this time Little created the Mutual Black Network, the first U.S. broadcast network catering exclusively to African-Americans, in addition to the Mutual Spanish Network and the Mutual Southwest Network. Under Little’s administration, Mutual became the first commercial broadcasting entity to use satellite technology for program delivery.

During his tenure as head of Mutual, Little hired Larry King to host an all-night phone-in talk show Little had created. King was a one-time announcer for Little at WGMA. King, who had previously hosted a similar morning show on Miami radio station WIOD, went on to national fame on both radio and television, winning a coveted Peabody Award along the way. King, therefore, indirectly owes a portion of his success to the quiz-show scandals.

Barry finally returned to game-show hosting in 1969, succeeding Dennis Wholey on ABC’s The Generation Gap for which he publicly thanked the producers and ABC-TV for giving him a chance for a comeback. In 1971, he sold ABC his first new game show The Reel Game which he also hosted. It ran for 13 weeks. He became a success again as a producer-host with The Joker’s Wild, which ran on CBS from 1972–1975 and in syndication from 1977-1986 (Barry died in June 1984 and was replaced by Bill Cullen for the final two years). Enright would work as Joker’s executive producer in the final year on CBS, and the two revived their partnership full-time in 1976, reviving Tic-Tac-Dough which also ran until 1986. It was revived once more in 1990, but was cancelled after a few months. Enright died in 1992. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiz_show_scandals

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 35, December 1, 2010: The Audacity of Grope: A TSA Exposé–Progressive Pervert Petulent Prevaricating President–Must View Video!

Posted on December 1, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Democratic Party, Digital Communication, Ethical Practices, Ethics, Issues, Law, Mass Media, News, Newspapers, Policies, Political Parties, Politics, Print Media, Public Relations, Radio, Recordings, Republican Party, Society, Speech, Television, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Campaign for Liberty launches a public relations campaign against President Obama’s TSA government interventionism:

“…Got questions about the TSA? This video’s got answers. Jam-packed with all the information you need to get up to speed on the 2010 holiday airport security uproar. Get the inside scoop on full body scanners, radiation health risks, pat-downs, screw-ups, underwear bombers, cavity searches, special interests, government officials, the Constitution (specifically, the 4th Amendment), scanner storage capability, and hear from some of the most engaged minds in the debate; including Congressman Ron Paul…”

Campaign for Liberty Mission Statement

“Our mission is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.”

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/about.php

http://www.youtube.com/user/campaignforliberty

One point that the above video failed to address is the spread of disease as a direct result of the TSA not changing their blue gloves after each pat down.

Instead the TSA screeners use the same pair of blue gloves most of the day.

Imagine going to a doctor or dentist who wore the same blue gloves while examining many patients during the day.

An unintended consequence of the government grope will be the spread of the various influenza (flu) viruses.

The time has come to stop this security theater nonsense and start profiling passengers and targeting individuals that are more likely to be terrorist bombers.

Flawless Airline Security on Israeli Planes

TSA: Enemy of the American People?

Ron Paul: TSA Has Gone too Far

Enough is enough.

Terminate the TSA peepers and pat downs.

President Obama responds:

President Obama explains the new TSA Airport Security Screenings

Wink

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 29, October 26, 2010: American People’s No Confidence Voting Wave Wipes Out Democrats–It’s The Economy Stupid!–Videos

Posted on October 26, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Ethics, Issues, Law, Magazines, News, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Regulations, Society, Television, Web | Tags: , , , |

Republican Governors 35

Republican Senators 51

Republican Representatives 255

 

The Republicans will pickup a net total of 77 seats in House of Representatives for a total of 255.

The Republicans will also pickup a net total of 10 seats in the Senate for a total of 51 seats.

The American people want to stop the massive Government spending, deficits and bailouts and rising National debt of the Obama Administration.

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

Issue number 1 is jobs and the economy with nearly thirty million Americans looking for a full-time job and continuing high rates of unemployment.

www.shadowstats.com

Issue number 2 is massive Federal Government spending, deficits, bailouts and a rising National debt.

The National Debt Road Trip

The Trillion $$$ Dollar U.S. Economic Deficit Caused By Our Government

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Issue number 3 is Obamacare– the American people want it repealed as soon as possible and no money bills or appropriations to fund Obamacare.

Fight Obamacare Texas

Issue number 4 is illegal immigration–the American people want it stopped by immigration law enforcement and a completed border fence that is heavily patrolled.

What Are True Costs And Benefits Of Illegal Immigration?

Stop Illegal Immigration

 

The American people expect the Republican Party to balance the Federal Budget by significantly reducing Government spending and permanently closing Federal Departments including Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, and Transportation.

The number of Federal employees should be cut from over 2,000,000 to less than 1,000,000.

3 Reasons Public Sector Employees are Killing the Economy

 

The American people expect the Republican Party to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers and pass the FairTax–it is time!

The FairTax: It’s Time

Should the Republican Party fail to balance the budget and cut the size and scope of the Federal Government by permanently shutting down the above departments, these Republicans will be wiped out by the 2012 wave of tea party patriots.

Background Articles and Videos

Editor in Chief Insights: Obama’s Job Approval Trajectory

 

President Obama Heads into Midterms at Lowest Approval Rating of Presidency

Two-thirds of Americans believe country going off on the wrong track

“…Currently, two-thirds of Americans (67%) have a negative opinion of the job President Obama is doing while just over one-third (37%) have a positive opinion. This continues the president’s downward trend and he is now at the lowest job approval rating of his presidency.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 3,084 adults surveyed online between October 11 and 18, 2010 by Harris Interactive.

It’s perhaps not surprising that nine in ten Republicans (90%) and Conservatives (89%) give the job the president is doing negative ratings. What may be surprising is that one-third of Democrats (34%) and Liberals (33%) also give him negative ratings, as do seven in ten Independents (70%) and six in ten Moderates (60%).

Americans who give the president the highest positive ratings are those with a post-graduate education (48%), a college education (47%), and those living in the West (42%). On the other end of the spectrum, almost three-quarters of those with a high school education or less (72%) and two-thirds of Midwesterners (66%) and Southerners (66%) give the President negative marks on his overall job.

While the president is at a low point, there is a political body with ratings much lower than his. Just one in ten Americans (11%) give Congress positive ratings on the job they are doing while nine in ten (89%) give them negative marks. While Congress may be under Democratic control, even four in five Democrats (81%) give them negative ratings.

Part of this negativity may have to do with the way Americans believe the country as a whole is going. Just one-third of U.S. adults (34%) say the country is going in the right direction while two-thirds (66%) say it is going off on the wrong track. While not close to the low it was before the 2008 election (11% said things were going in the right direction), this is one of the lower points of this year. …”

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/Hi_assets/TopHitPageNews.html

Rasmussen Reports

Trust on Issues

Voters Trust Republicans More on Eight of 10 Key Issues

“…Voters now trust Democrats over Republicans in only two areas – government ethics and corruption by a 41% to 36% margin and education where Democrats have a slight 42% to 40% edge.

The economy continues to be the most important issue on voters’ minds this election, and 49% place their trust in Republicans to handle this issue. Thirty-nine percent (39%) trust Democrats more. These findings show little change from early June 2009.

On the issue of health care, which voters place second on the list of important issues, Republicans hold a modest 47% to 40% advantage. Democrats were trusted more on this issue until the debate over a proposed national health care bill began to heat up in early September of last year.

Most voters continue to favor repeal of the national health care law, but the number of voters who expect the law to increase the deficit has fallen to the lowest point since its passage by Congress in March.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Two surveys of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters each were conducted October 12-13 and October 14-15, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Government ethics and corruption rate number three in terms of overall importance, but voters have been narrowly divided for the past several months over which party to trust more on this issue. Democrats have held small leads since February.

As for education, both parties have held very modest leads on the issue at different times for months now.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters nationwide place their trust in the hands of Republicans when it comes to the issue of taxes. Thirty-nine percent (39%) would rather the Democrats handle this issue. The GOP has held a solid lead over Democrats on this issue since early July 2009.

But most voters believe that Democrats in Congress want to raise taxes and spending, while Republicans in Congress want to cut taxes and spending.

When it comes to immigration, 45% trust Republicans, while 33% trust the Democrats more. The gap between the two parties has widened since the beginning of January as the debate over the immigration law in Arizona intensified. At the beginning of the year, voters were essentially evenly divided on which party to trust.

Voters feel more strongly than ever that the federal government is encouraging illegal immigration and that states like Arizona have the answer to the problem, but the Obama administration is challenging the Arizona law in federal court.

Republicans continue to be trusted more on national security issues and the war on terror, with 49% of voters trusting the GOP versus 39% who trust the Democrats more. When it comes the war in Afghanistan, Republicans hold a six-point advantage, 42% to 36%.

Similarly, voters trust Republicans more than Democrats to handle the war in Iraq, 43% to 37%. …”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues

Historical Federal Workforce Tables

Executive Branch Civilian Employment Since 1940

(end-of-fiscal-year count, excluding Postal Service, in thousands)

Fiscal Year Total Executive Branch Department of Defense Civilian Agencies
Total Agriculture HHS, Education, Social Sec. 1 Homeland Security Interior Justice Transportation Treasury Veterans Other
1940 699 256 443 98 9 18 46 11 45 40 176
1941 1,081 556 525 91 10 20 50 15 52 43 244
1942 1,934 1,291 643 95 11 20 49 22 55 44 348
1943 2,935 2,200 735 109 11 21 43 23 69 53 406
1944 2,930 2,246 683 78 11 21 42 21 81 51 378
1945 3,370 2,635 736 82 11 20 45 19 84 65 409
1946 2,212 1,416 795 97 12 20 51 17 95 169 335
1947 1,637 859 777 88 12 20 53 17 82 217 288
1948 1,569 871 698 82 13 18 57 20 79 196 233
1949 1,573 880 694 87 12 19 59 19 77 195 226
1950 1,439 753 686 84 13 20 66 20 76 188 219
1951 1,974 1,235 738 81 16 21 65 25 79 183 269
1952 2,066 1,337 729 79 15 22 61 25 75 175 278
1953 2,026 1,332 694 78 35 22 59 23 71 178 226
1954 1,875 1,209 666 76 35 21 56 24 67 179 207
1955 1,860 1,187 673 86 40 21 54 24 65 178 206
1956 1,864 1,180 684 89 46 20 53 24 64 177 210
1957 1,869 1,161 708 96 53 20 55 24 65 174 222
1958 1,817 1,097 720 101 55 20 56 24 64 172 227
1959 1,805 1,078 727 97 59 20 55 23 63 171 238
1960 1,808 1,047 761 99 62 21 56 24 62 172 265
1961 1,825 1,042 782 103 70 20 59 25 67 175 265
1962 1,896 1,070 827 111 77 20 63 25 69 177 284
1963 1,911 1,050 861 116 81 21 73 25 73 173 300
1964 1,884 1,030 855 108 83 21 70 26 72 172 302
1965 1,901 1,034 867 113 87 21 71 27 74 167 307
1966 2,051 1,138 913 119 100 21 75 27 76 170 324
1967 2,251 1,303 949 122 106 24 77 27 52 79 173 289
1968 2,289 1,317 972 123 117 23 78 29 56 79 176 292
1969 2,301 1,342 960 125 113 21 75 30 58 79 175 283
1970 2,203 1,219 983 118 112 23 75 33 62 84 169 308
1971 2,144 1,154 989 120 115 25 72 38 66 86 180 288
1972 2,117 1,108 1,009 118 114 29 72 40 65 90 184 295
1973 2,083 1,053 1,030 113 128 29 74 43 66 90 198 289
1974 2,140 1,070 1,070 116 142 30 77 46 68 97 202 292
1975 2,149 1,042 1,107 121 147 31 80 47 69 101 213 297
1976 2,157 1,010 1,147 128 155 32 82 48 71 105 222 303
1977 2,182 1,009 1,173 132 159 32 87 48 70 107 224 313
1978 2,224 1,000 1,225 138 161 37 84 49 70 110 229 348
1979 2,161 960 1,201 128 161 40 78 48 67 102 226 352
1980 2,161 960 1,201 129 163 40 77 48 66 102 228 346
1981 2,143 984 1,159 129 162 38 76 47 54 100 232 321
1982 2,110 990 1,121 121 153 38 79 48 57 98 236 291
1983 2,157 1,026 1,131 124 152 39 80 50 57 104 239 286
1984 2,171 1,044 1,127 119 150 39 79 53 57 109 240 283
1985 2,252 1,107 1,145 122 147 40 80 55 56 110 247 286
1986 2,175 1,068 1,108 113 138 39 74 56 56 114 240 277
1987 2,232 1,090 1,142 117 132 44 74 60 57 125 250 284
1988 2,222 1,050 1,172 121 128 48 78 63 58 135 245 297
1989 2,238 1,075 1,162 122 127 49 78 66 60 126 246 289
1990 2,250 1,034 1,216 123 129 49 78 71 61 132 248 326
1991 2,243 1,013 1,230 126 135 50 82 77 64 139 256 302
1992 2,225 952 1,274 128 136 56 85 82 64 133 260 329
1993 2,157 891 1,266 124 135 56 85 82 63 127 268 326
1994 2,085 850 1,235 120 133 55 81 83 59 128 262 315
1995 2,012 802 1,210 113 132 56 76 87 58 128 264 297
1996 1,934 768 1,166 110 130 62 71 88 58 118 251 279
1997 1,872 723 1,149 107 131 64 71 93 59 112 243 270
1998 1,856 693 1,163 106 130 68 72 95 59 112 240 281
1999 1,820 666 1,155 105 130 69 73 97 58 113 219 290
2000 1,778 651 1,127 104 126 70 74 98 58 113 220 265
2001 1,792 647 1,145 109 129 73 76 99 59 117 226 258
2002 1,818 645 1,173 98 130 76 77 96 96 118 223 258
2003 1,867 636 1,231 100 131 153 72 102 58 132 226 257
2004 1,882 644 1,238 111 130 153 77 104 57 111 236 257
2005 1,872 649 1,224 108 131 147 76 105 56 108 235 258
2006 1,880 653 1,227 105 129 154 72 107 54 107 239 260
2007 1,888 651 1,237 103 129 159 72 107 54 104 254 254
2008 1,960 670 1,289 104 132 172 76 109 55 106 274 261
2009 2,094 737 1,357 104 139 180 75 113 57 109 297 283

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/ExecutiveBranchSince1940.asp

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Spending

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Revenue

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Debt and Deficits

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 25, October 9, 2010: Obama Depression: 20 Months Of Unemployment Over 8% For Official U-3 Rate and Over 15% For Total U-6 Rate–Over 26 Million Americans Looking For A Full Time Job and 41.8 Million On Food Stamps!–Followed By 36 More Months Of Over 8% Official Unemployment U-3 Rate and 15% Total Unemployment U-6 Rate!

Posted on October 9, 2010. Filed under: Audio, Communications, Digital Communication, Ethics, Globalization, Issues, Law, Politics, Print Media, Public Relations, Society, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“Government spending cannot create additional jobs. If the government provides the funds required by taxing the citizens or by borrowing from the public, it abolishes on the one hand as many jobs as it creates on the other.”

“True, governments can reduce the rate of interest in the short run. They can issue additional paper money. They can open the way to credit expansion by the banks. They can thus create an artificial boom and the appearance of prosperity. But such a boom is bound to collapse soon or late and to bring about a depression.”

~Ludwig von Mises

Economy Sheds 95,000 Jobs; 14.8 Million out of Work

RECORD 41.8 MILLION PEOPLE ON FOOD STAMPS 9-15-2010

Sept 2010 Employment Report

U.S. Recovering Jobs But Pace Has Slowed, Analyst Says

Goolsbee Sees Need to Get ‘Job Engine’ Growing Faster: Video

“Traders will look at the U6 unemployment rate…on Friday”

President Obama on September, 2010 Jobs Numbers

Ron Paul: Obama Stimulus Package Will Turn Recession Into Depression

The U.S. jobless ” recovery” continues and is getting worse.

While the official unemployment rate of 9.6% as measured by U-3 did not go up in September, the real total unemployment rate went from 16.7% in August to 17.1% in September 2010.

The official unemployment level is currently at 14,767,000 unemployed Americans and exceeds the 13 million unemployed during the worse year of the Great Depression, 1933.

The total unemployment level calculated as 17.1% of the civilian labor force of about 154,158,000 is over 26 million, twice the number of unemployed during the worse year of the Great Depression, 1933.

The Obama Depression is not over or improving but is in fact getting worse.

The Keynesian economics recipe for economic disaster of more and more stimulus spending, larger and larger budgetary deficits, financed by layer upon layer of government debt has been a big failure.

A failure made even worse by the Federal Reserves’ quantitative easing monetary policy of monetization of the debt by “printing” more and more money in exchange for the Federal Government’s debt.

Neither the fiscal policy of stimulus spending nor the monetary policy of quantitative easing will create more jobs.

Obama”s economic policies only increase the belief among consumers and business owners that the Federal Government is completely out-of-control.

Only when President Obama’s economic policies are reversed and the current regime in Congress and the President are elected out of office will you finally see job creation and low full employment rates of 2%% to 3% This will take not months but at least five years.

Dixion Says Fed Quantitative Easing Won’t Create New Jobs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85Olz2h6ehM

The immediate result is the devaluing of the dollar

The Federal Reserves’ policy is a massive tax increase on all Americans as the purchasing power of their money declines daily.

This will only result in higher prices for all imports including gasoline and the costs of all goods and services to the extent they require imported goods and services such as petroleum.

Ron Paul vs. Ben Bernanke

Peter Schiff–Dollar Collaspse–Gold As A Hedge Against The Fed’s Committment To Raise Inflation

Who reappointed The Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke,–President Barack Obama.

Ron Paul : We Can’t Say Cut Spending For Food Stamps But NOT For The Military Industrial Complex!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whfopF8Xj8I

All Labor and Unemployment Statistics Are From

The Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln

As Of October 2010

The Numbers In Red Are For The Obama Administration

U-3

Series Id: LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.4
2009 7.7 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.0 10.0
2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.9 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6

U-6

Series Id: LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 8.0
2007 8.3 8.1 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.5 8.4 8.4 8.5 8.8
2008 9.1 8.9 9.0 9.2 9.7 10.0 10.5 10.9 11.2 11.9 12.8 13.7
2009 14.0 15.0 15.6 15.8 16.4 16.5 16.4 16.8 17.0 17.4 17.2 17.3
2010 16.5 16.8 16.9 17.1 16.6 16.5 16.5 16.7 17.1

Series Id: LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7059 7185 7075 7122 6977 6998 7154 7097 6853 6728 6883 6784
2007 7085 6898 6725 6845 6765 6966 7113 7096 7200 7273 7284 7696
2008 7628 7435 7793 7631 8397 8560 8895 9509 9569 10172 10617 11400
2009 11919 12714 13310 13816 14518 14721 14534 14993 15159 15612 15340 15267
2010 14837 14871 15005 15260 14973 14623 14599 14860 14767

In order to reduce the U.S. official unemployment rate by .1% in a single month requires the creation of between 250,000 and 300,000 jobs per month depending upon the number of new entrants into the labor market due to population growth and the labor participation rate or those seeking employment.

The labor participation rate goes down as an economy goes into a recession and goes up as the economy grows and prospers. The labor participation rate is currently 64.7%, well below the more normal range of 66% to 67.5% .

A higher labor participation rate means more individuals are actively seeking full-time employment and more jobs need to be created each month to absorb both new entrants and re-entrants into the labor market.

This is the reason why between 250,000 and 300,000 jobs need to be created each month to reduce the unemployment rate just .1%.

Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.8 66.9 67.0
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.3 66.0 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 66.0 66.2 66.1 66.0 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.8 65.8
2009 65.7 65.7 65.6 65.8 65.8 65.7 65.4 65.4 65.1 65.0 64.9 64.6
2010 64.7 64.8 64.9 65.2 65.0 64.7 64.6 64.7 64.7

It takes at between 100,000 and 150,000 jobs to employ new entrants into the labor market mostly high school and college graduates.

There are currently over 1.1 million new entrants into the labor force that have not found their first job.

Series Id: LNS13023569
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Level – New Entrants
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Unemployed entrant status: New entrants

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 394 420 429 406 466 427 433 499 415 402 419 490
2001 444 396 378 457 468 467 448 485 473 481 495 515
2002 484 507 538 527 497 549 545 612 536 479 591 535
2003 599 584 630 635 630 661 669 652 686 636 593 693
2004 676 666 631 652 718 649 702 704 695 734 700 702
2005 621 753 712 764 710 650 630 626 607 638 673 633
2006 618 710 635 590 522 644 638 647 612 573 583 588
2007 628 599 614 621 536 634 599 590 668 700 661 688
2008 685 660 705 631 807 771 829 826 811 826 735 820
2009 792 1016 881 919 977 969 994 1096 1134 1114 1270 1270
2010 1235 1238 1197 1231 1206 1140 1188 1259 1187

The unemployment rate for the young, ages 16 to 19, is 26%!

The unemployment rate for the young is currently nearly double the usual unemployment rate for ages 16 to 19 of between 12% and 16% when the economy is growing.

Series Id: LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate – 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 to 19 years

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 12.7 13.8 13.3 12.6 12.8 12.3 13.4 14.0 13.0 12.8 13.0 13.2
2001 13.8 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.4 14.2 14.4 15.6 15.2 16.0 15.9 17.0
2002 16.5 16.0 16.6 16.7 16.6 16.7 16.8 17.0 16.3 15.1 17.1 16.9
2003 17.2 17.2 17.8 17.7 17.9 19.0 18.2 16.6 17.6 17.2 15.7 16.2
2004 17.0 16.5 16.8 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.8 16.7 16.6 17.4 16.4 17.6
2005 16.2 17.5 17.1 17.8 17.8 16.3 16.1 16.1 15.5 16.1 17.0 14.9
2006 15.2 15.3 16.1 14.6 14.0 15.7 15.9 16.1 16.3 15.2 14.9 14.7
2007 14.8 14.9 14.9 15.6 15.9 16.2 15.3 16.0 16.0 15.5 16.2 16.9
2008 17.8 16.5 16.0 15.6 18.9 19.0 20.8 18.9 19.3 20.3 20.3 20.8
2009 20.9 21.8 22.0 21.8 23.2 24.3 24.5 25.7 26.1 27.6 26.8 27.1
2010 26.4 25.0 26.1 25.4 26.4 25.7 26.1 26.3 26.0

Both high school graduates and those who either dropped out or failed to graduate from high school are finding it very difficult to find their first job.

Illegal immigrants, mainly from Mexico and Latin America, of between 10 million to 20 million, has made it even more difficult for young inexperienced American citizens to find entry-level jobs.

Also the Federal minimum hourly wage law prevents many small businesses from hiring young workers.

Good Intentions 2 of 3 Minimum Wage, Licensing, and Labor Laws with Walter Williams

Good Intentions 3 of 3 The Welfare System and Conclusions with Walter Williams

It currently takes between 100,000 and 150,000 new jobs in addition to the 100,000 to 150,000 jobs for new entrants to reduce the unemployment rate by .1%.

The civilian labor force is currently about 155 million.

Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status: Civilian labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 142267(1) 142456 142434 142751 142388 142591 142278 142514 142518 142622 142962 143248
2001 143800 143701 143924 143569 143318 143357 143654 143284 143989 144086 144240 144305
2002 143883 144653 144481 144725 144938 144808 144803 145009 145552 145314 145041 145066
2003 145937(1) 146100 146022 146474 146500 147056 146485 146445 146530 146716 147000 146729
2004 146842(1) 146709 146944 146850 147065 147460 147692 147564 147415 147793 148162 148059
2005 148029(1) 148364 148391 148926 149261 149238 149432 149779 149954 150001 150065 150030
2006 150201(1) 150629 150839 150915 151085 151368 151383 151729 151650 152020 152360 152698
2007 153117(1) 152941 153093 152531 152717 153045 153039 152781 153393 153158 153767 153869
2008 154048(1) 153600 153966 153936 154420 154327 154410 154696 154590 154849 154524 154587
2009 154140(1) 154401 154164 154718 154956 154759 154351 154426 153927 153854 153720 153059
2010 153170(1) 153512 153910 154715 154393 153741 153560 154110 154158

Multiply the civilian labor force of about 155 million by .1% and the result is 155,000.

This is approximate number of jobs that need to be created to reduce the unemployment rate by .1 with no growth in the labor force.

When you add in the natural growth of the labor force by new entrants from population growth you arrive at an estimate of between 250,000 to 300,000 new jobs that need to be created each month to reduce the unemployment rate by .1%.

In a robust economic recovery the private sector should be creating 500,000 to 600,000 jobs per month.

Unfortunately, the private business sector and particularly small and medium size businesses, are not creating anywhere near 250,000 to 300,000 per month.

In September the private sector created only a net total of 75,000 new jobs. This is far short of the 250,000 to 300,000 jobs needed to reduce the U-3 official unemployment rate by just .1%.

Even if 250,000 new jobs were being created each month and the unemployment rate declined 1.2% per year and over 3 million jobs were created in a year, it would take over five years to bring the official unemployment rate ( U-3) down to under a 3% rate of unemployment or a near full employment level.

The stimulus package of over $789 billion plus billions in interest payments was supposed to keep the unemployment rate under 8% and not above 8%!

Stimulus II: A Sequel America Can’t Afford

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/white-houses-stimulus-math-doesnt-add-up-100456089.html

The stimulus package has been an abject failure of the Keynesian economists including Romer and Berstein who advised Obama that this was what was needed.

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 136559(1) 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417(1) 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472(1) 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245(1) 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143142(1) 143444 143765 143794 144108 144370 144229 144631 144797 145292 145477 145914
2007 146032(1) 146043 146368 145686 145952 146079 145926 145685 146193 145885 146483 146173
2008 146421(1) 146165 146173 146306 146023 145768 145515 145187 145021 144677 143907 143188
2009 142221(1) 141687 140854 140902 140438 140038 139817 139433 138768 138242 138381 137792
2010 138333(1) 138641 138905 139455 139420 139119 138960 139250 139391

President Bush’s Federal income tax rate cuts of 2001 and capital gains and interest rate cuts of 2003 worked and the negative impact on the economy of the September 11, 2001 Islamic Al-Qaeda Jihadist terrorist attack was mostly minimized and avoided.

However, President Bush failed to control Federal Government spending by not vetoing the massive Government spending increases of both the Republican controlled House and Senate in 2005 and 2006 and the Democratic controlled House and Senate in 2007 and 2008.

President Obama followed the lead of President Bush and the Democratic controlled Congress by more than doubling the Federal budget deficits in 2009 and 2010.

Dan Mitchell on the Deficit

Dan Mitchell discusses Reagonomics vs. Obamanomics

The result is the Obama Depression with more than twice the number of Americans looking for a full-time job than the 13 million Americans that were unemployed in March, 1933, the worse month of the Great Depression.

President Obama is following in the footsteps of Presidents Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George W. Bush by pursuing both the expansion of government with huge budgetary deficits (2009 was over $1,400 billion and 2010 is over 1,340 billion) and tax rate increases by letting the Bush tax rate cuts expire, supporting a massive cap-and-trade energy tax and imposing a mandatory health care plan on Americans that they must purchase or pay a tax penalty.

Feldstein Predicts Dollar to Weaken, Boosting Exports: Video

News Update: CBO Deficit estimates

The result is the same–massive unemployment–over 26 million seeking a full-time job and 41.8 million Americans on food stamps.

My recommendation made February 1, 2009 was to first have a six month payroll tax holiday on payroll and capital gains taxes and at the end of the six month period switch from the current Federal income tax system to the FairTax, which is a national sales consumption tax on the sale of all new goods and services.

American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009! Revised and Updated

The FairTax would replace all Federal personal and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, capital gains taxes, interest and dividend taxes, alternative minimum taxes, estate and gift taxes.

The FairTax requires the repeal the 16th Amendment that gave the Federal government the power to collect an income tax.

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

The FairTax is also progressive for it provides a prebate or check each month to every American to pay the sales tax on necessities of living such as food, clothing, housing, and energy (electricity and gasoline).

Had the FairTax been implemented with a six month payroll and capital gains tax holiday, the unemployment rate would have been significantly below 8% by now and the economy growing at a rate above 5%.

The FairTax: It’s Time

The recommended economic policy of cutting both Federal taxes and Federal Government spending and regulation had been tried and proved successful in the past when the United States entered the roaring twenties:

Why You’ve Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Keynesian Predictions vs. American History | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

While the above economic policy recommendations would still work, it will never happen under the existing ruling political class.

Unfortunately, the political ruling class based in Washington, D.C., both Democrats and Republicans, vigorously opposed those proposing the FairTax.

Comprehensive tax reform is opposed by the lobbyist and special interests on K Street in Washington D.C. who benefit from the complicated Federal Income Tax.

Professional politicians of both political parties need the campaign contributions of these special interests and lobbyists to run for re-election.

The real problem is simply too much Federal Government spending.

The high levels of Federal Government spending is what is driving the need for new and higher Federal taxation, every increasing borrowing to finance the deficits, and a reckless expansionary credit and monetary policy.

The solution is to cut Federal government spending by eliminating entire Federal Departments, agencies and programs.

That is why I recommended that Federal Government spending be limited to 80% of FairTax collections with the remaining 20% used to pay down the National Debt and fund entitlement (Social Security and Medicare) unfunded liabilities.

A Common Sense Political Agenda For A New Conservative and Libertarian Party: American Citizens Alliance Party (ACAP)–A CAP On Government Spending, Taxes, Debt and Regulations!

It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes

This solution is anathema to the progressive radical socialist of the Democratic Party led by President Obama.

Instead President Obama went with the failed economic policies of the Keynesian economists who always advocate more and more Federal Government spending, which is precisely what the progressive radical socialists want to impose on the American people.

Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Bigger Gov’t Is Not Stimulus

As a direct result of President Obama and the Democratic Party controlled Congress failure in cutting Federal Government spending, closing permanently many Federal Departments and agencies and ending hundreds of Federal Government programs, while proposing even more and higher taxes, more Americans are now unemployed and seeking full-time employment than any time in the history of the United States.

The number of unemployed are twice that of the Great Depression!

The U-3 official unemployment rate will remain above 8% and the U-6 total unemployment rate will remain above 15% for at least another 36 months.

By then the American people will vote President Obama out of office.

By then the American people will vote those Democratic and Republican Senators and Representatives who failed to institute deep and permanent cuts to the Federal budget, a balanced or surplus budget and the FairTax.

President Obama is a progressive radical socialist ideologue.

Obama wants to grow the size and scope of the Federal Government and use coercion and government intervention in the form of higher taxes and pervasive government regulation to redistribute wealth and limit consumer sovereignty and the liberties of the American people.

Paul Ryan on how to break the capital strike

Krauthammer: “We Are Having A Capital Strike”

President Obama’s economic policies created massive economic uncertainty for consumers and businesses resulting in tens of millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans.

President Obama is a regime that must be changed if there is any hope for the tens of millions of unemployed Americans to find a full-time job.

On November 2, 2010 the American people will vote the Democrats out of office who were responsible for this economic disaster by massive government intervention into the economy and expansion of the size and scope of government.

Most Americans cannot wait to vote President Obama out of office in 2012.

Mr. President, you know you are an economic illiterate.

Do the right thing Mr. President, resign for the good of the country and the American people.

Just think, Mr. President, you will have more time to play golf, smoke and be with your family.

Everbody wins.

Good-Bye and Good Luck.

“Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individual’s life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management.”

~Ludwig von Mises

Background Articles and Videos

Christina Romer explains a new report about job creation

The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan

By Christine Romer and Jared Bernstein

January 9, 2009

http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf

Christie Romer: The Only Surefire Way for Policymakers to Substantially Increase Aggregate Demand in the Short Run Is for the Government to Spend More and Tax Less

“…In a report that Jared Bernstein and I issued during the transition, we estimated that by the end of 2010, a stimulus package like the Recovery Act would raise real GDP by about 3 1⁄2 percent and employment by about 31⁄2 million jobs, relative to what otherwise would have occurred. As the Council of Economic Advisers has documented in a series of reports to Congress, there is widespread agreement that the Act is broadly on track to meet these milestones…. What the Act hasn’t done is prevent unemployment from going above 8 percent, something else that Jared and I projected it would do. The reason that prediction was so far off is implicit in much of what I have been saying this afternoon. An estimate of what the economy will look like if a policy is adopted contains two components: a forecast of what would happen in the absence of the policy, and an estimate of the effect of the policy. As I’ve described, our estimates of the impact of the Recovery Act have proven quite accurate. But we, like virtually every other forecaster, failed to anticipate just how violent the recession would be in the absence of policy, and the degree to which the usual relationship between GDP and unemployment would break down.

By February 2009, before the Recovery Act was passed, unemployment was already over 8 percent; and by June, before the Recovery Act could have had much of an impact, it was 9 1⁄2 percent… our projection turned out to be wrong even before the Recovery Act had a chance to get off the ground, which is about as clear-cut evidence as one could imagine that the problem was in our assessment of the baseline, and not in the effects of the Act….

I certainly don’t regret having done the study. During the Transition, the little paper helped to build the case both internally and externally for a stimulus of unprecedented proportions. Only in retrospect does saying that our best guess was that unemployment would rise to 9 1⁄2 percent without aggressive action look rosy. At the time, it was scary as hell. It helped convince both our team and the Congress to go for as big a program as possible. And laying down a firm marker that the legislation had to save or create 3 1⁄2 million jobs helped prevent the package from shrinking greatly during Congressional negotiations….

The thing I do regret is that there is still so much unfinished business. I would give anything if unemployment really were down to 8 percent or lower…. That the economy remains as troubled as it is despite aggressive action reflects the fact that this has not been a normal recession. Just as the downturn was uncharted territory, so is its recovery. Because the recession began with interest rates at low levels, we can’t just have interest rates fall and housing, investment, and other interest-sensitive sectors come roaring back as they typically do in recoveries….”

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/09/christie-romer-the-only-surefire-way-for-policymakers-to-substantially-increase-aggregate-demand-in-the-short-run-is-for-the.html

Democratic Pollster: GOP Poised to Seize House and Senate

By: David A. Patten

“…Republicans are on the brink of pulling off a landslide “of potentially epic proportions” that would bring them control of both Houses of Congress and a majority of governorships, Democratic pollster and Fox News commentator Douglas Schoen says.

In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Schoen says he now sees several indications that matters are going from bad to worse for Democrats in this election cycle.

He points to a RealClearPolitics.com analysis that now shows Republicans picking up a net gain of nine seats in the Senate, which would deadlock the upper chamber 50 to 50. And polls show several other GOP candidates, including Carly Fiorina in California and Dino Rossi in Washington state, remain within striking distance, he says.

Schoen, a pollster for former President Bill Clinton, is co-author of the new book “Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System.”
…”

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gop-polls-lead-democrats/2010/10/08/id/373121?s=al&promo_code=AF37-1

Monetization

“…Monetization is the process of converting or establishing something into legal tender. It usually refers to the printing of banknotes by central banks, but things such as gold, diamonds and emeralds, and art can also be monetized. Even intrinsically worthless items can be made into money, as long as they are difficult to make or acquire. Monetization may also refer to exchanging securities for currency, selling a possession, charging for something that used to be free or making money on goods or services that were previously unprofitable. …”

“…Monetizing debtIn many countries the government has assigned exclusive power to issue or print its national currency to independently operated central banks. For example, in the USA the independently owned and operated Federal Reserve banks do this.[1] Such governments thereby disavow the overly convenient ‘slippery slope’ option of paying their bills by printing new currency. They must instead pay with currency already in circulation, or else finance deficits by issuing new bonds, and selling them to the public or to their central bank so as to acquire the necessary money. For the bonds to end up in the central bank it must conduct an open market purchase. This action increases the monetary base through the money creation process. This process of financing government spending is called monetizing the debt.[2] Monetizing debt is thus a two step process where the government issues debt to finance its spending and the central bank purchases the debt from the public. The public is left with an increased supply of base money.

Effects on inflation

When government deficits are financed through this method of debt monetization the outcome is an increase in the monetary base, or the money supply. If a budget deficit persists for a substantial period of time then the monetary base will also increase, shifting the aggregate demand curve to the right leading to a rise in the price level.[3] When governments intentionally do this, they devalue existing stockpiles of wealth of anyone who is holding assets based in that currency. It is in essence a “tax” as the overall value of their assets decrease due to a loss in spending power. This is known as “inflation tax“.

To summarize: a deficit can be the source of sustained inflation only if it is persistent rather than temporary and if the government finances it by creating money (through monetizing the debt), rather than leaving bonds in the hands of the public.[4]

Examples

Monetizing the debt can be used as a component of quantitative easing strategies, which involve the creation of new currency by the central bank, which may be used to purchase government debt, or can be used in other ways.

However, there can be an insidious effect. As one observer noted:

When governments reach the point where they are borrowing to pay the interest on their borrowing they are coming dangerously close to running a sovereign Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes have a way of ending unhappily. To get out of the Ponzi trap, governments will have to increase tax revenues, or cut spending, or monetize the debt–or most likely do some combination of all three. [5] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetization

Quantitative Easing

“…The term quantitative easing (QE) describes a monetary policy used by central banks to increase the supply of money by increasing the excess reserves of the banking system. This policy is usually invoked when the normal methods to control the money supply have failed, i.e the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.

A central bank implements QE by first crediting its own account with money it creates ex nihilo (“out of nothing”).[1] It then purchases financial assets, including government bonds, agency debt, mortgage-backed securities and corporate bonds, from banks and other financial institutions in a process referred to as open market operations. The purchases, by way of account deposits, give banks the excess reserves required for them to create new money, and thus hopefully induce a stimulation of the economy, by the process of deposit multiplication from increased lending in the fractional reserve banking system.

Risks include the policy being more effective than intended, spurring hyperinflation, or the risk of not being effective enough, if banks opt simply to sit on the additional cash in order to increase their capital reserves in a climate of increasing defaults in their present loan portfolio.[1]

“Quantitative” refers to the fact that a specific quantity of money is being created; “easing” refers to reducing the pressure on banks.[2] However, another explanation is that the name comes from the Japanese-language expression for “stimulatory monetary policy”, which uses the term “easing”.[3] Quantitative easing is sometimes colloquially described as “printing money” although in reality the money is simply created by electronically adding a number to an account. Examples of economies where this policy has been used include Japan during the early 2000s, and the United States, the United Kingdom and the Eurozone during the global financial crisis of 2008–the present, since the programme is suitable for economies where the bank interest rate, discount rate and/or interbank interest rate are either at, or close to, zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing

Consumer Sovereignty

“…Consumer sovereignty is a term which is used in economics to refer to the rule or sovereignty of consumers in markets as to production of goods. It is the power of consumers to decide what gets produced. People use this term to describe the consumer as the “king,” or ruler, of the market, the one who determines what products will be produced. [1] Also, this term denotes the way in which a consumer ideologically chooses to buy a good or service. Furthermore, the term can be used as either a norm (as to what consumers should be permitted) or a description (as to what consumers are permitted).

In unrestricted markets, those with income or wealth are able to use their purchasing power to motivate producers as what to produce (and how much). Customers do not necessarily have to buy and, if dissatisfied, can take their business elsewhere, while the profit-seeking sellers find that they can make the greatest profit by trying to provide the best possible products for the price (or the lowest possible price for a given product). In the language of cliché, “The one with the gold makes the rules.”

To most neoclassical economists, complete consumer sovereignty is an ideal rather than a reality because of the existence—or even the ubiquity—of market failure. Some economists of the Chicago school and the Austrian school see consumer sovereignty as a reality in a free market economy without interference from government or other non-market institutions, or anti-market institutions such as monopolies or cartels. That is, alleged market failures are seen as being a result of non-market forces.

The term “consumer sovereignty” was coined by William Hutt who firstly used it in his 1936 book “Economists and the Public”. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_sovereignty

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Dan Mitchell–Videos

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Spending

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Revenue

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Debt and Deficits

The Wisdom of The Founding Fathers–Videos

American People’s Plan = 6 Month Tax Holiday + FairTax = Real Hope + Real Change!–Millions To March On Washington D.C. Saturday, July 4, 2009! Revised and Updated

A Common Sense Political Agenda For A New Conservative and Libertarian Party: American Citizens Alliance Party (ACAP)–A CAP On Government Spending, Taxes, Debt and Regulations!

A New Political Party In The United States? American Citizens Alliance Party–ACAP On Government Spending, Taxes, Debt, and Regulations!

Third Party Time? Yes Provided You Have $10 Billion and 10 Years!

President Obama’s Massive Tax Hikes Will Wreck The Economy, Destroy More Jobs and Kill The American Dream–Stop Stupidity, Spending, and Socialism!–Videos

Obama Depression Worsens: Unemployment in September Hits 10.1% and Under Employment Hits 18.8% According To Gallup–17 Months Unemployment Over 9% with Over 15 Million Unemployed and 27 Million Underemployed!

The Party of Food Stamps–Government Dependency Party (GDP) vs. The Party of Paychecks–Grand Old Party (GOP)–Record 41,836,330 Americans On Food Stamps!

Barack Obama’s Favorite Economist–John Maynard Keynes–A Great Guy?

Economists

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Frederic Bastiat–The Law–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Walter Block–Introduction To Libertarianism–Videos

Hunter Lewis–Where Keynes Went Wrong–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

Richard Ebeling–America’s New Road to Serfdom and the Continuing Relevance of Austrian Economics –Videos

Milton Friedman–Videos

Milton Friedman on Education–Videos

Milton Friedman–Debate In Iceland–Videos

Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos

Milton Friedman–Economic Myths–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

David Gordon–Five Best Books on the Current Crisis–Video

David Gordon–The Confused Literature of Globalization–Videos

Friedrich Hayek–Videos

Henry Hazlitt–Economics In One Lesson–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Complex Path of Ideological Change–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Videos

Robert Higgs–Why Are Politicians Always Trying to Scare Us?–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Ethics of Money Production–Videos

Jörg Guido Hülsmann–The Life and Work of Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Israel Kirzner–On Entrepreneurship–Vidoes

Paul Krugman–Videos

Hunter Lewis–Where Keynes Went Wrong–Videos

Liberal Fascism–Jonah Goldberg–Videos

Dan Mitchell–Videos

Ludwig von Mises–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Videos

Robert P. Murphy–Government Stimulus: Repeating the mistakes of the Great Depression–Videos

Gary North–Keynes and His Influence–Take The North Challenge–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Paul Craig Roberts–How The Economy Was Lost–The War Of The Worlds–Videos

Paul Craig Roberts–Peak Jobs–Videos

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr–How Empires Bamboozle the Bourgeoisie–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Videos

Murray Rothbard–The American Economy and the End of Laissez-Faire: 1870 to World War II–Videos

Murray N. Rothbard–Introduction to Economics: A Private Seminar–Videos

Murray Rothbard–Libertarianism–Video

Rothbard On Keynes–Videos

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Peter Schiff–Videos

Schiff, Forbers and Bloomberg Nail The Financial Crisis and Recession–Mistakes Were Made–Greed, Arrogance, Stupidity–Three Chinese Curses!

Larry Sechrest–The Anticapitalists: Barbarians at the Gate–Videos

L. William Seidman on The Economic Crisis: Causes and Cures–Videos

Amity Shlaes–Videos

Julian Simon–Videos

Julian Simon–The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Econ Talk With Thomas Sowell–Videos

Peter Thiel–Videos

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Economic Crisis and The Federal Reserve–Videos

Tom Woods–Lectures On Liberty–Videos

Thomas E. Woods–The Market Economy–Videos

Tom Woods On Personal Rights and Property Ownership

Tom Woods–Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money–Videos

Tom Woods–Who Killed The Constitution

Tom Wright On The FairTax–Videos

Banking Cartel’s Public Relations Campaign Continues:Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke On The Record


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 23, October 4, 2010: The Progressive Radical Socialists Method of Cutting Carbon Emissions–Kill Those Who Disagree With You–No Pressure–Your Choice–The Big Lie–Video

Posted on October 4, 2010. Filed under: Advertising, Audio, Bandwagon, Communications, Digital Communication, Ethical Practices, Ethics, Issues, Law, Mass Media, News, Policies, Politics, Print Media, Public Relations, Radio, Society, Television, Web | Tags: , , , , , , |

10:10 mini-movie – No Pressure

No Pressure–Your Choice–The Big Lie

The global warming alarmists are fanatics that really think these public service announcements or propaganda are acceptable and humorous.

While I have a sense of humor, I found the 10:10 video ad campaign tasteless, intentionally designed to scared children and adults, and a poor attempt to shut people up that disagree with the global warming alarmists.

Corporate sponsors including SONY, are quickly distancing themselves from the videos and 10:10 campaign as complaints poured in.

Rising global carbon dioxide emissions have indeed increased from 280 parts per million to over 390 parts per million over the last three hundred years.

So what?

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas, required for life on the earth, and is not a pollutant or  a primary driver of climate change.

Unstoppable Solar Cycles

CO2 is a trace gas

Global Warming – Carbon Dioxide

Did the rise in CO2 cause the modern increase in temperature?

Is a warm climate good?

Bureaucratic Beginnings

The Transfer of Wealth from Developed to Developing Countries

Charles Krauthammer on the EPA regulating carbon dioxide

CO2 Regulation: The Essence of Immorality

Background Articles and Videos

Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria (High Quality Version)

Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (1 of 5)

Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (2 of 5)

Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (3 of 5)

Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (4 of 5)

Prof. Fred Singer on Climate Change – CFACT (5 of 5)

The Reset Button

U.S. Gift to Russia Lost in Translation

CO2 Rising (series), Professor Tyler Volk: 1. Where in the world is the CO2 increasing?

CO2 Rising (series), Professor Tyler Volk: 2. Does my exhaled CO2 go into a leaf I can hold?

10:10

“…10:10 is a global warming mitigation campaign calling for a 10% reduction in carbon emissions in 2010. The project aims to demonstrate public support, apply pressure to policymakers to commit to national cuts, and inspire success at the United Nations climate change negotiations.[citation needed]

As of June 2010, 75,000 individuals, businesses, schools and organisations have joined the campaign and pledged to reduce their emissions by 10% in a year.[citation needed]

The campaign was founded as a British campaign in September 2009 by Franny Armstrong, director of The Age of Stupid, with the aim of capturing the public imagination using individual action in a way similar to the Make Poverty History campaign.[1] In mid-2010 the campaign went global, with campaigns launching in around 12 countries.

In October 2010, the group made headlines when a mini-movie produced for their campaign, entitled No Pressure, caused widespread outrage due to its gruesome content.[2][3] Subsequently, several of 10:10’s major corporate sponsors disassociated themselves from the group and withdrew support.[4] …”

“…No Pressure

For more details on this topic, see No Pressure (film).

On Friday 1 October 2010, 10:10 released a short film in which schoolchildren and office workers are summarily and gruesomely executed for not pledging a 10% reduction in their carbon emissions to participating employers and educators.[43] Although originally planned to be shown in cinema and television advertisements, 10:10 removed the film from their website and YouTube later on the same day following negative publicity[44] and apologised for “miss[ing] the mark”.[43]

10:10:10

10:10 and 350.org were jointly coordinating “a day of positive action on climate change”, on Sunday 10 October, 2010 (10.10.10). The day had been planned to include a wide range of events in a reported 180 countries, including sumo wrestlers in Japan, over 10,000 schoolchildren planting trees in Croatia and Russia, a telethon on national TV in the Netherlands and the president of the Maldives installing solar panels on his roof.[43][45] However in the wake of the No Pressure controversy, 350.org disassociated themselves from 10:10, strongly condemning the film. 10:10 are no longer involved in the 10:10:10 day of action.[46][47] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10:10

Sony pulls support for 10:10 initiative over contentious promo

“…In an official release on its corporate website, Sony said that it strongly “condemned the release by 10:10, the climate change campaign group, of a video entitled ’No Pressure’ that Sony considers to be ill-conceived and tasteless”.

The move is a blow to the initiative, just five days before its centrepiece day of action on 10 October, dubbed ’10:10:10′. The campaign aim is to cut global carbon emissions by 10% each year from 2010.

The electronics firm said it believed the video risked “undermining the work of the many thousands of members of the public, schools and universities, local authorities and many businesses, of which Sony is one, who support the long-term aims of the 10:10 movement and are actively working towards the reduction of carbon emissions.”

The company insisted that the promo was released entirely without its knowledge or involvement, and violated the “thoughtful and collaborative philosophy” that it had consistently supported.

Although Sony said that it recognised that 10:10 had acted quickly to remove the video from its website and had issued a public apology, the company said it had “no other option” other than to condemn the video in “the strongest possible terms” and was “disassociating itself from 10:10 at this time.”

The film appeared on the 10:10 website, but was pulled down “within hours” of its appearance, according to the organisation. …”

http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/1033027/Sony-pulls-support-1010-initiative-contentious-promo/

Age of stupid – greens blow up school kids in ad to sell climate change

Chris Arnold

“…The recent 10:10 climate change campaign (founded by Age of Stupid director Franny Armstrong) has scored an own goal with a disastrous video ‘No Pressure’ created by Richard Curtis (of Blackadder fame) that features exploding school kids.

The humour is puerile and may well appeal to a drunken 19 year old student but as a piece of communications it has got it very wrong. So wrong they have had to withdraw the video following thousands of complaints.

The video (they call it an ad) features a series of patronising people – a teacher and a boss – asking everyone to sign up to 10:10 (you sign up to reduce your carbon emission by 10%). The script quotes “we cut our carbon emissions by 10%, thus keeping the planet safe for everyone,” which is factually rubbish, it’ll take a lot more than 10%. The teacher then asks the kids to volunteer to do something. All but two, Phillip and Tracy, raise their hands. The two who don’t get killed in a sick and disgusting way. She blows them up leaving the other kids covered in burnt flesh and blood.

There are two other scenes featuring X-Files’ Gillian Anderson (she too gets blown up), together with Spurs players – including Peter Crouch, Ledley King and David Ginola.

The message is, “No Pressure celebrates everybody who is actively tackling climate change… by blowing up those who aren’t.”
It will go down as the ultimate in poor and stupid judgment (a lesson to those who try and make their own ads). The green blog, An Englishman’s Castle, called it “an eco-terrorism film”.

This is not only embarrassing for 10:10 but for their supporters, O2, Sony, Eada, National Magazines (Esquire, Cosmoplitan, Bazaar, Company), The Guardian and many other brands and organisations, not to mention many celebs. One critic has published the email address of Sony’s CEO, encouraging people to write direct.

Can’t say I’d want to be part of an organisation that advocates blowing up kids. It comes across as ‘eco-fascism’, a tag that has been put against extremist green groups. …”

“…The 10:10 campaign was founded by Franny Armstrong, director of the climate change film The Age of Stupid. In the film an archivist in the devastated world of 2055, asks the question: “Why didn’t we stop climate change when we still had the chance?” He looks back on footage of real people around the world in the years leading up to 2015 before runaway climate change took place. London is now flooded, Sydney is burning, Las Vegas has been swallowed up by desert, the Amazon rain forest has burnt up, snow has vanished from the Alps and nuclear war has laid waste to India (not sure that’s anything to do with climate change but the politics of war). It’s doom and gloom with no positive message.

The idea for 10:10 came to Franny while walking through Regent’s Park on her way to a debate with UK Climate & Energy Secretary Ed Miliband (now Labour leader and probably keeping as far away from this as possible). With her connections she managed to amass lots of celebrities and get lots of PR.
Now’s she is getting all the wrong PR.
…”

http://community.brandrepublic.com/blogs/arnold_on_ethical_marketing/archive/2010/10/04/age-of-stupid-greens-blow-up-school-kids-in-ad-to-sell-climate-change.aspx

350.org

“…350.org is an international environmental organization,[1][2][3] headed by author Bill McKibben,[4] with the goal of building a global grassroots movement to raise awareness of man-made climate change, to confront climate change denial, and to cut emissions of one of the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide,[5] [6] in order to slow the rate of global warming, the cause of current climate change. 350.org takes its name from the research of NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who posited in a 2007 paper that 350 parts-per-million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere is a safe [7] upper limit to avoid a climate tipping point.[8][9][10][11][12] The current record level is 392.04 ppm of CO2, an almost 40-percent increase from the pre-industrial revolution level of 278 ppm.[13][14][15] In 1988 the Earth’s atmosphere surpassed the 350 ppm mark,[16] while global CO2 emissions per capita rose.[17][18]

The group reports that they organised the world’s “most widespread day of political action” on Saturday October 24, 2009, reporting 5,245 actions in 181 countries.[19][20][21]

“…The organization was founded by author Bill McKibben,[22] an American environmentalist and writer who frequently writes about global warming, alternative energy, and the need for more localised economies. McKibben promotes the organisation, for instance by writing articles about it for many major newspapers and media, such the Los Angeles Times[23] and The Guardian.[24]

The organising effort drew its name from climate scientist James Hansen’s contention in winter 2008 that any atmospheric concentration of CO2 above 350 parts per million was unsafe. James Hansen opined that “if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that.”[25]

McKibben’s first started to organize against global warming with a walk across Vermont, his home state. His “Step It Up” campaign in 2007 involved 1,400 demonstrations at famous sites across the United States. McKibben credits these activities with making Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama change their energy policies during the presidential campaign. Later, the meltdown of the polar caps pushed him into starting 350.org, based on Hansen’s 2007 book Climate Code Red.[26]

Rajendra Pachauri, the U.N.’s “top climate scientist” and leader of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has come out in favor of reducing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to 350ppm.[27][28][29] McKibben called news of Pachauri’s embrace of the 350ppm target “amazing”.[30] Some media have indicated that Pachauri’s endorsement of the 350ppm target was a victory for 350.org’s activism.[31][32][33]

The organisation had a lift in prominence after founder McKibben appeared on The Colbert Report television show on Monday August 17, 2009.[34][35][36]

The organisation disseminates its message through social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.[37][38] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/350.org

Franny Armstrong

“…Franny Armstrong (born 3 February 1972)[1][2] is a British documentary film director working for her own company, Spanner Films, and a former drummer with indie pop group The Band of Holy Joy. She is primarily known for three films: The Age of Stupid, about climate change, McLibel, about the infamous McDonald’s court case and Drowned Out, following the fight against the Narmada Dam Project. Her most recent project is the UK-wide campaign 10:10, which aims to cut 10% of the UK’s emissions during 2010, has received an unwelcome reception from the audience because of propaganda of violence against global warming skeptics. In November 2009, Armstrong was rescued by London mayor Boris Johnson from an assault by a gang of girls in north London.[3]

“…Armstrong’s first documentary, McLibel (1997, 2005), told the story of the McDonald’s libel trial, the longest-running court action in English history. Filmed over ten years with no commission, no budget and a voluntary crew – including Ken Loach, who directed the courtroom reconstructions – it shot to notoriety when lawyers prevented its broadcast, first at BBC1 and then at Channel 4 in 1997. Eight years later – after the ‘McLibel Two’ had defeated the British government at the European Court of Human Rights – it was finally broadcast on BBC2 at 10.30pm on a Sunday, to an estimated 1 million viewers. It was well received by critics, with Time Out crediting Armstrong with “gusto and wit” in telling a story that “will satisfy both head and heart”.[5] It was then broadcast on TV in 15 countries – including Australia, Canada and the USA – and released on DVD worldwide. McLibel was released in cinemas and DVD stores in the USA in summer 2005 and this was followed in the UK in 2006. McLibel was nominated for numerous awards, including the Grierson Documentary Award and the British Independent Film Awards. It was recently picked for the British Film Institute’s prestigious series, “Ten Documentaries which Changed the World”.

Armstrong’s second feature documentary, Drowned Out (2002), follows an Indian family who chose to stay at home and drown rather than make way for the Narmada Dam. It also sold around the world, was nominated for Best Documentary at the British Independent Film Awards 2004 and was released theatrically in America and DVD worldwide in 2006.

Without backing from the UK TV industry, Armstrong’s films have been seen by more than 56 million people[citation needed]. She has been working full-time on The Age of Stupid (formerly known as Crude) since December 2004. It’s a film that warns of the catastrophic effects of climate change using a mix of factual documentary and post-apocalyptic fictional styles. It was released in the UK on March 13 2009 and had its green-carpet global premiere on September 21 2009. During the Copenhagen climate change conference in December 2009 it was broadcast on BBC4 in the UK and on TV in seven other countries.

In October 2010, a short film, written by Richard Curtis and Armstrong, entitled No Pressure was released by the 10:10 campaign in Britain to spread awareness of climate change. The video was subsequently taken down from the organization’s website due to very negative reception and offence taken.[6] However, it is still available in several places, including YouTube. It depicted a series of scenes in which people were asked if they were going to participate in 10:10. Those who indicated they weren’t planning on participating were told “no pressure” and then blown up in a gory explosion at the press of a red button. [7] In response to questions about the message of the film, she replied, “We ‘killed’ five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change,”[8] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franny_Armstrong

Spanner Films

Franny Armstrong

“…In September 2009 Franny founded the 10:10 climate campaign which aims to cut the UK’s carbon emissions by 10% during 2010 and which has amassed huge cross-societal support including Adidas, Microsoft, Spurs FC, the Royal Mail, 75,000 people, 1,500 schools, a third of local councils, the entire UK Government and the Prime Minister. 10:10 launched internationally in March 2010 and, as of July 2010, has autonomous campaigns up and running in 41 countries, where some of the key sign-ups include the French Tennis Open, the city of Oslo and L’oreal. 10:10 estimates that organisations doing 10:10 have so far cut 500,000 tonnes of C02. Franny is a Londoner born and bred. …”

http://www.spannerfilms.net/people/franny_armstrong

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

William A. Sprigg, PhD., an IPCC climate scientist, On “Climategate”–Videos

Professor Fred Singer–On Climate Change–Videos

Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and Fred Singer On The Climate and Global Warming Alarmists and Junk Science Computer Models –Videos

Al Gore Global Warming Hot Head Says The Artic Ice Cap Will Disappear In 5-10-15 Years–Volcanoe Gate–Eruptions Melt Ice and Increase Carbon Dioxide!–Videos

Climategate–The Political Scam, Investment Fraud, and Science Scandal of The Century Exposed–The Progressive Radical Socialist’s Big Lie And Con That Man Is The Cause Of Global Warming Was In Fact Nothing More Than Politicians, Investment Bankers, and Government Scientists Creating Climate Crisis!–

Glenn Beck, John Bolton, and Lord Christopher Monckton On Copenhagen 2009 Treaty, Climate Change and World Government–Videos

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

“We Can Reverse Climate Change”–President Barack Obama–Liar or Fool–Or Both–You Be The Judge!

John Holdren–Science Czar–Videos

John Holdren: Global Warming: What Do We Know and Should Do–Videos

The Obama Depression Has Arrived: 15,000,000 to 25,000,000 Unemployed Americans–Stimulus Package and Bailouts A Failure–400,000 Leave Labor Force In July!

Facing Fundamental Facts

Gore Grilled & Gingrich Gouged–American People Oppose Massive Carbon Cap and Trade Tax Increase–Videos

National Center for Policy Analysis–A Global Warming Primer

Global Warming is The Greatest Hoax, Scam and Disinformation Campaign in History

Global Warming Videos

Global Warming Books

Global Warming Sites

The Heidelberg Appeal: Beware of False Gods and Prophets

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 19, September 23, 2010:Republicans’ “A Pledge To America”–A Good Start Or A Missed Opportunity–Videos

Posted on September 23, 2010. Filed under: Audio, Bandwagon, Communications, Digital Communication, Law, Mass Media, Newspapers, Policies, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Recordings, Society, Television, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

“History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.”

~ President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Republicans Outline ‘Pledge to America’

A Pledge To America

Paul Ryan on House Republicans’ Pledge To America

Paul Ryan: Stop all tax hikes

Fox News interview: A Pledge to America

GOP’s “Pledge to America”

Mike Pence discusses “A Pledge to America” on FOX

Roskam Talks Pledge For America on CNBC

GOP Pledge to America

GOP’s new ‘Pledge to America’

Laura Ingraham Interviews Paul Ryan On A Pledge To America

Sell Me on the Pledge to America

GOP ‘Pledge To America – William Owens Thoughts

Full Text of Republican

A Pledge to America

a new governing agenda build on

The Priorities of Our Nation

The Principles We Stand For

&

America’s Founding Values

Preamble

America is more than a country.

America is an idea – an idea that free people can govern themselves, that government’s powers
are derived from the consent of the governed, that each of us is endowed by their Creator with
the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America is the belief that any
man or woman can – given economic, political, and religious liberty – advance themselves, their
families, and the common good.

America is an inspiration to those who yearn to be free and have the ability and the dignity to
determine their own destiny.

Whenever the agenda of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the
people to institute a new governing agenda and set a different course.

These first principles were proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, enshrined in the
Constitution, and have endured through hard sacrifice and commitment by generations of
Americans.

In a self-governing society, the only bulwark against the power of the state is the consent of the
governed, and regarding the policies of the current government, the governed do not consent.
An unchecked executive, a compliant legislature, and an overreaching judiciary have combined
to thwart the will of the people and overturn their votes and their values, striking down longstanding
laws and institutions and scorning the deepest beliefs of the American people.

An arrogant and out-of-touch government of self-appointed elites makes decisions, issues
mandates, and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many.

2

Rising joblessness, crushing debt, and a polarizing political environment are fraying the bonds
among our people and blurring our sense of national purpose.

Like free peoples of the past, our citizens refuse to accommodate a government that believes it
can replace the will of the people with its own. The American people are speaking out,
demanding that we realign our country’s compass with its founding principles and apply those
principles to solve our common problems for the common good.

The need for urgent action to repair our economy and reclaim our government for the people
cannot be overstated.

With this document, we pledge to dedicate ourselves to the task of reconnecting our highest
aspirations to the permanent truths of our founding by keeping faith with the values our nation
was founded on, the principles we stand for, and the priorities of our people. This is our Pledge
to America.

We pledge to honor the Constitution as constructed by its framers and honor the original intent
of those precepts that have been consistently ignored – particularly the Tenth Amendment,
which grants that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty, wider opportunity, a robust defense,
and national economic prosperity.

We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based
organizations that form the core of our American values.We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.

We pledge to make government more transparent in its actions, careful in its stewardship, and
honest in its dealings.

We pledge to uphold the purpose and promise of a better America, knowing that to whom
much is given, much is expected and that the blessings of our liberty buoy the hopes of
mankind.

We make this pledge bearing true faith and allegiance to the people we represent, and we invite
fellow citizens and patriots to join us in forming a new governing agenda for America. …”

http://www.gop.gov/resources/library/documents/solutions/a-pledge-to-america.pdf

The biggest problem with “A Pledge To American” is its failure to address in a bold and creative way the economic problems facing the United States and its people.

Does the Republican Pledge permanently close one or more Federal Departments?

No.

Add VideoMilton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

Ronald Reagan – “We the People”

Does the Republican Pledge offer comprehensive tax reform such as the national sales consumption tax to replace the Federal Income Tax, payroll, estate and gift taxes?

No.

The FairTax: It’s Time

Does the Republican Pledge produce annual surplus budgets by limiting Federal Government spending to 80% of FairTax revenue?

No.

Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending

Does the Republican Pledge transform Social Security and Medicare to an individually controlled and owned investment retirement account and health insurance plan.

No.

Social Security Ponzi Scheme

Does the Republican Pledge address illegal immigration by demanding immigration law enforcement and the removal and deportation of illegal aliens?

No.

Lou Dobbs – E-Verify & Border Fence may be canceled – Feb 16, 2009

Bilbray on the Cost of Illegal Immigration and Amnesty

Why not?

The plan was vetted by political consultants and lobbyists on K street who oppose all of the above as do the Republican establishment.

The pledge is simply timid or more precisely the anti-Obama agenda.

The pledge is neither bold nor inspiring with the exception of the opening preamble.

Going back to 2008 in Federal spending levels and freezing Federal Government employee hiring is too little too late.

Why would we want to go back to where we were just two years ago?

Now if you want to go back to 1928 Federal spending levels under President Calvin Coolidge that would be ambitious.

A return to the Republican establishment status quo in 2008 is playing defense.

Both the economic policies and government intervention of Bush and Obama are responsible for the Great Recession.

This reminds me of the economic policies and government intervention of Hoover and Roosevelt in the 1930s that led to the Great Depression.

Time to go on the offense.

Independents and tea party patriots will not be impressed.

Yes, the Pledge is better than the agenda of progressive radical socialists Democratic Party led by Barack Obama.

This is a a very low bar or standard to exceed.

Time for a new third political party with the tea party patriots as its core base with independents and the young as its growth opportunity.

Glenn Beck nailed it, the Pledge tells you what you want to hear, but does not tell you the truth and what you need to hear.

Glenn Beck-09/23/10-A

Glenn Beck-09/23/10-B

Glenn Beck-09/23/10-C

Ron Paul is also right, a GOP victory in 2010 would bring no change.

It would take several election cycles before the mess in Washington is cleaned up.

American Morning: Ron Paul on the state of the GOP

Ron Paul: GOP 2010 Victory Would Bring No Change

GOP ‘Pledge To America – William Owens Thoughts

our pledge

As government expands, liberty contracts.

~President Ronald Reagan

Background Articles and Videos

Ronald Reagan TV Ad: “Its morning in America again”

Milton Friedman – The Great Depression Myth

Unpacking the “Pledge to America”

By Daniel Foster

“…The Pledge places job creation front and center, promising to stop all tax hikes scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2011 — not just those singled out by the Obama administration. The plan would also give small businesses the ability to deduct 20 percent of income from tax returns and, in an effort to tame productivity-stifling overregulation, would require congressional approval for any new administration rules that would impact the economy by $100 million or more.

Turning its attention to spending and the size of government, the Pledge proposes to immediately end TARP, cancel unspent stimulus dollars, and “roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels,” a move estimated to save $116 billion in the first year alone. It promises to end the government’s involvement in the revenue-sapping GSEs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while shrinking their portfolios and establishing new capital standards.

To rein in the size of government, the document proposes a hiring freeze on non-security personnel, and calls for any new federal program to come with a “sunset” clause that would place the onus on legislators to routinely reassess its merits and justify new funding.

But the plan does not set specific spending targets, promising only to “significantly” reduce Congress’s next budget and place a “hard cap” on the growth of future discretionary spending.

And it is decidedly vague on entitlement reform, laying out in broad terms a commitment to “regularly review” and “fully account” for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid growth, but stopping well short of embracing specific entitlement reforms like those proposed in Wisconsin GOP congressman Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap.” …”

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/247471/unpacking-pledge-america-daniel-foster

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 16, September 20, 2010: Tea Party Looking For Their Amazing Mrs. Pritchard–Fear and Trembling of Democratic and Republican Establishments

Posted on September 20, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Digital Communication, Ethics, Issues, Law, Mass Media, News, Newspapers, Policies, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Society, Television, Web | Tags: , , , , , , |

Mark Levin Rejects The GOP Establishment

Tea Party Candidates Win Key Primary Elections

Delaware Among Primaries With a Surprising Finish

Primaries Wrap-Up: Tea Party Coup

Joe Miller wins – Sen. Lisa Murkowski Concedes Alaskan GOP Senate Primary 8/31/2010

Murkowski Concedes in Alaska

The Democratic and Republican party establishments reaction to candidates winning that are supported by the tea party patriots is revealing.

Both parties are in a state of palpable fear and trembling that this could easily get out of control and the ruling political class’ favorite candidates of both parties could lose in the November election.

The Republican political establishment were beside themselves when Christine O’Donnell running for the Republican Party Senate nomination in Delaware and endorsed by tea party favorite Sarah Palin beat Republican Party’s anointed nine-term Congressman Mike Castle who they thought was a shoe-in to win in November.

The reaction was the same when Joe Miller backed by tea party supporters and Sarah Palin beat seating Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski who many Republicans thought would win in November.

Obama’s Democratic party advisers are seriously considering portraying the tea party as “captured” by the Republican party.

A more accurate description is the conservative and libertarian wings of the conservative movement are either going to recapture the Republican party or established another political party.

What both political party establishment elites fail to get is that many tea party patriots could care less about either political party.

Tea party patriots want to see a reduction in the size and scope of the Federal Government which means deep and permanent cuts in Federal Government expenditures, the shutting down of up to ten Federal Departments and hundreds of Federal programs and replacing Federal income, payroll, gift and estate taxation with a national sales consumption tax on new goods and services.

This means no more bailouts, stimulus spending bills, deficits spending, new taxes and higher tax rates, and raising the National debt limits yet again.

The attempt to frame tea party candidates as extremists is laughable given the total fiscal irresponsibility of both political parties over the last ten years.

The tea party patriots know that so-called entitlements, Social Security and Medicare are not sustainable and must be truly reformed by making them individual private property that is controlled by the individual and not the Federal Government.

The progressives/liberals in the Republican party better get behind the winner in their primaries or change to the Democratic party.

Otherwise there is a real possibility that the tea party could become the winning alliance party of independents and former Democrats and Republicans with both the Republican and Democratic parties.

The tea party will be watching for a leader emerging in 2012.

Who will be the American Amazing Mrs Pritchard?

The Amazing Mrs Pritchard (2006) / ep2 / p2/6

Some say that Sarah Palin is that person.

Possible but not likely.

An unknown American cititzen with vision, integrity, and the ability to communicate ideas and inspire the American people will emerge.

A new political party will also emerge from the tea party rallies.

The new political party will be an alliance of the American people that were formerly Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians.

THE BEATLES- HERE COMES THE SUN

Background Articles and Videos

Rush defends Sarah Palin and Tea Party Candidates

Laura Ingraham Body Slams Senator John Cornyn Of The NRSC

43 Days to Decide: Dems Pumping Up Tea Party Fear Factor as Movement Surges

“…The White House is pushing back on a report that President Obama’s advisers are contemplating an all-out ad war to discredit Republicans by way of the Tea Party. But with the primaries now behind them, top Democratic officials have already made the Tea Party fear factor an integral part of their messaging.

Amid mounting predictions that Democrats could lose at least one chamber of Congress, a rhetorical campaign has been underway for weeks to cast the Republican Party as driven by the “extremist” faction of its conservative wing.

Warnings about the direction of the GOP got louder after dark-horse candidate Christine O’Donnell beat moderate Rep. Mike Castle for the Delaware Senate nomination last week and conservative Joe Miller beat incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska primary — prompting Murkowski to launch a write-in campaign.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/20/democrats-pumping-tea-party-fear-factor-upset-primary-wins/

Obama Aides Weigh Bid to Tie the G.O.P. to the Tea Party

By JACKIE CALMES and MICHAEL D. SHEAR

“…White House and Congressional Democratic strategists are trying to energize dispirited Democratic voters over the coming six weeks, in hopes of limiting the party’s losses and keeping control of the House and Senate. The strategists see openings to exploit after a string of Tea Party successes split Republicans in a number of states, culminating last week with developments that scrambled Senate races in Delaware and Alaska. “We need to get out the message that it’s now really dangerous to re-empower the Republican Party,” said one Democratic strategist who has spoken with White House advisers but requested anonymity to discuss private strategy talks.

Democrats are divided. The party’s House and Senate campaign committees are resistant, not wanting to do anything that smacks of nationalizing the midterm elections when high unemployment and the drop in Mr. Obama’s popularity have made the climate so hostile to Democrats. Endangered Congressional candidates want any available money to go to their localized campaigns. …”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/us/politics/20dems.html?_r=1

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Spending

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Revenue

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Entitlements

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Debt and Deficits

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 14, September 17, 2010: Political Correctness, The Mosque At Ground Zero, and Stealth Jihad–Videos

Posted on September 18, 2010. Filed under: Books, Books, Communications, Digital Communication, Ethical Practices, Ethics, Issues, Law, Mass Media, News, Newspapers, Policies, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Recordings, Society, Television, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

 

“God is our purpose, the Prophet our leader, the Quran our constitution, jihad our way and dying for God our supreme objective.”

~Muslim Brotherhood motto

“It is man’s capacity for justice that makes democracy possible, but it is his tendenecy to injustice that makes it necessary.”

~Reinhold Niebuhr, The Children of Light and the children of Darkness, page 17.

“Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.”

~Martin Luther King, Jr., “Letter from Birmingham Jail


The Islamic Infiltration, Part 1: Inside Our Government, Armed With Our Secrets (PJTV)

The Islamic Infiltration, Part 2: From Influence to Insurrection (PJTV)

Bill Whittle: Ground Zero Mosque Reality Check

No Mosque at Ground Zero

Kill the Ground Zero Mosque TV Ad

If you ever worked on a newspaper staff, the Associated Press Stylebook is considered “the journalist’s bible” by editors, reporters and commentators. The Associated Press 2010 Stylebook and Briefing on Media, 45 ed. “provides fundamental guidelines on spelling, grammar, punctuation and usage, with special sections on social media, reporting business and sports.”

Recently I wrote an article where both the headline and the story used the phrase “ground zero mosque” to describe the proposed 13 story mosque and community center to be built less than six hundred feet from the World Trade Center site in New York City. Both were edited out of the story.

Tom Kent, Deputy Managing Editor for Standards and Production for the Associated Press sent out a memo on not using the phrase “ground zero mosque” when referring to the proposed Islamic community center and mosque to be built near the World Trade Center site:

“…Here is some guidance on covering the NYC mosque story, with assists from Chad Roedemeier in the NYC bureau and Terry Hunt in Washington:

1. We should continue to avoid the phrase “ground zero mosque” or “mosque at ground zero” on all platforms. (We’ve very rarely used this wording, except in slugs, though we sometimes see other news sources using the term.) The site of the proposed Islamic center and mosque is not at ground zero, but two blocks away in a busy commercial area. We should continue to say it’s “near” ground zero, or two blocks away. …”

http://www.ap.org/pages/about/pressreleases/pr_081910b.html

Apparently the “ground zero mosque” shorthand description must be offending some so-called “moderate Muslims”. The problem is that many of the “moderate Muslims” are actually stealth jihadists who have the same agenda as the militant jihadists of September 11, 2001.

On September 1, 2010 the Council on American-Islam Relations launched a National PSA Campaign with several public service announcements (PSAs) that are available for viewing on YouTube and running on television stations. The PSAs have first responders to the al-Qaeda Islamic Wahhabi terrorist hijackers attack of September 11, 2001 that are Muslims recounting what happened that day. The PSAs are posted by CAIR on YouTube (CAIR ‘9/11 Happened to Us All’ PSA, Firefighter (30-Second) and (CAIR ‘9/11 Happened to Us All’ PSA, Medical Responder (30-Second)).

CAIR ‘9/11 Happened to Us All’ PSA, Firefighter (60-Second)

CAIR ‘9/11 Happened to Us All’ PSA, Medical Responder (30-Second)

A third CAIR PSA, ‘We Have More in Common than We Think’, has “interfaith leaders” of the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic faiths stating in part “if we do not have our rights,” “at the heart of American freedom”, “ you do not your rights.” All three PSA are very effective because most American are tolerant of people practicing their religious faith and oppose the establishment by the government of any one religion as being superior to other religions.

CAIR ‘We Have More in Common than We Think’ PSA, Interfaith (30-Second)

Who exactly is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)? The CAIRtv channel on YouTube says they are “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy group with 35 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada.”

Steven Emerson, a widely recognized independent investigative expert on Islamic terrorism describes in detail the background of CAIR in his book, American Jihad, The Terrorists Living Among Us, and concludes with this revealing passage on pages 202 and 203:

“Steve Pomerantz, former chief of the Counterterrorism Section of the FBI and former assistant director of the FBI, says: “CAIR has defended individuals involved in terrorist violence, including Hamas leader Musa abu Marzook….The modus operandi has been to falsely tar as ‘anti-Muslim’ the U.S. government, counter-terrorist officials, writers, journalists and others who have investigated or exposed the threat of Middle-East based terrorism…Unfortunately, CAIR is but one of the new generation of new groups in the United States that hide under a veneer of ‘civil right’ or ‘academic’ status but in fact are tethered to a platform that supports terrorism.”

“Seif Ashmawy, former publisher of Voice of Peace, wrote: “It is a known fact that both AMC [American Muslim Council] and CAIR have defended, apologized for and rationalized the actions of extremist groups and leaders such as convicted World Trade Center conspirator Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, Egyptian extremists, Hassan al-Turabi, the Sudanese National Islamic Front, and extremist parliamentarians from the Jordian Islamic Action Front and others who called for the overthrow of the Egyptian government….As a proud American Muslim…I bow to no one on my defense of Muslim civil rights, but CAIR..champion[s] extremists whose views do not represent Islam.”…”

Robert Spencer who was criticized by CAIR at their press conference said in his book the Stealth Jihad on page 102:

“CAIR has clearly emerged as the leading advocacy group for Muslims in the United States. When government officials and journalists need a Muslim perspective, they are likely to turn to CAIR, which they assume is a prime example of a moderate, patriotic American Muslim organization”

This assumption is not true as Steven Emerson points out in his book American Jihad on pages 201 and 202:

“…After September 11, 2001, and up until the U.S. Government froze the assets of the Holy Land foundation in December, CAIR’s Web site included a feature, “What you can do for the victims of the WTC and Pentagon attacks,” with a link to the Web site of HLF(“Donate through the Holy Land Foundation”). …”

Robert Spencer concluded on page 105 of his Stealth Jihad book that:

“…Perhaps the biggest blow to CAIR’s moderate facade came on June 4, 2007, when the Justice Department named CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation jihad terror funding case. Identifying CAIR as a present and past member of “the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations,” Federal prosecutors stated that CAIR was a participant in a criminal conspiracy on behalf of the jihad terror group Hamas which allegedly received funding from the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLFRD”), a now defunct charity that was supported by CAIR….”

CAIRs Tie to Terrorism

When such inconvenient facts are brought up by investigative reporters and journalists, they are quickly labeled as “Islamophobes”. Robert Spencer describes in detail CAIR tactics in Chapter Three, Silencing The Critics, of his book, Stealth Jihad, on pages 51 and 52:

“…Groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim-American Society (MAS) have learned from the past mistakes of many U.S.-based Islamic leaders that aggressive public pronouncements and threats uttered against Islam’s perceived enemies bring unwelcome attention and undermine their pretensions of being mainstream civil rights organizations. So they have adopted a different strategy to silence critics of jihadism and Islamic supremacism: they label them as “bigots”, “hatemongers”, and “Islamophobe.”

“In the U.S., playing the race card can in some ways be even more effective than death threats. If a U.S.-based Islamic group announced a death fatwa against an American writer, that organization would be denounced in the media as “extremist” and possibly trigger a police investigation. But if the group cries “racism” against the same writer, liberal as well as conservative media figures hop to shun and denounce the accused “racist,” for bigotry and racism are the cardinal sins of the U.S. public square.”

An excellent example of CAIR ’s tactics of attempting to silence and smear its critics can be found on the CAIRtv channel on YouTube. The video clip, Video: CAIR Launches National PSA Campaign, is the press conference preceding the preview of the CAIR PSA campaign at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on September 1, 2010. Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of CAIR, stated in part:

“The controversy over Park 51 in lower Manhattan is a fabricated controversy. It is designed to pit Americans against each other and divide our society. Although a local but vocal minority has launched this campaign against Muslims. This group is mainly headed by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer. They know very well the American Muslim community is part of the society. But they harbor anti-Muslim feelings and they want to stoke anti-Muslim sentiment in the society by exploiting 9/11 and legitimate fears that some Americans have. They turn this fear into fear mongering; and free speech became hate speech. It led to hate crimes and as you have seen nation-wide, we have seen Muslims are being attacked just because they are Muslim. Places of worship have been vandalized including future construction sites like the Islamic center in Tennessee. …”

Video: CAIR Launches National PSA Campaign

Robert Spencer in Chapter Five, THE FACE OF ISLAMIC MODERATION? CAIR, MPAC AND OTHER “MODERATE” MUSLIM GROUPS of his book Stealth Jihad, describes in detail the history and associations of CAIR and Nihad Awad and their stealth jihad on page 102.

“…Though pursing a radical agenda, these organizations realized that extremists pronouncements and activities would be counter-productive, resulting in negative media attention and even criminal investigations. So they’ve adopted a new modus operandi—the stealth jihad. Instead of publicly proclaiming the inevitable arrival of sharia in the United States, they attempt to Islamize the United States quietly, through a long-term strategy aimed at undermining national security, forcing ever greater accommodation of Islamic practices, and minimizing any criticism whatsoever of Islam or of virtually any Muslim individual. …”

Robert Spencer on CAIR’s ‘Stealth Jihad’

Robert Spencer on Islamic-Jihadism (1/4)

Robert Spencer on Islamic-Jihadism (2/4)

Robert Spencer on Islamic-Jihadism (3/4)

Robert Spencer on Islamic-Jihadism (4/4)

Radical jihadists, both militant (violent) and stealth (non-violent), want to accomplish the following in the United States:

  • Replace the United States Constitution and American law with Sharia or Islamic law.
  • Replace our democratic representative republic with an Islamic state or theocracy.
  • Replace our President with a religious leader or caliphate.
  • Establish Islam as the country’s religion that is superior to and dominates all other religions of the United States and where infidels or non-believers in Islam such as Christians and Jews would pay a tax, the jizya, with “willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

Sharia Law and Islamic Democracy – Daniel Pipes

Time For A New ‘Team B’ to Understand Jihad

The militant and stealth jihadists differ mainly over the methods used to accomplish their goals.

In Steven Emerson’s and the Investigative Project on Terrorism’s book, Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the US on page 346 the roots of both militant and stealth jihad can be found in the Muslim Brotherhood.

Richard Clark is the former National Coordinator for Security and Infrastructure Protection under Presidents Clinton and Bush. In testifying before the Senate Committee on Banking in October 2003 he stated:

“… While the overseas operations of Islamist terrorist organizations are generally segregated and distinct, the opposite holds in the United States. The issue of terrorist financing in the United States is a fundamental example of the shared infrastructure levered by HAMAS, Islamic Jihad and Al Qaeda, all of which enjoy a significant degree of cooperation and coordination within our borders. The common link here is the extremist Muslim Brotherhood–all of these organizations are descendants of the membership and ideology of the Muslim Brothers.”

The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 was Hasan Al-Banna, an Egyptain school teacher and Islamist political reformer. Hasan Al-Banna unconstrained vision of Islam is revealing in its breadth and scope:

“Islam is a comprehensive system which deals with all spheres of life. It is a country and homeland or a government and a nation. It is conduct and power or mercy and justice. It is a culture and a law or knowledge and jurisprudence. It is material and wealth or gain and prosperity. It is Jihad and a call or army and a cause. And finally, it is true belief and correct worship.”

The Message of the Teachings, Hasan Al-Banna http://www.almoltaqa.ps/english/showthread.php?t=16037

Today the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest and most influential Islamic international political organization.

In Robert Spencer’s book the Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs on page 16 the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States are explained by Mohamed Akram of the Muslim Brotherhood:

“[ Muslim Brotherhood]…must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all religions.”

The Associated Press apparently is one of those unwitting hands of the stealth jihadists. The question that should be answered by the Associated Press is did any individual or organization either directly or indirectly bring pressure on AP to ban the use of ground zero mosque in their stories. If so, who communicated with them on the subject? What exactly was said?

Why should these questions need to be answered?

The AP memo continued with the following “guidance”:

“…2. here is a succinct summary of President Obama’s position:

Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build an Islamic center in New York as a matter of religious freedom, though he’s also said he won’t take a position on whether they should actually build it. …”

The Associated Press apparently wants to get the Obama party line or spin out to all its AP subscribers. The vast majority of Americans agree with Charles Krauthammer, Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, political commentator and physician, as to what President Obama should have done, namely appealed to Muslims not to build the ground zero mosque.

Krauthammer: Obama Should Have Appealed to Muslims Not to Build Ground Zero Mosque

In a August 31, 2010 Quinnipiac University poll of 1,497 New York residents surveyed, 71% said the mosque should be voluntarily relocated and 71% want Andrew Cuomo, the Attorney General of New York State to investigate the finances of the group funding the ground zero mosque. A poll of likely voters by Rasmussen Reports found similar opposition to the ground zero mosque:

“…A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 85% of U.S. voters say they are now following news stories about the mosque planned near Ground Zero. That’s a 34-point jump from a month ago when only 51% said they were following the story.

The new finding includes 58% who are following the story very closely, up from 22% in mid-July.

Now 62% oppose the building of a mosque near where the World Trade Center stood in Lower Manhattan, compared to 54% in the previous survey. Twenty-five percent (25%) favor allowing the mosque to go ahead, and 13% more are not sure.”

The Associated Press’ memo never addressed the question as to where exactly is ground zero. Immediately after September 11, 2001 a much larger area than just the World Trade Center site was referred to as ground zero. Ground zero included everything below Chambers Street in New York City, which is five blocks north of Vesey Street, the northern border of the World Trade Center site. The ground zero mosque site on Park Place is just two blocks north of Vesey Street.

Far more important and potentially more damaging to the safety and security of the American people and the United States is the banning of such “religious” terms as Islamic extremism, jihad, Islam and Sharia from the National Security Strategy Document by President Obama’s advisors that was reported by the Associated Press on April 7, 2010 in a story entitled, “Obama bans terms Jihad, Islam.”

bill whittle PJTV Obama censors threat

This is dangerous because by banning such words or phrases you are refusing to call ideas or actions by their proper name, names that even our avowed Islamic extremist enemies use in describing their intentions, plans and actions. This goes beyond political correctness into political censorship and reminds one of George Orwell’s novel 1984. What individuals and organizations have been pressuring the President and his advisors to ban these terms from National Security documents? Are these organizations stealth jihadists with links to the Muslim Brotherhood or other jihadist’s organizations?

If you doubt political correctness and censorship cannot kill people, remember Major Nidal Malik Hasan, that killed 12 soldiers and one civilian and wounded30 more at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009 while shouting the Muslim expression “Allahu Akbar.” Political correctness in the Army discouraged many officers from reporting and making a formal complaint about Major Hasan’s repeated statements about his hating America, its non-Muslim majority and the military. If the Major had been a white supremacist he would have been discharged by Army, but a Muslim supremacist was given a pass and 13 people died. Political correctness and censorship kills.

Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech – Steven Emerson (1 of 2)

Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech – Steven Emerson (2 of 2)

Steve Emerson: Was Major Hasan A Ticking Timebomb? (11.9.09)

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters: USA Sick with Political Correctness (11.9.09)

Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s Jihad warning signs ignored by politically correct military – Fort Hood

Remember September 11, 2010 by reflecting upon the words in The 9/11 Commission Report, page 13:

“…We learned about an enemy who is sophisticated, patient, disciplined and lethal. The enemy rallies broad support in the Arab and Muslim world by demanding redress of political grievances, but its hostility towards us and our values is limitless. Its purpose is to rid the world of religious and political pluralism, the plebiscite and equal rights for woman. It makes no distinction between military and civilian targets. Collateral damage is not in its lexicon. …”

The goals and agenda of the militant and stealth jihadists are the same; they only differ as to tactics. The ground zero mosque should never be built for it is an insulting affront to the families and friends of those who died on 9/11 and only encourages the militant and stealth jihadists.

The American people can remember the people who died on September 11, 2001 by reading The 9/11 Commission Report (available online at http://9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf ) and Robert Spencer’s book The Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs or watch his “Stealth Jihad and Islamization of the West” videos on YouTube. However, be prepared to be called an Islamophobe by the stealth jihadists among us.

“This is the American moment in world history, the one for which we shall forever be judged. Just as in politics the responsibility of the fate of freedom in the world has devolved upon our regime, so the fate of philosophy in the world has devolved upon our universities, and the two are related as they have never been before. The gravity of our given task is great, and it is very much in doubt how the future will judge our stewardship.”

~Alan Bloom, The Closong of the American Mind, page 382.

Background Articles and Videos

The Middle East with Daniel Pipes

Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech – Andrew McCarthy (1 of 2)

Islam and the Left’s Assault on Free Speech – Andrew McCarthy (2 of 2)

Muslim Brotherhood ‘Conspiracy’ to Subvert America

CAIR Revealed

Hot Air Video: The speech that CAIR didn’t want you to hear

Jihad Watch: The “Islam is Peace” Campaign

Charles Krauthammer Exposes Obama Hypocrisy on No Rush to Judgment

Should Mosque, Islamic Center Be Built Near Ground Zero?

The Next Moves of Radical Islam – Robert Spencer

Newt Gingrich: No Ground Zero Mosque

Newt Gingrich: Jihadist = Person who seeks to impose Sharia

Newt Gingrich: Freedom Will Prevail

Mosque Debate Part 1

Mosque Debate Part 2

Mosque Debate Part 3

Mosque Debate Part 4

Muslim Brotherhood in America – Orlando Mosque Finances Hamas Fundraiser

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

“…The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is America’s largest Muslim civil liberties advocacy organization that deals with civil advocacy and promotes human rights. It is headquartered on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., with regional offices nationwide and in Canada.[1]

Through media relations, lobbying, and education, CAIR presents what it views as an Islamic perspective on issues of importance to the American public, and seeks to empower the American Muslim community and encourage its social and political activism. Annual banquets, through which CAIR raises the majority of its funds, are attended by American politicians, statesmen, interfaith leaders, activists and media personalities.[1]

The organization was dealt a significant blow to its reputation in the United States after it was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case.[2] The FBI no longer works with CAIR outside of criminal investigations due to its status as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case.[3][4][5] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations

Muslim Mafia

“…Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America is a 2009 book by U.S. State Department-trained Arabic linguist and former U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations special agent Paul David Gaubatz, and investigative journalist and Hoover Institute fellow Paul Sperry. According to the Charlotte Observer, it “portrays the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a subversive organization allied with international terrorists.”[1]

The book prompted endorsements from a number of conservative writers and requests by several conservative members of the United States Congress for investigations into CAIR’s possible terrorist links and undue influence. It also prompted denouncements from CAIR, media outlets and other members of Congress. The manner in which its source documents were obtained led CAIR to sue one of the authors. …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEb-USpe6jM&feature=related

 

Reinhold Niebuhr

“…Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr (pronounced /ˈraɪnhoʊld ˈniːbʊər/; June 21, 1892 – June 1, 1971) was an American theologian and commentator on public affairs. Niebuhr was the archetypal American intellectual of the Cold War era. Starting as a leftist minister in the 1920s indebted to theological liberalism, he shifted to the new Neo-Orthodox theology in the 1930s, explaining how the sin of pride created evil in the world. He attacked utopianism as useless for dealing with reality, writing in The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness (1944):

“Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.”

His realism deepened after 1945 and led him to support American efforts to confront Soviet communism around the world. A powerful speaker and lucid author, he was the most influential minister of the 1940s and 1950s in public affairs. Niebuhr battled with the religious liberals over what he called their naïve views of sin and the optimism of the Social Gospel, and battled with the religious conservatives over what he viewed as their naïve view of Scripture and their narrow definition of “true religion.” He was a leader of liberal intellectuals and supported many liberal causes,

His long-term impact involves relating the Christian faith to “realism” in foreign affairs, rather than idealism, and his contribution to modern “just war” thinking. Niebuhr’s perspective had a great impact on many liberals, who came to support a “realist” foreign policy.[1] His influence has been acknowledged by such recent leaders of American foreign policy as Jimmy Carter, Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as John McCain[2]. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Niebuhr

Allan Bloom

“..Allan David Bloom (September 14, 1930 – October 7, 1992) was an American philosopher, classicist, and academic. He studied under David Grene, Leo Strauss, Richard McKeon and Alexandre Kojève. He subsequently taught at Cornell University, the University of Toronto, Yale University, École Normale Supérieure of Paris, and the University of Chicago. Bloom championed the idea of ‘Great Books’ education. Bloom became famous for his criticism of contemporary American higher education, with his views being expressed in his bestselling 1987 book, The Closing of the American Mind.[1] Although Bloom was characterized as a conservative in the popular media, Bloom explicitly stated that this was a misunderstanding, and made it clear that he was not to be affiliated with any conservative movements.[2] Saul Bellow, Bloom’s friend and teaching partner at the University of Chicago, wrote a novel based on his colleague entitled Ravelstein. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Bloom

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America–Videos

CAIR Launches National PSA Campaign–Videos

Robert Spencer: Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West–Videos

Andrew McCarthy–The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotaged America–Videos

Andrew C. McCarthy–America’s War on Terror…or is It?–Videos

Stealth Jihad–Terror From Within–Videos

Steve Emerson–American Jihad: The Terrorist Living Among Us–Videos

Robert Spencer–Stealth Jihad–Videos

Robert Spencer–The Truth About Muhammad–Videos

Terrorists Among Us: Jihad in America–Videos

Obsession: Radical Islams War Against the West–Videos

An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man

Just Because You Can Build A Mosque At Ground Zero Does Not Mean You Should: The Two Faces of President Obama–Let Me Be Clear–I Am An Agent Provocateur!


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Discussion #1: Raymond T. Pronk

Posted on August 7, 2010. Filed under: Advertising, Communications, Digital Communication, Ethical Practices, Ethics, Issues, Mass Media, News, Policies, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Society, Television | Tags: |

Please state your name and why you are taking this course! Also, some information about yourself, such as interesting hobbies, year in school, etc…

Hello. I am Raymond Pronk and have lived in Fort Worth from 1978 to 1983 and in Dallas from 1983 to the present.

My interests include reading, writing, making videos and blogging.

I took this course to learn more about advertising since it is the primary revenue source for both commercial radio and television broadcasting and a major source of revenue for internet web sites.

My goal is to have my own talk radio show on current events, business, economics and politics.

I have already completed two associate degrees from Richland College in business application programming and web design.

I have earned several other degrees including a Bachelor of Science in Economics from New York University, a Master of Arts in Economics from the University of California, Berkeley, a Master of Business Administration from Wright State University and a Master of Professional Accounting from the University of Texas at Arlington.

I am currently searching for a new career position with a leading radio/television talk show or with a leading ad agency as a researcher/writer.

‘The purpose of learning is growth, and our minds, unlike our bodies, can continue growing as we continue to live.’ 

 ~Mortimer Adler

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

« Previous Entries

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...