THE MEDIA HAS LOST ITS ETHICS AND CREDIBILITY

-->

THE MEDIA HAS LOST ITS ETHICS AND CREDIBILITY

By Domenick J. Maglio PhD. Traditional Realist

Obama Administration director of communication, Anita Dunn boasted after the 2008 election that “ very rarely did we communicate anything we did not absolutely control.” This was recorded in a video conference with the government of the Dominican Republic.  In the 2012 campaign the mainstream media is still shamefully doing the bidding of the Obama administration.

Every presidential administration attempts to influence the national conversation. The 4^th Estate, the press, needs to be a pillar of our representative republic. Media is supposed to question the government in power to increase accountability by searching for the truth. Too many prominent media members are protecting and advocating for the Obama administration rather than doing their duty in finding and presenting the actual facts to the American people.

For more than two weeks the mainstream media was an accomplice in maintaining the false storyline of the Obama administration.  The media was content to repeat it was an anti Mohammed video that was the impetus of a peaceful demonstration gone awry. The supposedly spontaneous demonstration turned into a violent attack on the American consulate killing the Ambassador of Libya, three other Americans and caused the destruction of the US consulate and a safe house. This narrative was sold to us by the administration with the media repeating the talking points but not investigating the facts and the actual events leading up to the incident and its aftermath.

The media did not report that previous to the attack in Benghazi there had been eight major attacks on western interests in Libya, two of which were on the consulate. It did not report the many pleas for more security forces sent by Ambassador Chris Stevens to protect him and other diplomats. Even on the infamous day of 9/11/12 Stevens was communicating the need for more protection.  The media did not uncover that Charlene Lamb and others of the State Department observed the actual attack in Benghazi in real time for a 7 hour period or the State Department’s emails, which show the Obama administration knew within 2 hours that an Al Qaeda affiliated group was taking credit for the attacks.

The Obama administration chose not to dispatch available US security which were mobilized and stationed close by but not alllowed to stop this horrific massacre.

The media intentionally or unintentionally has been an accessory to the administration’s cover-up.  It did not question the press secretary, Jay Carney’s statement on 9/14 and Ambassador Susan Rice’s weekend statements on five channels that the Benghazi attack was the result of the spontaneous protest to the hateful video. On 9/25, two and a half weeks later, in an address to the United Nations, President Obama mentioned the video 6 times. The Obama administration would not have produced a $70,000 video apologizing for this obscure anti Mohammed trailer if he was not implying it was the cause for the unrest in the Middle East.  

Yet in the 10/16 presidential Townhall debate, Candy Crowley of CNN was asked by President Obama to get the transcript of his speech in the Rose garden to prove on 9/12 he said it was “an act of terror.” Crowley answered the president by saying, “Governor Romney, he did say this.” Then President Obama said, “could you say that a little louder, Candy?”

This was a despicable display of the media’s out-of-control advocating and colluding with President Obama. There was no reason for Crowley to have the transcript or for President Obama to know she had it.  Crowley was not supposed to be a fact checker, to comment on answers, or ask follow up questions according to the co-signed memorandum of agreement. She was supposed to be a moderator, a facilitator. Not only did Crowley not abide by these rules, she interrupted Mr. Romney 28 times and Mr. Obama only 9.

Later in the evening, after the debate, she admitted her mistake on CNN. The transcript of the Rose garden speech did mention an act of terror in reference to the 2001- 9/11, not to the Benghazi incident as Crowley later admitted.  It was another act of gotcha questions by a biased media member.

President Obama or his surrogates refused to talk about terrorism for they have already stated that Al Qaeda is on the run and terrorism is under control. The truth of this attack would contradict the campaign narrative. “An act of terror” is very different than terrorism, which is a use of force and violence to coerce a government. In fact, to this day, Fort Hood’s massacre is referred to as “workplace violence” not an act of terrorism which it obviously was.

The unwillingness to be professional objective members of the media should be of grave concern to every American regardless of political affiliation. The mainstream media has become the state run media and is a disgrace that has to be corrected.

The mainstream media should realize that they are cutting their own throats by being partisan shills repeating the administration’s talking points. Newsweek’s unwillingness to reveal the Lewinski scandal to protect President Clinton was a major lost opportunity to insure its status as a credible and trusted publication. Newsweek’s circulation dropped like many news publications and is presently relegated to only a digital presence.

Our leaders have to know that any illegal or irresponsible actions cannot be hidden forever and will eventually face public wrath. For our nation to get back on solid moral ground we need the members of the press to be committed to report and investigate our government’s actions without bias to help or hinder either political side.  Historically our free press has kept our nation on the straight and narrow path.  Personal views and preferences should not prevent the reporting the truth.

The media can no longer be a cheerleader for a particular side or charismatic person but instead should be guided by ethical obligations if it wants to survive.

PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP DOES MATTER

PRESIDENTIAL LEADERSHIP DOES MATTER

By Domenick J. Maglio PhD. Traditional Realist

Being president of the United States is more than a political figurehead position.  The presidency has real power. Our nation expects and deserves an individual who will devote all of his energy and time to doing a competent job in the most important and powerful free nation in the world. He has to say what he means and carry it out.  The position of President of the United States is not supposed to be a walk in the park or an extended vacation.

The presidency is one of the most stressful jobs in the world. He is supposed to represent all Americans.  It should be a humbling experience to sit behind the oval office desk knowing the decisions you make with have an affect on the lives not only in America but all over the world.

Although the president is not the head of one world government, he has enormous influence throughout the nations of the world. When President Obama recently appeared before the United Nations in New York, he should actually have conveyed the latest intel information concerning the Libya incident. Instead he pandered to the United Nations audience as if he was campaigning for world leader.

President Obama did not say it was a premeditated attack by an Al-Qaeda inspired group. His address took place two weeks after the State Department clearly stated the attack on the embassy in no way had been a spontaneous outburst incited by an anti Mohammed video. He mentioned the video six times implying it was the impetus for the killing and destruction that took place.

During his debate with Paul Ryan, Vice President Joe Biden, insisted the president and he had no knowledge of a planned and organized attack on the embassy. This statement by the administration shows at best incompetence and at worst a significant cover up. It was disgraceful for the administration to distort the incident to preserve a false narrative that Al-Qaeda is no longer a viable terrorist group.

Leaders take responsibility for failures and give credit for successes to their subordinates. They do not take credit for the assassination of an adversary and certainly do not reveal the exact details of the operation. Detailed intelligence would be exploited by the enemy and put our people in jeopardy. “Spiking the ball” is not what a leader does. This self-promotion is a failure of character.

“Leading from behind” is an oxymoron. People who lead are always in front. Once they are behind the people, they are following. Most great military leaders put themselves in harms way to inspire their troops.  A leader is not going to ask his men to do anything he is not willing to do himself. Leaders are after results not adulation.

Any administration should have a host of planned contingencies for dealing with nearly every eventuality. A president does not make excuses. The status of America’s foreign and economic policies should not be blamed on natural disasters or other country’s difficulties as it makes the nation appear weak. 

A leader does and should delegate responsibilities to underlings but should not hide under the desk when things go wrong. He should stand up and take responsibility as he put together this staff. As Harry Truman famously said, “the buck stops here.” Meaning, as president of the federal government, he is at the head of the organizational chart.  The president, not the Secretary of State is ultimately in charge of all policies emanating from the White House. He alone is responsible for any cover up or failed policies. It is his duty to correct them ASAP.

In our representative republic the president is limited by the other two branches of government. The president cannot legally and should not unilaterally make a decision by using executive privilege to arbitrarily create laws without following the rule of law. Establishing a shadow government with 30 or more czars attempts to circumvent our Constitution and is a subversive act. These un-appointed “advisors” may expedite presidential policies but sacrifices the legislative deliberation process that safeguards American liberties.

Our presidents have to be held accountable for their actions. In an international crisis like Libya it is unconscionable for the commander and chief to choose to head a fundraiser in Las Vegas and appear on television shows like “The View” instead of attending intelligence briefings or addressing the American people. Citizens have a right to know the planned course of action after another terrorist attack on the American soil of our embassy.

There is more to being the leader of the free world than perennially campaigning for the office, partying with Hollywood celebrities or playing golf. Respect for the office demands the president commit all of his energies to do the best job protecting Americans, not self-indulgently ignoring his duties.

We the people should make it clear to any person holding the office of the president that he has to actually govern for the interest of all the people not for special interests.  Picking winners and losers for personal political gain is a corrupting influence. The office demands a unite-er, not a divide-er. A true leader gets the job done without bragging or complaining. A strong, courageous, honorable and moral character is essential for a good leader.

TITLE IX IS GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN

-->

TITLE IX IS GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MEN

By Domenick J. Maglio PhD, Traditional Realist

Title IX was passed into law in 1972. President Richard Nixon sold the bill by emphasizing the desegregation of busing not the expansion of educational access for women. Initially the bill focused on universities that received direct funding from the government.

In 1988 the jurisdiction of the law encompassed every university that received direct or indirect funding even students loans. This law, like the recently passed Obamacare bill, increased in scope as the regulations were written and implemented.

The federal government has used Title IX as an instrument to transform and control the functioning of the public universities and now even our private ones. On a positive note, it has increased the number of female collegiate athletes from 30,000 to 90,000. The number of female science and math college teachers has doubled since its inception. There have been other undesirable changes, which are due to this law.

A consequence of Title IX in higher education, either intended or unintended, has been that presently 60% of all students at our universities are female and only 40% are male. Currently males are the new minority. They are continuing to decrease in number partially because males are sitting ducks in a hostile university environment.

Previously sports were a major means of attracting and maintaining male students in the university community. Under the Title IX proportional criteria there has to be the same percentage of student athletes as the percentage that comprises the student population. For example if 60% of the students are female, 60% of the athletes in the university sports programs have to be female.

Males, not females, are presently the ones being discriminated against. By arbitrarily forcing males and females to have parity in sports and not in other extra curricular activities, an unattractive and hostile environment for males in higher education communities has been created.  Not only are the contact sports teams, that are part of the male DNA dwindling, young college men are vulnerable to persecution under Title IX even with consensual sexual partners. 

In the recent past these sexual encounters have not been considered sexual assault. These sexual encounters between college students on campus were usually not prosecuted by the local criminal system because they were “he said, she said” incidents where the rights of both parties have to be protected. After initial university and/or police investigation found probable cause that a possible sexual assault took place, it was turned over to the courts for prosecution.

Presently the same type of college assault cases are not turned over to local prosecution but according to Title IX federal guidelines anyone can make a complaint to the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights  (OCR), where the male has no legal right to due process. The burden of proof falls on the male who appears to be guilty until proven innocent. 

Feminist groups using the OCR to file questionable sexual complaints have exploited this federal mandate.  The power of the OCR comes from the enforcement by the DOJ or an administrative judge who have the ability to terminate federal funding including federal student loans to the university.

This threat of being sued by itself is so frightening that the universities are dismissing the “abusive” male student before he has a fair hearing. This intimidation is the cause of an explosion of males being expelled. From the university’s perspective, it is better to discriminate against males than to risk their financial survival fighting the unlimited resources of the feds.

The Duke University Lacrosse fiasco was only prevented from convicting student athletes by their dedicated and affluent parents who fought for the freedom of their college student sons with no help from the judicial system. The root cause for this egregious incident has not lessened but in fact may be stronger.  Females have been given permission not to be responsible for their own actions.

Women’s studies continue to lambaste males for their previous dominance in higher education.  Many radical feminists have used their energies to point out every defect in man’s behavior demonizing men to the extent they appear to be sub-human. The current view is that men are evil, violent, rape prone and dangerous people. 

On too many campuses Women’s Study programs have produced activist campaigns such as the “Clothesline Project” and “Womym Tea” that have spread incendiary propaganda.  There are feminists who proudly wear T-shirts that say, “All Men are Rapists.” They believe that all women have a right to their bodies and should not be responsible for their sexual behavior, while men are 100% accountable for any sexual encounter. A male student must question the female throughout the sexual encounter to see if the female is still consenting. Every individual should be responsible for his or her own actions.

The federal government’s Title IX social engineering has reversed the dynamics of discrimination issues between males and females not only on college campuses but also in our entire culture. Young male students are currently the impotent gender. The male’s natural sexual assertiveness has been repressed and female sexual repression has been replaced by an artificial belief that their flirtatious behavior should have no impact on the male’s behavior. This is unreasonable, illogical and dangerous.

The perversion of Title IX has given females the license to abuse innocent males. The law has removed male’s right to due process making them victims while encouraging females to use federal power to punish innocent males for participating in a consensual act. This is not equality of the sexes; it is supremacy of females over males.

Title IX has legitimized the female’s ability to ruin young men’s lives on a whim. At this juncture where females are the majority in higher education, Title IX should be repealed as it has outlasted its usefulness and has turned destructive.

Dr. Maglio is an author and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at www.drmaglio.com.

DIMINISHING THE SANCTITY OF OUR VOTE

DIMINISHING THE SANCTITY OF OUR VOTE

By Domenick J. Maglio, PhD. Traditional Realist

There are three means of negating a vote: falsifying the voter count, denying the ability to vote and allowing fraudulent votes to cancel legitimate votes.

In the 2012 election cycle there has been an ongoing discussion of voter suppression and voter fraud. Suppression discussion has centered on voter identification. The Democrat party has argued that showing photo identification would suppress the vote of the poor and minorities. They state underprivileged people do not have the means to obtain a driver’s license or other photo identification although these same people have the ability to produce an ID to write a check, to apply for Social Security and in some states to get food stamps.

The Republicans concerns focus on increased voter fraud. They say illegal immigrants; felons and dead people have to be eliminated from the voter rolls. They believe each non-legitimate vote including voting many times, is a corruption of the voting process weakening and robbing the peoples’ fundamental right to have their vote count. Fraudulent votes should not cancel out legitimate ones.

Many of the states and the Supreme Court have not definitively ruled on the ID issue. The Department of Justice, DOJ, has not chosen to use its power to prosecute the Philadelphia Black panthers for videotaped voter intimidation or dismantle Acorn’s morphed infrastructure that encouraged voter fraud. They have been reluctant to deal with this issue.

On the other side of the equation the Department of Justice has aggressively acted supposedly to increase voter turn out by suing the State of Texas’s voter ID laws and threatening to do the same to other states. The effects of the DOJ in interfering in states rights are to encourage illegal voters by making it easier for a person to pass as a legal voter. This relaxing of the need for identification is an open invitation for voter fraud.

When it comes to easy voting access for overseas soldiers, DOJ has reversed its enforcement policy. The DOJ appears to be against this voting group receiving the same consideration as they are offering the poor and minorities.  Even though congress has passed the 2009 MOVE Law mandating easier voting for military personnel. The DOJ has not pursued implementation of the law that was supposed to give soldiers more time to participate in US elections. In 2008 20% of overseas military voted while in 2010 only 4.6% was counted. This disenfranchising of the military personnel was the impetus for passing the MOVE Law.

Although congress had made its wishes known to assist soldiers to have easier access to voting, the DOJ filed a suit against Ohio extending early voting for military personnel. The DOJ has argued in court it is “arbitrary and unconstitutional” to give special consideration to service member voting. They also stated that there is no rational basis for distinction between military and civilian voters. Although there has been a tradition existing in our nation dating back to the Revolutionary War of giving special voting arrangements for military. Over a dozen fraternal organizations are filing suit against the DOJ’s position on behalf of our servicemen. Many military advocates are expressing the belief that the soldiers’ vote is being suppressed due to their Republican voting pattern.

Besides the DOJ’s seeming bias in enforcement of voting laws, the media is providing the American public with selective news. The establishment media appears to be acting like Democrat operatives instead of investigative journalists. Any unfavorable economic or foreign incident of the Obama administration is not reported while any Romney campaign activity is either ignored or framed in a negative light. The censoring of the news threatens the viability of our electoral process.

The media’s presidential polls also have raised eyebrows because of the questionable methodology being used. Democrats are over represented while Republicans are under counted.  This is skewing the poll results by the media assuming a much larger number of Democrats will vote by using the 2008 election as a reference point. They are doing this even though every indicator is pointing to a less enthusiastic Democrat voting base. This action appears to be a conscious effort to suppress Republican turnout and contributions to the party by making it appear that Romney does not have a chance.

Both parties have agreed to increase the time voters have to vote by the use of extending the time, days and using absentee ballots to the point that 35%-45% of the population votes before election day.  Early voting has a predictable consequence where the early voters do not have the full knowledge of the candidate’s stance because they have not had the full advantage of the debates and additional facts that will happen after their vote is cast.

It is not how many people vote but how many legal, informed citizens vote. It is not suppressing the vote to eliminate fraudulent voters from the voting rolls. It is the protecting of the sanctity of the voting process.

The media shenanigans of biased manipulation of the news is not a criminal offense but it is an ethical abdication of the free press’s essential responsibility as the fourth pillar of our free nation to report the truth. Suppression of legal voters by intimidation is a crime and should be prosecuted. Allowing and encouraging illegal voters or rigging the electronic voting devices are also criminal offenses that need to be severely punished to protect our vote.

The diabolical dictator, Josef Stalin, was partially right when he said it does not matter who votes but who counts the votes. In a free society it does matter that legally informed citizens vote. It is essential.

We the people have to do all the little things to be knowledgeable voters. We should study the candidates, be informed by seeking the truth in political statements and read the amendments on the ballot before voting.  We have to research on the Internet and alternative media as well as the legacy media to make an educated decision.

 We are witnessing first hand that suppressing legal voters and encouraging fraudulent voting can rob us of our constitutional republic.  Selecting the best leader to preserve our national identity and our liberty is worth every bit of citizen effort.