An Odd Shift In Reporting By The Mainstream Media

Some of us who watch the mainstream media closely are often suspicious when the media starts covering a story that they have purposely ignored. Generally there is a political motive behind the sudden coverage.

On January 3rd, Issues & Insights posted an article wondering why the mainstream media was all of a sudden concerned about the number of illegal aliens coming into America every day.

The article notes:

After spending three years largely ignoring the border, the mainstream press is suddenly all over it, with headlines blaring about a “surge,” “crisis” and “call for action.” Why now?

…Weirdly, the press is even exaggerating the current “surge.” Consider that CNN story, which says:

“Border authorities encountered more than 225,000 migrants along the U.S.-Mexico border this month, marking the highest monthly total recorded since 2000, according to preliminary Homeland Security statistics shared with CNN.”

Except that’s not true. According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data, illegal crossings exceeded 225,000 in August, September, October, and November of this year, and in six previous months since President Joe Biden took office.

As a matter of fact, illegal crossings have averaged more than 200,000 since Biden moved into the White House.

Also weird is the fact that the Department of Homeland Security is leaking these numbers for maximum effect, given that Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has spent the past three years insisting that the “border is secure.”

The article points out when the crisis began:

So again, we ask, why now? This is a crisis that began the moment Biden took the keys to the White House.

The Financial Times – in an article headlined “Surge in border crossings creates political upheaval in the U.S.” – offers a clue. It notes that “the migration issue is gaining salience among Democrat voters” and quotes Houston immigration lawyer Charles Foster saying: “It’s gotten to the point that the vast majority of Republicans and a growing percentage of Democrats agree with this concept that the border is wide open now.” 

A December Wall Street Journal poll finds that Biden trails Trump by 30 points on voter confidence in securing the border.

Is this part of the effort on the part of the Democrat party (in conjunction with the mainstream media) to force President Biden not to run again? I believe we will know the answer to that question sometime in March.

Who Is Funding American Magazines?

The Washington Free Beacon is reporting today that the Chinese government is funding content published in Time magazine.

The article reports:

Time magazine failed to disclose Chinese government funding for content published in its most recent print edition.

The magazine’s June 21-28 double issue included an insert from China Daily, a media outlet controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. Disclosures on the insert label it as an advertisement from China Daily in Beijing and note that additional “information is on file with the DOJ, Washington DC.” Chinese government funding for China Daily is not mentioned. China Daily registers with the Justice Department under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, a law aimed at tracking foreign government influence.

Advocacy groups have criticized news outlets for partnering with China Daily out of concerns that the organization is spreading propaganda in the West. Some companies, including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, have ended content-sharing deals with China Daily because it is controlled by the Chinese government. The outlet has paid millions of dollars to publish content in Western magazines’ and newspapers’ print and online editions.

Time began working with China Daily last year. Foreign-agent disclosures filed by China Daily in May show the outlet paid Time $700,000 over the past six months, by far the highest outlay to any American news company. In addition to the print inserts, the magazine publishes sponsored China Daily content on its website, which also does not acknowledge Chinese government funding.

Much of the China Daily content does not appear to be aggressive Chinese propaganda, with many of the articles portraying life in China and Chinese culture in a positive light. But some of the paid China Daily content has drawn criticism from advocacy groups because of its clear political agenda.

The article also noted:

China Daily also sponsored content in the Financial Times, the Los Angeles Times, and Foreign Policy magazine, according to foreign agent disclosures. Two Tibetan advocacy groups criticized Foreign Policy over a series of China Daily articles last month that touted Communist Party policies in Tibet. The International Campaign for Tibet called the articles an “affront” to Tibetans who oppose Communist Party rule.

Let’s be clear. The articles do not have to be aggressive Chinese propaganda–all they have to do is paint an idyllic picture of life in Communist China. As young Americans see the illusion of a utopian society where they get free education and have all of their needs met by the state, they are misled about the lack of freedom that goes along with those ‘benefits.’ The Chinese have engaged in a propaganda war with America for some time now. Chinese money has been flowing into American colleges for years, and recently a few professors have been arrested for spying for China. When you read an article in the mainstream media, you need to know if someone is paying for it.

The Need To Learn From Mistakes Made By Other Countries

Investor’s Business Daily posted an article today stating that the Netherlands is changing the rules of its welfare state.

The article states:

The Netherlands has been known for its generous welfare system. Three decades ago, when the U.S. was spending about 22% of its GDP on entitlement programs, the Dutch were spending more than 40%. The Financial Times named the Dutch system a “comprehensive egalitarian social model” built in the 1960s and 1970s.

…Three months ago, newly coronated Dutch King Willem-Alexander told his country that the “classic welfare state of the second half of the 20th century” was over. It would be replaced by a “participation society” because the “arrangements” the nation was operating under “are unsustainable in their current form.”

Among the changes is a requirement that welfare applicants must prove they have actively looked for a job for at least four weeks before they can receive benefits.

“And once they begin to receive benefits they will either have to work or perform volunteer community service,” says the Cato Institute‘s Michael Tanner.

Other savings will be found when youth services, care for the elderly and job retraining are kicked down to the local level, which is better equipped to be more efficient with other people’s money.

The Dutch have learned that those who work cannot support those who do not work indefinitely. Eventually those who work get very tired and decide to join the non-workers. If we do not learn the lesson the Dutch have learned, we can also expect to have to make drastic changes in the near future.

Enhanced by Zemanta

How To Make Things Look Better When They Aren’t

Yesterday the Financial Times posted an article explaining that Brent Moulton, who manages the Bureau of Economic Analysis, has told the Financial Times that in July, government statistics will be updated to include such things as royalties and spending on research and development. Including those things will increase the size of the United States economy by 3 percent–making it appear that the economy has grown.

The article states:

“We are carrying these major changes all the way back in time – which for us means to 1929 – so we are essentially rewriting economic history,” said Mr Moulton.

This move represents a new international standard for Gross Domestic Product accounting. Considering the state of the world’s finances in general, I can’t help but wonder if this is simply a step into denial of the fiscal collapse that surrounds us at the present moment.

There is one aspect of the changes being made that I think is positive. The article reports that deficits in pension plans will also have to be included–what is promised will be measured as well as what is paid. These unfunded liabilities are something that federal, state, and local governments have kept below the radar for years–it will be good to see them brought out into the open.

The changes coming in July move us closer to worldwide accounting practices. I have very mixed emotions about that. The changes in July will also lull the low-information voters in America into believing the economy is growing at at least 3 percent. Believing that should be a stretch for anyone.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It is an interesting read.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why We Need The Keystone Pipeline

The Financial Times reported yesterday that American increased the amount of oil it imported from the Middle East last year.

The article reports that by the end of November the U. S. had already imported 450m barrels of crude oil from Saudi Arabia, more than we imported in 2009, 2010, or 2011. This is the first time since 2003 that Saudi Arabia has accounted for more than 15 percent of America’s oil imports. The Gulf region accounted for more than 25 percent–a nine-year high. This is happening at the same time that demand for crude oil has declined slightly since 2004 due to increased efficiency, an economic slowdown, and the increased use of natural gas.

This is foolish on the part of America. Because of our dependence on Middle-Eastern oil, we are forced to make political and foreign policy decisions that are not in our best interest. Whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, there is currently a clash of civilizations between western freedom and Islamic nations and radicals that do not support freedom. We are supporting these radicals with our oil purchases. If you look at the changes in the United Nations over the past thirty years, you will find that the new empowerment of Islamic groups was financed by Americans buying oil. The anti-Semitism that has ruled the United Nations in recent years is funded by Americans buying Middle East oil. Saudi Arabia, who is an awkward ally at best, is one of the major financial backers of terrorism and extreme Islam around the world, and we keep giving them oil money.

It is time for America to declare its energy independence. That does not mean wind and solar–so far they do not work. We live in a carbon-based world economy. We might as well acknowledge this and get on with life. The Keystone Pipeline would be a positive step in that direction.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leading The Way In Spite Of Washington

It doesn’t take a genius to predict that the Obama Administration will shut down fracking (hydraulic fracturing) on government land and attempt to shut down fracking on private land sometime in the next few months. However, in the meantime the increase in fracking in the United States has had unexpected consequences around the world.

Yesterday the Washington Times reported that other countries are attempting to copy the process of fracking to produce shale gas.

The article reports:

…More than 100 exploration concessions to more than two dozen companies have been awarded, and the Polish State Geological Institute estimates that the country’s shale gas deposits may secure domestic production for at least 25 years. Britain has lifted a moratorium on fracking that was imposed after a previous operation was blamed for sparking an earth tremor.

Argentina, the largest producer of natural gas in South America, is eyeing the practice on a significant scale to better exploit its supply.

Needless to say, the environmentalists do not approve. Think about that for a minute. Fracking provides a path to energy independence for a number of nations around the world. It reduces worldwide dependence on Arab oil and the funding of terrorism. There is no proof that fracking harms the environment; in fact, studies so far have shown that it does not. Cheaper energy provides prosperity for more people and freedom for more people. Why would the environmentalists object to that? Maybe it’s time to examine the agenda behind their agenda.

The article concludes:

Some already are warning that Europe may miss out on a global energy revolution if the green forces on the Continent prevail.

“Some European countries already made the decision not to go into shale gas, so naturally when they do that there will not be development,” Mohamed al-Mady, chief executive of Saudi petrochemical giant Sabic, told the Financial Times newspaper. “I think the trend you will see [is] more investors going to North America, China and the Middle East.”

As in the U.S., Mr. Medlock said, it comes down to “political geography” more than anything else. A ban on fracking in Vermont was relatively easy to achieve because the state is thought to have little in the way of recoverable natural gas.

The same holds true in a country such as France, Mr. Medlock said. For Poland and others, where fracking likely will lead to tangible energy benefits, critics will continue to have a tougher time mounting serious opposition.

This is going to be an interesting fight between those who want freedom and prosperity wherever possible and those who want only control of the population.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Saudis Bring Reason To OPEC

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is meeting this week. The Financial Times reminds us that oil prices have dropped from $128 a barrel in March to a current price of about $100. The drop is partially due to the financial difficulties in the European Union and the general slowdown in the world’s economy. Normally when the price of oil drops, OPEC calls for a decrease in production so that the price will rise again (supply and demand works!).

Recently OPEC has been producing more oil than its quota in an effort to lessen the impact of the oil sanctions that Europe and America have placed on Iran in an attempt to end Iran’s nuclear program. Saudi Arabia seems to be responsible for the increase–Ali Naimi, Saudi Arabia’s oil minister, told the Financial Times in March that he would like to see lower oil prices  “that will not hurt the global economic recovery”.

The Saudis have called for higher oil output levels despite the lower prices. I would love to be a fly on the wall (one who understood whatever language is spoken) at the coming OPEC meeting!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saudi Arabia Has Closed Its Embassy In Cairo

Yesterday’s Financial Times reported that Saudi Arabia has closed its embassy in Cairo after protests by Egyptian activists at the embassy. The protesters are protesting the arrest of Ahmed al-Gizawy, who was arrested when he arrived in Saudi Arabia for a pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina. The Saudis have accused Mr. al-Gizawy of smuggling Xanax (which is an illegal substance in Saudi Arabia) into the country.

The article further reports that the protesters believe that Mr. al-Gizawy is being held because of a court case he brought in Cairo over the illegal detention of Egyptians in Saudi Arabia. The Egyptians have been held without trial. Mr. al-Gizawy had been tried and sentenced in absentia in a Saudi court, but was not told that in advance of his trip.

Before the fall of Mubarak, the government of Egypt would not have allowed protests against the Saudis. One reason I find this interesting is that I believe that the rulers of Saudi Arabia are the next target of the Muslim Brotherhood in the ‘Arab Spring.’ They are the major non-democracy still standing in the Middle East. Despite the fact that Saudi Arabia practices Sharia Law, it is under the control of the Saudi royal family–not the Muslim Brotherhood.

Make no mistake, the Muslim Brotherhood supports a world-wide caliphate–but only one which they control.

 
Enhanced by Zemanta