SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (14661)10/1/2005 3:35:31 PM
From: abstract  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 35834
 
You are right about the facts. Nevertheless Bennett was stupid to make a remark knowing full well that he would be PERCEIVED as racist. He should have apologized for being stupid.

Shifting the subject slightly, if abortions of unwanted fetuses were readily permissible wouldn't there be many fewer children and people on the public dole?

What is the relationship between morality and practicality?



To: Sully- who wrote (14661)10/1/2005 3:58:43 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
    ON AVERAGE, THEN, I guess the Bennett Brothers are being 
treated fairly: "While Robert Bennett is drawing
insufficient criticism for blaming Scooter Libby for
Judith Miller's stay in prison, his brother Bill Bennett
is taking unjustified heat for comments he made on the
subject of abortion."
From Power Line via Instapundit

instapundit.com

powerlineblog.com



To: Sully- who wrote (14661)10/2/2005 5:19:57 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
Smearing Bill Bennett

The Weekly Standard
by The Scrapbook

10/10/2005

There are real scandals in Washington and manufactured ones.

The accusation that former Education Secretary William Bennett is a racist falls decidedly into the latter category.

A left-wing group that monitors the media statements of its ideological enemies ginned up a lynch mob against Bennett based on a willful misinterpretation of comments about abortion he made to a caller on his radio show Wednesday, September 28. By Friday morning, the mob had gotten results: Congresspersons were calling for Bennett's head on a pike. The Bush White House was distancing itself. The AP wire blared the headline:

    "Bennett: Black Abortions Would Lower Crime," 
which was pretty much the polar opposite of what he actually said and believes.

In a nutshell, Bennett argued that those who believe abortion is a grave moral wrong should steer clear of utilitarian arguments, since these can lead to the conclusion that it is acceptable to do evil (e.g., kill unborn black babies) because good might come of it (lower crime rates).

Here's the transcript:

<<<

Caller: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't--never touches this at all.

Bennett: Assuming they're all productive citizens?

Caller: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.

Bennett: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as--abortion disproportionately occurs among single women, no?

Caller: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.

Bennett: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both [ways]. You know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well--

Caller: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.

Bennett: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could--if that were your sole purpose--you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
>>>

Okay, it was not Bennett's most articulate moment, but the point is morally weighty: Abortion is a wrong without regard to its effect on crime rates, Social Security solvency, or global warming. The only apologies owed in this case are by Bennett's detractors.

weeklystandard.com



To: Sully- who wrote (14661)10/3/2005 1:04:06 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
The Brock Rule

David Frum
OCT. 2, 2005

And speaking of doing unto conservatives ... my heart goes out to Bill Bennett this week. All of us who speak and write for a living have the experience of saying something less perfectly than we might later wish. If only life were like the Congressional Record, and we were all free to revise and extend our remarks. Still, even so, it seems to me almost incredible that anybody could have construed Bill Bennett's now controversial words about abortion and crime as anything other than a statement of his commitment to the equal value of all human life.

That Bennett's words have been so widely misconstrued is a perverse triumph for David Brock's new endeavor, a left-wing media criticism project called Media Matters for America.
Media Matters successfully ballyhooed the story into a major media event - the site's first major score since it was launched last May.

Like many conservative journalists, I have been made intermittently aware of Media Matters since it appeared last May. From time to time it would harumph over something I'd posted or written or said on television. Over the following 24 hours, I'd get a couple of dozen unusually outraged emails. It was always instantly obvious who had inspired them, if only because they were simultaneously so ferociously indignant and so barely literate.

I appreciate that people on the left need just as much as anyone to ventilate their rage. Still, I never did quite see the point of organizing an elaborate and lavishly fund website just in order to mobilize angry emails to conservative writers who would promptly delete them. I get it now, though: The real value of Brock's site is that it can invoke the values of honesty and integrity in media and then go on to damagingly distort the words and beliefs of its conservative targets. It seems a lousy way to make a living - but there's no denying that after a decade in the wilderness, David Brock is once again exerting his special and inimitable influence on American politics.

frum.nationalreview.com



To: Sully- who wrote (14661)10/4/2005 11:17:28 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 35834
 
    Here is a chance to find out if your liberal brother-in-
law is a leftist without integrity or simply a decent guy
with different values. Just ask him, "Will you condemn
the libel of Bill Bennett?"

The Bennett libel divides the decent left from the indecent left

by Dennis Prager
townhall.com
Oct 4, 2005

A few years ago, when Hillary Clinton was attacked as anti-Semitic, I wrote a piece for The Wall Street Journal defending her against the charge. As a Jew, an author of a book on anti-Semitism and a conservative talk show host, I had credibility to do so.

It is time now for people with integrity on the Left -- and liberal opinion pages -- to show their integrity and defend Bill Bennett against the libel of being a racist who advocated the abortion of all black babies.

For make no mistake: This is as pure a character issue as one can imagine. Bill Bennett is not a racist and said nothing that even remotely came close to advocating the abortion of all black babies. This is the dividing line between the decent and the indecent on the Left. The indecent make these charges; the decent will defend him against them. It's as simple as that.

What happened is easy to summarize.
In response to a caller who said that America "lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years," Bennett made the point that one cannot argue against abortion by pointing out anything theoretically positive that could come from either allowing or outlawing abortion. For example, he went on to say, "You could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." And he immediately added, for the sake of those who might distort his meaning, that aborting all black babies would be "impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible."

But talk show host Ed Schultz, whose syndicated radio show is aired on liberal Air America, heard these remarks. He alerted fellow leftist David Brock, who then put the transcript of the Bennett dialogue on his website.

The Left and the world's news media picked up the dialogue and then announced that Bill Bennett had advocated the abortion of all black babies.

This lie is as intentional as it is complete. Sometimes lies contain a kernel of truth; this one has none.
In fact, the irony is that if Bennett's social policies were followed, no black babies would ever have been aborted; they are aborted in great numbers thanks to left-wing social policies.

On his show, Ed Schultz said the following:

<<<

"Racism is not a virtue; and this is the guy who wrote the book on virtues!"

"The Christian right in this country considers abortion murder; this is not about abortion -- this is about extermination."

" . . . He's out there advocating the murder of all black babies so that we can bring down crime."
>>>

And finally, Schultz compared how Bennett views blacks to the way Nazis viewed Jews.

Leaders of the Democratic Party, such as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, have demanded Bennett apologize, and some demanded that the Salem Radio Network fire him.
(In the interest of full disclosure, Salem also syndicates my national radio show.) Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said, "I'm not even going to comment on something that disgusting." And Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, called Bennett's comments "reprehensible and racist," and announced he would introduce a resolution in the Senate condemning the comments.

The president of the NAACP declared: "In 2005, there is no place for the kind of racist statement made by Bennett."

Huffington Post blogger Bob Cesca wrote: "What he seemed to imply was that all black babies will one day grow up to become criminals."

Because of the controversy, Bennett postponed his scheduled speech at the University of Cincinnati. The university's College Democrats president told the Cincinnati Enquirer: "I think it's horrible to say that an entire race of people shouldn't have been born."

Newsday columnist Ellis Henican wrote that Bennett "is quickly getting famous for a bold new approach to cutting crime. Abort the black babies!"

The lead sentences in the Austin American-Statesman editorial on the issue read: "Aborting black children is an effective way to reduce the crime rate. We're not surprised that kind of racist drivel is being peddled over the public airways, but we are stunned by who is doing the peddling: William Bennett."

Taking their cues from the American left, the world's news media now reports the Bennett libel as news.

For example, The Hindu, India's national newspaper, reports that "United States President George W. Bush has distanced himself from comments made by a leading Republican crusader on moral values who declared that one way to reduce the crime rate in the U.S. would be to 'abort black babies.'"

And the headline in the British newspaper The Guardian read: "Abort all black babies and cut crime, says Republican."

Now you know how the combination of incompetence, leftism and sensationalism drives the world's news media.

Here is a chance to find out if your liberal brother-in-law is a leftist without integrity or simply a decent guy with different values. Just ask him, "Will you condemn the libel of Bill Bennett?"

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (14661)10/6/2005 9:18:53 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Bill Bennett vs. Jesse Jackson

by Brent Bozell
townhall.com
Oct 5, 2005

The morning after the story broke, a friend asked if Bill Bennett's radio comments would trigger a major outburst. No, I assured him, it was a one-day, much-about-nothing-to-do, left-wing-trouble-making story that would be exposed for what it was.

Just look at what Bennett said. Asked on his radio program if, without the massive toll of legalized abortions over the last three decades, we'd have more taxpayers to support Social Security payments, Bennett expressed distaste for those kind of extrapolations, like a current theory in the book "Freakonomics" that the abortion rate in recent decades has led to a lower crime rate.

He theorized: "I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."

I was dead wrong. The Bennett "controversy" has made headlines everywhere for days. He has resigned as chairman of the board of K-12, an education company he co-founded. Even I misread the degree to which the Left will go to destroy a conservative -- personally.

The smear was unearthed by the liberal-Democrat group Media Matters for America, run by congenital liar David Brock, and Democrats quickly pounced on the opportunity to mangle Bennett's point. Typical of this shameless charade was DNC chairman Howard Dean, a man who can't go a day without making hateful, inflammatory remarks, said Bennett's "hateful, inflammatory remarks regarding African Americans are simply inexcusable."

It didn't seem to matter that Bennett, statistically speaking, was not inaccurate:
The Bureau of Justice Statistics found in 2002 that black Americans were seven times more likely to commit homicide (per 100,000 population) than whites, and six times more likely to be murdered. Sadly, from 1976 to 2002, 94 percent of black murder victims were killed by other blacks. Nor does it matter that Bennett unequivocally couched his comments with a denunciation of forced abortions against blacks. And never mind that he's spent a lifetime championing the pro-life and civil rights causes.

All that mattered to the Left was opportunity.

But the liberal outrage quickly landed in the Washington Post and the New York Times, the same newspapers that can't find space to note that anti-war hero Cindy Sheehan called President Bush "the biggest terrorist in the world," and didn't cover Air America radio host Randi Rhodes comparing bus evacuations from hurricane-ravaged New Orleans as comparable to the Holocaust.

What of the networks that ignore almost every liberal gaffe and stumble?

CBS, which totally ignored Sen. Dick Durbin, the Democratic minority's second-in-command, when he compared American treatment of detainees at Guantanamo to the death camps of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, led the newscast with Bill Bennett. On NBC's "Today," Katie Couric quickly sliced up Bennett, "under fire" and "feeling the heat for saying this on the radio." Viewers then heard a clip which completely -- and deliberately -- excluded Bennett's next sentence that the argument was ridiculous and reprehensible.

What hypocrisy.

These same journalists regularly refuse to scorn outrageous racial remarks by black leaders. In fact, they advance them. Jesse Jackson repeatedly compared the conditions of blacks in hurricane-ravaged New Orleans to a slave ship. Now, it's fair to suggest the life of evacuees was hard. But it's an ugly and dishonest defamation to imply that America is a nation so callously racist that our indifference imprisoned black hurricane victims like slaves.

Yet ABC transmitted the slave-ship charge as fair comment on "Nightline" on Sept. 2. Reporter John Donvan quoted Jackson: "It's the worst, the racist dimensions of our culture. We deserve better. This is the hull of a slave ship." Two nights later, Donvan rephrased this as a jarring but reasonable question about race.

Two days after that on "Good Morning America," ABC's Ron Claiborne interviewed Jackson live: "You were quoted, perhaps misquoted, as saying the images coming out of New Orleans resembled the hull of a slave ship. And that is very vivid and charged language. What were you saying?" Jackson did not deny the quote.

On NBC Sept. 3, Jackson told "Today" host Lester Holt the country need to rescue people, and lamented: "It looked like people in the hold of a slave ship." Holt simply agreed: "Right."

The contrast between Bennett's beating and Jackson's pleading illustrated the media's leftist worldview. Red-state America is still hopelessly racist, and conservatives are inherently evil. So Bennett's remarks must be sliced up and exaggerated, and even edited, to make that point. Liberals should be ashamed of themselves, except more and more, liberals have no shame.

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (14661)10/10/2005 5:48:57 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
    What is going on in our country today? Is there not 
enough evil around that we have to look for it and
manufacture it where it doesn't exist? ....
    .... Perhaps the explanation for the tendency to suspect 
rather than to give the benefit of the doubt, the
tendency lean to the negative, rather than to seek the
positive, is because it is easy. Suspicion, accusation
and blame take little effort. Careful listening, clear
thinking and a pure heart require real work. Maybe that's
why, unfortunately, we see so little of these things.

The Bill Bennett flap

Oct 10, 2005
townhall.com
by Star Parker

Words are as fragile and sensitive as the human beings who utter them. They need careful nurturing and appropriate context and presentation for their meaning and intent to be realized.

This point was made effectively in a best-selling book on punctuation a few years ago that showed how a sentence pointing out the simple truth that "The panda eats shoots and leaves" takes on a new life and meaning with the addition of a few commas, becoming "The panda eats, shoots, and leaves."

So we have it with the recent almost-too-ridiculous-to-discuss incident with Bill Bennett's alleged racist remarks on his radio show. The remarks, taken out of context by those attacking Bennett, are being used to make the exact opposite point of his and brand him a racist.

A listener called in suggesting that abortion might be an explanation for our Social Security crisis (with more adults around paying Social Security taxes, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in). Bennett replied that such a hypothesis is as absurd and repugnant as the suggestion made in a best-selling book called "Freakonomics" that aborting more black babies would lead to a lower crime rate.

Bennett's point, perhaps to belabor what for some reason to many is not obvious, was that such an allegation is a bizarre, perverse way to view the world.

What is going on in our country today? Is there not enough evil around that we have to look for it and manufacture it where it doesn't exist?

Sure, one could argue that Bennett should have considered that he broadcasts to a large audience and that he might have been insensitive to not appreciate that such a supercharged example might elicit emotional responses. However, even if this captures what happened, an insensitive moment is not racism.

A number of questions and ironies come to mind as I review this strange incident.

Ask yourself, in moments when you have doubts about someone and her motives, if you tend to err on the side of suspicion of bad or attribution of good. I sadly think that, overwhelmingly, our tendency is to be suspicious and accuse. Why does the natural tendency seem to drift toward the bad and not the good?

Ask yourself, when you listen to someone speak, if you are truly listening to him. Are you really paying attention? Did you walk away hearing what he said, or were you really listening to yourself and did you walk away with what you think he said or want to believe he said? How many of us really listen carefully to those speaking to us?

Regarding the army of those attacking Bennett, most of whom are black, my question is this: Why are you outraged about Bennett's supposed remark about black abortions and not outraged, every day, about the 400,000-plus black babies that actually are aborted every year? Or about the 13 million black babies that have been aborted since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973?

If what you truly care about are black babies and black lives, why do you overwhelmingly vote for candidates who support abortion and perpetuate a culture that devalues and cheapens lives - black and white?

Ironically, Elayne Bennett, wife of the alleged racist, founded and has run for a good number of years the Best Friends Foundation. It runs programs for teenagers, largely black, in communities all over the country, helping these kids build satisfying, responsible lives. In the words of the mission statement, Best Friends "promotes self-respect through the practice of self-control and provides participants the skills, guidance, and support to choose abstinence from sex until marriage and reject illegal drug and alcohol abuse."

Perhaps the explanation for the tendency to suspect rather than to give the benefit of the doubt, the tendency lean to the negative, rather than to seek the positive, is because it is easy. Suspicion, accusation and blame take little effort. Careful listening, clear thinking and a pure heart require real work. Maybe that's why, unfortunately, we see so little of these things.

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (14661)10/10/2005 10:52:37 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Bennett Defends Abortion Remarks

By Rob
Say Anything
October 9, 2005

<<<

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. - Former Education Secretary William Bennett on Saturday blamed the news media for distorting his remarks about aborting black babies, saying he had intended to make “a bad argument in order to put it down.”

Bennett, making his first public speech since the comment aired on his radio show last month, said the meaning of his remark linking the crime rate with black abortions was reversed in many news reports.
    “I was putting forward a bad argument in order to put it 
down,” Bennett said, drawing sustained applause from
nearly 4,500 people attending the Bakersfield Business
Conference. “They reported and emphasized only the
abhorrent argument, not my shooting it down.”
>>>

Nice of the media to give Bennett the chance to address his critics nine days after the controversy broke.

And this is hardly Bennett’s first public speech since the original comments were made. He’s spent a significant amount of time addressing the controversy on his own radio show since that time.

sayanythingblog.com

news.yahoo.com



To: Sully- who wrote (14661)10/15/2005 3:14:38 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Adrift in a sea of phoniness

Power Line

Professor David Gelernter writes that "nsincerity is the new theme of American politics." He presents a few case studies, including the patently phony attack on Bill Bennett. Gelernter's column is "Adrift in a sea of phoniness."

As to Bennett, Gelernter writes:
    It reads like science fiction - live from the planet 
Bozo, a man whose enemies know by magic that he actually
means the exact opposite of what he says.
    A few weeks ago, Bennett said on his radio program that X 
is a stupid idea; then he said that if you believe X, you
might as well believe Y. But Y is "impossible, ridiculous
and morally reprehensible." One thing we know for sure:
Bennett is against Y. He thinks that Y is "impossible,"
is "ridiculous," is "morally reprehensible." "Y" was the
idea that aborting all black babies would cut the crime
rate.
    So the left jumped all over him. Bizarrely enough, the 
White House chimed in. (A Republican White House opening
fire on Bennett is like the Joint Chiefs bombing their
own front lines.) Yet no one who read or heard Bennett's
actual statement in context could possibly have believed
that Bennett is racist or had talked like a racist.
    But our public life is so deeply phony that, although a 
few stalwarts defended him, no one pointed out the gross
hypocrisy of his accusers. (No one I've heard, anyway.)
Those accusers knew perfectly well that he was not
promoting a racist view of American life, he was
denouncing a racist view - loudly and clearly, without a
shadow of ambiguity.
    What part of "impossible, ridiculous and morally 
reprehensible" did they not understand?
I wonder if "drowning in a sea of phoniness" might not be the better metaphor, but in any event this is one column that could inspire a sequel or two. If you would like to submit case studies for consideration in addition to Professor Gelernter's (let's exclude the ongoing Harriet Miers debate), please send us a message.

JOHN adds: Bennett defended himself ably in a speech on October 8, which Real Clear Politics reproduced yesterday. Gelernter is right; what makes the attacks on Bennett so disgusting is that they do not arise out of misunderstanding. His attackers are well aware that Bennett is no racist.

powerlineblog.com

latimes.com

realclearpolitics.com



To: Sully- who wrote (14661)10/20/2005 2:21:52 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
    The media is eager to jump on a story about a company 
with a product that doesn’t perform the way it is
marketed. Who holds the media accountable when they
spread misinformation?
The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy: Attack on Bill Bennett Was Staged

by Todd Manzi
Human Events
Posted Oct 18, 2005

Using the Press to Attack Political Opponents

Everyone is weighing in on what Bill Bennett said on his radio program. Everyone is eager to offer their opinion on his words and whether or not he should have said them.

Everyone is missing the point.

The travesty is that we’re even talking about this at all. The most abhorrent behavior that occurred regarding this issue came from the Associated Press (AP). Allowing news hit men like John Conyers, Bruce Gordon, Ralph Neas, Howard Dean and many elected Democrats to assault Bill Bennett is detestable and the AP should be held accountable. The only way liberal Democrats can win is by fighting without honor and by perpetrating hideous attacks on innocent citizens.

Dissecting exactly what happened to Bill Bennett helps unveil the insidious vast left-wing conspiracy and exposes the culpability of the AP. A Google search sorted by date creates a timeline that shows that the tail wagged the dog.

The Facts

On Wednesday, September 28, Bill Bennett had a discussion with a caller to his radio show. Like Bennett, the caller was pro-life. The caller offered the idea that they could advance the pro-life position by pointing out the negative economic impact abortion has on our society. Bennett countered by arguing this would not be the best way to debate the abortion issue and that we should continue to use the stronger moral argument instead of the economic issue the caller identified.

To explain what he meant Bennett used an absurd example of how the other side could use an economic argument to show that abortion has a positive economic impact on society. Bennett’s view is that we should debate abortion on morality not economics. The end of the phone call should have also marked the end of any discussion about it.

The only people who have standing to be offended at this point are listeners who heard the call in real time. If they were to spontaneously call and complain, the phone call may have evolved into a discussion that would be worthy of national exposure. News should come from events that actually occur and not from false issues manufactured by partisan ideologues. The flap about Bennett’s phone call did not happen naturally; it was promoted by the members of the vast left-wing conspiracy and artificially propelled onto the National arena.

The Bennett phone call offended few, if anybody, who heard it. The hypocritical liberals actually had to expose tens of millions of people to the remarks they deemed offensive in order to create this issue. Ironically, the vast left-wing conspiracy had to "offend" millions of people in order to try to take down Bennett.

Making Something Out of Nothing

The same day of the phone call Media Matters for America decided to make it a national issue. On their website they posted the Bennett phone call with the incendiary headline:

<<<

Media Matters exposes Bennett: “[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down”
>>>

The next day, Thursday, September 29, the left-wing groups that monitor Media Matters began issuing press releases.

Democrat Congressman John Conyers in a press release disguised as a letter to Salem Radio Network said:

<<<

. . . we simply cannot countenance statements and shows that are replete with racism, stereotyping, and profiling. Mr. Bennett’s statement is insulting to all of us and has no place on the nation’s public air waves.
>>>

Keep in mind that Conyers released his letter to a wire service with the hope that the story, now with him in it, would get play on the air waves. Conyers was attempting to gain more exposure of Bennett’s statement. If he were sincere and did not want to “insult” more people, and if he actually believed the statement did not belong on the air waves, he would have sent a private correspondence to Salem Radio Network instead of splashing it on a wire service.

Bruce Gordon, President & CEO of the NAACP issued a press release that said:

<<<

. . . Bill Bennett should apologize for racist comments made yesterday . . . I am personally offended and angry that Bennett felt he could make such a public statement with impunity.
>>>

Since Gordon is playing for air time and trying to get more exposure to what Bennett said and since we know that not many members of the NAACP actually heard Bennett on the radio, we must conclude that Gordon is attempting to offend and anger his membership.

The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights issued a press release that said:

<<<

. . Bill Bennett’s blatantly racist remarks are outrageous.
>>>

People For the American Way President Ralph Neas’ press release said:

<<<

. . if there’s anyone who doubts that racial insensitivity still plays a role in our society and political culture, they should listen to these appalling remarks by Bill Bennett.
>>>

It looks like Neas is hoping there is racial insensitivity so that he can justify his job.

According to the Google timeline, all of the above press releases were issued BEFORE any of the main stream media (MSM) published one story about the Bennett call. At this moment the only people in the general public who knew what Bennett said were those who heard it on the radio.

This unseemly group of barnacles attempted to get ahead of the issue and attach themselves to it for their own self promotion. They were also sending a strong signal to the (AP) that they want this to be a national story.

AP Misuses its Power

The 500-pound guerrilla of the vast left-wing conspiracy, the AP, was not about to disappoint their allies. They promptly secured a quote from the top Democrat in the Senate, Harry Reid and filed a story.

So on Thursday, less than 36 hours after the Bennett phone call, hundreds of newspapers and television stations that make up the MSM mindlessly published what the AP served up.

On Friday, September 30, the AP got the White House to go on the record with a negative comment about the Bennett phone call. This led to another AP file and for the second day in a row hundreds of MSM went with the story.

On Saturday, October 1, a staff writer for the Cincinnati Enquirer wrote an unfair and blatantly biased article about Bennett. Her hook for the article was that the University of Cincinnati College Democrats announced that they would protest a previously scheduled appearance at the University.

Bennett ended up canceling the UC appearance which prompted the AP to file a story that once again hundreds of MSM printed and put on the air. Many of these stories carried the headline:


<<<

. . . Outcry Prompts Bennett to Delay Talk
>>>

Also on Saturday, Mensah Dean of the Philadelphia Daily News wrote an unfair and biased article about the Bennett mess. The hook this time was that Philadelphia parents and education activists were demanding that the city’s school district cancel a $3 million contract it had with K12 inc., because the company’s Chairman of the Board was William Bennett.

As soon as K12 announced they had accepted the resignation of Bennett, the Philadelphia Daily News published another unflattering article.

The Intellectually Myopic Left

The October 2nd edition of Fox News Sunday included a discussion about the Bennett issue. Juan Williams provides an excellent example of the fact that in the war of ideas the left is only able to manage fire power equivalent to a pea-shooter. The following day James Taranto, an excellent example that the right has intellectual fire power equivalent to nuclear weapons, responded to Williams’ remarks:

    . . . On “Fox News Sunday” yesterday, Juan Williams 
joined the attack on Bennett. The way in which he did it
made our jaw drop, and let us count the ways. This is
from the Factiva transcript . . .
<<<

What's clearly wrong is if you wanted to say, oh, gosh, you know, [1] maybe we should have abortions for every woman who has a history in her family of mental illness or anybody who has a disabled child, or [2] let's get rid of all the Christians, they certainly have been involved in lots of wars. [3] How about the Jews? You know what? [4] We have trouble with older people in this country. Clearly, they, you know, cause a great burden on our Social Security system. Maybe we should do away with some of these older people.

You know, Brit, it really speaks to a deeply racist mindset to imagine America somehow as better off if we didn’t have those black people around and all those racial issues and all there--you know, so many of these blacks end up in jail, as if they’re criminals because they’re black . . . He certainly said to me. That’s what . . . I heard, Brit . . .

Brit, if I’m sitting here on a national talk show and I say, you know, [5] maybe if we killed off these white people, we wouldn’t have so many mass murders in America, you’d say, Juan, are you out of your mind? . . . Words have meaning, Brit . . . I think what you’re misunderstanding is it’s the idea that he gave voice to this notion. If you were in a Nazi regime and said [6] you know, gee, you know, a lot of these Jewish people have businesses and they dominate the academy, and therefore wouldn’t it be better--that’s not a good idea, Brit. Not a good idea to give voice to.
>>>
    No fewer than six times in a 10-minute segment, Williams 
did exactly what Bennett did that so offended him—namely,
offer an outrageous hypothetical to illustrate a point.
We’re no more offended by Williams’s doing so than we
were by Bennett’s, but Williams’s hypocrisy is simply
mind-boggling.
There are only two substantial differences between what Bennett said and what Williams said. First, Bennett made his remarks off-the-cuff and Williams had 72 hours to think about what he was going to say. Second, and more importantly, Williams is not going to have his life turned upside down over his remarks.

Williams was not alone. Amazingly dozens of liberal editorialists did the same thing and used similar examples to explain why what Bennett did was wrong.


Thursday, October 6, one of these liberal columnists, Rick Badie, had a column published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution with the headline:
    "What if we aborted every white baby?
My wife sent Mr. Badie an email:
    Have you listened to the whole radio transcript?  Bennett 
was making a ridiculous analogy, JUST like you are. How
come it’s ok for you to do it and not him? Bennett is
pro-life, are you?
Mr. Badie’s email response:

<<<

Yes, listened to the whole transcript. And it was ridiculous, as my ‘abort white babies’ was meant to be.
>>>

Mr. Badie then wrote another column on Sunday, October 9, commenting on the unfair response he got to his column three days earlier. Not only are the liberals not smart enough to avoid making the error of doing the exact same thing they are complaining about, they can’t even understand their error when it is pointed out to them.

News or Propaganda?

One fact about the Bennett issue that cannot be disputed is that the liberal MSM fueled by the AP succeeded in misleading millions of Americans. If news is supposed to inform people, how come nobody seems to be concerned that a large mass now believes something that is incorrect? If a product does the opposite of what it is supposed to do, it should not be able to succeed in the market place. The media is eager to jump on a story about a company with a product that doesn’t perform the way it is marketed. Who holds the media accountable when they spread misinformation?

The news in this case is simple and undisputed.

Pro-Life Bill Bennett took a position that abortion should not be debated on economics and the focus of the debate should revolve around morality. Whatever anyone thinks about the Bennett phone call if they don’t at least understand the argument he was making, they have been misinformed, period.

In the October 1st, Philadelphia Daily News article mentioned above, the ‘reporter’ Mensah Dean includes a quote from the mother of a third-grader:

<<<

I find it hard to see any explanation for why they’re here in Philadelphia educating many of the black children Mr. Bennett clearly finds it provocative to call expendable.
>>>

Anyone with an average IQ who has taken the time to look at all of the facts knows with 100% certainty that Bill Bennett did not call black children expendable. He did just the opposite; he implied that ALL black fetuses should be carried to term so that there would be MORE black children. Mensah Dean is either incompetent or he is intentionally libeling Bill Bennett in his zeal to make sure the article has a liberal spin. Millions of people like this third-grader’s mom got the wrong idea from the AP and then thousands more people got the wrong idea because of Mensah Dean’s irresponsible reporting.

On Saturday, October 8, Bennett had an appearance at the Bakersfield Business Conference that provided the fuel for another AP salvo against him. Local television stations across the nation picked up the AP story with the headline “Bennett Appearance in Bakersfield Draws Protest”. The following day newspapers ran the story in their Sunday papers with the headline “Bennett Defends Remarks on Black Abortions".

So, people who did not hear Bennett’s radio show on September 28th were misinformed because of the AP. Motivated by the fact that the press will cover them, they show up to protest Bennett on October 8. This results in the AP filing another story that will misinform millions more. And the pathetic spectacle continues.

Liberals cannot win on the merit of their ideas. The only reason they are kept in the game at all is because of the power of the vast left-wing conspiracy. When they create a “Bennett controversy” they do their best to use it to tarnish all conservatives and all Republicans. They do everything they can to hold this as an example why the entire Right is bad. They are not happy attacking just one individual; they go after millions at once.

Time to Make a Stand

What happened to Bennett was a travesty, but it is relatively small potatoes. The vast left-wing conspiracy is constantly peddling misinformation in an effort to stop the conservative agenda. Sometimes the issues are small and sometimes they are big (the War in Iraq). The cumulative effect is devastating.

It’s time for conservatives to take a stand against the vast left-wing conspiracy. It’s time for us to fight back. Let’s start with the Bennett story.

Bill Bennett should file suit against the Associated Press to recover what he lost by having to resign from K12. This would be an excellent PR platform that would educate millions of Americans what the AP and barnacles like John Conyers, the NAACP and PFAW are really up to and make it harder for them to perpetuate an assault like this on somebody else in the future.

The people with big money in the conservative movement need to fund a news gathering organization that can compete with the Associated Press. The monopoly must end. We must avoid becoming complacent with the fact that we finally have a voice that can be heard in the media. Conservatives need to understand that the gains made over the last ten years merely give us a fighting chance to play defense. It is the equivalent of playing football and having to punt on first down.

We should express our dissatisfaction to the White House for them issuing a comment on Bennett’s remarks. A Republican White House has no business providing the vast left-wing conspiracy logs to throw on their fire.

Conservatives across the country must tell their local television stations and newspapers that we do not appreciate them blindly feeding us AP stories that have been manufactured for the sole purpose of advancing the liberal agenda. This is the foundation that will make it possible to create a news gathering organization that can compete with the Associated Press.

The war between liberal ideology and conservative ideology will be won or lost based on which side makes the strongest impressions with the people who refuse to participate. Most Americans just live their lives and do not want to engage in the battle. They don’t pay attention or dig deep into issues. They form their opinions from sound bites and shallow thought. Like advertisers marketing their product the passionate ideologues on both sides fight for a share of awareness from the uninformed. Their success is measured by the opinions expressed from those who haven’t bothered to put forth the work necessary to understand the issue. We must control the message and set the agenda to succeed.

In the War on Terror we are happy that Bush has adopted the preemptive strategy of hunting down our enemy and stop them before they can harm us. We recognize this is much wiser than simply reacting to attacks after they occur. The war of ideas is no different. We must all do what we can to preempt future attacks. It is time for each and every one of us to decide, right now, if we are passively going to accept the problem, or if we are going to actively combat the problem.

humaneventsonline.com