Friday, December 14, 2012

Martin Media Madness Strikes Again

I have already shared with you the Alternate Reality Reporting of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette concerning Secretary of State Mark Martin. When that gentleman is the subject of an article in the only state-wide newspaper the important thing to remember is that they have no credibility. You can't believe one single word of what they write about him. Not. One. Word.

Now television station KATV Channel 7 reporter Janelle Lilley has embraced the psychosis. Martin made a comment on his facebook page about morality that most Americans a century ago knew to be true. In today's climate, the post is "controversial", which I feel compelled to point out is not the same thing as "untrue". What is untrue is Lilley's short report. In her online report she claims "Martin later removed the controversial post from his page". Well, I just pulled the same quote she cited from his facebook page seconds ago. It's still up, along with around 50 comments from Martin and others discussing the subject. Here is the quote"

Charity is not virtuous when it is not voluntary. Using the police powers of the state to hold a gun to somebody's head in order to pick their pockets to give to another person — no matter how seemingly noble or good the cause — is evil.

It sounds a lot like a Grover Cleveland quote I heard about welfare, and he was elected President, twice.

I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.

Of course, that was in a morally grounded America. Now "morality" is considered to be voting to use the government to take earnings from other people against their will and give it to your friends. The poor do it to the rich and the rich do it to the poor.

Today statements like Mark Martin's merit a different reaction, such as the one Lilley cites from Democratic Party of Arkansas Spokesperson Candace Martin. Listen to this one, "We have huge challenges that we are facing both on the federal level and on the state level, and it's going to take real, noble leadership that will stand up and not allow this type of debate to go on. It's not even really a debate. It's just inflammatory language," The bold was my addition.

So how is what Martin said controversial compared to that? What other ideas should be declared off limits for discussion by our political-media ruling class? Apparently, as writer and historian Thomas Woods has noted, we are only allowed to debate within the three inches of intellectual political thought that lie between Hillary Clinton and Mitch McConnell. Any ideas outside of that (even if Presidents around a century ago held similar ideas) are condemned as too extreme to even mention, first amendment or no. The real controversial statement in this story is what Candace Martin said. Lilley tries to impugn the wrong Martin!

For some reason, the media types in this state are extremely willing and eager to libel Secretary of State Mark Martin. That tells me he is a true outsider. The good ole boys don't trust him. He's somehow messed up and gotten too close to real power without being in the club. That's my hypothesis about why they have gone to such extremes to spread one falsehood after another about him. That makes me think, despite whatever faults he may have, that Martin should be supported by the grassroots.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home