National

OP-ED: Conservatism and Women's Votes

posted by Rose Tennent - 5.10.19

A century ago next year, women in the United States won the right to vote thanks to a movement that was largely conservative and religious in nature.

Out of the suffrage movement came the Declaration of Sentiments, which was drafted ahead of the Women’s Rights Convention held in Seneca falls, New York in 1848, and drew heavily from the American Declaration of Independence.

In addition to insisting on equality with men where the law, education, and employment were concerned, the document proclaimed that women must also be afforded the right to vote.

Our foremothers in the mid-19th century relied upon their faith in God, and they were strongly influenced by the Second Great Awakening, which totally revolutionized the way women viewed their role in this country, particularly by promoting the cause of abolishing slavery.

Many supporters of the early suffrage movement were also very much involved in the abolition movement. It was while fighting the battle against slavery that those women became convinced that it was indeed a law of nature that all men (and women) were created equal, and that no law contrary to this should be valid.

This map appeared in the magazine Puck during the Empire State Campaign, a hard-fought referendum on a suffrage amendment to the New York State constitution—the referendum failed in 1915 (via Wikipedia).

When the issue finally came to a vote in May of 1919, the 19th Amendment was passed.

It passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 304 in favor and 89 against, with 104 Democrats and 200 Republicans voting in favor. In the Senate, the Democrats voted 20-17 in favor, while the GOP voted 36-8 for women’s suffrage.

Over time, of course, Democrats began to embrace the cause of women’s equality more fully. Today, though, the left’s support for women has become self-interested, predicated on the willingness of women to toe an ideological line.

Like our suffragette antecedents, many American women still rely on our faith and our belief that all people are created equal. And like them, we recognize how important our contributions are to this country and its future. While we remain firmly committed to upholding those foundational principles, however, today we are more likely to be attacked by the media than celebrated.

Headlines in the mainstream media today talk about the “betrayal” of white women voters; they speculate that all white women are brainwashed, describe women as foot soldiers of the patriarchy, and worse. The media have been playing identity politics with us, and women who don’t conform to their expectations are routinely shunned, ignored, or belittled.

There is a war on women, and the media have been waging it. Their message is: if you’re a woman and you’re not voting the way we think you should vote — then you’re somehow a traitor to your gender.

The suggestion is that women who are independent thinkers, who have decided to make our own decisions, and who do not blithely accept the dictates handed down to us by the media, the left, or our feminist “betters,” are indeed looked down upon by those who disagree with us.

If the feminist movement was designed by women for women in order to create a more perfect society, then it should take all women seriously regardless of how they vote, and it should respect all women for their unique contributions to society.

Instead, the media hurl insults and criticisms at women who take advantage of the freedom and equality we have won to think for ourselves. They want to confine us and define us, in much the same way as the so-called “patriarchy” that women fought against in the past.

You see, the media have been attempting to exercise the very type of control over women that we were fighting to free ourselves from in the first place.

Ladies: They don’t want you and I to think independently. They don’t want you to follow your dreams; they want you to follow theirs. They endeavor to stop you by shaming and manipulation. The media have poisoned the political atmosphere.

They have become the new self-appointed standard-bearers of what is acceptable thought among females. After all these years, they are essentially maintaining that women still can’t think for themselves.

Talk about a major cultural fail.

Consider the closing remarks of the Declaration of Sentiments:

Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation — in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States.

In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule [sound familiar?] but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to affect our object.

Wow. It appears that in some ways at least, we’re right back where we started. That is unacceptable, and we don’t have to tolerate it.

Ladies, we are ridiculed because those who want to tell us how we should vote — and what we should care about — are actually afraid of us.

We are numerous, and we can be persuasive. We must work to effect change when our society fails to live up to its ideals of equality, but also make sure to defend the gains we have already won. If you’re already involved, stay involved; if not, get involved.

I believe that God has placed each one of us here purposely — not by chance, not by mistake, but purposely placed us where we are, right now, at this time. You and I are here for such a time as this when so much of the future of this country seems to hinge on one election.

We’ve got to fight to preserve our liberties, and it just may be our turn to do something radical — like our suffragette sisters before us.

We owe those women a life dedicated to preserving our Constitution. We must be willing to put in whatever time and energy is necessary to ensure a free and prosperous future for a generation of people we may never know. Our foremothers did that for us.

Finally, we are being offered a choice between a country whose organizing principle is the individual, or a country whose organizing principle is bureaucracy.

The suffrage movement succeeded by appealing to the principles of individual liberty that form the foundation of our system of government, but its hard-won gains are now under attack from those who seek to enforce ideological conformity at the expense of individuality.

Nearly a century after women won the right to vote, our cause remains a fundamentally conservative and religious one.

Rose Tennent has been a prominent figure for twenty years as a syndicated conservative political talk show host. She is a frequent guest host for Sean Hannity’s Radio Show and is a regular guest on FOX NEWS, and serves on Advisory Board for “Moms for America”. Rose has authored a book called “Thanking Our Soldiers.”

OP-ED: JEFF ZUCKER: President of the Leftist State Media

posted by Hannity Staff - 3.13.19

By Jeffrey Lord

Over the weekend my old CNN boss, Jeff Zucker, participated in an interview at the South by Southwest (SXSW) gathering in Austin.

According to news accounts he said this of Fox News: https://grabien.com/story.php?id=163609

“Frankly, it is really state-run TV. It is a pure propaganda machine and I think does an incredible disservice to this country. There are a handful of good journalists there, but I think they are lost in what — what is just a complete propaganda machine, and the idea that it’s a news channel is I think really not the case at all.”

Really? With all due respect, one doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Jeff Zucker has said on occasion that he has wanted to run for political office. (And one suspects he would not be running as a Reagan conservative.)  But in fact he already holds office – as the de facto president of the Leftist State Media. Nominally he is the president of CNN, but in fact CNN is but one component part of the larger left-wing propaganda machine that composes the Leftist State Media.

One can go for one’s news to CNN or MSNBC or ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press and countless internet outlets and see that Jeff’s presidential domain is considerable.

Every last one of those outlets is about pushing the left-wing agenda of the moment – and oh yes, in this day and age attacking President Donald Trump.

The Leftist State Media in modern America is what in another era, when the Soviet Union was alive and well, was called the Department for Agitation and Propaganda – or the ministry of propaganda whose sole function was shorthanded as “agitprop.” In those days there was only one official newspaper for the Soviet population – Pravda or “Truth.”

In today’s American media world the “Truth” comes from – and only from – the Leftist State Media.

Long before CNN – when Jeff Zucker was barely out of diapers – then-Vice President Spiro Agnew first discussed what he saw – way back there in 1969 – as a real problem with the media of the day. The Vietnam War was raging, and President Nixon had recently addressed the nation. Nixon had been followed by a collection of liberal television commentators who proceeded to tell the American people what they thought Nixon had really said.

In a then-famous speech in, of all places, Des Moines, Iowa, carried live by the television networks of the day (there were only three, and cable news did not yet exist) Agnew said this:

“The purpose of my remarks tonight is to focus your attention on this little group of men who not only enjoy a right of instant rebuttal to every Presidential address, but more importantly, wield a free hand in selecting, presenting, and interpreting the great issues of our nation.

First, let us define that power. At least forty-million Americans each night, it is estimated, watch the network news. Seven million of them view ABC; the remainder being divided between NBC and CBS. According to Harris polls and other studies, for millions of Americans, the networks are the sole source of national and world news.

In Will Rogers’ observation, what you knew was what you read in the newspaper. Today, for growing millions of Americans, it is what they see and hear on their television sets.

How is this network news determined? A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen “anchormen,” commentators, and executive producers, settle upon the 20 minutes or so of film and commentary that is to reach the public. This selection is made from the 90 to 180 minutes that may be available. Their powers of choice are broad. They decide what forty to fifty-million Americans will learn of the day’s events in the nation and the world.

We cannot measure this power and influence by traditional democratic standards, for these men can create national issues overnight. They can make or break–by their coverage and commentary–a moratorium on the war. They can elevate men from local obscurity to national prominence within a week. They can reward some politicians with national exposure, and ignore others. For millions of Americans, the network reporter who covers a continuing issue, like ABM or Civil Rights, becomes, in effect, the presiding judge in a national trial by jury. 

…A raised eyebrow, an inflection of the voice, a caustic remark dropped in the middle of a broadcast can raise doubts in a million minds about the veracity of a public official, or the wisdom of a government policy. One Federal Communications Commissioner considers the power of the networks to equal that of local, state, and federal governments combined. Certainly, it represents a concentration of power over American public opinion unknown in history.

What do Americans know of the men who wield this power? Of the men who produce and direct the network news, the nation knows practically nothing. Of the commentators, most Americans know little, other than that they reflect an urbane and assured presence, seemingly well informed on every important matter.

We do know that, to a man, these commentators and producers live and work in the geographical and intellectual confines of Washington, D.C. or New York City–the latter of which James Reston terms the “most unrepresentative community in the entire United States.” Both communities bask in their own provincialism, their own parochialism. We can deduce that these men thus read the same newspapers, and draw their political and social views from the same sources. Worse, they talk constantly to one another, thereby providing artificial reinforcement to their shared viewpoints.”

The media problem Agnew described all the way back in 1969 – a full fifty years ago, when Donald Trump was a mere 23 years old and barely a year out of grad school – has now metastasized, dominating the vast media complex of today.

The very prominence of New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the bartender-turned-congresswoman and media star, is the literal manifestation of Agnew’s point that the media “can elevate men from local obscurity to national prominence within a week.”

Jeff Zucker also said this of Fox anchors:

“They chose to work at Fox and they don’t get to hide behind the fact that they’re excellent journalists or anchors. The fact is they work at a place that has done tremendous damage to this country.”

That statement all by itself is a perfect illustration of how President Zucker of the Leftist State Media sees his job – which is to arbitrarily declare his decidedly liberal opinion as fact. No wonder Jim Acosta feels free to do exactly the same thing.

It is worth recalling that Fox News was created in 1996 – during the Clinton presidency, when CNN’s lavish pro-Clinton coverage had won it the derisive nickname the “Clinton News Network.” Fox was followed  three years later by Rush Limbaugh and the explosion of conservative talk radio.

The reason for the success of Fox News and talk radio is exactly the failure of the Leftist State Media. Millions of Americans, doubtless unknowing in absorbing Agnew’s long-ago point, have had it up to their eyebrows going from one “news” outlet to another only to get some version of the exact same liberal spin.

Example?

Here is CNN on the Clinton-Trump race. The headline: https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/08/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-cnn-poll-of-polls/index.html

CNN Poll of Polls: Clinton tops Trump by 10

The story begins:

(CNN)The post-convention polls are in, and they consistently show Hillary Clinton entering the next phase of the presidential election campaign with the upper hand over Donald Trump.”

Here is the New York Times in its “Upshot” column: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html

Hillary Clinton has an 85% chance to win. 

“The Upshot’s elections model suggests that Hillary Clinton is favored to win the presidency, based on the latest state and national polls

Here is The Huffington Posthttps://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/polls-hillary-clinton-win_us_5821074ce4b0e80b02cc2a94

HuffPost Forecasts Hillary Clinton Will Win With 323 Electoral Votes 

The HuffPost presidential forecast model gives Democrat Hillary Clinton a 98.2 percent chance of winning the presidency. RepublicanDonald Trump has essentially no path to an Electoral College victory. 

And on and on went this business of one Leftist State Media outlet after another all saying exactly the same thing – Hillary Clinton was going to be the next president and Donald Trump had no way open to win.

Change the subject from the 2016 election to, say, abortion, climate change, the economy or any of dozens of issues out there and time after time after time it makes no difference. You will get the left-wing agenda of the moment delivered by whatever outlet of the Leftist State Media you are choosing to watch or read.

Let’s cut to the chase. The real reason for Jeff Zucker’s angst is that Fox News and conservative talk radio, not to mention all manner of conservative internet sites have broken the stranglehold of information that once was the sole preserve of the Leftist State Media. And the only way the LSM chieftains see to get their monopoly back is to literally try and take out Fox News and conservative commentators one by one, with Media Matters and others doing the dirty work.

It is safe to say that that the Leftist State Media has in its midst “excellent journalists or anchors.” But when story after story after story is either wrong or obviously presented to further the Left’s favorite agenda item of the moment,  (Hillary certain to win! Trump friend Anthony Scaramucci tied to Russian investment fund! Trump told Cohen to lie to Congress! Trump and son tied to hacked documents from Wikileaks! Climate change report contradicts President! Covington kids confronted Indian elder and Vietnam veteran!) then in fact the Leftist State Media, in Jeff Zucker’s words, is for sure “a place that has done tremendous damage to this country.”

In fact, it is safe to assume at this point that the members of the Leftist State Media simply can’t help themselves. They are so far gone from journalism that they will say and do anything to push the Left’s agenda, damaging not only the country but themselves.

Which is exactly why Jeff Zucker’s CNN, the Washington Post and doubtless soon-to-be-others in the Leftist State Media now find themselves being sued for hundreds of millions of dollars for libeling sixteen year old Covington student Nick Sandmann. They simply could not stop themselves from doing it.

And the irony? It is Fox News and conservative media that has assumed the journalistic task as described by CNN founder Ted Turner the day CNN first went on the air in June of 1980.

“To provide information to people where it wasn’t available before.”

Exactly.

Pick up Jeffrey Lord’s Swamp Wars: Donald Trump and the New American Populism. Out on May 28th. Click here.

OP-ED: Mainstream Media Has No More of a Right To Be In The White House Than You Do

posted by Hannity Staff - 11.16.18

As the Constitution states, Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” These 1st Amendment rights are where the main stream media has built their propaganda pedestal of mandatory inclusion in the White House.   Misconstruing these rights to fit their narrative, the media has convinced the public that they are the Fourth Estate of government and the watch dogs of those in government.  As I will show you, nothing is further from the truth.

On the surface the media’s inclusion in the White House appears to be a compelling argument, especially when people misguidedly buy into the media’s constitutional lie.  Media personalities like CNN’s Brian Stelter, often use the phrases “Fourth Estate” and “government watch dog” as facts and truths.  For instance Stelter stated “Obama has said the right things about the Fourth Estate and signaled respect for the purpose of the Fourth Estate.”  Changing tone, Stelter vigorously criticized President Trump by saying “Donald Trump doesn’t say he respects the Fourth Estate. He very much says the opposite.”

The idea of the Fourth Estate that Stelter refers to has been around since at least the late 1700’s, so it is safe to say the Founding Fathers were probably familiar with the term.  Yet even as they carefully and specifically worded the Constitution, there was no mention of a “Fourth Estate” of government or “media watch dogs” anywhere in the founding documents.  Instead, the Founders chose to focus on the rights and powers of the people.  Sorry Stelter.

“The press” is a phrase that has been around since the 1300’s that refers to the printing press.  In the 1st Amendment, “the press” was used to represent mass dissemination of information and the protection of an individual’s ability to share their beliefs or criticisms without fear of retribution.  In contrast, the phrase “the media” wasn’t coined until around the 1920’s and refers to the means of media as well as a term for the companies that collect and distribute information.

Although it is clear that modern media businesses are protected by the 1st Amendments rights, no one person or group is granted more freedom or privilege than the next, that includes media’s admittance to the White House.

In the late 1800’s Oscar Wild spoke about the press, saying, “In old days men had the rack.  Now they have the press,” the racks Wild referred to were the government’s public racks that were used to restrain people by their head and arms for the purpose of public humiliation (whether they were guilty or innocent.) Today’s modern day main stream media often uses questioning and reporting as proverbial racks in the same manner to humiliate and restrict those who don’t fall in line with their political and/or ideological beliefs.  Those tactics resemble tyrannical behavior, which the Founders were against.

Furthermore, the relationship between media and politicians has grown to mimic the same bipolar relationship between celebrities and paparazzi.  They both have grown to rely on each other, and they both manipulate reality and the truth.  That’s ok for promoting an entertainer but it has no place in government agencies.

So let’s be clear with no uncertain terms, there is no Fourth Branch of government.  The only watch dog(s) of those that work in government is the citizenry, who coincidently also make up the inhabitants of the three branches of government.

As I was taught in the military, never point out a problem without offering a solution.  So here it is, my groundbreaking solution to life without the D.C. press corps.

  1. Nobody will be allowed inside the White House or any other government agency unless they are on official duty or have been granted official approval, which can be revoked at any time without reason.
  2. Media will be restricted like any other civilian or company as it pertains to inclusion in official government facilities (including official modes of transportation.)
  3. Press corps will no longer be recognized as an official part of government information dissemination.
  4. All government agencies will give press conferences via simple social media video casts where anyone that signs up to watch can ask questions. Companies that work in the field of information collection and dissemination (main stream media) will be given no special treatment, but will be allowed to sign up and ask questions the same as any other civilian.
  5. All media companies and/or citizen using known false information to injure the function of government or national security of the United States could be prosecuted the same way as if they were attempting to overthrow the government.

Bottom line, It is time the media is treated the same as any other citizen or company with respect to the 1st Amendment and inclusion in government facilities.  When we use that scale of measurement it is clear media does not belong in the White House!

Op-ed by Jonathan Gilliam. Find out more about the author here or follow him on Twitter.

 

+
Thank you for visiting Hannity.com. You are about to leave
Hannity.com and proceed to a site owned and operated by a third party.
Hannity.com has no control over the content of this third-party site.
Click OK to proceed.
OK
X
You may if you would no longer like to receive a newsletter.
You have been successfully unsubscribed!
Please see our Terms of Use and Privacy Notice .
If you have any questions or concerns please contact us.