Socialists ask please

Socialists ask please

PE Bias Grade : C+

By: Allen Nitschelm on September 17, 2020 | Media Criticism, Article Review

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title As Trump rejects science, Biden calls him a ‘climate arsonist’
Date 09/15/2020
Article Link Boston Globe ( Page A3 )
Syndicated From New York Times
Journalist Lisa Friedman
Peter Baker
Thomas Kaplan
Article Summary

Biden attacks Trump on the environment with fires raging out West.

Share This Story

What do radical environmentalists who want to transform the American economy to address “climate change” have in common with radical economists who want to transform the American economy to address “income inequality”?

They both want voters to allow Socialists to get in control. Because under Socialism, both of these agendas can be pursued simultaneously. They both require individuals to give up their rights in order to take over control of their lives.

In most if not all other countries, individual rights are not enumerated in their Constitution. The ultimate decider is not the individual, but a King, or a Premier, or an autocrat, or the most ruthless Politboro member. But in America, we are all equal under the law, and each individual has inalienable right which the government cannot supersede.

Unless, of course, our political leaders change the rules. And they can do this with your consent at the ballot box. So far, they are asking nicely, but the mob attacks are a reminder of what is in store if you reject their offer. The Socialists are asking for your willing consent in November. They are asking for you to voluntarily give up your individual rights by voting for the Harris-Biden ticket.

Socialists claim that economic or environmental “justice” require them to make collective decisions for the good of society…or the health of the planet. You need some sort of existential threat, and it must be dire and looming. This explains the force behind the “climate change” narrative that only Democratic politicians can address, because they “believe in science.” Who doesn’t believe in science?

But science is not the end-all in human existence. It is one data point (an important one, for sure), but it doesn’t checkmate political calculations.

And perhaps this is why the response to the pandemic has become politically polarized. Socialists want government to make rules covering everyone, just like they will for climate change, free speech, gun ownership  and economics. And there is no better example than the pandemic, which will “kill you” if you don’t wear a mask outdoors. The Socialists are using government mandates and lockdowns as a test-run for such actions in other areas of life once the pandemic is over. (The Socialists wouldn’t mind if it sticks around another couple of years to help usher in their new policies if they get elected.)

Because of our individual freedom and liberty,  we as citizens must willingly consent to the Socialist takeover of America. Once we do, the wheels will be in motion to permanently transform America into a “socialist paradise” where the rights of society are held above the rights of individuals. Judges will be appointed (or the Supreme Court expanded to allow for more “Progressive” appointees), the Senate filibuster will be removed to give a simple majority vote to a Democrat-run Senate, and individual rights will be chipped away.

Our most important right, free speech, will be a thing of the past. The Left has already signaled that the large social media companies are not doing enough to prevent “lies” from being published. We will need censors and politically correct algorithms to prevent people from communicating “hate speech” like individual rights, religious rights, the right to bear arms, the right to speak unpopular ideas, or to criticize our Liberal leaders.

Free speech will have to go because an anti-climate-change narrative would challenge the power structure of Socialists and therefore will be forbidden. Protesting massive government spending programs will be forbidden because it might destabilize our Socialist society. If your energy costs rise too quickly under the Socialist Environmental administration, you will be told to use less energy.

Economically, the Socialist plan is to raise taxes on everyone and spend like crazy. The government might then try to set the value of money to prevent its devaluation. Debts would eventually be forgiven with the government backing all the debt for their supporters. Wealth transfer would be the next step toward the final destruction of capitalism.

In a nutshell, Socialism is based on the false premise that “money” comes from government. No, it comes from individuals who create wealth through their labor. Freedom and capitalism make this work because wealth can then be used to buy things of value or to transfer to others (like your children.) But Socialists want to control money and will allow people to keep a little of it, just to keep them going. Under Socialism, if you are too successful and not a supporter of the government, your income and/or wealth can be redistributed in the name of fairness. That is where “paying your fair share” comes from.

This is why the Left is so strident in their tales of doom. They want to scare voters into supporting the Democrat Party so that the Far Left Democrats can take over, with figurehead Joe Biden as President and Senator Kamala Harris as President of the Senate (as VP). You’d have Nancy and Chuck Schumer still running things in Congress until the takeover is complete, but AOC and the Squad will be waiting in the wings. (Actually, Nancy has already said she wouldn’t serve another term.)

It is apparently the same strategy used by the Far-Left Black Lives Matter and Antifa protesters, who falsely suggest that our police and justice system are “systemically racist.” This is to help cement the vote for the Left’s agenda by people who believe this nonsense. But when you are told that the system is against you and you need free money, how many will argue with that? If the Left wins the election, “reparations” will be the payback.

And this same movement is behind the anger at President Donald Trump, because by painting him as an evil person, they want voters to vote for anyone else, with the only other alternative Joe Biden. This is why Trump can’t be allowed any symbolic victories, why he is described as a traitor (Russian agent), a racist (a false and vile charge), etc. The media has convinced a large swath of the population to believe that Trump is evil and that if you vote for him, you must be evil too.

This election is about whether we keep America’s capitalist system and continue to uphold individual freedom, or if we allow mob rule to decide make decisions for us and for our children and their children.

As I have written several times, the “climate change narrative” is false, and Socialism does not make the country or most of its people prosperous. But it does allow the Socialists to become prosperous and to substitute their beliefs for yours.

My piece today is based on two articles appearing on page A3 of the Boston Globe, both on climate change. I will not repeat the article reviews; these are topics I’ve covered several times before. The media continues to push the “climate change” narrative whenever we have a natural disaster weather-related. I have linked to the first in the “green box” on my website, which has the distinction of an incredibly biased headline, and the second is here: (“Global warming seen forcing a climate shift in the Arctic”)
https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=93004338-ad9f-40ab-a552-f8da1b40bd6c&appid=1165

——=——

Allen Nitschelm is publisher of PublicEditorMA.com. He critiques the Boston Globe, mostly focusing on the bias in their news reporting. News articles are graded for bias, and the website has a listing of the average bias ratings for all reporters reviewed. See our website for more information and the four categories of articles we publish.

NOTE: We have been very active on our Facebook page for Public Editor Press. The page is getting lots of hits and comments, which have been very helpful. I urge readers to go there if you wish to participate or read reactions from others. You will need to “login” to Facebook to post your own comments but you can probably read them without a Facebook account. Here is the direct link to this article’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/390560688135747/posts/933433577181786

To reach our Facebook site in general: https://www.facebook.com/publiceditorpress/

 

Author Rating

Rating: 5.0/10.

Description

There are no user ratings at the moment.

Subscriber Ratings & Comments

Please be sure you are logged in to Rate Boston Globe Articles or Post Comments.

Here is the article you are rating for journalistic bias: As Trump rejects science, Biden calls him a ‘climate arsonist’

Rating scale in brief: 10 = A (No Bias) | 1 = F (Extreme Bias). For more details, please read Tips & Instructions below.

Please wait...

*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed

Leave A Comment

Grading articles for bias is subjective. We hope that with widespread participation, we can give the reporters and editors at the Boston Globe valuable feedback on their professional work. Here are our suggestions for grading news articles for bias. (We do not rate editorial opinion columns for bias. But we do analyze the Boston Globe for overall editorial balance.)

Consider whether the article is completely free of bias (a grade of 10 or A), has been mostly free of bias (8 or 9, A- or B+), has been biased but not terribly or where the bias did not hurt the integrity of the underlying information (7 or 6, B or B-).

If the article was fairly biased overall, but subtle; or where the bias was particularly prominent but isolated to a single section, give the article a 5 or 4 (C+ or C). If the article was very biased but perhaps not intentionally so, perhaps a C- (3) would be deserved.

If the article was extremely prejudiced with major misstatements of fact, intentionally misleading, or ignored well known facts to advance a false narrative, give the article a D or F (2 or 1).

Reviewers must subscribe to Public Editor and agree to our terms of service to participate. Subscriptions are currently free. We recommend that all readers subscribe to the Boston Globe or the newspaper of their choice to support journalism, and to send the Boston Globe your feedback directly. Thank you for participating in Public Editor’s bias rating project!

Leave A Comment

Subject

Rating: 5.0/10.

Description