The basic premise of a left-liberal political philosophy is simple: big government can be engineered to be compassionate, egalitarian and protective of all the needs of the ruled masses. Government limited by the law of the land, and representation of the masses in that government by elected representatives, precludes a rule by the majority, since the latter form of political organization is in reality a mobocracy impervious to individual uniqueness. Liberalism faces down individual uniqueness with a “one-size-fits-all” style of government.

Liberalism, as is also the case with socialism, especially with respect to the latter’s worst form of collectivism, namely communism, suppresses and crushes individualism; a limited government constitutional republic such as ours was designed to be, glorifies and protects each and every individual’s basic human rights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

The Founders examined history before designing the government of this nation and found that all governments, no matter to what extent were the good intentions that initiated them, serve and protect themselves, grow themselves, and do so by continually and incrementally encroaching upon the basic human rights and freedoms of its individual citizens. Hence, the anti-Federalists demanded that the Bill of Rights become part of the Constitution to ensure that those individual rights never be supplanted by government selfishness.

The real challenge, therefore, to ensure our continuing individual freedom, is not in terms of a “separation of church and state,” a concept designed by a left-liberal Supreme Court Marxist in his efforts to denigrate the power of the individual, but instead for a separation of government and the press. Supporting big government at the expense of individual liberties is now a press and media that supports the left-liberalness of the Democratic Party. And that left-liberalness is a threat to individual freedom. Senator Edward M. Kennedy espouses “facing down the individual” and has actually both stated this as well as posted it once on his website. That statement goes against the very foundations of this nation!

Senator Kennedy’s left-liberalism, combined with the shooting deaths of his two brothers, makes him an avid three-tier gun controller: rich and powerful, publicly famous as a gun violence victim, and a motivator and identifier with the media-brainwashed masses. The Founders established the Second Amendment to protect the basic right of American citizens to acquire and keep firearms, all firearms, not just the ones government and its media doesn’t like. The media supports liberalism and the Democratic Party, and both prefer maximum government power over each and every individual; ergo, they both support disarming all Americans.

The New York Times is the leading advocate for gun control in America. In his book, The Gospel According to The New York Times [© 2000 – Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville], William Proctor, a former journalist and reporter for the New York Daily News offers in the book’s preface, “…it has become increasingly apparent to me that the Times is pursuing a highly potent, largely clandestine, and unnoticed strategy to promote a particular worldview – not only in editorials, op-ed columns, or other opinion pieces, but also in news stories. In many instances, news stories, pictures, reviews, op-ed pieces and editorials actually seem orchestrated to promote deeply held values that are an integral part of the Times corporate culture.”

It should be noted that Proctor’s book was published three years before former editor, Howell Raines, was confronted by reporters complaining of compromised journalism due to the “Times’ corporate culture,” and the now famous Jayson Blair fiasco. And it was New York Times “reporter” and fiction writer Jayson Blair who was sent to cover the DC Sniper shootings. Proctor exposes what he calls “the seven deadly sins” the Times has ordained itself in combating, among them, the Second Amendment.

Proctor offers: “[E]ven though it seems that the Times would have no objections if somehow every gun in America could be registered or even confiscated, it’s equally clear to those who run the paper that this is not going to happen overnight. Consequently, the Times seems content to pursue a relatively low key strategy of moving public opinion toward an anti-gun position.” Proctor summarizes his chapter documenting numerous examples of biased journalistic tricks by saying, “In the Times worldview, one of the deadliest sins is to interpret the Second Amendment in such a way that the individual citizen retains any significant right to bear arms. Only the federal government can be trusted with this responsibility. Moreover, through the process of Culture Creep, you can expect this message to seep into your consciousness through other news sources – whether you happen to be a Times reader or not.”

In his book, The Bias Against Guns – Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard About Gun Control is Wrong [Regnery Publishing, Inc., Washington, DC], Dr. John Lott cites the numerous letters written to the New York Times to clear up seriously flawed statistics used in the “Red Lady’s” gun control agenda. In chapter two of his book, entitled “The Media on Guns,” Lott points out: “Recently the New York Times ran an unusually long twenty-thousand-word series of articles on so-called ‘rampage killings,’ which the newspaper defined as any type of nonpolitical murder of two or more people in a public place. The series reported the results of the research conducted by the Times itself.”

Lott goes on: “The series is interesting if only because the Times is viewed as the objective ‘publication of record’ for so much of the media. Among the Times’ conclusions? Its research ‘confirmed the public perception that [rampage killings] appear to be increasing’ and that another ‘crucial factor in rampage killings, access to guns, can be affected through legislation and regulation.’ The tighter gun control laws mentioned included everything from ‘background checks at gun shows’ to ‘trigger locks.’ The national editor at the Times proudly noted that ‘most experts have praised [the series] as an aggressive and objective look at a complex, emotion-laden problem.’”

Lott then explains that the numbers were too pat, too direct, and too conveniently even. What about statistics prior to 1995? Lott, a world-renowned statistician and gun affairs analyst began raising some basic statistical questions. In short, he found the statistical sampling of the Times to be horrifically flawed, and the “experts” that promoted and praised the Times’ findings, were very biased against the Second Amendment. And as to “confirming public perception,” who generated this “public perception” in the first place using the journalistic techniques of Raines and Blair?

Even after Lott contacted the Times reporter and the editorial staff to point out their mistakes, they simply ignored this world-renowned expert and stuck to their error-laden “research.” Know what you call error-laden research that is not retracted after it’s been proven faulty? If not officially retracted or qualified to the public as having been challenged, it then becomes fraud! And you know what you call fraud delivered in mass to the public in order to create a politically biased position? It’s called propaganda! And that represents the dangerous connection of a biased media that favors government over the freedoms of the individual, best held in check by not allowing government to infringe on any and all gun rights granted to the people individually in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.