Posts Tagged ‘News’
It’s all in the family.
1973: reporters investigate All the President’s Men. 2013: reporters are All the President’s Men.
You knew the mainstream media was biased, but this is incredible. It was revealed todaythat CBS News President David Rhodes’ brother is Obama Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, who was instrumental in rewriting the Benghazi talking points. But it gets worse. It is now learned that ABC President Ben Sherwood’s sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, is a Special Assistant to Barack Obama on national security affairs. But even this isn’t it! CNN’s deputy bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is the wife of Tom Nides, who until February was Hillary Clinton’s deputy.
It doesn’t stop there, either. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is married to Claire Shipman, who works for ABC News.
Could it be that Obama appointed relatives of the press to his administration in order to make the media more reluctant to damage it with accurate reporting?
Could it be that the lack of reporting on Benghazi and other scandals – especially prior to the election – had something to do with this?
Know Your Rights: Citizens Journalists Show How Not To Comply With Unconstitutional Detention, Searches or Questioning
I’ll admit it from the get-go: I don’t like confrontation. If a police officer randomly stopped me on the street and asked for my I.D. or asked me questions, I’d most likely comply because frankly, it’s just easier. I would assume that I must match the description of someone they’re looking for, and the sooner I clear up any suspicion they may have, the sooner I can get on with my day.
But unfortunately, that kind of mindless compliance with unconstitutional abuses of police power has led many Americans to assume that law enforcement officers can demand anything they like from you – regardless of probably cause – and you must submit to unlawful questioning, detention, or searches.
The young man in this video was stopped for openly carrying a gun in a holster, which is legal in the state of Oregon. He insists that the officer follow the law and provide legal justification for stopping him (which the officer does not have):
View on YouTube
Some may see this as unreasonably antagonistic. Why not just comply and be done with it? How hard can that be? The truth is, it WOULD be easier to comply. But it would also lead law enforcement officers to forget the laws they are sworn to uphold, and to violate the law with impunity.
I used to live near border patrol checkpoints and drove through them frequently. They’d ask me if I was a US citizen, I’d reply “yes,” and they’d wave me through (they’re listening for your accent and tone of voice, or behavioral cues). It never occurred to me that these checkpoints were unconstitutional.
But the reality is, they are. Border Patrol has no constitutional authority to stop citizens from driving down the road and question them without reasonable suspicion or probably cause. To do so is to violate the 4th Amendment. Yet most of us comply without thinking twice. These Libertarian citizen journalists decided to exercise their constitutional rights on video:
View on YouTube
In a national climate where simply speaking out for lower spending, constitutional rights and the 2nd Amendment can get you demonized as an “extremist,” it’s important that we know our rights, and how to exercise them respectfully. Lawful resistance to unconstitutional abuses of power is an effective way to tell our politicians and bureaucrats they have gone too far. They work for us, not the other way around. Their job is to protect our unalienable rights, not take them away.
Liberal reporters are finally coming forward to reveal the White House’s threatening behavior towards journalists who dare to question him.
It started with veteran journalist Bob Woodard (of Watergate fame) making these statements:
The Washington Post‘s Bob Woodward ripped into President Barack Obama on “Morning Joe” today, saying he’s exhibiting a “kind of madness I haven’t seen in a long time” for a decision not to deploy an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.
“Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?’” Woodward said.
“Or George W. Bush saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need?’” Or even Bill Clinton saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ … because of some budget document?”
The Defense Department said in early February that it would not deploy the U.S.S. Harry Truman to the Persian Gulf, citing budget concerns relating to the looming cuts known as the sequester.
“Under the Constitution, the President is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the President going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement. ‘I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country,’” Woodward said.
It wasn’t long before the White House responded with threats:
Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a “very senior person” at the White House warned him in an email that he would “regret doing this,” the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.
Sadly, the leftist media are more inclined to eat their own than allow their Obamessiah to be criticized, and the quickly tried to smear Woodward – the man who helped bring down Nixon – as an overly sensitive, attention-seeking has-been who didn’t know a real threat from an innocent misunderstanding:
This is an incredible case of the White House attempting to bully the most iconic reporter of the 20th century – the reporter who, along with Carl Bernstein, took down a president of the United States. So you might expect the rest of the media to stand with Woodward. You’d be wrong. They’re too busy spending time playing defense for the White House.
It began with Politico itself, which downplayed the entire incident, even as it acknowledged that Woodward’s “play-by-play is basically spot on” with regard to reporting the sequestration. “White House officials are certainly within their rights to yell at any journalist, including Bob Woodward,” said official Obama buddies Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei. Allen and VandeHei merely suggested that the battle with Woodward was “a major distraction at a pivotal moment for the president.” They added, “Watching and now having interviewed Woodward, it is easy to see why White House officials get worked about him.” Poor Obama, having to deal with such issues.
Next, the White House went to its favorite outlet, Buzzfeed, and their favorite BenSmithing reporter, Ben Smith, to leak the source of the Woodward “regret” email. It’s clear why they did it – Smith spun the entire incident for the White House. [...]
The gall of this is astounding. All of these reporters combined might equal one tenth a Bob Woodward in the journalistic pantheon; the notion that their treatment at the hands of press flacks in any way reflects the general or appropriate treatment of someone like Woodward is absurd on its face. But the junior varsity is all too happy to gang tackle a reportorial Hall of Famer on behalf of their beloved President.
Imagine if one of George W. Bush’s deputees had dealt with Woodward this way. The left would have gone insane. Now they just call up the White House for a pat on the head and a nice scoop in return.
[...] That madness has now infected the mainstream media. They’re too busy defending President Obama to defend the American people – or even their fellow members of the press – from Obama’s thug White House.
Despite the Leftist media attempt to minimize the damage for Obama and destroy one of their own, the released e-mails confirm Woodward’s claim. Now other renowned liberal journalists are stepping forward to confirm that they, too, have received similar treatment from this White House:
Lanny Davis, who served under President Bill Clinton as special counsel to the White House, told Washington, D.C.’s WMAL this morning that the Obama White House had threatened the Washington Times over his column, warning that the Times would suffer limited access to White House officials and might have its White House credentials revoked. Davis, a centrist Democrat, is sometimes critical of the Obama administration’s policies.
Davis was speaking with Breitbart News editor Larry O’Connor, who co-hosts a morning show on WMAL. Davis said he had never spoken publicly about the threats before, but they seemed relevant after the White House told legendary reporter Bob Woodward that he would “regret” insisting that the White House had come up with the idea of the budget sequester, which President Barack Obama is now urging Congress urgently to revoke.
As editor-in-chief of National Journal, I received several e-mails and telephone calls from this White House official filled with vulgarity, abusive language, and virtually the same phrase that Woodward called a veiled threat. “You will regret staking out that claim,” The Washington Post reporter was told.Once I moved back to daily reporting this year, the badgering intensified. I wrote Saturday night, asking the official to stop e-mailing me. The official wrote, challenging Woodward and my tweet. “Get off your high horse and assess the facts, Ron,” the official wrote.
I wrote back:
“I asked you to stop e-mailing me. All future e-mails from you will be on the record — publishable at my discretion and directly attributed to you. My cell-phone number is … . If you should decide you have anything constructive to share, you can try to reach me by phone. All of our conversations will also be on the record, publishable at my discretion and directly attributed to you.” I haven’t heard back from the official. It was a step not taken lightly because the note essentially ended our working relationship.
Given that Woodward is now being called old and brokedown by David Pflouffe, and the Juicebox Mafia has picked up the “senile” message they’re putting out there… I would in fact say efforts are being made to insure Woodward “regrets” having correctly reported Obama’s ownership of the sequester.
Let’s hope more liberal reporters recognize the threat to their profession, rally around him and speak up.
Learn the lessons of history. This is how third-world dictators marginalize their opponents before grabbing the tyrannical powers necessary to dispose of them.
One of the most remarkable and frightening aspects of President Barack Obama’s inaugural address was his dismissal of his opposition – presumably the House Republican caucus – as “absolutists” who are without “principle.”
They are mucking up Obama’s agenda, and he won’t have it.
[...] Absolutism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is a form of despotism – “government by an absolute ruler or authority.” That the president of the United States is accusing his democratically-elected opponents of acting in a tyrannical fashion is a remarkable development with potentially profound implications.
Once the president’s opponents have been defined in the American mind as despotically inclined, unsusceptible to reason, and unwilling to play by the normal rules of politics, it is only natural that extreme measures are permitted in response.
This White House has already shown a propensity toward ruling by executive fiat – whether by executive action that effectively enacts rejected legislation, by refusing to enforce existing law, or by crafting rules for legislation to grant vast new powers to bureaucrats.
Once it has de-legitimized the opposition, the White House can claim it is left with no choice but to accelerate and expand its use of executive power. What else can they do, the president and his operatives will argue, when faced with the insanity of the Republicans?
The press, which avidly buys into the notion that much of the House Republican caucus is beyond reason, will lend a sympathetic ear to Obama as he struggles with the forces of darkness.
Obama Attacks Fox News, Limbaugh For Holding Republicans Accountable When They Cave To Leftist Agenda
Demonize and blame. That’s all this president knows how to do. Nothing is ever his fault, and his political opponents are mortal enemies who must be attacked, marginalized, and destroyed.
This is a sick, SICK man.
In a sit-down interview with The New Republic released today, President Barack Obama cast blame on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh for shaping compromise as a “dirty word.”
[...] Obama said the same thing happens with the far left — but that “left-leaning media outlets” are more willing to accept compromise.
Lying is a natural to him as breathing. Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters points out:
Really? “Left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word?”
Do the folks at MSNBC want Obama to compromise with Republicans? Or the people at the New York Times?
How about CBS News where its political director recently advocated Obama destroy the Republican Party in his second term.
No, there’s no push for compromise from the liberal media.
As for Reid and Pelosi, they’ve done everything but try to work with Republicans since they took over both chambers of Congress in 2007.
In fact, their first budget attained not one single Republican vote in the Senate or the House. Ditto 2009′s stimulus bill and 2010′s healthcare reform.
The same is true for Obama himself who days after his first inauguration told Republican leaders interested in assisting in the crafting of stimulus legislation, “I won.”
It’s truly laughable that a Democratic President of the United States would be blaming members of the media for his inability to reach across the aisle and convince members of the opposition to work with him.
Ronald Reagan had a far more hostile media and seemed capable of doing it. Ditto George W. Bush during his first term.
But Obama can’t, and that’s Fox News and Limbaugh’s fault?
It’s the solution that Obama proposes that is truly frightening. From Ben Shapiro:
But what of his Republican opposition? That opposition, said Obama, has to be forced to embrace his positions:
And I think if you talk privately to Democrats and Republicans, particularly those who have been around for a while, they long for the days when they could socialize and introduce bipartisan legislation and feel productive. So I don’t think the issue is whether or not there are people of goodwill in either party that want to get something done. I think what we really have to do is change some of the incentive structures so that people feel liberated to pursue some common ground. One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it.
How, exactly, will Obama achieve changing that incentive structure, exactly? Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are a free press. But according to Obama, that media must apparently be curbed. The media on the left, however, need not be curbed, because “more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word.”
This is nothing new from a thuggish administration that has vocally derided Rush Limbaugh repeatedly, pushed secondary boycotts of Limbaugh through its extragovernmental allies, and targeted Fox News as illegitimate for daring to question The One’s agenda. But with Obama’s re-election, he obviously feels that his cross-hairs can be safely placed on his media opposition.
There is no war on terror for the Obama White House, but there is one on Fox News.
[...] Alas, the president loves to whine about the media meanies at Fox News. To him, these are not people trying to do their jobs. No, they are out to get him. What other motive could a journalist have in holding a president accountable? Why oh why do Ed Henry and Chris Wallace insist on asking hard questions? Make them stop!
The president seems more comfortable talking to “real journalists” such as Chris Hughes, who asked the question in the TNR interview that elicited Obama’s reflexive Fox hatred. Hughes is the new owner of TNR and is a former major Obama campaign donor and organizer who was featured on the cover of Fast Company, with the headline, “The Kid Who Made Obama President.” You can’t make this stuff up.
This latest volley from the president is just one in a long line of comments from his White House as part of their campaign to silence any dissent they detect in the press corps.
Recently, the White House has kept Fox News off of conference calls dealing with the Benghazi attack, despite Fox News being the only outlet that was regularly reporting on it and despite Fox having top notch foreign policy reporters.
They have left Chris Wallace’s “Fox News Sunday” out of a round of interviews that included CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS for not being part of a “legitimate” news network. In October 2009, as part of an Obama administration onslaught against Fox News,White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week” that the Fox News Channel is “not really a news station” and that much of the programming is “not really news.”
Whether you are liberal or conservative, libertarian, moderate or politically agnostic, everyone should be concerned when leaders of our government believe they can intentionally try to delegitimize a news organization they don’t like.
In fact, if you are a liberal – as I am – you should be the most offended, as liberalism is founded on the idea of cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.
[...] Can someone explain to me how it’s “liberal” to try and shut down a media organization? What the Obama administration is doing, and what liberals are funding at MMFA is beyond chilling – it’s a deep freeze.
Can you imagine the uproar that would have ensued if the oil companies got together to “train” journalists how to report on energy stories “the right way?”
Earlier this month, FreedomWorks covered a suspect symposium being sponsored by a pro-Obamacare organization, designed to provide journalists with “specialized education in health care reporting”.
The anticipation of media bias was palpable.
The symposium, sponsored by the Commonwealth Fund, hosted by the Society of American Business Editors and Writers (SABEW), held at Reuters headquarters in New York City, and with a featured student body of 17 mainstream reporters – including the Dallas Morning News, Reuters, and Money Magazine – has since come to pass, and the concerns of blatant media bias should be even more heightened in the aftermath.
The SABEW has posted a recap of events at their ‘Business of Health Care Symposium’ on their web site, and the emphasis is clearly directed at the positive aspects of Obamacare.
For example, in a section titled ‘Spreading the Word to America’, speaker Rachel Klein explains to the reporters that “a key challenge” in messaging lies in “informing consumers of how the ACA (Affordable Care Act) will benefit them“.
Klein adds that, “The majority of uninsured Americans don’t know the health reform law will help them.”
Benefit. Help. The positive tone has been set.
Klein’s presentation was accompanied by a slideshow presentation that provided reporters with “targeting messages”.
In another section covering the effects of the ACA on small business, speaker Ben Geyerhahn explains how reporters “can alleviate the fear that small business owners have” in regards to the ACA.
Geyerhahn tells reporters that “The simplest thing is to say … There’s no negative here for you.”
“There’s only upside,” he surmises.
Shouldn’t a fair and balanced media be reporting on both the upside and the downside? Shouldn’t they be reporting on both the benefits and the detriments?
Not with the Commonwealth Fund financing this event apparently.
This Obamacare propaganda campaign seriously blurs the line between government and “journalism” and seems to be a blatant attempt by team Obama to write the media’s Obamacare stories for them.
Rusty Weiss recently discussed a series of large donations made to the Society of American Business Editors and Writers (SABEW), the latest of which was donated expressly for the purpose of relaying the left-wing agenda on Obamacare.
The donation, a $15,000 grant, was made by the Commonwealth Fund, a group now headed by former Obama operative David Blumenthal, who served as the national coordinator for Obama’s Health Information Technology effort.
The Commonwealth Fund has long been a backer of Obamacare and is staffed by Obama operatives. The organization has been cited for repeatedly downplaying any ills that Obama’s healthcare proposals might cause and playing up only the positive aspects of the law.
Despite its complete obeisance to Obama’s policies, we see a “journalist” organization taking money from the group in order to push the group’s Obamacare propaganda.
Next time you see a news story on Obamacare, ask yourself where the reporter got his/her talking points.
Obama’s Pastor Calls Republicans ‘Enemies,’ Prays For ‘Battle,’ Chants ‘Forward!’ During Church Service
Obama sure knows how to pick the radical wackos. Never, in all my years attending different churches, have I EVER heard a pastor attack a particular group of people as “enemies,” ESPECIALLY over political differences!
I guarantee that if a pastor from a church that a conservative (Sarah Palin?) attended made comments about going into “battle” against Democrat “enemies,” the news media would be freaking out for a week about the “controversy” surrounding his “violent,” “extremist” rhetoric, demanding his resignation, and they’d have all the dirt from his past dug up within 24 hours.
At Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church, Braxton reportedly crafted his speech around Obama’s personal political slogan: “Forward!”
Obama, said Braxton, was just like Moses facing the Red Sea: “forward is the only option … The people couldn’t turn around. The only thing that they could do was to go forward.” Obama, said Braxton, would have to overcome all obstacles – like opposition from Republicans, presumably, or the bounds of the Constitution. Braxton continued, “Mr. President, stand on the rock,” citing to Moses standing on Mount Horeb as his people camped outside the land of Israel.
In case Braxton missed it, America won its freedom 237 years ago, and the slaves were freed 150 years ago – by a REPUBLICAN. Obama isn’t leading anybody out of slavery. He’s leading them INTO slavery – the slavery of dependence on the Welfare State, which black conservatives like Star Parker call “Uncle Sam’s Plantation.”
But it wasn’t enough to compare Obama with the founder of Judaism and the prophet of the Bible. Braxton added that Obama’s opponents were like the Biblical enemies of Moses, and that Obama would have to enter the battle because “sometimes enemies insist on doing it the hard way.”
So anybody who doesn’t immediately bow and cave to Obama’s political agenda is an “enemy?” Funny, I thought Jesus taught believers to LOVE their enemies.
The service ended with the pastor leading the crowd in a chant of “Forward.” Really.
This was no religious service. It was a worship service for the man Newsweek labeled “The Second Coming.” And if Obama thinks anything like the pastor he chose just before taking his oath of office, America is in for a long, narcissistic, imperial four years.
Where is the IRS to challenge the church’s tax exempt status for preaching politics from the pulpit? Oh, that’s right: they only enforce that against conservative churches that don’t worship at the altar of the Almighty Messianic Welfare State.
Rule #1: Imagine how much damage could be done with this information were it to fall into the wrong hands.
Rule #2: If there’s anything the history of the 20th century despots has taught us, it’s that government IS the wrong hands.
Rule #3: Remember the 4th and 5th Amendments? Yeah…they were written exactly for THIS REASON!
In a secret government agreement granted without approval or debate from lawmakers, the U.S. attorney general recently gave the National Counterterrorism Center sweeping new powers to store dossiers on U.S. citizens, even if they are not suspected of a crime, according to a news report.
Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder granted the center the ability to copy entire government databases holding information on flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and other data, and to store it for up to five years, even without suspicion that someone in the database has committed a crime, according to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story.
Whereas previously the law prohibited the center from storing data compilations on U.S. citizens unless they were suspected of terrorist activity or were relevant to an ongoing terrorism investigation, the new powers give the center the ability to not only collect and store vast databases of information but also to trawl through and analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior in order to uncover activity that could launch an investigation.
The changes granted by Holder would also allow databases containing information about U.S. citizens to be shared with foreign governments for their own analysis.
A former senior White House official told the Journal that the new changes were “breathtaking in scope.”
I’m nostalgic for the halcyon days of, er, February of this year, before the Attorney General of the United States signed off on an order allowing the government to access pretty much everything it wanted in the name of counterterrorism. [...]
The good news: Saudi Arabia might now have all of our firearm registration data. What could go wrong?
Say, remember when Congress used to be involved in writing laws and making policy in the US? Good times, good times. Perhaps Congress might want to investigate what the Department of Justice and the National Counterterrorism Center has been doing with the 4th Amendment. Eric Holder should be subpoenaed and forced to testify under oath about his order, and find out whether Congress got consulted or bypassed entirely on this decision.
It’s interesting how all this came out after the election, huh? Maybe the name “Julia” for one of Barack Obama’s campaign themes was well chosen.
John Nolte gets it exactly right. This is going to be a long four years:
There’s no question we have a long four years ahead of us, and the fact that we’re going to have to fight the mainstream media every inch of the way is only going to make those years feel longer. But if we’re going to fight the media, we at least have to understand what we’re up against and what the media’s over-arching goal is.
First off, you have to keep in mind that the media identifies and sees itself in Obama: a radical Leftist, an urbane, intellectual metrosexual, and, yes, a celebrity. Obama is also everything the media has always wanted in a president: an unapologetic and uncompromising leftist who punches back twice as hard. In other words, this time it’s personal with the media, and should Obama fail or be rejected in any way, everything the media sees in itself and believes will have failed and been rejected.
To ensure this doesn’t happen, from day one, the media’s become a vital part of the Obama campaign and administration. They’ve propped Obama up, protected him, lied for him, and attempted to marginalize any threat to his power or electoral success. Yes, it’s been and will remain trench warfare, but there’s a much bigger goal the media has in mind that will help those of us in the trenches better understand exactly what it is we’re up against.
Put simply, we have to get our minds around the fact that the media’s over-arching goal is and always has been “History.” For the media to affirm everything about itself, Obama must be remembered as One Of History’s Great Presidents. Everything the media’s done since Obama climbed onto the national stage has been geared towards exactly that.
[...] Regardless of Obama’s failures in the Middle East, with our economy, and the devastating effects of ObamaCare; regardless of how dirty the Administration played when it came to Libya, the media will do whatever is necessary to ensure nothing is allowed to tarnish his legacy.
How do we combat this? Quite simply, we go around them…through blogs, internet, social media, and personally informing our family and friends of what’s really going on.
WE are the New Media.
Obama’s full 2007 speech:
View at the Daily Caller
This is one of many revealing stories that the media chose to hide from the voters in 2008, helping Obama disguise his true ideology and agenda behind a veneer of moderation and unity.
In his own words, Obama reveals himself as the racially resentful, divisive and deceptive person we have all discovered him to be.
In a video obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama tells an audience of black ministers, including the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, that the U.S. government shortchanged Hurricane Katrina victims because of racism.
“The people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!” Obama shouts in the video, which was shot in June of 2007 at Hampton University in Virginia. By contrast, survivors of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Andrew received generous amounts of aid, Obama explains. The reason? Unlike residents of majority-black New Orleans, the federal government considers those victims “part of the American family.”
The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event.
Sarah Palin remarked on her Facebook page:
Many of you have seen the 2007 speech in which then-Senator Obama suggested that because of racism the federal government didn’t waive the Stafford Act to assist New Orleans after Katrina. What you may not know is that 10 days before Senator Obama gave this speech, the federal government did in fact waive the Stafford Act for New Orleans. And to add insult to injury, Barack Obama was one of 14 senators who actually voted against the bill that included the provision to give supplemental emergency assistance to New Orleans. In other words, he was being dishonest and divisive, which is behavior we’ve sadly seen far too often from him in the last four years.
Beltway pundits are trying to excuse the 36-minute speech before a black audience in Virginia as just political pandering. But Obama goes out of his way to give “a special shout-out” to his “white America”-hating pastor seated in the crowd, exalting the execrable Rev. Jeremiah Wright as his “friend and a great leader.”
It’s clear from Obama’s angry rhetoric throughout that he actually believes the racist swill he heard while sitting in Wright’s church all those years. Just as he actually believes in redistribution.
From his own pulpit, Obama told blacks the U.S. government cheats them in favor of whites. He thundered that “our people” and “our neighborhoods” should be getting federal money, jobs and housing. Imagine a white politician speaking to a white audience about “our people”? He’d literally be run out of office, if not the country.
It’s also clear from his speech, which the media never revealed in full to the public, that Obama doesn’t really work for all Americans, least of all the middle class he claims to champion. He’s secretly working to promote the race-based spoils system for what he describes as his own people in the inner city, while breeding envy and resentment toward suburban whites.
[...] The “bold experimentation” Obama has planned for a second term could involve stealth reparations, whereby the president pushes government transfer programs and disparate-impact lawsuits and even changes to what he believes is a still-racist Constitution (or changes to the Supreme Court that change how the Constitution is interpreted) that favor minority groups to the extreme detriment of the majority of Americans.
In his 2006 autobiography, Obama actually outlined such a strategy of stealth. He said he would push government programs with “universal appeals,” such as universal health care, “even if such strategies disproportionately help minorities” who are uninsured.
I can’t imagine why. If it weren’t for citizen journalists willing to get out the inconvenient facts that big media outlets leave on the cutting room floor, Americans wouldn’t know half of what’s really going on. WE ARE the new media!
As the media report on the allegedly horrid polls for Mitt Romney, will they take the time to report the latest on their own poll ratings with Gallup? “Americans’ distrust in the media hit a new high this year, with 60% saying they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.”
Can the media call themselves “mainstream” when Republicans and independents tell pollsters they don’t trust them right in the midst of a fall campaign? And shouldn’t the Commission on Presidential Debates stop relying on a monopoly of “mainstream” media personalities to moderate fall debates? Here’s the ugly breakdown on trust:
Only 26 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of independents have a “great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust in the media. Naturally, considering the tilt of their reporting, 58 percent of Democrats have a “great deal” or “a fair amount” of trust in the media. This might explain why these “objective” media prefer to oversample Democrats in their polls.
“Distrust is especially up from the past few years, when Americans were already more negative about the media than they had been in years prior to 2004,” Gallup said. This ought to be perceived as punishment for the media’s ridiculous over-selling of Barack Obama’s promise in 2008. As Gallup added:
The record distrust in the media, based on a survey conducted Sept. 6-9, 2012, also means that negativity toward the media is at an all-time high for a presidential election year. This reflects the continuation of a pattern in which negativity increases every election year compared with the year prior. The current gap between negative and positive views — 20 percentage points — is by far the highest Gallup has recorded since it began regularly asking the question in the 1990s. Trust in the media was much higher, and more positive than negative, in the years prior to 2004 — as high as 72% when Gallup asked this question three times in the 1970s.
Will anyone in the “mainstream” media actually see these polling numbers as a crisis? Or will they continue to dismiss these numbers, lamenting that viewers not only pick the media that supports their views?
That would be wrong, if you track this Gallup poll. “Despite their record-low trust in media, Republicans are the partisan group most likely to be paying close attention to news about national politics, with the 48% who are doing so similar to the 50% in 2008 and up significantly from 38% in 2004.”
Gallup concludes that the door may be opening for citizens to abandon the Old Media:
On a broad level, Americans’ high level of distrust in the media poses a challenge to democracy and to creating a fully engaged citizenry. Media sources must clearly do more to earn the trust of Americans, the majority of whom see the media as biased one way or the other. At the same time, there is an opportunity for others outside the “mass media” to serve as information sources that Americans do trust.
That’s why citizen journalism through blogs, websites and social media is really starting to replace old media as the next generation’s primary news source.
If you’re looking for reliable news sources, the Oregon Tea Party has compiled a fantastic list.
Vice President Biden is the comedic gift that keeps on giving.
First he forgot what state he was in, declaring “We can win North Carolina again!” – while in Virginia.
Then, he told the crowd – from a city that is almost 50% black – that the Republican boogeyman is going to slap them all “back in chains”:
Injecting racial politics into an election that already turned ugly, Vice President Joseph R. Biden told a largely black audience Tuesday in Virginia that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney would put voters “back in chains” with a plan to loosen regulations on Wall Street.
“Romney wants to, he said in the first 100 days, he’s going to let the big banks again write their own rules, unchain Wall Street,” Mr. Biden said at a campaign rally in Danville, Va.
The vice president then lowered his voice and said, “They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”
Some in the audience laughed, but Republicans said the Obama campaign lowered itself to new depths of gutter politics.
“In case anyone was wondering just how low President Obama could go in his campaign for re-election, we now know he’s willing to say that Governor Romney wants to put people back in chains,” Romneycampaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a statement. “Whether it’s accusing Mitt Romney of being a felon, having been responsible for a woman’s tragic death or now wanting to put people in chains, there’s no question that because of the president’s failed record he’s been reduced to a desperate campaign based on division and demonization.”
Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh called Mr. Biden “a walking buffoon.”
Ari Fleischer, a White House press secretary for George W. Bush, saidMr. Biden’s remark was “objectionable.”
“The press pounded [Sarah] Palin when she talked about ‘blood libel,’”Mr. Fleischer said via Twitter. “What will they do about Biden’s ‘chains’ remark?”
Spoken like a true fear-mongering slave master who’s afraid that a free people would rather work and succeed on their own merits than live off of hand-outs on the Big Government plantation.
Live Tea or Die? Is the US Military Preparing To Quell the Tea Party?
View on YouTube
No, this isn’t a farce.
Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles.
At issue is an article in the respected Small Wars Journal titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future.” It was written by retired Army Col. Kevin Benson of the Army’s University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and Jennifer Weber, a Civil War expert at the University of Kansas. It posits an “extremist militia motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’ movement” seizing control of Darlington, S.C., in 2016, “occupying City Hall, disbanding the city council and placing the mayor under house arrest.” The rebels set up checkpoints on Interstate 95 and Interstate 20 looking for illegal aliens. It’s a cartoonish and needlessly provocative scenario.
The article is a choppy patchwork of doctrinal jargon and liberal nightmare. The authors make a quasi-legal case for military action and then apply the Army’s Operating Concept 2016-2028 to the situation. They write bloodlessly that “once it is put into play, Americans will expect the military to execute without pause and as professionally as if it were acting overseas.” They claim that “the Army cannot disappoint the American people, especially in such a moment,” not pausing to consider that using such efficient, deadly force against U.S. citizens would create a monumental political backlash and severely erode government legitimacy.
Nothing like handing over everything a potential dictator would need to identify and eliminate his opposition.
Imagine that the U.S. government had the power to scour the reams of public records and collect and collate every bit of personal information about every citizen of this country. Now imagine that any of the various intelligence and security agencies within the government could combine that data with any other information about a person that has been posted to a social media website or compiled by one of the many data aggregating companies that keep tabs on all of us. Finally, imagine that all this data could be passed among these agencies and that the ability of anyone inside or outside the government to challenge this surveillance was all but eliminated.
Sadly, this is not the description of some fictitious dystopian future; this is the factual description of present-day America and it’s about to get much worse.
In March Attorney General Eric Holder, in cooperation with National Counterterrorism Center head Matthew Olsen and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, significantly accelerated this move toward abolishing privacy by approving a new list of guidelines for how long U.S. government agencies tasked with combating international and domestic “terrorism” may retain the data they collect and store. Basically, this information may be saved even if it contains no connection to criminal activity whatsoever.
According to the new regulations, the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) (headquartered at the Liberty Crossing complex in McLean, Virginia) can store and “continually assess” this information “for a period of up to five years.” Before the promulgation of these new guidelines, the NCTC was under instructions to destroy “promptly” (typically defined to mean within 180 days) this cache of material gathered from U.S. citizens if there was nothing related to terrorism found in it.
Speaking fondly of the new time restraints, Paul Rosenzweig, a former official at the Department of Homeland Security, was quoted in the Washington Post saying:
Five years is a reasonable time frame. I certainly think 180 days was way too short. That’s just not a realistic understanding of how long it takes analysts to search large data sets for relevant information.
As expected, such an extraordinary expansion of the power of the federal government over private information and communications of citizens not suspected of committing a crime has riled up the segment of our Republic concerned with the rapid repeal of our civil liberties.
Every reporter learns this in Journalism 101: once a subject has been properly warned that you are a journalist, anything they say beyond “no comment” at that point is fair game to publish (unless, of course, one has pre-established an “off the record” agreement). Subjects do NOT have a right to come back and tell a reporter which or how much of their quotes they may print. That’s up to the journalist’s discretion.
The level of unprofessionalism and lack of journalistic integrity displayed by the media here is unbelievable! They are actually allowing politician’s campaigns to edit and approve their stories before they’re published, which are then reprinted by all the major newspapers across the country. Seriously! When did journalism become a mere extension of a particular candidate’s propaganda arm???
It’s one thing to insist that reporters check quotes for accuracy and proper context. Most carry recorders of some kind to ensure that they accurately quote their sources, especially since it has become so inexpensive to do so. But should they have to get approval from politicians to use accurate quotes from the campaigns and advisers?
The push and pull over what is on the record is one of journalism’s perennial battles. But those negotiations typically took place case by case, free from the red pens of press minders. Now, with a millisecond Twitter news cycle and an unforgiving, gaffe-obsessed media culture, politicians and their advisers are routinely demanding that reporters allow them final editing power over any published quotations.
Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House “” almost anyone other than spokesmen who are paid to be quoted. (And sometimes it applies even to them.) It is also commonplace throughout Washington and on the campaign trail.
Not to be outdone by his opponent, Romney is demanding the same treatment:
The Romney campaign insists that journalists interviewing any of Mitt Romney’s five sons agree to use only quotations that are approved by the press office. And Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article.
[...] Still, it’s bad enough that the press allows these players to edit their own quotes. Extending that down to the bureaucrats in federal agencies is even worse. Would Al Armendariz have approved the “crucify” quote — and would the media have buried it if he hadn’t said it on tape? What happened to the independence of the media? Granting approval to the governing class for quotes, as well as edit rights, pushes them further toward a mouthpiece role rather than a watchdog role, and that’s true regardless of which party is in power. On the record should mean on the record, and the only issue should be whether a quote was accurate and in context.