Help us fight the
ObamaMedia

click title for home page
  
Be a subscribing
member

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The stuff you won't see in the liberal media
Register Calendar Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 29      1   2   3   4   Next   »
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #1 

Associated with many of the items in The Obama File Forum are examples of the misconduct, propaganda, obfuscation and mendacity of the ObamaMedia.

 

The Archive contains two lengthy pages of the ObamaMedia's flagrant cheerleading and outright lying in their support of Barack Obama and his actions.

 

I am beginning this thread in the Forum to document examples of the ObamaMedia's bias, propaganda and lying for and about Barack Obama and Team Obama during the 2012 election cycle.

 

The following is an example of the types of items that are suitable for inclusion in this thread -- the item is about Derrick Bell and could be placed in the Bell thread, but the focus of the item is the ObamaMedia's handling of the Bell story.

 

If the focus is the behavior of the ObamaMedia, it belongs here.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #2 

The Harvard hug: what else is the ObamaMedia hiding?

Investor's Business Daily says we were wrong. The media elite did in fact vet Barack Obama but they covered up what they found. And now that citizen journalists are digging it up, they're trying to rebury it.
 
Exhibit A is the controversial video of Barack Obama praising and hugging radical Harvard law professor Derrick Bell. The media knew it existed four years ago and conspired with academia to hide it to get Obama elected.
 
"We hid this during the 2008 campaign," confessed Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree. PBS had it then, but cut both the audio and the hug in a report on Obama's Harvard days. The footage served as wallpaper. Now that Breitbart.com has put the entire video online, the major media have gone into damage-control mode for Obama.
 
PBS claims, disingenuously, "there's nothing new about the clip." NBC's Andrea Mitchell misled viewers by claiming Bell was "not a radical firebrand" but a "distinguished professor."
 
Yahoo News declared the video "a dud," and CNN devoted a full segment to shoot it down. "Is that it? What part of that was the bombshell? Because I missed it," said host Soledad O'Brien. So what if the president hugged Bell? He was a "renowned Harvard Law School professor!"
 
And one of her favorites, as it turns out. After he died last year, O'Brien tweeted: "Professor Derrick Bell died yesterday also. Rough day." And: "Just started rereading Derrick Bell's 'Ethical Ambition.' Read it. RIP Prof. Bell."
 
O'Brien never disclosed to CNN viewers that she was a personal fan of Bell. Nor did Fox News' Juan Williams when he also pooh-poohed the video: "What is this, guilt by association?" Williams endorsed Bell's incendiary books as a Washington Post scribe.
 
They knew what he was about. Anybody who has read Bell's works knows he's militantly anti-white and anti-America. He didn't try to hide that, unlike his fans in the media today.

Bell was too radical even for Harvard, which sacked him, but not too radical for our president, who embraced him as a 30-year-old law student. And who then went on to indoctrinate his own law students in Bell's hate when he was a University of Chicago professor.
 
Obama required them to read Bell's "Race, Racism and American Law," which argues American law is illegitimate because it's derived from "white power structure."
 
Relevance today? Obama's close relationship with Bell fits a pattern of radical associations that have carried over into his administration. Before dying, his old professor visited the White House at least twice, records show. And Bell's ideas show up in Justice Department policy, where black-on-white hate crimes and black intimidation of white voters are not prosecuted.

MSNBC paraded out a host of Democratic pundits to deflect attention from the Harvard hug. They've argued there are more important things, like the economy, to talk about than Obama's college days.
 
Of course, one has to do with the other. What Obama did in his past affects our economic future. His policies are based on the radical ideology he developed in Bell's classroom and in Saul Alinsky's war room.
 
The media know this video is a big story, just like they knew the Rev. Wright videos were big four years ago. But they've done their best to kill the stories to protect a fellow traveler.
 
What we have here is a conspiracy by the Obama campaign and its friends in academia and media to suppress the truth. They have a vested interest in helping Obama fool the electorate because they share his dreams of economic equality.
 
In 2008, the media made Obama out to be something he's clearly not, and the electorate fell for it. They're hoping it will again.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #3 

Time magazine's Sally Kohn describes Derrick Bell as "fiercely patriotic"

PJMedia is reporting that at Time yesterday, Sally Kohn defended the antisemitic activist Derrick Bell using two textbook Alinskyite tactics:

Derrick Bell was one of the first legal scholars to talk about race in America. The median net worth of white households in the United States is 20 times that of black households. Black students in our nation’s public schools are three and a half times more likely to be suspended or expelled than their white peers. Black rates of unemployment have been consistently double the rates of white unemployment since 1972 when the government first started tracking such data. Professor Bell argued that such statistics were not the result of inherent inferiority of African Americans but the persistence of “structural racism” — that the legacy of slavery and racial discrimination on which our nation was built has, intentionally or unintentionally, left indelible marks so that the rhetorical “level playing field” has never truly existed. His beliefs were not anti-American, as conservative critics have alleged, but rather fiercely patriotic, wanting to extend the promise of America to all.

First, note how Kohn polarizes the debate into two sides. Through the creation of fake conflicts, community organizers can galvanize moderates and gullible “liberals” to support things they otherwise would not. That’s why the issue of race is exploited like this — just to rally people to fuel their Marxist economic goals. Hence why Obamacare took such high priority in the first term.

Kohn and other Alinskyites know how to set the rules of engagement in their favor. Only two possibilities: these shocking statistics come from blacks’ genetic inferiority or continued white racism. Never mind the third option, that these statistics mean nothing and that there are books filled with cultural studies and economic statistics refuting this pseudo-intellectual sophistry and demonstrating black people as more than capable of succeeding without condescending whites alleviating their guilt through increased government handouts.

Second, observe the attempt to wrap Marxism in a patriotic cloak, and the use of a generality like “the promise of America to all.” Alinskyites do this regularly whenever questions of their political ideology arise. Recall when Media Matters blogger Oliver Willis asked Obama if he considered himself a progressive and the former Alinskyite teacher managed to claim Abraham Lincoln as a progressive:

Questioner: Mr. President, you’re often pressured from both the left and right on one issue or another, and then even within the Democratic Party you get pressured from the more conservative, more progressive side of the party. So I’m curious, you sort of govern as a — sort of as a pragmatist, and I’m wondering if you view yourself as a progressive.

Barack Obama: Well, I mean, the problem with labels is everybody thinks they mean different things. So I would define myself as a strong progressive in the sense that I believe in that essential American Dream that everybody gets a chance to make it if they’re willing to work hard, that government has a role to play in ensuring opportunity by making sure kids get a decent education and can afford to go to college; that workers are able to train and retrain for the jobs of the future; that we’re building strong infrastructure; that we are using our diplomacy alongside our military to protect our national security; that we believe in the Bill of Rights and we actually act on it, even when it’s inconvenient; that we are promoting the equal treatment of citizens under the law.

Those core beliefs that America prospers not just when a few people do well but when everybody has the chance to do well, when we’ve got a growing middle class, where we — people are able to live out their dreams without the barriers of race or gender or sexual orientation, those are things I deeply believe in. In that sense, though, I think Abraham Lincoln was a progressive.

He was a Republican. He was the first Republican President. And that just gives you a sense of how these categories change so much.

It used to be that the values I just described had a home in the Republican Party as well as the Democratic Party. I think it’s only been in recent years that you can’t find that articulation of some of these values in the Republican Party, and that in fact if you champion them that you’re considered some wild-eyed radical. That’s a shift, and not a good shift, in terms of our public debate.

Read Matthew Vadum’s Subversion, Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers for more on Alinskyite tactics in action.

Kohn’s reliance on these rhetorical weapons comes as no surprise. Visit her personal site and see how she describes herself in her page’s banner:


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #4 

Love Song of Barack Hussein Obama

Michelle Obama's Mirror says sorry: I was going to report on our new Soylent Pink Slime lunch program today, butt while I was down in the Big White kitchen with Chef Sammy Kass taking a few notes and moving one of the canisters of our secret new food product that had passed it’s “use by” date… well let’s just say I had to spend the rest of day at the nearest Glass Doctor shop getting my lens and frame decontaminated, followed by a fresh coat of glass wax. Not exactly a day at the spa.

So I’ll have to wait until tomorrow to file my investigative report on the Soylent Pink Scandal.

In the meantime, in case you missed either Piers Morgan’s interview with Davis Guggenheim – documentary director of the new Big Guy Documentary – who apparently fell in love while filming (occupational hazard, I guess):

…or the  trailer for his resulting movie which I call “Love Song of Barack Hussein Obama” (with apologies to  T.S. Elliot and J. Alfred Prufrock); please enjoy them both.

Let the record reflect for historical purposes that this is a campaign film, paid for by the WTF campaign. Not, repeat NOT, a documentary reflecting actual historical events. Butt then most documentaries these days aren’t.

And in no way reflects reality.  This is pure propaganda.  Prepare to see nine months of this stuff from the ObamaMedia.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
DrJim

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 97
Reply with quote  #5 

The Media exposes the US Media's malfeasance ? That is the RUSSIAN MEDIA !

Pravda.RU reports in a piece written by By Dianna Cotter:

A singularly remarkable event has taken place in the United States of America. This event occurred in Arizona on March 1st and was an earth shattering revelation.

A long awaited press conference was given by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a five time elected Sheriff, which should have made national and international headlines. Arpaio's credentials include serving in the United States Army from 1950 to 1953, service as a federal narcotics agent serving in countries all over the world with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), and served as the head of the Arizona DEA. Without doubt, this is a serious Law Enforcement Officer, not one to be taken in by tin-foil-hat wearing loons.

Yet, in the five days since his revelations there has been little in the way of serious reporting on the findings he presented in his presser. With 6 short videos, the Sheriff and his team presented a devastating case, one the tame US press is apparently unable to report.

On April 27, 2011, President Barack walked into the White House Press room with a Cheshire cat like grin and a "Long Form Birth Certificate" from the State of Hawaii in hand. From the podium in the press room, Mr. Obama said, "We're not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers,". Quite the barb from a man holding a forged document.

That's right, forged.

The president himself created the scene; one filled laughter from an adoring press corp., a scene of unprecedented fanfare while holding a forged document which was later posted on the White House website. This was the news Sheriff Arpaio revealed on March 1, 2012 in Arizona.

Arpaio asserts that his investigators discovered, during a 6 month long investigation which is ongoing, not only was the "Long Form" likely a digitally created forgery, but the presidents Selective Service Card (Draft Card), allegedly filed in 1980, was also a forgery. These documents are what Barack Hussein Obama relies upon to prove his constitutional eligibility to the office of President of the United States.

Forged documents are being used to qualify a President of the United States for the office he holds. Or is usurped the more accurate term?

The silence from the main stream media in the US is deafening. It almost seems as if the press is terrified to even think the question, let alone ask it: Is the President a criminal? The press in Arpaio's audience were certainly asking him to state precisely that, yet nowhere has the question been asked of the White House by the press. Instead the American Press is aggressively protecting the presumed President of the United States, pushing the fraud upon both America and the world, supporting a man who may well have usurped the office

Read the entire piece here ..

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/07-03-2012/120708-arizona_sheriff_obama-0/

 

Lou E Brown

Registered:
Posts: 518
Reply with quote  #6 

And why are they so eager to cover the backside of the Halfrican? Because they all know the truth is not in him but in the one thing that cannot be totally hidden, the fact that he was not born in America to two (2)real American parents. If a real American father can be begged, borrowed or stolen to claim he is Barry's father, and do the DNA and all that, and become the missing link, we are truly hosed. But looking at the ones who don't want it known that they knew and are thus guilty both before and after the fact, they would have to go down with their magical mystery man. I would pay big bucks to see them all do a titanic.

Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #7 

Mainstream media protecting Obama

Herman Cain says you probably heard last week what a radio host said about a law student, but you didn’t hear the news that really matters. That’s because the dinosaur media in this country don’t report the news that really matters.
 
In fact, if you’re like most Americans, you’ve never even heard of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB. It sounds like some obscure committee buried deep in the bowels of government, but it is actually a creation of ObamaCare that has the power to deny you vital treatment that could be essential to your health.

When people laughed at Sarah Palin for speculating about "death panels" in ObamaCare, they either didn’t know -- or ignored -- the reality of the IPAB. Maybe that’s why the media ignored a 17-5 vote last week by a crucial House subcommittee to eliminate the IPAB -- a vote that gained support from two Democrats on the committee. Why did they vote to get rid of the IPAB? Because it is an unelected, unaccountable group of so-called "experts" that ObamaCare would empower to decide which kinds of health care deserves to be covered.
 
This is the dirty little secret behind the Obama claim that ObamaCare controls costs. The claim is absurd on its face because any time you make a service free by forcing a third party to pay for it, you drive demand through the roof and costs will go up. That is so basic you can’t even call it Economics 101. It’s the first day in class.
 
If ObamaCare had existed six years ago when I was diagnosed with Stage IV cancer and my insurance company had to follow ObamaCare rules, the IPAB might have looked at my 30 percent chance of survival and denied my surgery and chemo treatment. I am now six years totally cancer free because I could choose my surgery and chemo treatment, not the government.
 
Plain and simple, the IPAB is the government agency that will direct health-care rationing once ObamaCare causes demand to run laps around supply, which is inevitable.
 
ObamaCare’s defenders claim disingenuously that Congress has oversight powers to override IPAB rulings, just as they have had oversight powers over Fannie and Freddie and the Federal Reserve. How’s that working out for us?
 
There is no requirement for an affirmative vote in Congress to approve the IPAB’s decisions, and that means 15 unelected people will have an awful lot of power to decide how people will be treated -- or not treated.
 
So why didn’t the media report on the House vote this week? A Google news search turns up nothing from the AP, the major newspapers, networks or cable news channels. You only find a handful of press releases and references on conservative news sites.
 
There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that the mainstream media don’t cover actual policy substance, which is why you got your fill of Sandra Fluke but nothing about IPAB. Another big reason is that the mainstream media protect Obama. They do so on matters large and small. Obama’s claim that his father served in World War II may well have been a slip of the tongue intended to reference his grandfather. His father was born in 1936, and he would have had to enlist at the age of five. Impossible!
 
But I could live with their failure on small matters like this, if they would report things that actually matter. They don’t. They completely ignored the fact that Obama double counted $500 billion in "savings" in the scoring of ObamaCare. There have been precious few headlines reporting on the failure of Democrats in Congress to pass a budget since 2009 -- a failure that Obama spokesman Jay Carney said recently the White House has no problem with. The mounting failures of the "green-energy" companies Obama has subsidized have been headline news in alternative conservative media, as you would expect, but they receive scant coverage in the MSM.
 
It’s tough to defeat an incumbent president when the news media protect him by ignoring his failures -- not to mention his "accomplishments" that are bad for the country, like ObamaCare and the establishment of the IPAB. So it should come as no surprise that the House subcommittee vote to eliminate the IPAB got such little attention, even though the vote was bipartisan.
 
If we want the public to understand Obama’s real record, then we’ll have to report it ourselves, because the MSM will not do it. That’s why nearly 50 percent of the public continues to think Barack Obama is doing a good job.
 
They are clueless and the MSM media wants to keep it that way.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Lou E Brown

Registered:
Posts: 518
Reply with quote  #8 

Of these Obamedia stories and it's assigned alinskyite performer, the Kohn one irritates me most. I have watched her use of eyebrows, smirks, mouth corners up and down, even an eyeroll or two. She performs a veritable ballet of facial and physical expressions which are pointedly mocking or negating what any other commentater is saying. Others who do these things to distract and belittle the interviewee include such as the much agitated Soledad as she went at Joel. None of them have maintained the serious and fairminded methods they should have learned in Journalism 101, which I did dabble with as a freshman looking for a major, long ago.

Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #9 

#BSFAIL

 

Scott Johnson is reporting that CBS has released several CBS/New York Times polls that suggest the failure of the intense propaganda campaign waged by the White House and the mainstream media.  Below John discusses the poll that shows Obama’s approval rating sinking to a new low.  CBS reports the results of the poll here.  A sidebar to the poll shows that a majority of Americans believes gas prices are something a president can do a lot about -- by a margin of 54-36.  The poll on Obama's power to affect gas prices is also reported here.

Despite the intense propaganda barrage to which we have been subjected over the past several weeks, CBS reports that most Americans believe there should be an exception to the mandate requiring employers who may have a moral or religious objection to cover birth control for their employees -- by a margin of 57-36.  A majority believes that even nonreligious employers should have the right to opt out -- by a margin of 51-40. CBS reports the results of the poll here.  To the extent that the White House and its media friends have succeeded in confusing the issue, Americans support the White House position.

One more CBS/New York Times poll.  A majority of Americans say they would favor using U.S. military action against Iran to prevent the country from acquiring nuclear weapons -- by a margin of 51-36.  The poll is reported here.

Per the approval rating story, the polls were conducted among 1009 adults nationwide, 878 of whom were registered voters.  I asked CBS/interactive editor Brian Montopoli why the polls were conducted among adults as opposed to registered or likely voters.  Brian referred me to CBS’s Sarah Dutton, who kindly responded:

We measure views on current issues and the president’s approval rating in non-election years as well, so it’s necessary to look at those questions among a wider group than voters.  The context for a president’s approval rating or views on something like Iran or the economy isn’t always election-related.

Our data on presidential approval ratings, wars, recessions, etc have historically been reported among all adults.  That’s true for other polls as well, not just CBS News polls.

We do report other election-related questions, such as specific measures of candidates (favorability for example), among voters.

I hope this answers your question.

I appreciate the response, and I pass it on for what it is worth.  I think that a poll limited to registered or likely voters would show slightly worse results (worse from the perspective of the Democrat Media Axis).


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #10 

A dishonest media endanger our freedom
 

Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, a recipient of the United States military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, says:  

Some years ago I served as "spokesman" for the Army where I dealt daily with all media. It became clear to me then, as it is today, that the two most important forces in the experiment that is America are the military and the media -- one keeps us secure, the other keeps us free. The most certain sign of an assault on a people’s freedom is any leadership enslaving their media -- usually just before they enslave the people. There is no doubt about the security competence of our military; there is considerable doubt about the freedom competence of our media. Some will, without compunction, publish documents designed only to harm America and threaten our freedom. Their true mission is to tell us the truth about ourselves and the issues, but they fail in their mission. Much of America is ideologically balanced -- not so the media.

A recent book by Dr. Tim Groseclose, "Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind," scientifically establishes what any thoughtful American knows: The majority of the media are liberal. It also scientifically establishes something we are not as aware of -- about 70 percent of our views come from the media we use. Dr. Groseclose demonstrates that media bias helps Democratic candidates by 8 to 10 percent. These facts help explain how a reasonably conservative people could elect a radically liberal president, a man who in substance is essentially only a rhetorical celebrity. These facts also explain that conservatives are already down 10 points come November. We need to be aware of the nature and liberal imbalance of our media and the importance of the media we use, as we go into perhaps the most important election in our history.
 
The word news originated as an acronym for information from the north, east, west and south, but to many it is just another four-letter word. Actually, I learned it is a "C" lettered word: chaos, confusion, conflict, cover-up, crime, corruption, catastrophe, conspiracy, classified documents and the big two, in my work at the Pentagon, combat and casualties. I was once asked after discussing this: What about sex? My answer: copulation, which we have already heard a lot about this election, as we have other C’s about Republican candidates.
 
My first encounter with a reporter from the major media concerned an Army aircraft crash. We did not have all the facts, and I told him so. He openly said he didn’t care if he got it right -- he needed to get it first. He was not interested in the military’s remarkable safety record despite the most dangerous type of flying; he only wanted gruesome details, which of course upset military families. Another reporter told me he would absolutely publish classified information. My future media encounters just got worse (although there were some outstanding journalists in the Pentagon).
 
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said the rich are different from the rest of us. As a military spokesman, I found that many journalists were vastly different from soldiers and most American; not only in their liberal bias but in their psyche. As an example, Mike Wallace, a media icon, once said that if he were a journalist with an enemy patrol covering the ambush of American soldiers, he would cover it as any other story and not warn the Americans. Peter Jennings agreed. By the way, a Marine present at that exchange wondered if he should risk a troop to rescue a wounded journalist outside the wire. After all, he was only a journalist, not an American. Of course he would rescue the journalist.
 
"60 Minutes" came to me to do a story on night vision goggles, a follow-up to other inaccurate media reports on the subject that implied they were killing our pilots. They promised to be fair and follow my guidelines on educating reporters on the devices and their lifesaving effects. Shortly afterward, I got a call from a friend inside "60 Minutes" stating that he sat in on a meeting in which it was stated openly the show was going to "bash" the Army on the subject. When I confronted the head of "60 Minutes" on this, amazingly he demanded that I identify my source! I could go on.
 
There are improvements in our media thanks largely to talk radio, the Internet and Fox News. Not long ago media anchors would never attack one another. Thankfully, those days are gone, and their liberal bias is being exposed. Still, many of our media are liberal slaves. If you doubt that, ask them; or look at how they vote and spend their money.
 
Washington journalist voted 93-to-7 for Democrats in the last election. Being liberal is fine, and we are all biased. We hear about the "mainstream media," the "lamestream media," and the "drive-by media," and so be it -- but what is dangerous to our freedom is a dishonest media. As I said, their job is to tell us the truth about ourselves and not lie to support their biases. It was a dishonest media that elected Barack Obama. They never told us the truth about the man.
 
Everyone believes that Dan Quayle can’t spell potato, but how many know that Barack Obama doesn’t know the difference between a corps and a corpse, or Memorial Day and Veterans Day? Or that he visited 57 states? The man was confused over out national motto! We know that Bill Clinton smoked pot but never inhaled. How many know that Obama was also a doper who did inhale both pot and cocaine. I remember my first visit to the Pentagon on May 19, 1972 -- someone had just blown up a toilet. That someone was Bill Ayers, a political ally and close friend of Obama.
 
Bishop Fulton Sheen warned about rationalizing evil. We see that when our media do not tell the truth about issues and censor and distort stories to support their ideology. Edmund Burke said: "Vice itself lost half its evil, by losing all its grossness." The media will show the grossest examples of sex and violence but no visuals on abortion. If the American people saw a documentary on partial-birth abortion in all its grossness, legalized abortion would end in this country.
 
A blatant example of media distortion is the media mantra that homosexuals could not serve "openly" in the military. The truth is that they could not serve legally -- period. Many wondered, if they can serve, then why not openly? The result is a quad-sexual military that will degrade readiness. If the media covered the truth about homosexual health issues and practices, public opinion would change.
 
And in a profession that demands unwavering courage, many in the media are cowards. We see images of Jesus in urine and the Madonna covered with elephant dung, but any derogatory image of Muhammad is censored. There are not many Christian suicide bombers.
 
We are told Obama is "brilliant" but never told why. Where are his grades, his SAT scores? You can bet that the Republican presidential candidate will release both his medical and academic records. The media will force him to. Barack Obama is alone among recent presidential candidates in not releasing his medical records, and the media continue to be mute on this.
 
As never before voters need the truth and to be aware of the influence and dishonesty of some media and how hard they will work for their protégé, Barack Obama, this next election. We also need to be sure that we get our information from more than one source. It has been said that the main difference between a cat and a lie is that a cat only has nine lives. Media cover for dishonest liberal politicians promotes dishonesty. Liberal pols can lie for free, and in the absence of correction, the lie becomes the truth. Recently, the media changed an Obama unconstitutional war on religious freedom into a war on women. I am amazed at how many friends thoughtlessly spew the media narrative on many issues.
 
The truth about Barack Obama will doom him and save our country from a fatal transformation.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #11 

CNN Seeks to limit loss of credibility by rewriting history

Sookums says that by now, the literate world is well aware of CNN’s news anchor, Soledad O’Brien’s public humiliation during her interview with Breitbart’s Pollak. If there was ever a doubt in the mind of anyone but the most dedicated Socialist sycophants of the Main Stream Media being less than an unofficial propaganda bureau for Barack Obama, this should have been the deciding factor.
 
CNN is now in full damage control mode, by trying to cast Derrick Bell, one of America’s foremost racists and former mentor to Obama as a great crusader for civil rights in the spirit of Martin Luther King; unfortunately, the truth and facts are ugly and one of our president’s early friends and mentors is a vicious and vile racist who used his dubious academic credentials and a prolific effort of obfuscation to disguise stark racism as an analytical theory on race. In an effort to “Save Face” in the oriental tradition, a writer from CNN, with considerably more ability than O’Brien, has written a 1500 word essay to vindicate O’Brien and to help lessen the public’s impression of CNN and O’Brien being in the tank or should we say cess pool with Obama and willing to do or say anything to promote the Obama agenda. However, it is this essay and its revisionist stance on recent history, that provides the proof of CNN’s complicity with the Obama agenda.
 
Soledad committed her first error by not admitting that she was a fan of Bell or perhaps her first mistake was not admitting to CNN that although she had read Bell’s books, her comprehension was marginal.

There is nothing wrong with being a sycophantic fan of a writer, but the problem becomes apparent when the fan is passed off as an objective analyst; unfortunately, for Soledad, she was humiliated and became a laughingstock, along with her employer, the Obama Propaganda Bureau, CNN.
 
CNN has now decided to do battle with the forces that have no reservations against calling the racist Derrick Bell, a racist, by rewriting or blunting the message of the racist mentor of Barack Obama and trying once again to repackage the vile message of racism under a pretense of scholarly circumlocution.
 
The story of Obama and the endemic racism of his associates is ongoing with many surprises.
 
In November of 1985, the Harvard Law Review published a seminal article of Critical Race Theory, written by Derrick Bell, and edited by a student, Elena Kagan. The same article was cited by Professor Charles Ogletree and by President Obama as support for her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010. The article defines the Constitution as a form of “original sin”. A similar view has been expressed by Barack Obama in referring to the flaws of the Constitution. Most of the article is fiction and meant as a parable. Unfortunately, the parables of a racist are now becoming institutionalized within our legal system.

This article is illuminating -- continue reading here . . .
 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Seriously

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,060
Reply with quote  #12 
This is just a funny little note in regards to Soledad O’Brien.  She's mad at twitter people calling her out on CRT.  She tweeted yesterday...
“Well, he’s not on the receiving end of the crazy tweets that I’ve been getting about critical race theory as well,” O’Brien said. “[C]ritical Race Theory 101, stop tweeting me — we have moved on, people.”

__________________
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
Seriously

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,060
Reply with quote  #13 
#11 - Stunning write up.  This struck me!
 
"Epilogue: Early in my tenure as an amateur blogger at FA, I received several emails from authors who unknowingly served as my unofficial mentors. They asked that I tone down my rhetoric and refrain from calling Obama a Marxist; at least until, the public was ready to accept the fact. Never again will I rein in my keyboard for the delicate sensitivities of our readers or other writers. The country is in deep manure and I refuse to drown in it gracefully. Fire me or railroad me out of here, but I will not go down the path of Marxism quietly and without a fight. I will pull no more punches, not for Obama’s brown hide or anyone else’s."

Even bloggers were trying to down play Obama?


__________________
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #14 

Media shocked by Obama's big drop in polls

 

Rush LImbaugh says:
 

Now back to the polling data. As I say, in the New York Times/CBS poll you could almost hear the panic as you read the words off the page. This is an all-time low for Obama: 41% approval. It’s an all-time low. They don’t mention that in the story, and you notice also here that Obama has such poor approval numbers even though two-thirds of those polled think the economy’s getting better. Two-thirds of this poll think the economy is getting better, because they’re following all of the garbage that’s being reported in the mainstream media. They are confused.
 

People are saying, "Okay, uhhhh, we’re being told the economy is roaring back and growing back and all these new jobs are being created, but where is the growth and where is all the new tax revenue?" We had the largest deficit in the history of this country in the month of February. It’s only 29 days! The largest deficit, monthly deficit in the history of the country. Where’s the economic growth? Where’s the tax revenue? If there was economic growth we wouldn’t have had the largest deficit in American history. Now, the Times tries to pin Obama’s downturn on rising gasoline prices, and on the ignorant 54% of poll respondents who believe a president can do a lot to control gas prices.
  

Fifty-four percent in the poll believe the president "can do a lot to control gas prices." Now, why would they think that, folks? Why would 54% of the American people think that? You want to know why? Because during the eight years of George W. Bush the media and the Democrat Party spent practically every day blaming Bush for the price of gasoline and for everything else that they dreamed up or imagined was bad or going bad. So it’s after eight years of the Drive-By Media -- sycophants for the Democrat Party, willing accomplices -- attacking George W. Bush for high gas prices. And let’s not forget the Democrat Party itself with John F. Kerry (who served in Vietnam, by the way), and every one of these other Democrats out there saying, "Bush has gotta do something about gas prices!
 

"He’s gotta meet with the Saudis! He’s gotta do something. He can’t drill, though! No, no, no, can’t drill. But we got a problem here with Iran." Do you realize how incompetent Obama sounds when he talks about why we can’t drill? "Well, we can’t drill. It’d take two to three years, but the reason I’ve got my hands tied here is because of Iran." Well, okay, so let’s get our own domestic supply. "Nope, can’t drill. That’d take too long. Keystone pipeline? No, the pipeline could pollute the land with the oil. Nope, can’t do it." So, on the one hand, Obama blames Iran, blames the Middle East "instability" for the high price of gasoline and oil. While at the same time denying, refusing the opportunity presented to him to do anything about it.
 

Does he not know how ignorant he sounds?


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,124
Reply with quote  #15 
Obama is lying again about oil & gas wells. I live on the coast of Texas. I have watched several times where drillers could go from site prep to pump in 2 months. Now, you must understand that is on private land and the "paperwork" all done before the first bulldozer is unloaded. Also, most probably the real fast ones were gas wells, oil wells take a little longer. And you have to get the oil to a refinery.
 

The 2 or 3 years is a lie or artificially lengthened because of bureaucratic nonsense. Also even starting drilling affects the price of oil immediately because the speculators quit bidding it up. 
Seriously

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,060
Reply with quote  #16 
Obama is delusional, he believes everything he says is true.  I'll say it again, he's going to loose it sooner or later and it's going to be ugly.

__________________
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
Nightowl

Registered:
Posts: 30
Reply with quote  #17 
No drilling. He has already given his word to Soros, along with billions for the Brazilian deep water deal. 
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #18 

Soledad O'Brien rewrites history

 

This excerpt comes from a long post by DrJohn.  It demonstrates how Obama sycophant Soledad O’Brien, who got into a tussle with Joel Pollak of Breitbart.com, has previously twisted reality and history in defending her champion, Barack Hussein Obama.
 

In her conversation with Pollak she at first appeared not to know what Critical Race Theory actually was while at the same time she was sure Pollak was wrong. From somewhere she came up with a definition that happened to be curiously similar to the one found in Wikipedia. Soon after the Wikipedia page for CRT was changed repeatedly and so often that it came under editorial lockdown.
 

O’Brien was so flummoxed that she invited another liberal professor to attempt to rewrite history at CNN.

 

O’Brien also failed to disclose that the liberal prof who denied on her show that critical race theory had aaaaaanything to do with bashing America as a white supremacy-ruled government actually wrote the exact opposite. In one of her own books, Brown asserted that the purpose of CRT was to “highlight the ways in which the law is not neutral and objective, but designed to support White supremacy and the subordination of people of color.” Oops.
 

When viewers took to Twitter to pepper O’Brien with follow-up questions about critical race theory, the CNN star had a twit fit. She invited a liberal professor, Emory University’s Dorothy Brown, on her television show to back her up and then lashed out: “See? That was our critical race theory 101. Stop tweeting me. We have moved on, people.”
 

However, it turns out that O’Brien, a Harvard grad, has a rather emotional connection to Bell.
 

But this wasn’t the first time O’Brien tried to shield her viewers from the truth. Far from it.
 
In January she flailed away at Newt Gingrich when Gingrich tied Saul Alinsky to Barack Obama.
 

 

O'Brien actually had the audacity (to coin a term) to try to tie Alinsky to the TEA Party.
 

The transcript is here . . .
 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
UTJ

Registered:
Posts: 55
Reply with quote  #19 
This may not be the appropriate place for this, but I find this very interesting. For months I have been getting multiple daily newsletters from WND.com. Newsletters I signed up for. Every one of them is delivered to my inbox. Today I got one with the subject "The president's bogus birth certificate" delivered to my SPAM box. Usually there's a link in the email to the full story on WND.

if you don't get the newsletters from WND here's the full text.


The president's bogus birth certificate
Joseph Farah tells Americans, 'Don't even get mad' at media, 'get even'

Did you see the reaction of the "press" to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's report on the fact that Barack Obama's birth certificate is a crude forgery?

Did the media assembled in Phoenix gasp in shock at the carefully presented findings?

Did reporters run out of the room to file Page 1 stories explaining that the first law-enforcement investigation of the document found overwhelming and compelling evidence of criminal fraud?

Did the shocking report lead the news on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CNN?

No. 
 
Instead, the media questioned Arpaio's motives for presenting the facts.

And they filed stories characterizing the report as conspiracy-mongering.

Or, they ignored the press conference and the report altogether.

What a shameful and disgraceful exhibition by my colleagues!

No wonder most law-enforcement agencies in this country won't look under rocks the way Arpaio will. No wonder we can't have a thoughtful, free and open discussion of the facts surrounding Obama's eligibility for office. No wonder most people are afraid to speak out publicly about this important constitutional issue.

I know how reluctant the investigators were to take an honest look at the evidence. I know they would have preferred to debunk the conclusions of Jerome Corsi and others who had investigated before them. I know there were no predetermined conclusions and a strong inclination toward validating the document if only it were possible.

But honest and independent law-enforcement people don't do that.

I have immense respect for Sheriff Arpaio, who showed a great deal of courage and integrity.

The press, for the most part, demonstrated no integrity. Unable to dispute the facts, they attempted to smear the messenger.

Take a look at a sampling of some of the accounts I read in the media:

Check out this report from the Associated Press, the largest news-gathering organization in the world:
    PHOENIX – America's self-proclaimed toughest sheriff finds himself entangled these days in his own thorny legal troubles: a federal grand jury probe over alleged abuse of power, Justice Department accusations of racial profiling and revelations that his department didn't adequately investigate hundreds of Arizona sex-crime cases.

    Rather than seek cover, though, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is seeking to grab the spotlight in the same unorthodox fashion that has helped boost his career as a nationally known lawman.

    Arpaio scheduled a news conference Thursday to unveil preliminary results of an investigation, conducted by members of his volunteer cold-case posse, into the authenticity of President Barack Obama's birth certificate, a controversy that has been widely debunked but which remains alive in the eyes of some conservatives. Last year, Donald Trump most prominently revived the issue while entertaining a possible bid for the presidency.

    The 79-year-old Republican sheriff has declined to offer clues to what the probe may have found – but defends his need to spearhead such an investigation after nearly 250 people connected to an Arizona tea party group requested one last summer.

You might get the impression this article was written before the press conference – since it suggests Arpaio "declined to offer clues to what the probe may have found." In fact, it was written and published after a two-hour press conference that meticulously laid out shocking details of why the birth certificate is actually a crude forgery.

How about this report from CBS News:
    Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, announced Thursday that his six-month investigation had found that "probable cause exists indicating that forgery and fraud may have been committed" in the release of President Obama's long-form birth certificate.

    The publicity-hungry Arpaio, a strong opponent of illegal immigration who calls himself "America's Toughest Sheriff," said the evidence gathered by his investigators suggests Mr. Obama's birth certificate and selective service registration card are fakes. …

    Arpaio's press conference puts him in league with the "birthers," the conspiracy theorists who claim – against overwhelming evidence – that Mr. Obama was not born in the United States and thus is not eligible to be president. (Many "birthers" believe the president was born in Kenya.) The White House's decision to release the president's long-form birth certificate in April has quieted such claims, though it did not extinguished [sic] them.

At least this article actually reported some of what Arpaio said between highly opinionated slurs against anyone who would take such matters seriously. 
  
I could give you dozens more examples of such shoddy "reporting." But you have probably seen them for yourself.

America is in a very sad state when the media are controlled by people who seem to think their job is to protect the powerful and the status quo, while debunking and maligning anyone who steps forward to present some inconvenient facts.

My suggestion?

Don't get mad. Get even.
 
Joseph Farah
Editor and Chief Executive Officer
WND.com


Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #20 

Media blackout on Obama eligibility near-total

WorldNetDaily is reporting that despite vast public interest, "mainstream" and "conservative" press are AWOL.

Even though almost half of registered voters tell pollsters they are not convinced Barack Obama’s birth certificate is authentic -- and even though the first official U.S. law enforcement investigation into the matter established “probable cause” that the document released with great fanfare by the White House last April is a computer-generated forgery -- a virtual media blackout remains in effect on the most controversial story of the Obama presidency.

Even when one of several bombshell findings of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s six-month investigation into Obama’s constitutional eligibility was rated last week by Internet ranking service Alexa.com as one of the most-read news stories in the entire world -- due almost entirely to coverage by WND and the Drudge Report -- not only the establishment press, but most of the “conservative” media as well, looked the other way. For example:

 

Shortly after Arpaio’s March 1 press conference, a popular column discussing Obama’s eligibility to serve as president was published on Townhall.com -- which bills itself as the “leading conservative and political opinion website” -- but then, the column inexplicably disappeared from the site.

Titled “Sheriff Joe Exposes Forgery of Obama’s Selective Service Registration,” by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown of the Western Center For Journalism, it had been Townhall’s eighth-most-read and most-emailed column that day. Then suddenly it was gone – and WND’s requests for comment failed to elicit any explanation from Townhall.

Then last week, another regular Townhall columnist, Diana West, wrote “Why the Silence About Obama’s Historic Scam?” but found that it wasn’t posted on Townhall at all. Worse, it was déjà vu for West, whose previous column on the same topic likewise was also spiked.

When WND asked West why her last two columns on the subject of Obama’s eligibility weren’t posted on Townhall, she responded: “This week’s empty hole where my column on media silence on Sheriff Arpaio’s press conference would normally go, like last month’s empty hole where my column on the Atlanta court proceeding on eligibility would normally go, speak for themselves.”

West’s column cited the “hard, sharp facts that might poke through my discussion of what is surely the biggest scandal to emerge around the seemingly dodgy docs Barack Obama is using to verify his identity.”

She also noted the “logic- and history-defying news and political blackout of the March 1 press conference called in Maricopa County, Ariz., by Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse.”

 

West’s challenge to readers was simple: “I ask you: Have you read in your local paper about the technical evidence that led the posse’s three retired criminal investigators and two attorneys to conclude that the birth certificate image White House officials uploaded at the White House website on April 27, 2011, did not originate in a paper format, but rather was created (forged) as an electronic file on a computer?

 

“Have you seen on network or cable news the video clip (one of six posse videos at YouTube) re-creating exactly how an additional fraud might have been committed to forge the president’s Selective Service registration card? Heard even conservative talk radio discussing the posse’s discovery that immigration files in the National Archives recording overseas arrivals into Hawaii are missing from the week of Obama’s 1961 birthday? Or about the retired mailman’s affidavit attesting that the mother of ex-Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers enthusiastically told him that she helped with “foreign student” Barack Obama’s education?”

 

Continue reading here . . .

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #21 

Scrub-a-dub-dub!

Yesterday, I posted an article by John Mariotti, published on Forbes website.  The title of the piece was, "Is there an imposter in the White House?"

Well, guess what?  It's gone!

When one clicks the source link today, instead of being linked to the article, you get this:

So, I went to the Internet archive, the Wayback Machine, entered the link, and got this:

Now Wayback remembers everything.  The only way that Wayback doesn't have an archived copy of that page is that it was manually removed by someone at Google.

 

And yes, there really was such an article.  It's still listed when one does a search of Forbes.com using "John Mariotti":

 

 

You don't find a more conservative website or organization than Forbes, but they're even terrified of the regime.

 

 



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,222
Reply with quote  #22 
I spent 45 minutes last night trying to find that article and the actual book review.  NOTHING, NOWHERE, NADA, GOODBYE.....finally I just gave up, but I just wanted to see what all the story was from another point of view. 

The O team is applying all of its tactics very early to get all of us 'Ugly American's" very scared in the hopes that they can CONTROL US before we get nasty towards them.....
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #23 

Can we learn something from the Classics about vetting Obama?

Monte Kuligowski says after my last piece on why it's reasonable to authenticate Obama's elusive birth certificate, I received an e-mail from a reader. His name is Bill Meisler, and he is fluent in ancient Greek. Recently, Bill was reading the speeches of Demosthenes.

Bill relayed the following:

In the scholarly notes to the Speech Against Meidias the commentator wrote that before an Athenian could hold any magistracy of the city, he had to undergo what was called a dokimasia, a formal public inquiry into whether the man who wished to hold the magistracy possessed all the necessary criteria needed to prove his Athenian citizenship and thereby be allowed the privilege of holding office. The dokimasia was open to the public and was presided over by the appropriate authorities in the presence of the boule, the democratic council representing the entire citizenry. Witnesses and unequivocal documentation were required, and any citizen could challenge the proceedings of the inquiry.

Though it may seem a little odd to us at first glance, the dokimasia was held after the election. In the book Aspects of Athenian Democracy, by Robert J. Bonner, it's noted that:

... [t]hese disqualifications and restrictions [to holding office] were matters of record or observation[.] But there were other disqualifications that could be discovered only by a judicial investigation involving the production of witnesses. Obviously it would be economical of time and effort to defer this inquiry until after the election[.] This examination was known as the dokimasia.

In contemporary America, the examination of candidates is thought to be done by the free press prior to the election. But when serious vetting of the winning candidate has not occurred, we have a predicament: judges have ruled that citizens have no standing to enforce eligibility requirements becauseof the election.

In such a system, the incalculable power of the unified media to create impressions and manufacture public opinion means that election results may be engineered and shielded from substance and sound judgment.

Unfortunately, with regard to the matter of Barack Obama, as David Kupelian puts it, instead "of vetting him as was their solemn duty, the media lifted him high overhead and giddily raced across the finish line[.]" Excluding those who did independent research, voters knew little on Election Day about the actual substance of the candidate chosen by the JournoLists to "make history."

Many voters, if not most, went to the polls not even knowing the Obama's middle name, or the fact that he attended elementary school in Islamic Indonesia using a completely different name. Was Barry Soetoro adopted by his Muslim stepfather, Lolo Soetoro? No one knows for sure because the press refused to ask questions, let alone demand answers.

Very few knew what Saul Alinsky-type community organizers were really all about. Many viewed a "community organizer" as a sort of idolized Boy Scout who helps neighborhoods by doing good deeds. Few knew that as a community organizer, Obama was creating political "power bases" for "redistributive justice." Most voters did not know of Obama's revolutionary dreams and of his commensurate connections to ACORN, the New Party, and Project Vote. (It was not for nothing that the Communist Party backed Obama.) Mr. Obama's core identity in hard-left Marxist radicalism was ignored or downplayed by the press.

At the pinnacle of the public's concern over Obama's shocking twenty-year church membership under the tutelage of his America-loathing "spiritual advisor," one "journalist" actually declared his early 2008 interview of Obama a "Reverend Wright-free zone."

On the contrary, the historic Republican candidate got no "free zones." Sarah Palin experienced one of the most vicious concerted media attacks in American political history. When John McCain selected Palin as his running mate, she was an admired governor with a remarkable 83% approval rating. After the liberal media were finished with Palin, only 39% of Alaskans were found to hold a positive opinion of the once-widely respected hockey mom.

John McCain was subjected to a Senate Resolution in 2008 to clear up questions relating to his status as a "natural born citizen" under the Constitution. The traditional definition of natural born citizen as one having an unbroken chain of natural allegiance to the United States was implicitly applied to McCain. Since the traditional definition didn't apply to Obama, the question as to whether Obama needed U.S. citizen parents to qualify was completely ignored.

The discussion between Charlie Rose and former NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw just a few days prior to the 2008 presidential election says it all:

Rose: I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.

Brokaw: No, I don't either.

Rose: And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

Brokaw: You know that's an interesting question. ... I don't know what books he's read.

Rose: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

Brokaw: There's a lot about him we don't know.

Many Americans now know they were hoodwinked by the image of Obama as presented by his campaign and the media (forgive the redundancy). In addition to the known betrayal, the sense that we have been deceived with regard to Obama's natal history remains. Mr. Obama's staunch secrecy in locking down the ordinary records of his past (passport, education, hospital, medical, vital, etc.) has only increased anger and distrust.

The recent findings of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's investigative team have led to the alarming pronouncement that probable cause exists to believe that Obama's belated birth certificate and Selective Service registration are both awkward forgeries.

Should Arpaio's findings be ignored without a hearing? Do we have any options?

Well, at this point, the solution is to have an American dokimasia to settle the matter once and for all. Robert Bonner informs us that during the examination in ancient Athens, the elected official "was required to prove, by witnesses, his citizen descent for three generations, his performance of his duties to his parents and of all military services, the payment of his taxes, the possession of a family tomb, and adherence to the cults of Apollo Patrous and Zeus of the Household."

Bonner continues, "anyone was free to show cause in a court of law why the official-elect should not be confirmed in his office." It's apparent from the examinations of the clients of Lysias that "the loyalty of the prospective officials to democracy was likely to be called in question."

The perfect venue for our Obama dokimasia is the House of Congress. Let's learn once again from the ancient Greeks and have open hearings, complete with witnesses and document production via the congressional power of the subpoena.

The principles our founders incorporated into our Constitution from Athenian democracy should continue in perpetuity. We may not require proof of citizen descent for three generations, but one generation should not be too much to ask. We may not require a generational family mausoleum, but adherence to the cult of American liberty with the traditional values of our founding -- God-given rights independent of government; limited, enumerated central power; etc. -- via fidelity to our Constitution should also be revived as a normative requirement.

The Athenian model of complete transparency is a refreshing idea in context of the exhausted secrecy of Barack Hussein Obama II.

From the classics we can learn that transparency at the most fundamental level equates to trust at all other levels.

 

Crossposted . . .

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #24 

Headlines control the narrative -- guess who controls the headlines?

Tom Blimer says last Thursday Rush Limbaugh, addressing one of the Associated Press’s latest offenses against journalism, suggested that we “regard every AP story, particularly this year, as nothing more than a propaganda piece for the reelection of Barack Obama.”

Good idea — and of course, that goes for ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Reuters, Bloomberg News, and virtually the entire establishment and entertainment press. Many if not most of their reports betray an ever more obvious preference for four more years of Obama.

There’s a new and largely overlooked problem in this election cycle: Story headlines have become more powerful than ever. That’s because far more people than in 2008 are getting their “news” from headline feeds sent to computers, smart phones (46% of all wireless phones), and tablets (34 million users). Even avid news consumers with busy lives won’t go to what’s behind most of the headlines they see on these devices — and when they do, especially given the limited real estate on their screens, they will rarely read past the opening paragraph or two.

 

This is a serious concern because the aforementioned propagandists, with special assistance from certain leftist outlets, have a virtual lock on these feeds. As I see it, their privileged access has given them extraordinary power this time around to influence the political and cultural narrative — and they have learned how to abuse it.

I will support my take on things first by discussing several headlines I observed in two hours of reviewing a Google-driven news feed last Tuesday evening. I will then cite examples from last Thursday and Friday where the headlines and opening teases worked with stunning effectiveness to portray Obama favorably or to denigrate his potential electoral opponents.

The Google News feed review was a truly discouraging experience, especially when imagining how a politically disengaged user might process what I saw. Here is some of it:

  • Via the Washington Post — “Ryan introduces GOP budget plan, slashing social programs and tax rates.” You could hardly make up a more obvious “heartless conservatives steal from the poor to give to the rich” headline. Those who click through will see the following opening sentence: “House Republicans renewed their commitment Tuesday to the politically risky strategy of targeting Medicare and other popular social programs to tame the national debt, unveiling a $3.5 trillion spending plan that would also slash the top tax rate paid by corporations and the wealthy.” Apparently anything that isn’t based on letting out-of-control programs stay on autopilot indefinitely constitutes “slashing,” because the actual Ryan Plan shows Medicare, the one program specifically mentioned, going up by no less than 4.7% in any year between 2013 and 2021, and by 70% during the nine-year time period.
     
  • “Killings Could Stall Election’s Nationalist Turn” — Since it’s from the New York Times, a story like this will get carried in a news feed, even though the “don’t bother reading this” headline tells readers nothing about where the killings occurred or who was involved. Tellingly, the story’s browser window title is “Killings Could Taint French Presidential Campaign,” indicating that the Times deliberately watered down its transmitted title. The story is about what PJ Media’s David Gerstman calls the “No Islamists Here” murders of seven, including three soldiers, a teacher, and three Jewish children in France — by (surprise … not) a Muslim. We don’t want to let anybody know that in the age of the alleged “Arab spring” there are still jihadists in Western countries killing innocents, do we? Don’t you know that Barack Obama solved all of this?
     
  • At the Wall Street Journal — “2012 GOP Wives More Popular Than Husbands.” Really, people? This is feedworthy news (or even true?), when the vast majority of even engaged GOP voters barely know who these women are? The goal, of course, is to get the disengaged to start thinking: “Boy, these guys must really be schmucks.”
     
  • At AFP – “Obama disowns De Niro white First Lady joke.” Readers who don’t get past the headline will think that the president himself responded (what a guy!) in reaction to De Niro’s “joke,” wherein the actor asked an audience: “Callista Gingrich. Karen Santorum. Ann Romney. Now do you really think our country is ready for a white First Lady? Too soon, right?” No, the reaction came from Obama’s campaign; and instead of “disowning” it, a spokesperson would only say: “We believe the joke was inappropriate.”

Certain organizations deemed eligible for newsfeed treatment were more than a little questionable, unless you think you can get a reliable diet of straight facts from the likes of the Huffington Post.

 

Continue reading here . . .

 


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 24,815
Reply with quote  #25 

Media blackout on Obama eligibility near-total

 

The Give Us Liberty blog says that despite the vast public interest, "mainstream" and "conservative" press are AWOL.

 

Even though almost half of registered voters tell pollsters they are not convinced Barack Obama’s birth certificate is authentic – and even though the first official U.S. law enforcement investigation into the matter established “probable cause” that the document released with great fanfare by the White House last April is a computer-generated forgery – a virtual media blackout remains in effect on the most controversial story of the Obama presidency.

 
What about Fox News?
 
When it was announced that talk radio powerhouse “Mancow” Muller would be featured in two one-hour Fox TV specials called “Mancow TV Worldwide,” the radio host specifically requested that WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi be his first guest.  Corsi, a two-time No. 1 New York Times bestselling author and Harvard Ph.D., was set to discuss Iran and Israel, as well as globalism.

When Fox was setting up the time for Corsi to be interviewed on Muller’s debut show, he was specifically prohibited by the show’s producers from discussing anything to do with the constitutional eligibility questions still plaguing Obama.

Corsi has been the nation’s leading investigative journalist on the Obama eligibility issue and is the author of the New York Times bestsellerWhere’s the Birth Certificate?” As such, he played a central role in introducing the issue to Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The sheriff’s investigative team recently completed the first phase of an ongoing law-enforcement investigation into the many vexing and totally unvetted issues of Obama’s past that bear directly on the legality of his serving as president.

Corsi agreed to the restrictions on the Mancow interview, and the Fox segment was taped and scheduled for broadcast.

But then, Corsi’s publicist received a call from the show’s producer saying network executives had viewed the segment and determined that it “didn’t fit,” and thus would be scrubbed.

 

Continue reading here . . .


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscribing
member

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2016
All rights reserved