But.... against my normal, better judgement and for LACK of a better interview of this lady, I'm going to post some stuff here. There's a video that interviews Amber Lyons. She basically exposes what is going on with the US Government and CNN.
But... don't listen to the Jones' part of this listen to the lady.
I'm going to post a full article (portions of which were posted elsewhere by Vector). This is the whole thing.
Re: The Main Stream Media Works for the US Government
CNN Exposed – Emmy Winning Former CNN Journalist, Amber Lyon, Blows The Whistle…. Simultaneously Answers One of my questions….
Posted on October 1, 2012 by sundancecracker Perhaps this one of the most important discussion threads ever regarding Legacy Media manipulation. We sincerely hope you will take the time to digest the content, think about the ramifications to what is here, and then share the information with others.
This is not a matter of opinion, the CNN stories are documented, attributed and cited. They are factual. Everything is verifiable within the embedded links and citations.
Believe it or not, just creating this discussion thread is risky. We are unable to expand.
Before getting to the CNN Amber Lyon expose’ (which is incredible and troubling) let’s first back up a moment and take you back to a previous video we shared surrounding recent events.
In this first video from Canada the topic is the Libyan US Consulate Bombing and the US Egyptian Embassy being overrun. While the topic of Egypt is a ‘component’ of the issue, it is not our central concern.
The central issue is Media Controlled by The Obama Administration, and more specifically CNN – as a VERIFIED tool for propaganda and disinformation.
Within this Canadian video report you will find footage of a CNN story on Egypt and Mohammed Al Zawahiri. It was produced by well-known CNN Journalist Nick Robertson. The entire video is excellent, but the pertinent aspect is at the 1:30 mark.
In the previous thread I asked two central questions. The Second Question was:
Why would CNN [or CNNi] refuse to air the Nick Robertson report with Muhammed Al Zawahiri (brother of Ayman Al Zawahiri) that clearly shows the Egyptian uprising was 100% in response to his call for protests for release of the Blind sheik on 9-11.? Why would the “most trusted name in news“, hide the report showing the truth, and instead allow the false narrative to be sold, by them, to the American electorate?
Amber Lyon provides the answer(s).
CNN never aired the Nick Robertson report in Egypt because it completely contradicted President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s assertions. In short, the Robertson report, if aired, would have proved Obama and Clinton were lying.
The Nick Robertson CNN report was filmed on 9/11/12, yes the exact morning of the Cairo embassy protest, and, by coincidence, it would have aired at the exact moment Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama began attributing the Egyptian embassy protest to a “U-Tube Video”. A U-Tube Video the U.S. Cairo embassy itself was unaware of until 9/9/12.
CNN’s refusal to air the real reasoning for the Egyptian Embassy protest turned assault was intentional protection of President Obama, specifically orchestrated by the CNN News group, at the behest of the White House. Specific, intentional, lying.
Apparently they have a history of this no-one knew about. UNTIL NOW.
Amber Lyon is an award-winning journalist who worked for CNN.
She says she was ordered to report fake stories, delete unfriendly stories adverse to the Obama administration (like the Nick Robertson report), and construct stories in specific manners while working for the left-wing network.
CNN is paid by foreign and domestic Government agencies for specific content. Let me repeat that.
CNN is paid by the US government for reporting on some events, and not reporting on others. The Obama Administration pays CNN for content control. Let that sink in.
Additionally CNN and CNN International are also paid by foreign governments to avoid stories that are damaging, and construct narratives that show them in a better, albeit false, light. Amber Lyon is a three-time Emmy winning investigative journalist and photographer. She accuses CNN of being “fake news.”
Back in March 2011, CNN sent a four person team to Bahrain to cover the Arab Spring. Once there, the crew was the subject of extreme intimidation amongst other things, but they were able to record some fantastic footage. As Glenn Greenwald of the UK’s Guardian writes in his blockbuster article from September 4th 2012: “In the segment, Lyon interviewed activists as they explicitly described their torture at the hands of government forces, while family members recounted their relatives’ abrupt disappearances. She spoke with government officials justifying the imprisonment of activists. And the segment featured harrowing video footage of regime forces shooting unarmed demonstrators, along with the mass arrests of peaceful protesters. In sum, the early 2011 CNN segment on Bahrain presented one of the starkest reports to date of the brutal repression embraced by the US-backed regime. Despite these accolades, and despite the dangers their own journalists and their sources endured to produce it, CNN International (CNNi) never broadcast the documentary. Even in the face of numerous inquiries and complaints from their own employees inside CNN, it continued to refuse to broadcast the program or even provide any explanation for the decision. To date, this documentary has never aired on CNNi.
Having just returned from Bahrain, Lyon says she “saw first-hand that these regime claims were lies, and I couldn’t believe CNN was making me put what I knew to be government lies into my reporting.”
Here is a segment of the Bahrain report that Amber Lyon and her team put together. CNNi refused to allow it to air because the Bahrain Government had paid them not to show it.
When Amber Lyon recognized the extent of the reasoning, she challenged CNN. CNN told her to be quiet, and began to view her as a risk. She knew, and found out, too much.
Amber is now trying to tell the story, the real story, of what is going on behind the closed doors of US Media entities. Amber has created her own website, and additionally as noted in the Guardian Article she is trying to share the truth of the deceptions.
What Amber Lyon describes is exactly the reason why CNN never aired the Nick Robertson interview with Muhammed Al Zawahiri in Egypt.
Amber recently did a web interview with Alex Jones on ********. Generally the TreeHouse does not appreciate Alex Jones. He is wound up tighter than piano wire, and unfortunately much of his truth is diminished because of the hype he places upon it.
Alex Jones is easy to disregard as a “conspiracy theorist”, not because of what he says, but because of how he says it. Everything is desperate and dangerous with him.
That said, the words and explanations of Ms. Lyon in the discussion/interview are poignant and vastly informative. So I share the video with you so you can hear from Amber herself exactly what is being described and articulated.
It is critical to listen to what she says, not just about Bahrain but also about what the Obama administration is specifically doing. Just try to overlook the Alex Jones-ism, and focus on what Amber Lyon is sharing.
Is it any wonder why the new media formats are growing so rapidly?
Re: The Main Stream Media Works for the US Government
This stuff is NOT being carried by ANY main stream media outlet. Probably because Jones is such a kook and everyone discounts EVERYTHING he says or does (including me).
But this gal is from CNN (Not any more). CNN has deliberately taken videos and STOPPED them from being shown because the US Government and OTHER GOVERNMENTS are paying to RUN certain things, and TAKE CERTAIN THINGS off.
Remember the First Amendment?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I reckon there are no laws against anyone else in the government from PAYING for CENSORSHIP.
Well, these fuckers have gotten around it finally. By doing this they have managed to break the First Amendment and probably will take down the Second Amendment by doing the same thing.
I think we’re at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy or not. You know, when I first started in politics – and for a long time before that – everyone on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, despised the press commonly, because they were SOBs to everybody. Which is exactly what they should be. They were unrelenting. Whatever the biases were, they were essentially equal-opportunity people.
That changed in 1980.
There are a lot of reasons for it. It changed—an important point in the Dukakis-Bush election, when the press literally was trying to get Dukakis elected by ignoring what was happening in Massachusetts, with a candidate who was running on the platform of “He will do for America what he did for Massachusetts”—while they were on the verge of bankruptcy.
Also the change from evening news emphasis to morning news by the networks is another factor that’s been pointed out to me.
Most recently, what I call the nepotism that exists, where people get jobs—they’re married to people who are in the administration, or in politics, whatever.
But the overwhelming bias has become very real and very dangerous. We have a First Amendment for one reason. We have a First Amendment not because the Founding Fathers liked the press—they hated the press—but they believed, as [Thomas] Jefferson said, that in order to have a free country, in order to be a free people, we needed a free press. That was the job—so there was an implicit bargain in the First Amendment, the press being the only institution, at that time, which was in our process of which there was no checks and balances.
We designed a constitutional system with many checks and balances. The one that had no checks and balances was the press, and that was done under an implicit understanding that, somehow, the press would protect the people from the government and the power by telling—somehow allowing—people to have the truth. That is being abrogated as we speak, and has been for some time. It is now creating the danger that I spoke to.
This morning, just this morning, Gallup released their latest poll on the trust, how much trust [the American people have in the press] —when it comes to reporting the news accurately, fairly, and fully, and [the level of their distrust] it’s the highest in history. For the first time, 60 percent of the people said they had “Not very much” or “None at all.” Of course there was a partisan break: There were 40 percent who believed it did, Democrats, 58 percent believed that it was fair and accurate, Republicans were 26 percent, independents were 31 percent.
So there is this contempt for the media – or this belief—and there are many other polls that show it as well.
I want to just use a few examples, because I think we crossed the line the last few weeks that is terrifying.
A few weeks ago I wrote a piece which was called “The Audacity of Cronyism” in Breitbart, and my talk today is “The Audacity of Corruption.”
What I pointed out was, that it was appalling that Valerie Jarrett had a Secret Service detail. A staff member in the White House who is a senior aide and has a full Secret Service detail, even while on vacation, and nobody in the press had asked why. That has become more poignant, as I said, last week, when we discovered that we had an American ambassador, on the anniversary of 9/11, who was without adequate security—while she still has a Secret Service detail assigned to her full-time, at a massive cost, and no one in the media has gone to ask why.
The same thing: I raised the question of David Plouffe. David Plouffe, who is the White House’s Senior Adviser—and was Obama’s campaign manager last time, he and [David] Axelrod sort of switched out, Axelrod going back to Chicago for the campaign—and just after it was announced that he was coming, an Iranian front group in Nigeria gave him $100,000 to give two speeches in Nigeria.
Now, let me tell you: There’s nobody that hands—no stranger gives you $100,000 and doesn’t expect something in return, unless you live in a world that I don’t. And no one has raised this in the mainstream media.
He was on with George Stephanopoulos, on ABC, a couple of weeks ago, and they were going through all these questions. No one asked him whatsoever about that. He was not inquired. George Stephanopoulos, a former adviser to Bill Clinton—who every morning, while Rahm Emmanuel was Chief of Staff, had his call with Rahm Emmanuel and James Carville, and the three of them have been doing it for years—and he is held out as a journalist. He has two platforms.
I mean, he’s a political hack masquerading as a journalist. But when you don’t ask the questions you need to ask of someone like David Plouffe, who’s going in the White House—when we’re talking about Iran.
I just finished surveys, some of you may have seen, with John McLaughlin this week, with Secure America Now, and found out just how strongly Americans are concerned with Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, what’s happening in the Middle East, and cuts in defense spending.
This is not the place for that, but it strikes me as the American people identify, in the polling we’ve done over the last year, Iran as the single greatest danger to the United States. And here’s a man who’s being paid by an already named front group for that—for a terrorist regime, and is not asked about it, or queried about it!
The third thing I would say is that—then there’s of course [National Security Adviser] Tom Donilon, who I know very well from years back, who I caused a little bit of a stir over a few months ago when I said he was the “leaker-in-chief.”
I mean this ridiculous running around—“How did these secrets get out?”—when it is clear he has no credentials for foreign policy; who has been in the White House; who was a political operative for Walter Mondale, Jimmy Carter, and others; who was known to have, in my opinion, to be just the most amoral person I know in politics; and who is using and orchestrating national security. In Mr. [David] Sanger’s book [Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power], as a reviewer at [The New York Times] said, “The hero of this book, and the clear source of it, is Tom Donilon”—but let me just make a point. Neither does—and I would say this to the Congressman—“You know, all the Republicans have to do”—you know, I talk often about the “Corrupt Party” and the “Stupid Party,” but the Stupid Party couldn’t be stupider when it comes to things like this. They could have called Tom Donilon and other people down to the Congress, put them under oath, and asked them if they had leaked.
Instead you have Eric Holder, who runs the most political Justice Department since John Mitchell—only in John Mitchell’s administration did we have Justice Departments that were so politicized and so corrupted by politics—and he appoints someone who gave two people to do a study on the leaks, sometime in the next century will come out, and one of them is a, was a contributor to Barack Obama when he was a state Senator. That’s a really unbiased source! And the press, of course, won’t look into this.
It will not ask the question. But the Republicans could have called them down. Yes, the president could have extended Executive Privilege, but let him say “I will not answer that question, sir” on the question of “Did you leak these secrets that Dianne Feinstein, the Chairman, the Democratic Chairman, of the Senate Intelligence Committee said were endangering national security and American lives?” As she said when she read Sanger’s book, “My God, every page I turn I learn something that I don’t know!” I mean, these are serious matters but in Washington they’re playful, and the press does not pursue any of them.
Peter Schweizer has done a study talking about corruption. Sixty percent or 80 percent—it’s closer to 80 percent I think, now—of the money given under the stimulus to green energy projects—the president and this administration’s great project—has gone to people who are either bundlers or major contributors to Barack Obama.
But nobody says a word.
Of course Republicans don’t raise it because in Washington, they simply want to do it when they get back in power. And, of course, the press doesn’t because they basically have taken themselves out of doing their job.
When we see what happened this week in Libya—and when I said I was more frightened than I’ve ever been, this is true, because I think it’s one thing that, as they did in 2008, when the mainstream press, the mainstream media and all the press, jumped on the Obama bandwagon and made it a moral commitment on their part to help him get elected in a way that has never happened, whatever the biases in the past.
To give you an example of the difference, I’ll just shortly tell you this: In 1980, when [Jimmy] Carter was running for reelection, the press—even though 80 percent of them, after the election, reporters said they voted for Carter over [Ronald] Reagan, or 70 percent of them, a very high percentage—they believed, so much, that the Carter campaign and the Carter White House had abused the Rose Garden against [Ted] Kennedy that they made a commitment, as they discussed, that they would not serve as the attack dogs on Reagan for the Carter White House because they thought it was unfair and they weren’t to be manipulated.
I totally disagree with their analysis, but that was when you actually had a press corps. Whatever their own personal feelings, they made judgments that were, “We’re not going to be manipulated.”
Pat Caddell on the allegations of a WH cover-up in the Libyan terrorist attack.
Re: The Main Stream Media Works for the US Government
I sometimes think the US Media (especially the Commie News Network) works for the Commies.
Here's why. If this isn't the most BIASED article you will see, I can't imagine another worse... so far:
Why is China election scapegoat for Romney, Obama?
By Stan Grant, CNN
updated 6:59 AM EDT, Mon October 22, 2012
Beijing, China (CNN) -- Jonathon Levine was a fiercely ambitious 25-year-old with a Masters degree -- but stuck in a dead end job.
This is not how it was meant to be for a boy raised in New York City, nourished on the American dream that hard work and a good education would bring rewards and riches.
So what did he do? He left.
After researching job vacancies abroad, an opportunity in reclusive North Korea grabbed his attention. Deciding his ambitions didn't stretch that far, Levine settled on a teaching job at Beijing's Tsinghua University instead.
"In the (United) States everyone is so mopey -- it is the end of the world, no jobs, and income inequality is through the roof. We're back to the gilded age in the U.S," he said.
I met Levine in the crowded Tsinghua campus cafeteria. He's had to get used to a lot in a short time. But he's getting to grips with the language and can now order exotic new local food.
"You could say it has been a long march," he said.
He is part of a new generation waking up to a new reality. America is no longer the land of opportunity. China is.
While people like Levine get it, U.S. politicians seem bent on casting China as the bad guy. Beijing is accused of keeping its currency low to win an export advantage and steal American jobs.
The China bashing moved to center stage in the second U.S. presidential debate. Both candidates tried to score points against each other by getting tough on China.
"China has been a currency manipulator for years and years and years. And the president has a regular opportunity to label them as a currency manipulator, but refuses to do so. On day one, I will label China a currency manipulator," proclaimed Republican Mitt Romney.
In response, President Barack Obama, looking far more engaged than he did during the first debate, said Romney was the last person to get tough on China, accusing him of sending jobs to Asia during his business career.
"Governor Romney talked about China, as I already indicated. In the private sector, Governor Romney's company invested in what were called pioneers of outsourcing. That's not my phrase. That's what reporters called it," Obama said.
"And as far as currency manipulation, the currency has actually gone up 11% since I've been president because we have pushed them hard. And we've put unprecedented trade pressure on China.
"That's why exports have significantly increased under my presidency. That's going to help to create jobs here."
After a softly-softly approach at the beginning of his administration, Obama has switched tack.
He's pivoted U.S. geostrategic policy towards Asia after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
While some countries express concern about the intentions of a more powerful and assertive China, the United States is bolstering its relationships in the region.
It is boosting its military presence by carrying out military exercises with allies Japan and South Korea, while some U.S troops have been placed on Australian soil at a new base near the northern city of Darwin.
Many China watchers have couched this as an attempt to block the emerging super power's rise. China's Foreign Ministry has said U.S politicians need to treat China fairly and that in the interests of security the relationship needs to be based on trust.
Ahead of a visit to Asia by U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton last month, an editorial in the state-run Chinese Global Times newspaper claimed "many Chinese people dislike Hillary Clinton.
"She has brought new and extremely profound mutual distrust between the mainstream societies of the two countries."
One of the sources of this hostility has been Washington's perceived interference in maritime disputes with China's neighbors in the region. During her recent visit, Clinton urged those involved in the various territorial disputes to "begin to engage in a diplomatic process toward the shared goal of a code of conduct."
While Chinese officials responded diplomatically by saying that "freedom of navigation and safety in the South China Sea is assured," another editorial in the Global Times was more scathing, saying it hoped Clinton "can reflect upon the deep harm she is bringing to the Sino-U.S. relationship in the last few months before she leaves office and try to make up for it."
For her part, Clinton has stressed the importance of deepening bilateral ties. "As we continue to expand our work on the consequential issues of our time, we must continue to build on this historic opportunity to deepen our relationship, because a thriving China is good for America and a thriving America is good for China," she said in a goodwill message to mark China's National Day on October 1.
Meanwhile, Levine is watching all of this unfold as he teaches his students about the United States, the country he's left behind.
He says it is misguided to fear China.
"It's not like going to the moon, like it might have been a hundred years ago because communication links us much closer together."
For him this is a new world, interdependent with China as a rapidly emerging new axis of power. And for people like he used to be -- back home and struggling -- he has some only half-joking advice.
"CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi."
So stated political consultant and media commentator Richard Grenell on Saturday's Fox News Watch (video follows with transcript and commentary):
RICHARD GRENELL: I think the media's becoming the story, let's face it. CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi. Let's call a spade a spade.
Let's also show you why CNN did not go very far in covering these hearings because the CNN deputy bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is married to Hillary Clinton’s deputy, Tom Nides. It is time for the media to start asking questions why are they not covering this. It's a family matter for some of them.
JON SCOTT, HOST: So they don't want to bring embarrassment upon folks who, who they're close to?
GRENELL: Who directly are related to this story. Absolutely. They're covering for them. There's no question about it.
For the record, Ben Sherwood's sister, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, is the Special Assistant to Barack Obama.
Virginia Moseley's husband, Tom Nides, is the Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.
As for David Rhodes' brother Ben, he is Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communication.
As ABCNews.com reported Friday, Rhodes was a key player in revising the White House's Benghazi talking points last September:
In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows – Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.
“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”
After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points – deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack.
Consider, too, that CBS News executives possibly including Rhodes have allegedly come down on their own investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson for "wading dangerously close to advocacy on" Benghazi.
If Attkisson gets the boot, it could very well be with a foot attached to the brother of an Obama administration official directly involved in the cover-up.
Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard has a must read column regarding the Benghazi cover-up by White House officials.
CIA career officials clearly and repeatedly identified Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda-linked Islamic terrorists as the culprits behind the murder of four Americans.
Of course, this would cause embarrassment for the Obama team, especially in the few weeks before the election. They had been boasting for years that Al Qaeda had been decimated, the "tide of war" was receding; they had been on a mission to whitewash the prospect of Islamic terrorism as a threat to America (see Lauri Regan's superb column ("Can a President who has promised to stand with Muslims protect America? ). Obama's Cairo speech before an audience that included Muslim Brotherhood officials that he compelled Egypt to include, was a paean to Islam. It was also, to a great extent, a work of fiction that included grandiose and subsequently disproven claims about the positive contributions Islam has made to America and the world.
That speech was written by Obama's foreign policy speechwriter and now National Security Council team member, Ben Rhodes.
That is the man who Hayes "outs" as a key person behind the Benghazi cover-up.
He reportedly altered the CIA talking points to delete references to Islamic terrorists, "attacks" (they became "demonstrations") and other negative references to Islamism. Also, someone at the White House level apparently dreamt up the idea of blaming an inconsequential video for triggering a spontaneous protest, that in the frenzy of events, led to the murder of Americans. These CIA talking points were eviscerated to whitewash the role of Islamic terrorism.
There was a White House whitewash that should not be dismissed over events that occurred a 'long time ago;" contrary to Hillary Clinton saying that responsibility for the deaths of Americans serving their nation does "matter." And despite Secretary of State's John Kerry's dismissiveness towards the Benghazi murders - "we got a lot more important things to move on to" - justice for the America's dead demands we find who is responsible.
Ben Rhodes should be called to account for trying to divert blame away from Islamic terrorists and the Obama team members whose feckless negligence led to the Benghazi massacre.
I have previously written about Ben Rhodes and his role in the Obama White House. It is shameful that this "kid" (he is all of 35) has been given any responsibility at all in our government.
In "Does it bother anyone that this person is the Deputy National Security Adviser?" I noted his problematic background for someone given so much power by Obama. But then again he does specialize in fiction-writing.
He earned a master's degree in fiction-writing from New York University just a few years ago . He did not have a degree in government, diplomacy, national security; nor has he served in the CIA, or the military. He was toiling away not that long ago on a novel called 'The Oasis of Love" about a mega church in Houston, a dog track, and a failed romance.
Not long ago, Rhodes was one of the obscure guys who wrote Obama's campaign speeches in Starbucks and played video games into the early morning hours. Now he attends national security meetings and takes writer's refuge in a secret office on the third floor of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
Wow - what a meteoric rise! What qualifies him to have been given such power to lie to the American people? Why does he have so much influence with Barack Obama ?
Maybe it is just his avid willingness to do the bidding of his bosses, regardless of truth.
Why do I make this claim? Well, for one reason, Hayes notes he did it regarding Benghazi. But there is a pattern here that he puts his education as a fiction writer to work for political purposes.
Years ago, Democratic Senator and Obama-mentor Lee Hamilton plucked him from obscurity to write what became the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report. That report was rightly criticized for many reasons, among them was the stacking of its "expert list' with various pro-Arab apologist.
Incidentally, the commission ignored its mandate to focus on Iraq and instead devoted a lot of words to attack Israel. Some of the experts who were interviewed were appalled by the final written report because they felt it did not reflect facts, their testimony, or reality.
Who wrote this whitewash? Who was responsible for hitting the delete button of some of the expert testimony? Who tried to divert responsibility for terrorism away from where it belongs?
None other than Ben Rhodes - a man who has finally found a use for his fiction-writing education (since he failed as a novelist); to whitewash Islamists and the Obama administration.
One hopes the House calls Rhodes as a witness in this week's hearings regarding the Benghazi massacre and the miscarriage of justice in Washington. Will his fiction-writing on behalf of Obama come to light?
He bears responsibility for a great deal of what has gone wrong in American foreign and national security policy for the past few years.
The brother of a top Obama administration official is also the president of CBS News, and the network may be days away from dropping one of its top investigative reporters for covering the administration’s scandals too aggressively.
CBS News executives have reportedly expressed frustration with their own reporter, Sharyl Attkisson, who has steadily covered the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi terrorist attack in Libya since late last year.
“Network sources” told Politico Wednesday that CBS executives feel Attkisson’s Benghazi coverage is bordering on advocacy, and Attkisson “can’t get some of her stories on the air.”
Attkisson, who is in talks to leave the network before her contract expires, has been attempting to figure out who changed the Benghazi talking points for more than five months.
“We still don’t know who changed talking points but have had at least 4 diff explanations so far,” Attkisson tweeted on November 27, 2012.
But on Friday, ABC News reported that the Benghazi talking points went through 12 revisions before they were used on the public. The White House was intimately involved in that process, ABC reported, and the talking points were scrubbed free of their original references to a terror attack.
That reporting revealed that President Obama’s deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes — brother of CBS News president David Rhodes — was instrumental in changing the talking points in September 2012.
ABC’s reporting revealed that Ben Rhodes, who has a masters in fiction from NYU, called a meeting to discuss the talking points at the White House on September 15, 2012.
“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation,” Rhodes wrote to his colleagues in the Obama administration. “We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”
Ben Rhodes, a 35-year old New York City native and former Giuliani staffer who has worked for Obama since the president’s tenure in the U.S. Senate, has established himself as a hawkish force on the Obama foreign policy team, advocating for military intervention in Libya during the president’s first term and reportedly advocating for intervention in Syria, as well.
But despite his hawkish views, Rhodes identifies himself first and foremost as a strategist and mouthpiece for the president’s agenda.
“My main job, which has always been my job, is to be the person who represents the president’s view on these issues,” Rhodes said in March.
David Rhodes has been the president of CBS News since February 2011.
Neither the White House nor CBS News responded to requests for comment for this report.
You knew the mainstream media was biased, but this is incredible. It was revealed today that 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.
Ben Rhodes is a top NSC advisor with absolutely no foreign policy or military experience. None! This idiot has advocated intervention both in Libya and now Syria. How has that worked out for us? He is responsible for helping to massage the Benghazi talking points to watered down drivel. His greatest accomplishment appears to be a Master's Degree in fiction writing received from New York University.
So perhaps we should call him Obama's fiction writer!
In what may be a belated effort to salvage its reputation, or perhaps an effort to get the best scoop now that keeping quiet is out of the question, ABC published a story revealing that there were twelve revisions of the Benghazi memo. The final version eradicated all references to terrorists and al Qaeda.
Nice work, Mr. Fiction Writer!
Is there any doubt that CBS, ABC and CNN lose all credibility as objective news sources when their top leadership have siblings in top positions in the Obama administration, and do everything they can to suppress absolutely critical national security newsfor months?
1973: reporters investigate All the President's Men.
2013: reporters are All the President's Men.
The only mainstream media reporter really doing her job is CBS's Sharyl Attkison. Attkison has also done a heroic job on the Fast N' Furious Eric Holder gun running scandal. Now it appears CBS is pressuring her to leave.
Gee, wonder why?
Whatever shred of credibility existed among the network news organizations has now been utterly obliterated. We can only hope that the American people get the message. I think it is too late for the networks. And for those who think this is just "old news," not worth worrying about, I will quote the mother of the murdered Sean Smith:
"I want to wish Hillary a happy Mother's Day. She's got her child. I don't have mine - because of her."
A trio of Obama scandals has forced thecorporate media admit its own reports are nothing more than the government-controlled talking points and not the product of a free and open press.
If you have been following the news lately you’ll notice there are 3 government scandals that the media is focusing on 1) The DOJ spying on the AP reporters 2) Benghazi gate 3) IRS targeting of activist groups.
While each of these are truly a damning indictment of the widespread corruption in our now gone rogue federal government, combing these three stories reveals an even bigger story which is recurring open admission by the media that the news they report is being controlled government.
These three scandals have led the media to rebel against the Obama administration in a way that it has not done in the past while at the same time forcing the media to admit some damning facts about the way news is truly originated in America.
The media’s reporting on the scandals has provided the public insights into the operations of the incestuous relationship between the press and the government.
Such revelations clearly suggest the corporate media is telegraphing to the public the American government has just gone way too far out of control.
These three scandals forced the corporate media to admit openly what has long been dismissed as merely conspiracy theory — that the corporate media is now openly admitting that they are in fact controlled stenographers that do nothing more than echo pre-scripted narratives outlined in talking points created by the rulers of America’s shadow government.
To be absolutely clear, that is not hyperbole nor is it speculation. It’s a fact that the corporate media is now openly admitting their reporting on the Benghazi scandal over the last 8 months has been merely the parroting of statements given by government officials who were merely echoing talking points issued by the CIA.
By now just about every news organization has repeatedly reported the story about how those CIA issued talking points were edited 12 times by various people in the shadow government before they were given to figureheads to relay to the press who in turned echoed them to the masses.
This is a direct admission that the false narrative about Benghazi that has been shoved down our throat as fact by the corporate media was nothing more than CIA issued talking points.
Since subliminal manipulation the consciousness of the masses is now a science that the government has completely mastered, let make make sure you have been deprogrammed before continuing.
Wake up – Every news outlet in the country is admitting 8 months of news reports about Benghazi were nothing more than the parroting of CIA issued talking points.
Let it sink in.
This is not hyperbole and not sensationalism.
The entire corporate media is now openly admitting what they presented to us as objective independent news reports was nothing more than echoing of list CIA talking points.
Does that not at all disturb anyone?
Most people that are disturbed are merely disturbed by the fact the talking points were lies.
That is what the media is telling us the scandal is.
But the real scandal here, and the one no one seems to have a problem with, is that the media is echoing an actual list government talking points to the public and manipulating the public into believing those talking points were the result of objective independently verified investigative journalism.
Yes the real scandal is that the government is entirely controlling the news and the media is doing nothing more regurgitating an official narrative crafted by spooks in the shadow government.
Those spooks operate in secret and disseminate their propaganda operation instructions to public figure heads behind the scenes who in turn relay that information to the media who then relays it to the public.
Information Operations, Google it.
But the media wants us to believe that the scandal is that CIA’s talking points were lies and that’s the only scandal the media wants you to see.
The media not dare look in the mirror and point onto itself.
Surely they represent themselves to the public as fact checkers who vet and verify all information in their reports.
But nothing can be further from the truth because as we clearly see here even an amateur who made a measly attempt to independently verify the statements issued by the government would have easily outed the falsehoods in their claims.
Instead, the only scandal the media sees here is the fact the CIA’s talking points were deliberately falsified so Obama didn’t catch heat sothat he could be reelected.
Now look, I don’t disagree that is in fact a scandal and the media by all rights should continue to investigate and expose the truth about that scandal.
But for the well-being of this nation and the protection of its citizen’s that media needs to be held just as accountable because if they didn’t take the government at its word despite a continual track record of lies and deception America would be a much safer place today and the citizens of this nation and humanity as a whole would have a much brighter, safer and secure future.
Instead the media’s incestuous relationship with the government has lead to illegal overseas wars and ongoing bombings in several nations that have claimed the lives of an untold number of numerous people all being perpetuated by an ever-expanding police state that looks more and more like an Orwellian totalitarian nightmare with each day that passes.
Of course the damage the media has allowed to occur will continue to reverberate destructive echoes of carnage upon the masses for generations to come.
The IRS scandal illustrates this point even further. The media has ignored for years complaints from activist groups saying they were unfairly being shaken down by the IRS. Those complaints were ignored even while members of congress of provided evidence to back up the allegations. But what we saw was a corporatemedia controlled by the American Gestapo that dared not step off script and report anything beside the talking points the government gave them. The same goes with the destruction of the constitution through an escalating campaign of post 9/11 hogwash from the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and drones to draconian measure containing to be pushed by the propaganda machine to implement measures such as CISPA, real-time total surveillance, and the inevitable disarming of the public.
The reason for this is clear but I fear if those in the media do not find the courage to be brave now it wil soon be too late.
News organizations know if they step out of line they their access to their “inside sources” and be blacklisted by the government. For individuals in those organization committing such acts of bravery are career ending moves. When the media steps out of line and reports anything that contradicts official government narrative we see them get targeted by the government, both covertly and overtly. We saw it with the coalition of journalist that sued the government for being targeted through the NDAA and with WikiLeaks.
This of course ties into the third scandal which is the Associated Press being spied on by the Gestapo for daring to report information that wasn’t explicitly authorized in talking points issued by the shadow government.
Yes, every now and then we see outlets such as the Associated Press, The New York Times, or theWashington Post do so-called investigative journalism that adds we are supposed to believe steps outside the boundaries and conflicts with the official narrative. But don’t be fooled. Yes the media reports them as “leaks” coming from “inside sources speaking on the condition of anonymity” but nothing could be further from the truth. Those reports are nothing more than statements given by officials from the same Gestapo who are quoted on the condition of anonymity and those leaks are authorized.
Just look at what is happening to the Associated Press right now. They dared contradict the talking points narrative. Instead they implicated the CIA as being involved in planning a Yemen based terror plot which Al Qaeda operatives were going to attack American airplanes and now they are being targeted by the Gestapo for leaking that information.
Look at the reporting on Benghazi. I did several investigative reports which debunked the government’s narrative soon after the attacks. Many of the details I uncovered in my reporting still to this day are not being discussed by the corporate media so even the reports we are now being given by corporate media about the scandal are still being controlled by talking points or we would hearing much different information about the scandal from the media.
Of course this is typical of a media that simply echoes government talking points. Just look at the reporting on drone strikes, which in every case echoes government statements that militants were killed despite hundreds of foreign news reports on the bombings showing drone bombings repeatedly kill innocent woman and children. The examples are numerous. Iraq’s WMDs, Libya, the BP oil spill, Fukushima and even now we see the same thing in Syria.
Despite the corporate media’s track record, be it unwittingly or knowingly or some combination thereof for various reasons, of acting as an obedient mouthpiece in the propaganda machine this all appears to be changing in the wake of the latest scandals rocking the Obama administration.
This is all evidenced by the fact the media is admitting its reporting is based on government generated talking points which as stated before was never before admitted or discussed openly beyond what has long been labeled the fringe conspiracy theorist crowd.
What is being signaled by this revelation to the public is the government has gone far too rogue and we ought to be wary that what we once accepted as credible news is nothing more than a well-orchestrated campaign of propaganda.
Yet even in the wake of the media’s rebellion we should not get to overzealous as government handlers will soon work to stamp out those who are working to resist the machine.
Mass media news organizations will be forced in one way or another to get their reporting back on script.
For those in the media who read this, the time to act is now. We cannot continue to allow the information that is communicated to the masses by the media, which is the public’s tool to keep the government in check and prevent it from becoming overbearing on the people, to be controlled by a few rich and powerful figureheads working as icy manipulators of a well oiled propaganda machine that for a secret shadow government.
President Obama’s lapdog media has finally realized that they are back in the USSR, so if you are curious about what is really going on in “Soviet” Obama’s White House then keep reading.
Apparently the board of the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) has had enough of Obama’s own personal White House media stomping all over them, keeping WHCA members from photographing what goes on in the White House and releasing only what Team Obama wants YOU to see.
Here is a glimpse of the WHCA revolt that took place on October 29 as reported in the National Journal by Ron Founier in a piece headlined:
Obama’s Image Machine: Monopolistic Propaganda Funded by You
New York Times photographer Doug Mills strode into Jay Carney’s office Oct. 29 with a pile of pictures taken exclusively by President Obama’s official photographer at events the White House press corps was forbidden to cover. “This one,” Mills said, sliding one picture after another off his stack and onto the press secretary’s desk. “This one, too – and this one and this one and … .”
The red-faced photographer, joined by colleagues on the White House Correspondents’ Association board, finished his 10-minute presentation with a flourish that made Carney, a former Moscow correspondent for Time, wince.
“You guys,” Mills said, “are just like Tass.”
For those unfamiliar with the name, Tass was the Russian News Agency of the Soviet Union. (USSR) According to Wikipedia, it was established on 25 July 1925 by a decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. After the fall of the USSR in 1992, Tass became ITAR-TASS. (The Information Telegraphic Agency of Russia.)
Now ITAR-TASS is best known for releasing photos of Russian President Vladimir Putin hunting wild boar while shirtless.
But I digress.
In order for Doug Mills of the New York Times to accuse Obama’s White House Media operation of being like Tass, then the lapdog media had to have been severely bitten by its favorite big dog.
If you want to know just how badly bitten, here was the official letter the WHCA delivered to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on November 21. The letter was signed by 38 major news organizations in alphabetical order starting with ABC News and ending with Yahoo News.
In the middle of the signer’s list was NBC News which was quite ironic considering NBC News has been the most slobbering and drooling media lapdog of them all.
ITAR-TASS was not among the signers because that would have been just too ironic.
But here is the best part, below is a sentence in bold quotes from the McClatchy News Washington Bureau’s report on this issue with the headline:
White House blocks access to Obama event, news groups say
On Thursday, the presidents of the American Society of News Editors and the Associated Press Media Editors sent a letter to their members urging them to stop using handout photos and video from the White House.
“We must accept that we, the press, have been enablers,” the letter says. “We urge those of you in news organizations to immediately refrain from publishing any of the photographs or videos released by the White House, just as you would refuse to run verbatim a press release from them.”
Really? Are you sure? Where were you guys on June 4, 2008 after then-Senator Obama captured the Democrat Party nomination for President and famously said, “this was the moment that the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal?”
Re: The Main Stream Media Works for the US Government
The Agony of Frank Luntz What does it mean when America's top political wordsmith loses faith in our ability to be persuaded?
Frank Luntz does not want the buffet. We are on the top floor of the Capitol Hill Club, the members-only Republican hangout a block from the Capitol, where a meaty smell is emanating from steam trays. Today's main course is ham, and Luntz shakes his head.
There's also fish, the host offers—mahi mahi. No. "I'm 0 for 2," Luntz says mournfully.
"Roast chicken," the host says, but it's too late; he's lost him. "Boring," Luntz says, as we head for the elevator to the full-service dining room in the basement.
America's best-known public-opinion guru hasn't suddenly gone vegan. Luntz—the tubby, rumpled guy who runs the focus groups on Fox News after presidential debates, the political consultant and TV fixture whose word has been law in Republican circles since he helped write the 1994 Contract With America—has always been a hard man to please. But something is different now, he tells me. Something is wrong. Something in his psyche has broken, and he does not know if he can recover.
"I've had a headache for six days now, and it doesn't go away," he tells me as we take our seats at a table downstairs. "I don't sleep for more than two or three hours at a time. I'm probably less healthy now than I have ever been in my life." He's not sure what to do. He's still going through the motions—giving speeches, going on television, conducting focus groups, and advising companies and politicians on how best to convey their message.
But beneath the surface, he says, is a roiling turmoil that threatens to consume him. He orders a chicken pot pie, then berates himself for not choosing something healthier. In recent months, he tells me, he has often contemplated quitting everything; he has spent long weeks alone, unable to sort out his thoughts. Frank Luntz, the master political manipulator, a man who has always evinced a cheery certainty about who's right and who's winning and how it all works, is a mess.
And yet, over the hour and a half I spend talking with him—the first time he has spoken publicly about his current state of mind—it's hard to grasp what the crisis is about. Luntz hasn't renounced his conservative worldview. His belief in unfettered capitalism and individual self-reliance appears stronger than ever. He hasn't become disillusioned with his very profitable career or his nomadic, solitary lifestyle. His complaints—that America is too divided, President Obama too partisan, and the country in the grip of an entitlement mentality that is out of control—seem pretty run-of-the-mill. But his anguish is too deeply felt not to be real. Frank Luntz is having some kind of crisis. I just can't quite get my head around it.
A few weeks after our lunch, Luntz tells me he's made a move. He has changed his principal residence from Northern Virginia to a condo overlooking the Las Vegas Strip, and he's contemplating a sale of his company, Luntz Global LLC, the details of which he is not at liberty to discuss. Las Vegas, he says, represents "my chance to be intellectually challenged again" by a place that is "the closest thing to a melting pot America has to offer." As fresh starts go, it's not much, but Luntz hopes it will bring some new clarity.
* * *
The crisis began, he says, after last year's presidential election, when Luntz became profoundly depressed. For more than a month, he tried to stay occupied, but nothing could keep his attention. Finally, six weeks after the election, during a meeting of his consulting company in Las Vegas, he fell apart. Leaving his employees behind, he flew back to his mansion in Los Angeles, where he stayed for three weeks, barely going outside or talking to anyone.
"I just gave up," Luntz says.
His side had lost. Mitt Romney had, in his view, squandered a good chance at victory with a strategically idiotic campaign. ("I didn't work on the campaign. It just sucked, as a professional. And it killed me because I realized on Election Day that there's nothing I can do about it.") But Luntz's side had lost elections before. His dejection was deeper: It was, he says, about why the election was lost. "I spend more time with voters than anybody else," Luntz says. "I do more focus groups than anybody else. I do more dial sessions than anybody else. I don't know **** about anything, with the exception of what the American people think."
It was what Luntz heard from the American people that scared him. They were contentious and argumentative. They didn't listen to each other as they once had. They weren't interested in hearing other points of view. They were divided one against the other, black vs. white, men vs. women, young vs. old, rich vs. poor. "They want to impose their opinions rather than express them," is the way he describes what he saw. "And they're picking up their leads from here in Washington." Haven't political disagreements always been contentious, I ask? "Not like this," he says. "Not like this."
Luntz knew that he, a maker of political messages and attacks and advertisements, had helped create this negativity, and it haunted him. But it was Obama he principally blamed. The people in his focus groups, he perceived, had absorbed the president's message of class divisions, haves and have-nots, of redistribution. It was a message Luntz believed to be profoundly wrong, but one so powerful he had no slogans, no arguments with which to beat it back. In reelecting Obama, the people had spoken. And the people, he believed, were wrong. Having spent his career telling politicians what the people wanted to hear, Luntz now believed the people had been corrupted and were beyond saving. Obama had ruined the electorate, set them at each other's throats, and there was no way to turn back.
Why not? I ask. Isn't finding the right words to persuade people what you do? "I'm not good enough," Luntz says. "And I hate that. I have come to the extent of my capabilities. And this is not false modesty. I think I'm pretty good. But not good enough." The old Frank Luntz was sure he could invent slogans to sell the righteous conservative path of personal responsibility and free markets to anyone. The new Frank Luntz fears that is no longer the case, and it's driving him crazy.
* * *
Luntz has a squat build, a big slab of a face, and a mop of light-brown hair. His affect is by turns boyish and hangdog. People meeting him for the first time always comment on the loud sneakers he typically pairs with slacks or a suit. This is by design: He began wearing them, he says, to divert people's attention from his considerable girth. He found he enjoyed collecting designer sneakers, and now has more than 100 pairs—all of which he wears, even though some are rare editions worth more than $1,000. Luntz is a collector. Before moving to Las Vegas this month, he spent most of his free time in a $6 million mansion in Los Angeles crammed with American political artifacts and politically themed decor. It also has a bowling alley. Luntz's house in Northern Virginia is similarly crammed, but with pop-culture collectibles. (He also keeps an apartment in New York City.)
Luntz lives alone. Never married, he tells me he is straight (and that no reporter has ever asked him about his sexual orientation before), just unable to sustain a romantic relationship because of all the time he spends on the road. "My parents were married for 47 years. I'm never in the same place more than 47 minutes," he says. When I point out he's chosen that lifestyle, he says, "You sound like my relatives."
Luntz did political polling for Pat Buchanan's 1992 primary campaign and Ross Perot's independent presidential bid, but he became truly famous when he hitched his star to Newt Gingrich, helping draft the Contract With America and advising Gingrich's crusading Republican majority. He considers Gingrich and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, another former client, his most important political mentors. In the '90s, he became known as the man who could sell any political message by picking the right words. "Estate tax" sounds worthy and the right thing for a democracy to do, but "death tax" sounds distasteful and unfair. "Global warming" sounds scary, but "climate change" sounds natural or even benign. Luntz became a well-compensated speaker, TV commentator, and convener of on-camera focus groups, which he led with manic curiosity to shed light on what the people really thought about political debates and presidential speeches. "It's not what you say," goes his oft-repeated slogan, "it's what they hear."
Luntz is famous not just on television—he has talking-head contracts with both CBS and Fox News, a rare arrangement—but among the political and business elite. When he walks into the Capitol Hill Club, he is beset by Republican members of Congress wanting to talk to him and soak up his aura of celebrity. He boasts that he speaks to at least one Fortune 500 CEO every day. Yet, in his telling, he is still the little guy, the outsider, the schlub—half anxious, half awed by the trappings of power. He tells of being summoned for a conversation with Bill Clinton and being unable to enjoy the honor of the occasion because of the panic he felt at the president's vise grip on his shoulder. "This is Bill ****ing Clinton, asking me to deliver a message to the Senate majority leader, and I'm about to faint," he recalls, ruefully. "Because I understand the significance of this conversation, and I am not worthy of it."
Luntz's work has always been predicated on a sort of populism—the idea that politicians must figure out what voters want to hear, and speak to them in language that comports with it. He proudly claims that his famous catchphrases, like branding healthcare reform a "government takeover" in 2010, are not his coinages but the organic product of his focus groups. The disheveled appearance, the sardonic wit, all add up to a sort of tilting against the establishment, an insistence that it listen to the Real People.
But what if the Real People are wrong? That is the possibility Luntz now grapples with. What if the things people want to hear from their leaders are ideas that would lead the country down a dangerous road?
"You should not expect a handout," he tells me. "You should not even expect a safety net. When my house burns down, I should not go to the government to rebuild it. I should have the savings, and if I don't, my neighbors should pitch in for me, because I would do that for them." The entitlement he now hears from the focus groups he convenes amounts, in his view, to a permanent poisoning of the electorate—one that cannot be undone. "We have now created a sense of dependency and a sense of entitlement that is so great that you had, on the day that he was elected, women thinking that Obama was going to pay their mortgage payment, and that's why they voted for him," he says. "And that, to me, is the end of what made this country so great."
To my ears, this sounds like rather standard-issue up-by-your-bootstraps conservative dogma. But to Luntz, it not a matter of left or right. He periodically comes under attack from the right for not toeing the Republican line, and has been critical of the party's right wing. "It seems like the Democrats are going so far overboard, and the Republicans are going nowhere," he tells me. "So I'm mad at both of them." Increasingly, he says, he seeks to maintain relationships with members of both parties. His closest friendship in politics today, he says, is with a Democrat, Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado (disclosure: Bennet is the brother of Atlantic editor in chief James Bennet). "It's not weird," Luntz says. "He's just a decent guy. We play foosball."
Luntz's political ideas, as far as I can tell, amount to a sort of Perotian rich man's centrism, the type of thing you might hear from a Morning Joe panel or a CEOs' retreat. We've got to do something about the deficit, for our children's sake. We ought to have universal healthcare, but without forcing people to buy insurance through the government. We need immigration reform, but that doesn't have to include a path to citizenship. The bankers who contributed to the financial crisis ought to be in jail, but we ought to stop demonizing the financial-services industry. To the tycoons who embrace them, these kinds of ideas are not partisan or ideological at all. They're the common-sense plans we'd all be able to agree on if Congress would stop bickering and devote itself to Getting Things Done.
Most of all, Luntz says, he wishes we would stop yelling at one another. Luntz dreams of drafting some of the rich CEOs he is friends with to come up with a plan for saving America from its elected officials. "The politicians have failed; now it's up to the business community to stand up and be heard," he tells me. "I want the business community to step up." Having once thought elites needed to listen to regular people, he now wants the people to learn from their moneyed betters.
Luntz's populism has turned on itself and become its opposite: fear and loathing of the masses. "I am grateful that Occupy Wall Street turned out to be a bunch of crazy, disgusting, rude, horrible people, because they were onto something," he says. "Limbaugh made fun of me when I said that Occupy Wall Street scares me. Because he didn't hear what I hear. He doesn't see what I see." The people are angry. They want more, not because we have not given them enough but because we have given them too much.
* * *
Luntz is not sure what to do with his newfound awareness. He's still best known for his political resume, but politics hasn't been his principal business for some time: He still advises his friends here and there, but he no longer has any ongoing political contracts. (Corporations and television networks, not politicians, are his main sources of income.) He goes to as many NFL games as he can, where he sits in the owner's box courtesy of onetime client Jerry Richardson, the owner of the Carolina Panthers, with whom he has developed a close rapport. "I don't like this. I don't like this," he says, meaning D.C., the schmoozing, the negativity, the division. At football games, "People are happy, families are barbecuing outside, people are playing pitch and toss. A little too much beer, but you can't have everything. They're just happy and they're celebrating with each other and it's such a mix of people." The first week of football season, he went to four games in eight days: Sunday night, Monday night, Thursday night, and then Sunday again.
Luntz would also like to break into Hollywood as a consultant, but he can't get his calls returned. He can't figure it out. He thinks it must be a partisan thing. In every other industry, he says, 90 percent of his presentations result in a contract. But in entertainment, he pitches and pitches and pitches (he wouldn't tell me which studios or shows) and things seem to go well, but then there's some excuse. Not this time. Not the right project.
If he could, Luntz would like to have a consulting role on The Newsroom, Aaron Sorkin's HBO drama. "I know I'm not supposed to like it, but I love it," he says. He feels a kinship with Jeff Daniels' character, the gruff, guilt-ridden, ostensibly Republican antihero, who is uncomfortable with small talk and driven by a "mission to civilize." "I love that phrase," Luntz says. "That doesn't happen in anything that we do."
When he's at home in Los Angeles, The Newsroom is the high point of Luntz's week. He turns off his phone and gets a plate of spaghetti bolognese and a Coke Zero and sits in front of his 85-inch television, alone in his 14,000-square-foot palace. "That's as good as it gets for me," he says.
But today, Luntz is late for his afternoon talk to a D.C. lobbying shop. "Am I whining?" he asks. "Just say it if I am." I tell him it sounds like he's going through something very real, very human. "I am nothing if not human," he says, breaking into a grin. "I'm super-human. I'm a human-and-one-fifth. My God, if I'm not careful, I'll have to go not to the big and tall but the big and bigger store!" And then he walks away toward the elevator, off to do his soft-shoe routine for another audience of the rich and powerful.
Re: The Main Stream Media Works for the US Government
Saturday morning my wife and I got up early, made a pot of coffee and a little "hot tub" breakfast - usually fruit, cheese, crackers... stuff that you can eat with your hands and not spill in the hot tub. So we're sitting there at dawn in the hot tub, watching the sun come up and we're discussing EXACTLY this kind of thing about, with a slight variation.
America, we decided has become a "Throw away" society.
If you have a computer and it gets old - still works, but it's not the latest, greatest, fastest thing on the planet, we throw out (or sell) the old one and buy a new one.
If your tv breaks, you toss it, buy a new one.
If you spouse and you are having troubles, you toss out the old spouse, and get a new one.
If you KIDS are acting up, you don't correct them, you give them to the state to raise (yes, this is happening right now and I know people close to me trying to GIVE AWAY THEIR KIDS).
Society has lost faith in themselves and their ability to fix things. They don't repair the bicycle, the car, the refrigerator, the dishwasher, computer or the wrist watch. They trade them for something newer, better.
What we don't trade in - the politicians. We keep them. Broken, old, used up and now functioning incorrectly, against everything we know and believe in - and yet, we keep them.
We throw out wives and husbands, but we keep politicians. We're loyal to them. We believe in them.
Even when they are broken.
Because of this America is broken and I feel Frank Luntz' pain on this one.
Denver’s NBC affiliate has refused to air a 30-second television spot promoting a new documentary that seeks to demonstrate the fallacy and grave consequences of the progressive ideology embraced by President Obama and the Democratic Party.
KUSA-TV has told filmmaker Joel Gilbert the ad for the upcoming “There’s No Place Like Utopia” must comply with Federal Election Commission requirements for political advertisements tied to an election campaign if it is to air on the station.
“I am a media entity, a producer of documentary films, and I’m not subject to any FEC regulations,” Gilbert insisted in an interview with WND.
Gilbert argued that for FEC rules to apply, the film must advocate for a candidate in an upcoming political race.
“My film focuses on President Barack Obama’s progressive political philosophy, and Barack Obama under the 22nd Amendment cannot run for re-election as president,” he said. “Nobody mentioned or featured in my documentary is running for election this year.”
Gilbert said his budget for television and radio advertising in Denver totals nearly $50,000.
So far, only KUSA has rejected him.
“What Channel 9 wants is for me to fill out a FEC Political Broadcast form PB-18 and change the content of the advertisement to demonstrate that it is a political advertisement,” Gilbert explained.
“Of course, none of my spots for TV or radio are political advertisement. The commercials are meant to publicize the movie premiere. I doubt Michael Moore would have to face this requirement if he were to premiere a new documentary in Denver.”
KUSA’s national sales manager, Amy Nisenson, wrote in an June 20 email to Gilbert that the TV spot would need sponsorship identification, as required by FEC laws and regulations.
“Your spots must explicitly state that it is “paid for” by the entity purchasing the time,” Nisenson wrote, maintaining that FEC rules and regulations applied to Gilbert’s movie advertisement.
“The sponsorship ID must appear at the beginning or the end of the spot. Television spots must have the visual ID with letters that constitute at least 4 percent of the vertical picture height (20 scan lines) and must air for at least four seconds,” she wrote. “The FCC has stated that each line of type must meet the 4 percent requirement and that if upper and lower case type are used, the 4 percent requirement applies to the lower case (smaller) type. The ID must be set against a background that does not reduce the announcement’s legibility.”
Nisenson told WND that KUSA policy prohibited her from speaking with reporters directly. Mark Cornetta, the station’s general manager, returned WND’s telephone call but had no comment for publication.
As WND reported, Gilbert has styled his film to take viewers along on a journey of discovery across America. It emulates the highly successful films of leftist filmmaker Michael Moore, who currently holds the distinction of having produced the highest grossing documentary in film history.
Gilbert, in his new film, depicts Barack Obama as “The Wizard” in the Land of Oz.
“The fundamental lesson of the Wizard of Oz is that there is no wizard.” Gilbert said.
“Obama has made promise after promise that have all turned out to be empty; all turned out to be lies. The people I met who supported him were literally living in dungeons in the witch’s castle. Everything had changed for the worse – Detroit, South Side Chicago, Newark. Fifty years of progressive control over these cities demonstrated that no one was progressing, they were all regressing.”
Featured in the film are comments by WND staff reporter and author Jerome R. Corsi, WND columnist and author Jack Cashill, conservative author David Horowitz and former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky.
Keying off Dorothy’s conclusion in the classic “Wizard of Oz” that there’s “no place like home,” Gilbert analyzes the literal meaning of “Utopia,” concluding, “There’s no place like Utopia.”
Gilbert does not shy from producing politically controversial documentaries.
In 2012, he produced the documentary “Dreams from My Real Father,” arguing that leftist journalist and poet Frank Marshall Davis was the biological father of Barack Obama.
During the 2012 presidential campaign, WND reported Gilbert distributed millions of copies of his “Dreams from My Real Father” to households in key swing-states in an attempt to bypass an establishment media blackout of his message.
Gilbert’s other films include “Atomic Jihad: Ahmadinejad’s Coming War and Obama’s Politics of Defeat” (2010) and “Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran and the Revolt of Islam” (2008).
“Atomic Jihad” won the Hudson Institute Film Festival in 2010.
President Obama at his last White House Correspondents’ Association dinner on April 30, 2016 (Photo: Twitter)
A leading conservative media watchdog is blasting President Obama and the White House press corps for collaborating on a leftist agenda while Obama tells reporters he admires their commitment to facts and objectivity.
Media Research Center Vice President of Business and Culture Dan Gainor also reacted to reports that CNN is suddenly beating Fox News in prime time among a key demographic.
But the issue that really has Gainor fired up is Obama’s speech to the annual White House Correspondents Dinner on Saturday. After several minutes of cracking jokes at the expense of the press and political figures, Obama concluded by thanking the news media for helping him make our country better.
“I’m very proud of what you’ve done,” Obama said. “It has been an honor and a privilege to work side by side with you to strengthen our democracy.”
Just prior to that statement, Obama lauded the mainstream press for shedding ideology and only reporting where the facts and the truth lead.
“The only way we can build consensus, the only way we can move forward as a country, the only way we can help the world mend itself is by agreeing on a baseline of facts when it comes to the challenges that confront us all,” Obama said.
Those words left Gainor shaking his head.
“The president was standing in the middle of perhaps the metaphor for Washington corruption,” Gainor said. “You’ve got the intersection of entertainment media, news media, politics and money, at an event where they have a red carpet where professional journalists are walking into an event on a red carpet.”
Gainor continued, “And he’s talking about journalists taking a stand for what is true does not require you shedding your objectivity. They have no objectivity. For him to come out there and say he’s working side by side, what it means is they were working for him. Absolutely, this is a telling quote.”
Gainor said journalists are even twisting basic facts into a political advantage for their allies.
“The media have all these fact-check things now,” he said. “‘Oh, we’re going to check the facts.’ Then they turn it into propaganda.”
He said Sunday’s edition of “Meet the Press” provided another example.
“To really show that they’re being objective is to not do what Chuck Todd did with Ted Cruz at ‘Meet the Press,'” Gainor said. “Getting offended that Ted Cruz is calling out the leaders of NBC as being partisan, of course they’re partisan. Who in Washington journalism is not partisan?”
Also odd to Gainor is how much the media follow Obama’s lead while the president restricts access to the press more than any other president in decades. He said it started even before Obama was elected.
“If you remember going all the way back to when a couple of newspapers endorsed John McCain, their political reporters were kicked off the campaign planes,” Gainor said.
He said the Obama White House and the press corps both have a vested interest in stifling transparency and pursuit of the truth.
“They don’t want to change it. They don’t want to be transparent because to be transparent, they actually have to tell people what’s really going on,” Gainor said. “The media also don’t want it either because then they would really have to go after the Obama administration. They don’t want that.”
So what would be signs that reporters are interested in fair play? Gainor said this campaign season would be a good place to start.
“A telling sign that they were committed to truth would be doing the same due diligence that they seem intent on doing to Cruz or Trump or anybody who is running against Hillary Clinton, to Hillary Clinton,” he said.
He said journalists could also correct a glaring double standard that was on display again this weekend.
“There were people attacked at a Donald Trump rally over the weekend,” he said. “Do you see journalists running out and asking every major Democrat in the country to disavow those kinds of riots and those kinds of thuggish behaviors? No. But when something happens at a conservative event, they immediately demand that Republicans or conservatives disavow that.”
On the cable news front, CNN is now happily reporting that it beat Fox News in prime time among adults aged 25-54 in five of the past eight months. It’s the first such stretch since late 2001, which came just before Fox News started dominating the ratings.
So why the sudden shift? Gainor chalks it up to the campaign and the raw emotions coming to the surface.
“I think this is the most emotionally volatile election year that I ever remember, even going back into 1968,” Gainor said. “Voters are very concerned we’re not at the point we need to be. Whether you look left or right, both parties are sharply divided right now.”
Gainor said there are more “talking head” shows on Fox and, with so many strong opinions, some viewers are turning away from those they don’t like. But he said CNN’s return to competitiveness won’t last long.
“Going by the history of how CNN tends to treat conservatives, I don’t think they’ll be staying for very long,” Gainor said.
A secret service agent exposes Clinton White House as having cocaine flowing throughout and constant mistresses, yet the media remains mum.
Former Secret Service agent to the Clinton White House, Gary J. Byrne, has come forward to decry a potential Hillary Clinton presidency as a dangerous and detrimental proposition.
As the New York Post’s Daniel Halper, who interviewed the controversial figure, described Byrne’s mission, “he believes it is his patriotic duty to do anything he can to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president of the United States.”
Though Byrne’s tenure at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue provided ample opportunity to witness indiscretions and other unacceptable behavior by both Clintons, the account — as detailed in a new book, “Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill and How They Operate” — has been subject to a media blackout and dismissive attempts to discredit.
In the exclusive interview with the Post, Byrne said he witnessed “the Clinton machine leaving a wake of destruction in just about everything they do,” as well as Hillary’s paranoid and abusive behavior, which was “like hitting yourself with a hammer every day.”
According to the Post, Byrne claims cocaine flowed in the Clinton White House — and staffers availed themselves of the supply.
“There were some drug issues,” the former Secret Service officer told the Post. “Some people would come into work in the morning, and they were barely walking, they would drop stuff off at the office, and go to the restroom where they would come out minutes later happy as a clown.”
Such damning allegations, of course, have come under fire from Hillary’s campaign and former staff, alike, and have all but been excluded from mainstream media coverage — likely as an extension of corporate media’s suspicious fondness for Clinton.
But some sources, including Ron Kessler — author and former journalist for the Washington Post and Boston Herald — have backed up Byrne’s claims.
“I think it’s right on,” Kessler told the Herald. “It has to do with her character, the hypocrisy of someone who claims to help the country and yet she can’t bring herself to treat other human beings who are less powerful than she is with respect and dignity. Someone like that can really get out of control once they get in the White House. They have all that power and they become even more arrogant.”
In his book, Byrne details the so-called “jogging list” compiled by Bill Clinton, as cited by the Post:
“In the beginning of his first administration, when President Clinton was jogging outside, women who were dressed as if they were going clubbing or working out started showing up at the southeast gate. The agents … would get the women’s names, and run them to see who they were. If the women wouldn’t cooperate, they would be ushered out of the jogging group.
“Agents … insinuated that this list was used by President Clinton to try to meet these women.”
Byrne describes a belligerent Hillary Clinton, whose explosive and sometimes violent outbursts convinced other Secret Service agents she posed a legitimate physical threat to her husband — evidenced by her once giving him a black eye.
A spokesman for Hillary dismissed Byrne’s exposé as worthless to Page Six, as the Post reported, saying,
“Gary Byrne joins the ranks of Ed Klein and other ‘authors’ in this latest in a long line of books attempting to cash in on the election cycle with their nonsense. It should be put in the fantasy section of the bookstore.”
But the former agent remained undeterred and steadfastly defended his book and the detailed account.
“Anybody who asserts that what I’m saying is not true,” Byrne resolutely told the Post, “they don’t know any better or they’re flat-out lying.”
A common theme in Byrne’s book, due for release on Tuesday, surrounds Hillary’s harsh treatment of Secret Service officers that borders on abuse. Kessler echoed similar allegations, saying to the Herald, “She would actually, even recently, tell agents she didn’t want to see them when they were at events. She literally wanted them to hide behind the curtains.”
Further, Byrne insists, a number of other witnesses could confirm the Clintons’ erratic behavior as well as the oft-disputed issue concerning his access in the White House, including “George Stephanopoulos, the former Bill Clinton communications director; John Podesta, Hillary’s campaign chairman, who worked in the Clinton White House; and Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary Clinton’s current campaign communications director, who worked near Byrne in the White House.”
Such confirmations, however, considering the individuals’ continued ties to the Clinton dynasty, appear far outside the realm of possibility.
Additional criticism of Byrne has highlighted alleged discrepancies to his former testimony during the Congressional probe into Bill Clinton’s involvement with intern Monica Lewinsky; which the former agent rebuffed, saying simply:
[I]“f my testimony wasn’t true, I would end up doing seven years.”
Byrne said he couldn’t fathom voting for the now-former secretary of state to become President, despite her sanitized public appearance, adding,
“I know what the public image of the Clintons is and I know what the real image is. And the real one’s dangerous.”
Re: The Main Stream Media Works for the US Government
Katie Couric Edited Gun Documentary To Silence Pro-Gun Opinions
Newly surface audio revealed that a Katie Couric-hosted documentary, called “Under the Gun,” intentionally edited video to make pro-gun Americans appear dumbfounded.
That audio, obtained by The Washington Free Beacon, shows that the movie was edited in an overwhelmingly deceptive fashion.
In the clip, Couric asks a group of pro-gun individuals from the Virginia Citizens Defense League, “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?”
In the film, the pro-gun group appears to be stunned into silence, with no apparent answer to the question.
But a separate audio recording of the conversation reveals that the group responded quickly, and hit Couric back with nearly 4 minutes of thoughts on the subject.
Virginia Citizens Defense League president Philip Van Cleave told The Washington Free Beacon, “Katie Couric asked a key question during an interview of some members of our organization. She then intentionally removed their answers and spliced in nine seconds of some prior video of our members sitting quietly and not responding. Viewers are left with the misunderstanding that the members had no answer to her question.”
The makers of a new Katie Couric documentary on gun violence deceptively edited an interview between Couric and a group of gun rights activists in an apparent attempt to embarrass the activists, an audio recording of the full interview shows.
At the 21:48 mark of Under the Gun a scene of Katie Couric interviewing members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights organization, is shown.
Couric can be heard in the interview asking activists from the group, “If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?”
The documentary then shows the activists sitting silently for nine awkward seconds, unable to provide an answer. It then cuts to the next scene. The moment can be watched here:
However, raw audio of the interview between Katie Couric and the activists provided to the Washington Free Beacon shows the scene was deceptively edited. Instead of silence, Couric’s question is met immediately with answers from the activists. A back and forth between a number of the league’s members and Couric over the issue of background checks proceeds for more than four minutes after the original question is asked.
Under the Gun bills itself as a documentary that “examines the events and people who have kept the gun debate fierce and the progress slow, even as gun deaths and mass shootings continue to increase.”
It follows a number of gun violence victims and those who have lost family members to gun violence as they advocate for stricter gun control laws. The 1 hour and 45 minute film was executive produced and narrated by Katie Couric.
The Virginia Citizens Defense League labeled the deceptively edited segment featured in the film “unbelievable and extremely unprofessional.” Philip Van Cleave, the organization’s president, said the editing was done deliberately to make it appear that league members didn’t have a response to Couric’s question.
“Katie Couric asked a key question during an interview of some members of our organization,” he said. “She then intentionally removed their answers and spliced in nine seconds of some prior video of our members sitting quietly and not responding. Viewers are left with the misunderstanding that the members had no answer to her question.”
Nora Ryan, the chief of staff for EPIX, the cable channel that is airing the documentary, told the Free Beacon in an email, “Under the Gun is a critically-acclaimed documentary that looks at the polarizing and politicized issue of gun violence, a subject that elicits strong reactions from people on both sides. EPIX stands behind Katie Couric, director Stephanie Soechtig, and their creative and editorial judgment. We encourage people to watch the film and decide for themselves.”
Requests for comment from Couric and the film’s director, Stephanie Soechtig, have not been returned, though they did speak to The Washington Post.
UPDATE 2:25 P.M.: This post has been updated with comment from a spokesperson for EPIX.
UPDATE 5:09 P.M.: The Washington Post‘s Erik Wemple tweeted a statement from Under the Gun’s director Stephanie Soechtig.
Got a statement from director Stephanie Soechtig regarding allegations of deceptive editing on Katie Couric gun doc. 1
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) May 25, 2016
Soechtig: “There are a wide range of views expressed in the film. My intention was to provide a pause for the viewer….2
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) May 25, 2016
…to have a moment to consider this important question before presenting the facts on Americans’ opinions on background checks.” 3
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) May 25, 2016
“I never intended to make anyone look bad and I apologize if anyone felt that way.”
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) May 25, 2016
UPDATE 5:36 P.M.: The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple also tweeted a statement from Katie Couric.
And statement from Katie Couric of "Under the Gun": "I support Stephanie's statement and am very proud of the film."
But that’s not the worst thing that happened with the making of this documentary. It turns out that Couric’s production team deliberately conspired to violate federal gun laws. According to video obtained by Ammoland, a shooting sports news website, one of Couric’s producers deliberately committed at least four separate felonies by purchasing four separate firearms across state lines without a background check.
In the video, Soechtig openly admits that she directed one of her employees to purchase guns across state lines, and that he absolutely followed her orders:
SOECHTIG: We sent a producer out and he was from Colorado. He went to Arizona, and he was able to buy a Bushmaster and then three other pistols without a background check in a matter of four hours. And that’s perfectly legal. He wasn’t doing some sort of underground market.
And he just met someone in the parking lot of Wendy’s and bought a Bushmaster. Legally. Like, this is legal.
Except it’s not legal. Like, it’s illegal. Super duper illegal. Quadruple illegal in the case of the Soechtig employee who purchased four firearms across state lines without processing the sale through a federal firearms licensee (FFL) in his home state of Colorado.
Federal law is abundantly clear on what types of transactions require federal background checks. Gun owners tend to understand these laws incredibly well. Gun controllers like Soechtig do not. Under federal law, all gun purchases from an FFL must be accompanied by a federal background check. It doesn’t matter if the FFL sells a gun at a retail location, at a gun show, or out of the back of a car in a Wendy’s parking lot. All FFL transactions require a federal background check. It doesn’t matter who you are or where you’re from: if you buy a gun from an FFL, the FFL must confirm that you have passed a federal background check.
Next we have interstate purchases, all of which must be conducted through an FFL in the buyer’s home state. It is illegal to purchase a gun across state lines unless the transaction is processed through an FFL in the buyer’s home state. And what did we just learn about all FFL purchases? That they require federal background checks. Ergo, all interstate purchases must be accompanied by federal background checks.
What does that mean? It means that a producer who resides in Colorado cannot legally buy a gun in Arizona unless that gun is shipped to an FFL in Colorado, whereby that FFL confirms that the Colorado resident can legally own that firearm. The Colorado resident who bought the gun from someone in Arizona cannot take possession of that gun until the Colorado FFL receives the gun from Arizona and confirms that the Colorado buyer can legally own that weapon. Once that happens, the Colorado FFL would transfer possession of the gun to the Colorado buyer.
How may an unlicensed person receive a firearm in his or her State that he or she purchased from an out–of–State source?
An unlicensed person who is not prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms may purchase a firearm from an out–of–State source, provided the transfer takes place through a Federal firearms licensee in his or her State of residence.
[18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and 922(b)(3); 27 CFR 478.29]
But that’s not what happened according to Soechtig’s very own testimony. According to Soechtig, she gave direct orders to an employee of hers who lives in Colorado to buy some guns in Arizona without undergoing a federal background check. He then acted on those orders, and, according to Soechtig’s own admission, proceeded to illegally purchase four separate firearms from a seller in Arizona. And if he was purchasing the guns for Soechtig rather than himself, you can add illegal straw purchases to the list of federal crimes.
Soechtig’s employee, acting on her orders, repeatedly violated federal gun laws. And he did so not just because of his own monumental ignorance, but because of the aggressive ignorance of Stephanie Soechtig, Katie Couric’s hand-picked producer, director, and writer of the anti-gun documentary.
Soechtig’s chest-thumping ignorance and arrogance on display in that interview–“Legally. Like, this is legal.”–are a perfect example of why so many gun owners care so little about the opinions of sanctimonious gun controllers. Because they have absolutely no clue what they’re talking about. They don’t understand how guns work. They don’t understand crime statistics. They don’t know the difference between semi-automatic and automatic. And they can’t even deign to spend 5 minutes researching actual gun laws before declaring that those laws just aren’t sufficient.
The one thing gun controllers all agree on, however, is that strong enforcement of commonsense gun laws is key to preventing senseless gun violence. Katie Couric, Stephanie Soechtig, and their entire anti-gun documentary team now have a chance to put their money where their mouths are. If enforcement of federal gun laws is essential to preventing gun violence, then Soechtig and her team must pay the price for their willful and admitted violations of federal gun laws.
When Soechtig and her team plea to federal charges for violating the nation’s commonsense gun laws, we’ll know they’re serious about cutting down on gun crime. Until then, we’ll know they’re just a bunch of ignorant, gun-trafficking profiteers who want to take away our rights while they violate with absolute impunity the very laws they demand.
Not one reporter at any point even hinted at how black violence is wildly out of proportion.
Not one reporter talked to any cop willing to tell the truth about how police are relentless victims of black hostility and violence and murder — all over the country.
And how black on cop violence and defiance are now the default response.
Not the other way around. A brief magical mystery tour of black on cop violence over the last few weeks.
In Baltimore, one week ago, hundreds of black people took to the streets to celebrate the life of the recently killed rapper Lor Scoota. He was best known for celebrating guns, drugs, money and bitches in his videos and in his life.
Eventually cops showed up: They were greeted with bottles and rocks and threats and taunts when they suggested to the hundreds of black people that destroying property and disobeying the law was not a good idea.
Top political figures in Baltimore made their way to the scene of the crimes to blame police for antagonizing the black people. As usual, the Baltimore Sun and other local media wagged their tails and went along with the story: the greatest hoax of our lifetimes — the lie of black victimization. All documented in that scintillating best seller Don’t Make the Black Kids Angry.
In Syracuse on Father’s Day in the ghetto, 500 black people were blowing some weed and shooting some guns when a female cop showed up.
The videos show the crowds fleeing the gunfire as the officer runs towards it. When her backup arrived, they found the cop on the ground, surrounded by a large group of black people beating and kicking her and trying to steal her gun.
One black man was running around, pleading for a gun to shoot the police.
The local papers pretended they had never heard of anything like that before, when, truth is: That is a regular part of life in Syracuse.
On July 4, on North Beach in South Haven, Michigan, black people threw rocks and bottles at cops, whose only fault was they did not like black people throwing rocks and bottles at beach goers. In Baton Rouge, the night following the death of Alton Sterling, the saint with a long record of crime and violence who was killed resisting arrest for threatening people with a gun, hundreds of black people took to the streets to sing the new black national anthem: **** the Police.
police think they have the authority to kill a minority. Ice Cube will swarm On any mutha****a in a blue uniform Just cuz I'm from the CPT, punk police are afraid of me A young nigga on a warpath And when I'm finished, it's gonna be a bloodbath
You remember Ice Cube: He’s the smiling old grandpa of TV and movie fame, still preaching violence against the police.
In Oklahoma City, a black high school teacher took to Facebook to declare that all white hillbillies should die in a tornado. The local school discovered the First Amendment, and the local TV news gang said we should forgive him because he said he was sorry.
In Akron, a black person fresh from robbing a white person ran smack into a cop: The black person pulled his gun and fired. Luckily, it misfired. The police dog made sure that miscreant did not get a chance to reload.
In Jacksonville, Keith Crowder said sheriff’s deputies shot him twice for no reason whatsoever. Crowder’s car had drugs and a gun, similar to what they found on him just a few weeks before that. When they put him in handcuffs, Crowder started banging his head on the car shouting police brutality.
At the recent BET awards show, TV star Jesse Williams condemned cops for doing “drive by” shootings on innocent black people. And he condemned white people for always stealing from black people. National TV shows and newspaper editorial writers around the country lauded the speech as ushering in a new era of civil rights.
In the St. Louis suburb of Normandy, 300 black people turned a pool party into a large scale episode of mob violence. Cops came. They were attacked. No one was surprised.
In Dewey Beach, Delaware, 100 black people were fighting in and out of a popular nightclub, the second time in as many weeks. When police arrived, they turned on the cops, throwing rocks and bottles at them. Several black people were arrested for inciting a riot.
In Chicago, a few days before that, 200 black people at a meeting at police headquarters assaulted cops with threats and harassment and obscenities. The cops nodded their heads and pretended that threatening violence was not against the law.
Which is pretty much what a Chicago judge did when she released a black man who attacked an off duty policeman, knocking him out and breaking a few bones. Cops know the judge and were not surprised.
Also in Chicago, a black man bit a cop when he was unhappy about being arrested. As they were surrounded by a crowd of black people encouraging the biter, police backup arrived and kicked the biter in the face.
In Katy, Texas, a new waterpark hosted a gathering for young Christian people. Soon, large groups of black people were crashing the gate, climbing the fence, and attacking police who suggested they stop.
In Pasadena, a Black Lives Matter activist was found guilty of lynching after she and her crew tried to hide, then wrest control of a prisoner under arrest for running out of a nearby restaurant without paying the bill. Just another case of police brutality, they said.
In Philadelphia, a black man and his lawyer announced a lawsuit against the police for shooting him, an unarmed man. The cops were chasing him because they saw he had a gun. When the black man threw the gun away, it went off, leading police to believe he was shooting at them.
Soon after, local media reported cops shot another unarmed black man. After the press conference announcing the lawsuit, police took the man into custody and charged him with another murder.
In the first few days of June of normally bucolic Stafford, Virginia, police interrupted a black man during a burglary. He shot a cop. The cop lived. So did the black person.
In Fayetteville, Arkansas, a black man ran over one cop and tried to shoot another. After, as he recovered from a gunshot, he claimed he was the victim of police brutality because cops were picking on him for no reason whatsoever.
In Durham, North Carolina, cops busted a plan by a group of black people to kidnap and murder a prosecuting attorney. They got the wrong guy, trying to kidnap the prosecutor’s father.
Not too far from Durham, about the same time, a black man named Moon decided he did not want to comply with a lawful police order. So he attacked the cop, who picked him up and body slammed Moon with the grace and ease to make a professional wrestler proud.
A few days before that in Miami Gardens, a black man unhappy at a traffic stop pulled up to a cop and shot the cop at point blank range, somehow missing.
In Ireland, a young man disturbed a family gathering by announcing he had been following the shootings in Dallas and said he was happy black people were finally fighting back because cops had been picking on black people in America for a long time for no reason whatsoever.
He learned that from CNN. From a story featuring the President. Of the United States of America.
Re: The Main Stream Media Works for the US Government
Facebook brought down the banhammer on the outreach coordinator for Dinesh D’Souza’s Hillary’s America on Saturday, two days before the Democratic National Convention begins and Hillary is finally coronated.
Journalist and producer Jeremy Oliver works as an outreach coordinator for the documentary Hillary’s America and posted links encouraging other group members to watch and review the film the night it premiered. Shortly after that, Facebook imposed a “temporary restriction” on his posting permissions.
While none of his posts have been removed from any groups, no one can share them. Oliver can’t join new groups, post in groups he belongs to, or comment on his posts until August 5 — even to groups that he’s an administrator of and belonged to for years.
When a group member asked Oliver, “How can I share this???” below his post and he tried to like or reply, a message from Facebook popped up and read: “Failed to like post. The action attempted has been deemed abusive or is otherwise disallowed. To keep from getting blocked again, please make sure you’re read and understand Facebook’s Community Standards.”
Welcome to Facebook jail
Oliver had also streamed a video of the crowd’s reactions to Hillary’s America, but it appears Facebook removed that, too.
“What just happened? Did you remove the link to the video or did Facebook?” one user asked Oliver.
“This video is no longer available,” text imposed over the video reads.
You won’t hear this stuff from the lying mainstream media. Joins at GotNews: send a tip to email@example.com or donate at GotNews.com/donate.
Why Oliver was “disallowed” from replying to another group member was never explained.
“Please reinstate all functions of my account immediately, or show me proof of wrongdoing,” Oliver wrote to Facebook. Facebook, of course, hasn’t replied, giving Oliver no other choice than to believe he was silenced for political reasons.
Facebook’s ban stops Oliver from doing his job and promoting D’Souza’s film. He has never faced restrictions on any material he has posted before.
GotNews and GotNews founder editor-in-chief Charles C. Johnson have both come under lengthy suspensions, and Facebook deleted the GotNews Facebook fan page without explanation, costing the organization thousands of views.
The lion’s share of the money we make on this website comes from donations. Please support independent journalism. If you’d like to hire our research team, email us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Breaking: Matt Lauer has been chosen to moderate the first-ever forum featuring Hillary Clinton & Donald Trump on September 7 in NYC.
8:00 AM - 1 Sep 2016
On Wednesday, Sept. 7, NBC News and MSNBC — along with the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America — will host the the Commander-in-Chief Forum in New York City. It will be a one-hour forum where Clinton and Trump will answer questions about national security, military affairs and veterans issues in front of an audience mainly made up of members of the military. The two candidates will not be on the stage at the same time, but will instead go back to back.
It’s worth noting that Lauer is listed as a “notable past member” on the Clinton Global Initiative’s website — along with Anderson Cooper and Katie Couric.
In the past, a Clinton Foundation official has said that the journalists who are part of the foundation were never asked to pay the $20,000 member fee.
“In fact, in 2012, we reclassified members of the media who participate as ‘guests’ rather than ‘members’ to acknowledge this distinction,” the official has said.