View Full Version : Mainstream media is threatening our country's future
BMT (RIP)
10-01-2012, 06:49
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/29/mainstream-media-threatening-our-country-future/
BMT
It is funny how the left/MSM accuses the right of being in "lock step" but they are the ones who put the big "L" in lock step.
Just watch the news - any of them - and look at the facial expressions of the presenters. Talking about "D"s and it's all happy face and smiles - "R"s and it's the slight frown during the story and a negative shake of the head at the end. WRAL goes overboard on it.
Another interesting indictment of the media in American thinker article below.
The Audacity of These Dopes
By William L. Gensert
September 21, 2012
American Thinker
The media is on its knees. It's the customary position of worship, and worship they do -- Barack Obama -- their chosen "one."
He is the man they told us would halt the rise of the oceans and heal the planet, the man who had game like Lebron, knew more than his advisers, was more brilliant than all brilliance, the smartest man to ever be president, the winner of a Nobel Prize and 2 Grammy awards, who was like Lincoln, then FDR, thenJFK, then Reagan, the man who would make America loved and respected the world over, the man who would balance the budget and usher in a new era of racial tolerance -- no white America or black America, one America -- the man who would get us out of our cars and break our dependency on foreign oil, who would change the economy into a green energy powerhouse, the man who would solve all the ills of all the world, the man who would change everything. He was new, he was different. He was better than the common man; he was more than us; he was like a god.
Three and a half years later, the only thing Barack Obama has improved is his golf game. For the media, when their messiah is 0 for a zillion, what can they do? It's too late to quit. They are all in. They have to double down.
Mitt Romney makes a comment about how 47% of Americans are "dependent" on government handouts, and the media is outraged that he would tell the truth. The rest of America is outraged that the figure is 47%.
This is why Americans cannot believe the media message that the president is winning. The press has to pretend, and they will, right up until November 6, when he will lose in a landslide.
Strip away the Obama myth, and what are you left with? You are left with a man who is nothing more than an illusion. There never was and never will be a Barack Obama, because he is not real.
The man reading from the teleprompter is nothing more than the sum total of the audacious hopes and dreams of delusional progressives -- touted endlessly by a submissive press.
He is Mike Tyson, just before Buster Douglas knocked him face-forward to the canvas, where he floundered, spitting out his mouthpiece -- powerless, a victim of his own hubris.
Before that, he was invincible; no one would ever beat him; no one could ever beat him; he was the best ever, and the best that would ever be.
Well...sprawled out on the canvas, he wasn't so tough anymore. And he never redeemed himself from that first loss. He became a mere mortal. While undefeated, he was larger than life, a god -- when he became man, he seemed so small.
He burst on the scene as a 5' 7" animal who took apart every opponent. The more fights he won, the bigger he was -- 5' 8", then 5'10". By the time he lost to Douglas, they told us he was 6' tall.
You see, that's the problem with the media; they are supposed to be observers, impartial. But as observers and not participants -- they don't "do" -- it is easy for them to become captive of those who do "do." Impartiality fades, soon becoming something they fake and no longer a job requirement.
Just as Mike Tyson grew in stature with every win, so did Barack Obama with every speech. At least with Tyson, when he was shown to be less than what he actually was, the press turned.
With Barack Obama, who has not done a single thing correctly since winning the election, no failure is acknowledged. In fact, every blatant failure is held up to a non-attentive America as resounding success.
Just look at recent events. The Libyans warned American officials. Yet the Obama administration did not assign any Marines to protect our ambassador and the three members of his staff also killed in Benghazi. No...their security was provided by Libyan locals, untrained and certainly unmotivated.
When it hit the fan, they fled, either because they were in collusion with the attackers, or they were terrified.
There is no finer fighting man on this earth than an American soldier. Twenty Marines -- each and every one a volunteer -- would have been more than a match for a thousand Libyans. And if by chance, they were not, they would have given their lives protecting the ambassador.
In any case, we will never know because they weren't there, apparently because Barack Obama didn't want to insult the Libyans with an American presence.
Imagine: an American president thinking the presence of Americans is insulting.
This should be a huge story -- and would be with any other president. Yet the narrative pushed by the media was that Mitt Romney's denunciation of the Cairo Embassy's statement of apology, issued just before the attack in Egypt, showed him to be unfit to lead. It wasn't about the assassination of an American ambassador at our consulate in Benghazi, the first since 1979.
Four Americans lost their lives in coordinated attacks, on the anniversary of radical Islam's greatest triumph, one of them an American ambassador, who reportedly was sodomized by his attackers before being killed.
...And this unlucky quartet was left virtually unprotected, in a war zone, by this administration.
...And it took Obama most of a day to renounce the apology.
...And after denouncing the video and the violence, he immediately jumped on his plane to Vegas to raise campaign cash (too bad what goes to Vegas doesn't stay in Vegas).
...And since then, despite attacks on our embassies all over the world, spokesmen for the administration want us to believe that it's not about a failure in policy -- or that they don't like us -- no one could dislike Obama, after all. It is about a low-rent YouTube video made months ago that few people 'til recently had even seen.
...And the administration asks Google, owner of YouTube, to take down the video and has the maker of the video brought in for "questioning."
First Amendment...what First Amendment? We don't need no stinking First Amendment rights in Barack Obama's America.
Yet...the story is about Mitt -- the audacity of these dopes.
You see they are desperate. The reality of Barack Obama has brought them to their knees. If he loses in November, the mainstream media will be shown for what they are -- shills for what they wanted and pretended to be true, and not tellers of truth.
What is left for them when there is no more Barack?
Will anyone take seriously the relentless attacks on President Romney they will be sure to prosecute? No one but the most committed progressive will ever believe a word they say again, especially after they not only gave Barack Obama a free ride for all of his years in office, but unconvincingly attempted to redefine his every failure as success.
There was a time when the mainstream media dictated the conversation while hiding behind the veneer of impartiality, and Americans deferred to their wisdom. And despite having always been partial, at least in the past they made some pretense of neutrality.
A defeat for Barack is a defeat for them. No longer will they be the exalted press -- the arbiter of truth and justice. After the debacle that is Barack Obama, they will be seen for what they are: publicity agents for progressivism.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/09/the_audacity_of_these_dopes.html
After Obama guidance, Lockheed won’t issue layoff notices this year
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/industry/259431-lockheed-martin-wont-issue-layoff-notices-this-year
"Lockheed Martin said Monday it will not issue employee layoff notices this year, ending an election-year showdown with the Obama administration.
The company said it based its decision on new guidance issued Friday by the Office of Management and Budget and the Pentagon. ............."
Pushed back until after the election. Win - Win for the D-crats. Helps get the One reelected - and if not - hey "we" can blame it on Romney in January.
The problem also lies with the premise envisioned by our founding fathers of having an "informed electorate". The media and Dims have done a GREAT job at dumbing-down the mouth-breathers and keeping them distracted with "free bread and circuses ["obama phone"]). This election is pivotal in many facets - not the least of which is the future of our Constitutional Republic.
Badger52
10-01-2012, 09:57
The company said it based its decision on new guidance issued Friday by the Office of Management and Budget and the Pentagon. ............."
Dang; I thought it was just GM they bought the controlling interest in. Are they really running that low on numbers to cook?
:rolleyes:
Got this from a friend today
Washington Times
September 28, 2012
Pg. 3
Pentagon’s No. 2 Says Ignore The Sequester
Full speed ahead, subordinates told
By Rowan Scarborough, The Washington Times
The Pentagon’s No. 2 official has issued a new warning to Defense Department civilians and commanders not to make any plans for automatic budget cuts that are set to take effect Jan. 2, even as Congress and the White House show no sign of halting the cuts.
In fact, Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter does not even want military leaders to suggest in conversation with employees that the cuts might happen.
“I am... directing that all commanders and managers in the Department of Defense continue the defense mission under current laws and policies, without taking any steps that assume sequestration will occur,” Mr. Carter said in a memo Tuesday to top brass, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.
The Office of Management and Budget recently estimated the military would suffer $50 billion in automatic spending cuts in fiscal 2013, which begins Monday. Over 10 years, the Pentagon’s overall reductions would equal nearly $1 trillion.
There are virtually no ongoing talks to avoid the automatic cuts, known as sequestration. Some military analysts say they doubt a post-election deal can be achieved before a new Congress is seated next year.
The first year of cuts under the Budget Control Act requires acrossthe-board reductions, likely meaning the elimination of employee positions, canceled contracts and a slow down in training.
Yet Mr. Carter wrote that preparing for that possibility now would alarm the workforce.
“Commanders should not, for example, curtail planned training, maintenance, health care or family programs,” he wrote. “Commanders and managers should not alarm our employees and their families by announcing personnel actions related to sequestration or by suggesting that these actions are likely.”
To some in the defense industry, the Pentagon is taking the wrong approach.
One senior executive told The Times that if the Defense Department actually issued a plan, it might scare Congress and the White House into hammering out a deal.
“Put on your blinders, and we’re going to keep doing business as usual despite sequestration right around the corner” is how the executive described the Pentagon’s strategy.
“They should be organizing a budget drill where they say, ‘Air Force, this is your bill. Army, this is your bill. Now tell me how you are going to take it,’” the executive said. “If you want to get sequestration overturned, then publish that to put pressure on Congress. If you don’t turn this around before Jan. 2, this is what we’re going to do.”
Wrote Mr. Carter: “We do not want our programs, personnel and activities to begin to suffer the harmful effects of sequestration while there is still a chance it can be avoided.”
Ralph Nader, a four-time presidential candidate, says President Obama should be poised for a landslide victory that swings control of Congress dramatically back to Democrats, but instead he’s running a “selfish” campaign that has done little to help his party on Capitol Hill.
In an interview with The Washington Times, Mr. Nader, who is slated to speak at this weekend’s Green Festival in the District, also predicted a major shake-up in American politics by 2016 when a billionaire political messiah will be prepared to spend his own money to force choices in the next presidential election.
The consumer-advocate-turned-politician, who has run for president as the Green Party’s nominee and as an independent, called Republicans in Washington “cruel and ignorant.” But he saved his most biting barbs for Mr. Obama, who he said all but ignored fellow Democratic candidates at his nominating convention earlier this month.
“It’s the most politically selfish speech I’ve ever heard a candidate make in that he never mentioned congressional Democrats,” Mr. Nader said. “And it’s not just rhetoric. He doesn’t campaign with them.”
Mr. Obama was both the first major-party nominee and the first incumbent president to reject the public financing system for the general election, which drew more scorn from Mr. Nader, who has long been an advocate of the system.
In rejecting taxpayer money, Mr. Obama has had to spend much of his time in recent months chasing dollars from donors. Still, Democrats campaign officials say they don’t feel neglected by Mr. Obama.
“The strength of President Obama’s campaign has helped boost House campaigns with a top-notch get-out-the-vote effort,” said Jesse Ferguson, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Given how bad a drag Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have become, though, it’s our hope they start campaigning more with House Republicans.”
Mr. Nader will be at the District’s Green Festival, which bills itself as the nation’s largest sustainable economy event, Saturday to talk about his book, “The Seventeen Solutions,” which is being released next week.
One of his recommendations in the book is for the country to try to enlist the superrich to help in the fight for social causes and against the two-party political system Mr. Nader himself has battled.
“There are a lot of them, fortunately. A lot of them are getting ready,” he said, naming Bill Gates as one man he said he wouldn’t be surprised to see involved.
He said he doesn’t know anything in particular about Mr. Gates’ plans, but said he imagines the Microsoft founder might be looking at his philanthropic endeavors and wondering whether there’s a more direct way to get things done.
“He doesn’t have to dial for one dollar, everybody in the country knows him, so I think 2016 is going to be the beginning of the end of the two-party duopoly,” Mr. Nader said.
As for his own political situation, Mr. Nader said he has no regrets about not running this year — the first time since 1992 that he hasn’t entered the race. He said running turned out to be futile because he was never able to crack the one national stage to which voters pay attention: the presidential debates.
That drove him to his conclusion: “There’s no way you can reach tens of millions of people if you’re not a billionaire.”
He said he recognizes the strangeness of a consumer advocate who has battled big corporations turning to some of the men who got rich by running those outfits.
“It’s more than odd, it’s bizarre. It’s bizarre,” he said, but added the two parties have left little choice. “You see, they’ve gamed the obstacles to popular political revolutions so brilliantly.”
ddoering
10-02-2012, 04:31
In other words, don't do anything that might lose the chump in chief votes.....:munchin
In other words, don't do anything that might lose the chump in chief votes.....:munchin
Regardless of the fact that it is breaking the law. The current law states with a massive layoff, the company has to notify employees in writing 60 days in advance, which puts it about 5 days before the election.
No politics in play here, just move along, nothing to see.
The problem also lies with the premise envisioned by our founding fathers of having an "informed electorate". The media and Dims have done a GREAT job at dumbing-down the mouth-breathers and keeping them distracted with "free bread and circuses ["obama phone"]). This election is pivotal in many facets - not the least of which is the future of our Constitutional Republic.
Agreed, QP JimP, and at the same time, shame on those mouth-breathers for becoming closed minded, blind and dumb in exchange for a pittance hand out from the tax payers.
We could use a lesson in national and individual pride from the Japanese.
medic&commo
10-02-2012, 12:17
MSM doesn't want to 'confuse' you with the facts, they just want their agenda.
One problem is the mindless portion of our population, who will believe anything their told, because it's easier than having to think or do the research themselves.
m&c