Friday, October 16, 2009

The Obama Networks & the Myth of a Free Press

The right to free speech, freedom of expession, and free thought are enshrined and protected in our nation's Constitution and Bill of Rights, but progressives pretending to combat censorship, and promoting equal air time for "divergent points of view" have been chipping away at our Constitution through legislation and the courts and transforming the rights of free speech, expression, and freedom of conscience into a politically correct hodge podge of what is permitted and what is not permitted according to their interpretation of it is.

In forty-five years, they have morphed our national conscience through successive propaganda in the media, academia, and motion pictures, while politicians promoting their world view and view of America have all but taken over our congress and almost every level of our federal bureaucracy. Some have called it a conspiracy, I do not. Conspiracies are done in the dark, these people work through organizations out in the open, and have been working for a good many years. The problem is, most of America has been apathetic and asleep. They know this, and this is why so many of their number in the media have now come out into the open to support their causes which they see under assault by "right wing radio" as they call it, and "Fox News."

Interesting. I have followed politics and the media for almost thirty-three years, but I have never seen a situation where every organ of the news media turn on one of its own, that is, until Fox News came along. Before the advent of Fox News, the Internet, the Drudge Report, and Talk Radio, we very much got our news from the alphabet soup channels and from radio. They in turn, got their information from AP, Reuters, and other organs of international news, they still do as a matter of fact. I recall having to sit through day after day of unveiled media attacks on President Ronald Reagan's policies without rebuttals, and how even talk shows would showcase a disproportionate number of leftwing pundits. Occasionally some of these programs would feature a moderate conservative who would barely be allowed to express his or her opinions on the topics and issues of the day. But the liberal elites had a choke hold on the news, and if they sought to spike a story, the story wouldn't' get reported and that would be the end of that. No one would know about it, and the story would go away.

This went on and on, but America saw through it, and Ronald Reagan went on to win the largest electoral victory in this nation's history, even almost capturing all fifty states when he ran for reelection. Ronald Reagan's 1984 win over Walter Mondale was 525 to 13 in the electoral vote and 59 percent to 41 percent in popular votes, unquestionably a landslide. Regardless of what they were being told by the media pundits, academia and Hollywood, the American people spoke resoundly, and President Reagan won reelection, losing only one state by a hair, but winning all forty-nine others. I remember how I relished the reactions of the news anchors covering that election, as I channel surfed that night, just to see it. They all seemed to be acting as though a national tragedy had occurred, as though they had received the news of a lost loved one. They couldn't help themselves, and they did little to hide it. This was 1984, and talk radio began taking off, but there was no Internet yet, no personal computers, and no Windows operating system, or Linux, or any alternative to the monopoly the news and entertainment media had on information and data.

That changed, and when it did, the way people get information did also. For a good many years, the media has been slow to understand this as their ratings plummeted, and people began to get their news and information from cable news, and then the Internet, as well as talk radio. Talk radio took off, and so did cable news. The media moguls saw this, and sought to exploit it, seeing the mass migration from broadcast news and its limited format to 24 news coverage and live telecasts. The first to do this was Ted Turner with his creation of CNN. Others followed suit, but this would have incredible repercussions on information and how news is reported. Amazingly though, no one in the business ever took shots at each other and how they reported the news. They were all professionals and there was an unspoken etiquette that you do not trash one of your own even if you disagreed with their point of view or how they chose to report a story. Even liberal pundits put up a veneer of objectivity thin as it was, but still there was the pretense of it, and they were careful not to appear openly partisan, though they often were without saying so.

By 2000 things changed in a big way. It began earlier in the year. The Democrats and Republicans had by then made their choices who their respective candidate would be for president. The media began to show outright signs of open partisanship in its coverage of the issues and causes each of the candidates supported. By the elections in November, people new where the alphabet soup channels and their cable counterparts stood with regards to the elections. Interestingly though, no one organ of the media attacked another, nor did we see any politician doing the same, but the signs were there that things were beginning to change as news pundits began to take sides openly on the issues. Objectivity in reporting was now laid aside. Also with it the etiquette that so many news professionals had observed until then - you don't attack one of your own in order to advocate your partisan political points of view, especially when reporting news. This changed.

The 2004 presidential elections witnessed something that no one had anticipated would ever happen in this country; a brazen attempt by a presumably reputable news anchor of a major network news outlet fabricate documents to toss the election against that candidate in favor of the other the night before the election. This was CBS and the news anchor was Dan Rather. The New York Times and Washington Post had already made their attempts at this days before. The lessons learned from 2000 and those of this election was not lost on the Far Left, and they set themselves to work behind the scenes for the next elections.

As the 2006 off-year elections loomed on the horizon, the far Left went into action. It organized protests, took names down, canvassed neighborhoods, and all but did what one would expect of missionaries do when witnessing for Jesus Christ, except that many of these so-called churches were not reaching the world for Jesus Christ, they were campaigning for far left causes and candidates across the nation's inner cities in predominantly minority neighborhoods, while their rich elite counterparts were using the media airwaves to do the same in the guise of news reporting. In this environment, the radical leftist candidate Howard Dean took off, but imploded when its star candidate himself imploded in front of the media with his shriek which was heard around the world and was beamed across the Internet by YouTube. In this environment, a young politician who had worked the streets through one of these radical churches and far left organizations under the umbrella of ACORN with money from the Tides Foundation and others, began to prospect for a place within the Democrat Party of is district. The news media and the machinery were well organized and in place to help him do it. So were large donations from globalist billionaires such as George Soros and others.

In four years, the Left organized, especially after the 2008 elections, and civility went out the door and with it all other restraints news professionals had up until the 2000 elections observed. The news media had come of age, and the new pundits springing up across the landscape at that time were now open partisans. The old pundits were now also out in the open. The first of their number to openly come out was Dan Rather, but others followed. Tom Brokaw, the late Peter Jennings, as well as "America's most trusted voice" the late Walter Cronkite, all came out of the closet and embraced the Left.

As far left blogs began to spring up across cyber space, so did their counterparts on cable news. More and more organizations began to organize for left leaning progressive candidates and their media counterparts were all too eager to openly promote their causes on the air. The alphabet soup channels and their cable news counterparts now openly campaigned for the candidates of their choice; promoting causes over and against others, and by the 2008 elections, many of them like MSNBC, ABC, CNN, CBS, and NBC became nothing more than adjuncts of the Obama Campaign after the Clinton Campaign imploded.

By the 2008 presidential elections, the same far Left organizations which had organized protests the previous eight years now went to work for the Democrat candidate of its choice after its party finished the nomination process and choice of who would run against the Republican's candidate, the moderate John McCain. For a time, it appeared that the candidate of choice would be Hillary Clinton. The Clintons, themselves part of the Left; what the media called "the new Democrats," had the largest and wealthiest and best organized network of support the Democrat Party had in place at the time, but this would change, as would also the media's support for her.

As the months wound down to November, it was obvious that she would not be the DNC's star candidate, that distinction would go to a almost unknown junior senator from Illinois, Barak Hussein Obama. With this change, the media began to realign its support behind the junior senator and turn on its once favorite candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton, who had the Oval Office in her sights, did not give up easy, and her concession speech was not really a concession speech at all, but almost a call to arms. This was a signal however, for those in the know, for the Left to rally behind Obama, and it did. The media followed suit. Overnight news outlets and papers across the nation began to rally behind the young junior senator from Illinois who fancied himself (and still does) another Abraham Lincoln. Cable news outlets such as MSNBC became open organs of the Obama for President Campaign, and they have not ceased being so ever since. The Washington Post admitted in its Sunday column by its Ombudsman following the elections that it had favored Senator Barak Obama in its reporting over Senator John McCain.

Amazingly however, no matter how well funded or well organized, or brazen this open campaigning had become, by election night of the forty-three per cent of Americans who still vote went out to the polls to cast their vote for the next president, the differences in numbers of votes between the two candidates were not that great. President-elect Barak Obama won 66,117,432 (52.6%) to Senator McCain's final numbers being 57,847,877 (46.1%). In spite of the incredible network of support he had received from Hollywood, the news media, academia, the large trade, auto, and teachers' unions, and the over two hundred fifty-seven organizations under ACORN's banner; Barak Hussein Obama won the presidency by a paltry 5.6% of the popular vote. President Elect Barak Hussein Obama won the Electoral College Votes by 152, and the Popular Vote by 8,869,755 votes, an impressive number, but a much more impressive number had been Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 1936 election, where he defeated Alf Landon 523 to 8 in the electoral vote and 61 percent to 37 percent in the popular vote. But regardless of the outcome of the elections, by a 70% margin most Americans knew that the press favored Obama over McCain, as reported by the respected Pew Research Center (Pew Research Center for the People and the Press survey).

Of 56% of voting Americans turning out to vote on election night, Obama defeated McCain by securing approximately (see above) 66 million votes to McCain's (see above) 58 million. That means that the 46.1% who didn't vote for Obama and the 44% who sat it out, did not want the change Obama campaigned about. This translates into 90.1% of Americans do not want the changes Obama wants to bring to this nation. This explains the incredible numbers of people at the various T.E.A. Parties across the country the last several months protesting these changes, and the overwhelming reaction from voters against ObamaCare at town hall meetings that took place during the month of August. This would also explain why Obama and his media allies have gone into campaign mode to promote his vaunted attempt at socialized medicine which he and they call euphemistically, Health Care Reform, and Insurance Reform, but which is nothing more than a brazen attempt to completely federalize health care and secure an untapped source of revenue for the multi-billion dollar Abortion Industry, as well as create a new constituency entitlement depending voting block to secure more power. And the news media is right behind this. All except Fox News, which is has not become like MSNBC and the others, a referee for ObamaCare, but which has reported thus far from both sides of the issue.

This is why we are now seeing the phenomenon of the news media outlets everywhere eating one of its own; Fox News, because it will not fall into lockstep with the rest and join the Obama Caravan of Change They Believe In and want you to believe in too. And to this end, they have pulled out all of the stops. We are seeing in our day the most pervasive and extensive propaganda machine at work across every venue to promote political causes and politicians with Obama at its head, that we have ever seen in the history of broadcast and cable news, predominating every venue, with almost limitless and obscene amounts of money being spent at a time when most average Americans are suffering through the worst economic period since the Carter years in the 70s and the Great Depression of the 30s.

There is now in place a network of Far Left foundations, groups, organizations, media outlets, print, television and cable news, as well as academic, allied to this White House, and working to promote its agenda across the board over and against everyone and everything else it considers a political enemy or threat to that agenda and those candidates, and to Obama. We are seeing in our day, scurrilous attacks by the White House itself against a news outlet - Fox News - for having the courage and conviction to reporting all sides of the issues and being honest in its reporting, rather than becoming what the other news outlets have become; an appendage of the Obama White House Press Corps. We have already witnessed ABC News setting shop inside the White House and openly censoring any opposition to ObamaCare. We are continually seeing more and more the political lines being drawn on television, all favoring ObamaCare and Obama's type of change.

This network has crystallized and is the largest this nation has ever seen, but it is also being exposed by some intrepid people. One of them is Glenn Beck, others are Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Bob Grant, and many others on talk radio and on television. But of these, perhaps the best have been Accuracy in Media, the Media Research Group, and Andrew Breitbart whose articles at the following links have opened wide just how pervasive this vast network of leftists is. (See the following:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/10/15/leaked-memo-reveals-the-white-house-has-control-of-your-television-set/ and
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/sright/2009/10/15/part-ii-search-and-ye-shall-find-left-wing-advocacy/ and http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/10/15/obama-controls-your-television-set-part-iii-serve-gov-or-serf-dom/ and

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/bighollywood/2009/10/15/list-of-organically-created-iparticipate-television-programs/

Make no mistake about it. As far as a free press in America is concerned, there is no such thing. A free press would report independently of and not in favor of any given issue. It would present the raw facts and allow the listener or viewer to decide for themselves. This is not what the press is doing, and because this is precisely what Fox News is doing, it has become not only the target of vicious attacks by the press corps., but also incredibly by the White House. Fascism has come to America, and its face is not pretty folks. When a sitting president of a nation (and his press corps) takes upon themselves to personally attack one (or any) news outlet because of its reporting, then that nation has become fascist. America is now a fascist nation with a fascist Leftwing leader in the highest office of the land, who will not tolerate dissent.

It does not matter whether or not we have a Constitution and Bill or Rights which protects US against such behavior, Obama and his allies will not tolerate it. Their behavior in recent weeks, are a harbinger of more to come. To this end, the vast network they have created and funded has been mobilized to blunt 90% of the rest of the nation, because they realize that if the other two thirds who either did not vote for Obama or sat the elections out combine their efforts, Obama's agenda will come to nothing (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html).

They know this, and this is why they have mobilized into full campaign mode. This is why Obama - the ACORN Candidate and ACORN President - is on every show, traveling to every corner, and being heard everywhere to promote his healthcare "reform." For the last several months since he's taken office, he has come to enjoy getting everything he's wanted, and the saying goes, "What Obama wants, Obama gets." But in spite of all the vast media help, the concerted and well organized and financed campaign to promote his policy objectives, the forces arrayed to his side realize that there are 90 per cent of US out there who do not buy into his plan to "change and radically transform" this country into the world's next Marxist Paradise. So stand up and be heard America. Stand up and be seen. Stand up and make history, because if you don't, your apathy will all but seal your fate as well as that of your posterity.

No comments:

Post a Comment