Sunday, December 27, 2015

Reading the News So You Know "How To Respond?"

Sean Davis, Co-founder of "The Federalist" (@ thefederalist.com) has a thorough report on how the New York Times has edited "a mistake" made by the Obama administration.  According to Davis the action by the NYT had "caused some major media waves:"

"...The story, which was written by reporters Peter Baker and Gardiner Harris, included a remarkable admission by Obama about his response to the recent terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California ... By Friday morning, however, the entire passage containing Obama’s admission had been erased from the story without any explanation from the New York Times..."
Davis quotes CNN's Brian Stelter, who reported:  "...In his meeting with the columnists, Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments. Republicans were telling Americans that he is not doing anything when he is doing a lot, he said..."

The way Davis calls it is this:

"... The version of the New York Times story that was published early Thursday evening indicated that Obama knew he was out of touch with the country on terrorism, and he thought that was due to not watching enough television. Obama critics immediately pounced on the stunning admission from the president, expressing shock that he would claim that a lack of TV time was the real reason for him not understanding Americans’ anxiety about terrorism..."

Davis continued in his column that the passage containing Obama's admission was gone as of Friday morning, and then displayed the passages as they went through several revisions, including several changes in the headlines of that article, and included the following:

"...The original headline when the story was first published was 'Obama Visiting National Counterterrorism Center.' Less than two hours later, the headline was 'Obama, at Counterterrorism Center, Offers Assurances On Safety.' Then the headline was changed to 'Frustrated by Republican Critics, Obama Defends Muted Response to Attacks.' Two hours later, the headline was once again revised to 'Under Fire From G.O.P., Obama Defends Response to Terror Attacks.' The most recent headline revision, which accompanied the deletion of the passage where Obama admitted he didn’t understand the American public’s anxiety about terrorism, now reads, 'Assailed by G.O.P., Obama Defends His Response To Terror Attacks.' ..."

The action by the New York Times is as just as absurd, if not more, than the Original statement by Obama.  THAT is what IS the news.  Deliberately or "unconsciously" the media, the "conservative" camp, as well as the socialist shills for Obama, are overlooking what is disappointingly obvious to many Americans, and that is, not the attempt to hide Obama's failings via the editing of the reporting of his actions, but the actions (or statements) themselves.

Specifically THIS:  What sort of person has to rely on cable news, or any reports for that matter in order to feel a certain way about a particular incident.  Obama is described as being "out of touch," but I submit that there is much more there to ponder than a mere lack of information.

WHO needs to be told by someone or something else how to act?  14 Americans were brutally slaughtered by psycopathic terrorist killers. Who even measures the amount of anxiety needed as a response?

THIS person is your President Today.  We have heard constantly how Hillary Clinton's campaign operatives have been working overtime to make her seem more real, more appealing to her audiences.  Is it because she too, like the President lacks the social empathy that is natural to other human beings?

Do both of these personalities lack a particular trait that makes everyone else "normal?"

Would you care to mention what trait that is, and what psychological disorder this points to?

Thursday, March 27, 2014

SCHUMER "SHIELD LAW" Destroys 1st Amendment Freedom of the Press...



Under the guise of shielding journalists from prosecution for failing to divulge their sources, Chuck Schumer is sponsoring and pushing a bill to register and license "chosen" journalists; that is, if this passes, the government will decide who IS a journalist (and has protection) and who isn't (and doesn't).

Can you say (Mafia-like) protection racket?  How much will it "cost" to dance with the vampires?

Matthew Boyle at Breitbart has the scoop today from Senator John Cornyn, who is "...lambasting a media 'shield law' proposed by New York Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer, potentially imperling its shot at passage..."

It's called the "Free Flow of Information Act," which has already "...passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in September, and he recently said he already has the 60 votes needed to pass the bill on the floor, according to Boyle and quotes Schumer saying:  “...We’ll get a few more Republicans, not many more, but we have the 60 votes..."

But, Boyle reports a Cornyn retort:

"...If he had the votes to pass it, it already would have been passed...This isn’t about passing legislation, this is about distracting the public’s attention and changing the subject from the failed policies of this administration. I think you could put this in that same category...”

According to Boyle:

"...Schumer's proposal would exempt a “covered journalist” from subpoenas and other legal requirements to expose their confidential sources in leak investigations and other areas. Other lawmakers have proposed similar ideas in the past, but the effort gained new momentum after a series of revelations about controversial tactics the Justice Department was using to target journalists...For instance, the Department of Justice secretly monitored Fox News reporter James Rosen in the course of a leak investigation, even claiming in a court filing he was a subject of investigation himself. In another instance, the government had secretly monitored numerous phone lines used by the Associated Press, including one in the U.S. Capitol..."

Boyle nails it with this.  According to Cornyn:

"...'They want to pick and choose which journalists are covered,' the Texan Republican told Breitbart News. 'In other words, if you’re a blogger they might not cover you, but if you work for the New York Times they might. Given the changes in the way we get information and the way we consume news, that really smacks to me in essence of government licensing who’s an official "journalist" for the purposes of a shield law and who’s not. If there is one thing I can glean from the First Amendment, it is that government should not be in the business of licensing the news media.'... In practice, defining who is considered a 'journalist' and protected under the law from having to disclose confidential sources is a thorny legal problem. On the one hand, the law's drafters don't want to provide blanket immunity to everyone. But anointing a government-approved class of scribes cuts against the nature of journalism, which almost by definition is frequently critical of the government..."

So, are you a writer, blogger, patriot, defender of the Constitution?  If so, and you are not licensed by the government under the stipulations of this legislation, you will not have "protected" status and are subject to prosecution, if the government presses you for your confidential sources and you do not provide them.

Think that will stifle free speech and "Freedom of the Press?"

The annointed "media," now exposed as the propaganda arm of the government elitists, already goose-steps in cadence with the Obamistas.  Note how easily they concede to a news blackout from the Obama administration.  Currently some journalists complain that Obama photographs are "staged."  Indeed, except for what independent/unaligned media captures outside the White House and from their screened propagandists, Published Obama photos taken at the White House, are those that are "approved."


Unless independent and constitutionalist journalists and patriot Constitutional protectors unite rapidly to defeat this, the ONLY media chosen by the government will have "protected" status and this will put an end to journalistic Freedom.

See the Boyle article HERE... 

Vanguard of Freedom
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, December 12, 2013

The Socialist Liberal Media's Influence On Women

Women do have the power to change this.

Men have the power to change this.



How can this be changed?

The American Conservative Cultural Revolution.

You.

We.

We, The People.





Friday, November 1, 2013

About SLIME

(From a previous article about SLIME)...

I have some good news and some bad news.  

A conference of the members of the ad hoc group COAMB (Citizens Outraged About Media Bias) was called this week.  
  • The bad news is that only one member showed up for the conference.  
  • The GOOD news is that there is only one member in the group, so attendance was actually 100 percent, and that expedited the conference remarkably.
The breakthrough resolutions were the following. These were passed by acclamation, and indeed voting on these matters was unanimous.

A name for the Socialist Liberal Media was created as the acronym:  SLIME  

There was debate about calling certain aspects of SLIME by different names, and suggestions were thrown against the wall to see if they would stick, and indeed some of them did stick. After all, it IS SLIME.

Global warming or greenies in the media can be referred to as the GREEN SLIME.

Extreme Lefties in the media can be called RED or PINK or PINKO SLIME.

Other distinctions that emerged were to differentiate among the Print SLIME, the Broadcast SLIME, and even Internet SLIME, but the overwhelming consensus was that SLIME was SLIME and that any distinction as to the type of SLIME could be appended to the term SLIME in order to be specific, such as, CNN SLIME, MSNBC SLIME, NBC SLIME, CBS SLIME.

In fact when referring to a particular employee of the SLIME, one could indicate their membership in their particular SLIME by using the reference like this, for example:  Jane Doe CBS SLIME, Joe Blow NBC SLIME, etc.

There was considerable debate about ever having been reported about in the SLIME, and that term was determined as having been SLIMED, such as were prominent notables, Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, Rush Limbaugh, and a list too long to mention here.

The tactics of the SLIME were the subject of great discussion and those tactics of course are known as SLIME-ing, or SLIMEING.

It was noted that the editing of interviews with the use of "B" rolls, recording questions off camera or on another camera and inserting them where it appears that an interviewee had answered the question, definitely fit in the category of SLIMEING.

The consensus was that because Socialist Liberal Media (SLIME) can be used as a noun, a verb, adjective, and an adverb, and because it so adequately describes the SLIME for which this term has been adopted, this term therefore should be disseminated far and wide  so that the use of this term creates a severe impact on the SLIME that now pretends to be the protector of the good citizens of this great nation, and its Constitution.... MORE

And if you or someone you know has ever been unfortunate enough to be SLIMED by the SLIME, and wish to relate such an experience, a place has been created here so that you can post that experience at your convenience. 

And if you should want to note specific examples of SLIMEING by the SLIME and wish to relate that example to others, you are welcome to write about that here also.

In conclusion the COAMB conference was a huge success, and when the attendee was asked why he looked so disheveled and grimed, he replied, "Well, that's how you get when you're dealing with SLIME."




Saturday, August 10, 2013

Because Sometimes A Teleprompter And a Comedian Just Aren't Enough To Make An Incompetent President Look Good...

The Associated Press wire service (AP), one of the largest providers of raw news for the Socialist Liberal Media, admitted Thursday to doctoring an Obama quote to "clarify" the President's statement, which he made on the NBC Jay Leno, "Tonight Show."

AP says:

"...In an Aug. 7 story on President Barack Obama's comments on the need to deepen U.S. harbors, The Associated Press wrongly inserted an interpretive phrase in parentheses into a quote by Obama:
'If we don't deepen our ports all along the Gulf - (and in) places like Charleston, S.C., or Savannah, Ga., or Jacksonville, Fla. - if we don't do that, these ships are going to go someplace else and we'll lose jobs,' Obama said.
Charleston, Savannah and Jacksonville are not Gulf ports. It wasn't known if the president was suggesting they were. The AP should not have added the phrase in an effort to clarify his statement..."

While it is noble and ethical for AP to issue such a note and to attempt to correct the blatant editing of a news story to make their President look good, it should be noted that Obama's gaffe was viewed by millions on national television, when he appeared as a guest of Jay Leno's show, and AP's creative editing; that is, the blatant political propagandizing for the Obama administration was only too obvious.

But what if the President had gaffe'd and the live cameras had not been there to transmit the error, and AP had then "corrected" the text to make the President look competent:  would they have issued their "correction?"

This incident calls into question the integrity of AP in their reporting, if indeed there is any these days at the Associated Press, and calls attention to the dwindling audiences and readerships of the Socialist Liberal Media.

At what point does this go from creative editing to lying FOR the President?

There are ample examples of such lying. To wit:

George Zimmerman, who was recently found "not guilty" of 2nd degree murder charges for the death of Trayvon Martin is currently suing NBC for "...making him look like a racist..."  Business Insider's Christina Serbenz described this:
"...Zimmerman filed the suit in December over the "Today" show's edited version of Zimmerman's 911 call to police the night he killed Martin, which he said made him look racist. The recording portrayed Zimmerman's words as "This guy [Martin] looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." ... In reality, Zimmerman only mentioned the 17-year-old's race when the 911 operator inquired. NBC has since apologized and fired the reporter and producer responsible..."
Here's the AP's humble attempt to "fess-up" for revealing their unwavering political bias:

AP's gaffe of Obama's gaffe....







Friday, July 12, 2013

The Nasty Little Lies Of Pesky Government Spies, And Their War On The Constitution...

Jennifer Epstein reports in Politico today that the Attorney General and your illustrious President met today about the Justice Department's report detailing guidelines for criminal investigations involving members of the media.

She says the two met in the Oval Office, but White House Press Secretary Jay Carney isn't saying what they talked about.  She did say this:
"...As POLITICO's Josh Gerstein reported on Thursday, the report is said to require more internal approvals for requests of phone and e-mail records, including from Justice's public affairs office. That has been a customary practice at DOJ for years, but was not rigorously followed in some cases during the George W. Bush Administration or in the recent case involving the AP..."
I hope the subtle dig against former President George Bush didn't go unnoticed. That's in case you need someone to blame, of course.

In case you missed it, at issue is the fact that the Justice Department investigated Fox News reporter James Rosen, and presented him to a judge as a co-conspirator in an espionage case, involving a leak of classified information.  The Justice Department in effect "criminalized" the action of a reporter doing his job.  Traditionally the media, which reports on what is leaked, is not investigated as part of the criminal act of leaking classified information.  However, Attorney General Eric Holder, who apparently signed off on the Rosen investigation, made him an exception.  When it got out that Rosen was investigated, there was resultant media and public outrage, of course.  And the President then ordered Eric Holder, who violated the first amendment of the constitution by investigating Rosen, to investigate himself, and to report to him his findings, which brings us to today's big show pow-wow in the Oval Office.

The problem is, regardless of what "rules" they pass, regardless of how much they whine and pine about the Constitution, or however much they lament about the need to violate the Constitution for "national security reasons," and however much they harp about achieving a balance between your rights and national security, the damage is already done.

Your President and Eric Holder already went after a reporter for political reasons. The IRS already went after a political faction for political reasons.  The NSA already has your information.  They know, apparently where you went, what you paid for, who you talked to, for how long, and apparently they know what you shop for, what you like, what you purchase and how much of it, and even what you use to pay for it. AND they also know this about the entire world, as the NSA leaker has so eloquently made clear, the NSA has also been spying on Europeans, and for all we know, they are spying on the details of aliens on Jupiter and Mars.

They haven't a clue about who's coming across our southern border, but credit card usage on Venus?  Hey, that's in the bag.

In case you didn't notice, they are trying to plug the holes in the giant sieve of national secrets by trying to stop "national security" leaks.  They know they've "been made."  So how do they get ahead of all this?  How do you stifle free speech?  How do you cause that much-debated "chilling effect?"

Well, my fellow Vanguards, who exactly is going to spill their guts to a reporter, if they think they are being watched, listened to, and that everything they have ever said and done, and where they have been, is already on record at the NSA?  Hmmm?

The Obama/Holder meeting at the White House is just a show.  They'll pass the rules. And these rules will trump your Constitution, of course.  They need these rules, because, although they may have read the Constitution once, they have no regard for it, and they certainly have no regard for the propaganda arm of the government:  The Socialist Liberal Media...(SLIME for short).

They really don't care about the SLIME.  That's not their target.  They know the SLIME is on their side.

The real target is YOU:  The "citizen" blogger; the "citizen" reporter; the Conservative media; the Tea Party media.

Want to dry up a reporter's confidential sources?  Leak out, not just that you're watching, but that you already have their conversations, whereabouts, and all the nasty little details about their personal lives on record.

What next?

Next they are going to say that they can read your thoughts. Get ready for thought control.

Oh wait.  They've already accomplished that with "political correctness" and the charge of the hate crime of "racism," if you happen to belch in the wrong direction.

Carney wasn't saying what went on at that meeting, but it is rumored... and this is a rumor I heard from someone this morning at the convenience store,  where I got my coffee, a conversation on file at the NSA, I might add... that today in the hallway outside the Oval Office could be heard:  "...We're going to put them away, ha, ha, ho, ho, hee, hee..."

And get this: (wink, wink)... There's a rumor that you can reverse the spying or snooping.  Apparently someone has developed an app that can reverse the NSA spying (with a few adjustments of their computer "code")  and turn everything around on the snoopers.  Wouldn't YOU like all that access to the NSA, the White House, and all their pesky little minions?  How's that for a nasty little rumor?


See Red Clix Headliners HERE....







Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Socialist Cult Of Mass Murder Gleeful Over Right To Kill Babies... And The "Media" That Loves It...

Mollie @ Patheos, GetReligion nails it, regarding the media coverage of the abortion fight in Texas:
"...unless the Associated Press is coming out as partisans in this debate, this is inappropriate bias for a hotly-contested story about a bill sponsored by … a female Texan who has talked about this legislation in the context of how it benefits women as well as the children growing in their wombs. Again, one might personally agree with one side or the other, but the story should not take sides. 
"...Now, given that abortion is legal in all 50 states and that under the Roe regime, that we only last month witnessed the conviction of an abortion doctor for infanticide and murder (among other things) and that despite lax coverage we see reports of clinic failures throughout the country with alarming frequency, I wonder if the story should mention any of this...Would you like to guess which paragraph of this 16-paragraph story got around to mentioning Kermit Gosnell or any of these things or the context under which this legislation is being considered?...Did you guess that the folks writing the story never got around to it? You would be correct!..."
Of course, you would.  Read more HERE.... and HERE...