The Democrat Media Complex
T he late Andrew Breitbart in his book Righteous Indignation perfectly captured the essence of the press in America when he labeled the press as being a Democrat-Media-Complex. Writing in Righteous Indignation, Breitbart noted that, “the left doesn’t win its battles in debate. It doesn’t have to. In the 21st century, media is everything. The left wins because it controls the narrative. The narrative is controlled by the media. The left is the media and narrative is everything.”
The people who are allegedly neutral reporters and journalists are on the frontline of the political battle and they use their objectivity as their greatest weapon against impressionable minds to reinforce a herd mentality that toes the Democrat party line within the culture. As Breitbart continued, “the mainstream media portrays themselves as objective observers of reality when they’re no such thing —they’re partisan critical theory hacks who think they can destroy everything America stands for by standing on the sidelines and sniping at patriotic Americans with all their favorite slurs. They have nothing but contempt for the American people.” What Breitbart was alluding to was the reality of the press in America as the press acts as a piano on which the government plays the public in whichever direction it desires. The objective of the press today is not merely to inform, but to instruct the millions of impressionable American minds on what to believe, who to believe, and how to believe.
The content is so rigidly controlled today that in a way the fourth estate has now become nothing more than an institution of the government restricted to publishing and advancing White House directives and Democrat policy agendas. The role that the press plays is to make clear to the American people what the Obama adminstration is doing, why the adminstration is doing it, and why it is forced to act in a certain way. Of course, as we have become accustom to hearing, the Obama adminstration is always forced to “act in a certain way” because of the “obstructionist” Republicans. The effect of this is to demonize the Republican party to the point of capitulation. This formula for “reporting” by the press encompasses every single issue advocated by the Obama adminstration and the Democrat party.
The press toes the party line and advances the Democrat agenda to the point in which there is no objectivity and no resistance from any opposition. There simply is no neutrality. For example, in the wake of the horrific terrorist attack on an Orlando night club by a jihadist who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State terrorist organization known as ISIS, the big three networks comprised of ABC, NBC, and CBS, immediately took to the airwaves before the bodies were even cold to push the political line of the Democrats for more gun control . In a study conducted by the Media Research Center ( MRC ) for the week immediately following the terrorist attack, it was shown that the network news programs flooded their shows with statements favoring gun control over gun rights by a ration of 8 to 1.
MRC analysts reviewed all 47 gun policy stories (41 full segments, 6 anchor read briefs), plus 10 other stories that mentioned gun policy on the Big Three networks’ evening (ABC’s World News Tonight , CBS Evening News , NBC Nightly News ) and morning show programs (ABC’s Good Morning America , CBS This Morning , NBC’s Today ), beginning with the evening (June 12) after the shooting through Friday evening, June 17. The study found that the time spent arguing in favor of more gun control overwhelmed time devoted to opposing gun rights by 65 minutes and 12 seconds, to just eight minutes and 12 seconds. Here are just a few of the examples listed by MRC:
- CBS This Morning co-host Charlie Rose was enamored by the Boston Globe’s front page assault on the Second Amendment: “Pressure’s growing on Congress to act against gun violence after America’s deadliest mass shooting. Page one of this morning’s Boston Globe demands ‘Make it Stop.’”
- NBC began their push for more gun control when correspondent Harry Smith closed the June 12 NBC Nightly News by yearning for action: “We have been here too many times before and with no sign that anything will change, we fear this will not be the last.”
- When anti-gun rights guests like Senator Murphy, Hillary Clinton and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson were interviewed they were celebrated. On the June 14 CBS This Morning show, co-host Gayle King advocated to Jeh Johnson: “What will it take to move the needle when it comes to gun control? People thought it would be Sandy Hook.”
- When Hillary Clinton showed up on the June 13 Today show, co-host Savannah Guthrie pushed: “Continually you hear policymakers and the President say, ‘The American people are with us, they don’t think that common sense gun reforms are a problem.’ And yet, even after you have 20 first graders killed, you can’t even get the bare minimum of gun legislation passed. Why is that? What needs to change?”
While this was just a handful of the examples given, one can begin to see how feverish the media has become in pushing for gun control in wake of the largest terrorist attack since September 11, 2001. It didn’t even take the New York Daily News twenty four hours before blaming the National Rifle Association (NRA) for the terrorist attack . O n their front cover for the June 13th edition, the headline blared “Thanks NRA” while the piece went on to state that the jihadists “killing machine of choice was a mass murderer’s best friend — and his enabler a gun lobby that has long opposed efforts to keep assault weapons out of the hands of bloodthirsty maniacs.” Not to be outdone though, the Boston Globe published a full front page editorial three days later on June 16th with the headline “Make it Stop” featuring an image of an AR-15. The editorial of course goes on to attack the Second Amendment while calling for an “assault weapon and high-capacity magazine ban.”
If you were wondering why the Democrat Media Complex is pushing this agenda, in unison, it’s because they received their marching orders by the President himself the day of the attack on June 12th. Speaking during an appearance at the White House not even five hours following the attack, President Obama stated that “this massacre is a further reminder of how easy it is for someone to get their hands on a weapon that lets them shoot people in a school, or a house of worship, or a movie theater, or in a nightclub.”
The steady drumbeat by the President and the media continued as last week White House press secretary Josh Earnest revealed that Obama had become “profoundly frustrated” after Senate Republicans blocked anti-gun legislation from being rammed through Congress. Earnest continued by mocking Republicans as “cowards” who talked tough on terrorism, but were “AWOL” when it came to standing up to gun rights organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA). Obama, like Hillary Clinton, believe that the “gun lobby” which is the NRA, is at the root of impairing progress to solving America’s “gun problems.” Moreover, the real impediment to their anti-Second Amendment agenda always traces back to Republicans, which Democrats and the media at large have asserted were the ones responsible for the Orlando terrorist attack.
To reinforce the Obama adminstration’s stance, the New York Times last Wednesday ran a piece by their editorial board in which they argued that Republicans were to blame for the Orlando terrorist attack committed by the jihadist Omar Mateen. In an excerpt from the piece the Times states that, “while the precise motivation for the rampage remains unclear, it is evident that Mr. Mateen was driven by hatred toward gays and lesbians. Hate crimes don’t happen in a vacuum. They occur where bigotry is allowed to fester, where minorities are vilified and where people are scapegoated for political gain. Tragically, this is the state of American politics, driven too often by Republican politicians who see prejudice as something to exploit, not extinguish.” Completely ignoring the fact that jihadist openly declared allegiance to ISIS multiple times to 911 operators, Alex Griswold of Mediate explains that the New York Times piece doesn’t even bother to mention ISIS or Islam (radical or otherwise), or even hint at Mateen’s faith or ideology at all. Griswold writes, “Were it not for his traditionally Arabic name, it’s not an exaggeration to say that one gets the impression from the Times piece that the shooter must have been an ultraconservative Christian nut,” which was precisely the effect of the piece. It could be argued that this was also the intended effect of Obama’s own statements following the attack.
Yet, this wasn’t enough for the Democrat-Media-Complex as this week the American people were treated to a full-court press by the media in their over the top coverage of the Democrats taking to the House floor to demand gun control with an all-night sit-in. On Thursday morning the media went into propaganda overdrive by promoting the Democrats childish sit-in as “unprecedented” and “historic.” Here are just a few of the examples:
- On NBC’s Today , correspondent Peter Alexander declared the partisan political stunt to be “truly one of the most dramatic demonstrations on the House floor in modern American history.” Alexander continued by announcing that the “Democrats with signs bearing the names and faces of gun violence victims….Their voices echoed on the Capitol steps, hundreds gathering in support, rallied by Congressman John Lewis, the civil rights icon who spearheaded Wednesday’s sit-in.”
- On ABC’s Good Morning America , co-host Robin Roberts stated, “breaking overnight, the historic sit-in showdown stopping Congress in its tracks as the battle over gun control boils over.”
- On CBS This Morning correspondent Nancy Cordes asserted that “the rules appear to have gone out the window” and promoted the propaganda effort stating, “It started as a sit-in, but by nightfall, Democrats were on their feet, holding up the names and pictures of Orlando victims as a crowd of supporters swelled in the gallery and outside.”
From here, the media then perpetuated the myth that according to polls the majority of Americans want “common sense gun control” measures. As NBC’s Matt Lauer on Thursday’s Today show pleaded with Congress to take action. Lauer stated, “If you look at the polls…people across this country say they want more than a moment of silence after a mass shooting, they want some real change.”
In closing, with the media pushing the Democrats agenda and carrying weight for the Obama adminstration on not only gun control but issues ranging from Illegal immigration to Islamic terrorism, it is worth recalling the following statement delivered by Joseph Goebbels during his first official press conference as the head of the Third Reich’s Propaganda Ministry on March 15, 1933. Goebbels, whom turned press conferences into secret meetings where the Propaganda Ministry would pass on detailed instructions to selected journalists, supplying articles to be printed verbatim or used as the basis for reports stated the following to the journalists, “You are to know not only what is happening, but also the government’s view of it and how you can convey that to the people most effectively.” That they were not to convey or print any view in opposition to the regime did not need to be said. This applies to our own press today.
Tags
Who is online
46 visitors
The media is now in the business of shaping opinion rather than impartially reporting news. I don't take anything they say at face value anymore. Instead, I get information from multiple sources and then examine it for bias. It's good practice to take any story and examine the wording the media uses to subtly lead the reader to a conclusion.
1ofmany, what is not reported is of equal value as to what is reported as well.
I absolutely agree with that, and what is NOT reported by not only the American media but by the European media as well would knock your socks off.
True.
The only issue is that the republicans are as well are trying to distance themselves from Trump. You can't blame that on the media.
The only issue is that the republicans are as well are trying to distance themselves from Trump. You can't blame that on the media.
Personally, I don't care what republicans do. I'm examining the media.
Personally I don't care what the media does, since at the end of the day, both ends of the media outlets will spin it their way. I watch what our reps do, and that is very telling and undeniable.
Personally I don't care what the media does, since at the end of the day, both ends of the media outlets will spin it their way.
I think just the opposite so I'm unspinning the spin.
There is no spin, when it is coming out of the mouths of republicans talking into a camera. That is what I listen and pay very close attention to.
There is no spin, when it is coming out of the mouths of republicans talking into a camera. That is what I listen and pay very close attention to.
Republicans and democrats are partisan hacks who spin as a matter of course. However, democracy rests on a free and unbiased media so I pay close attention to what comes out of that mouth.
He seeds an article from almost a year ago to distract from the disaster that is the Trump administration.
The only thing that has changed from a year ago is the passage of time.
If you didnt put a piece of shit up as your presidential candidate , you might not have all these problems right now. Don't say nobody warned you.
"If you didnt put a piece of shit up as your presidential candidate , you might not have all these problems right now."
I almost laughed when I saw that statement, John. Seems to me to be applicable to your candidate as well. So the piece of shit that smelled the least got elected.
So the piece of shit that smelled the least got elected.
I'm not sure that is exactly what happened, Buzz. I think that they were both deeply flawed candidates, but one had a very long history behind her, and the other seemed like something new and untainted by big government, and so his flaws were pushed aside for the nifty things he was saying. The only problem is that he had flaws unknown and now we are seeing.
I have no dog in this fight. I think that they that they both sinkith, but to say that Trump was way better than Clinton is kind of funny to me. They both suck, but they suck in very different ways.
You said "sinketh", but did you mean "stinketh"? I have less of a dog in the game than you do, Perrie, as you know. However, don't even think that I thought that Trump was way better than Clinton. I thought I had always made it clear that you had a real problem in having to choose between the two of them. You know the member who keeps accusing me of championing Trump, but he is so wrong, and with a couple of the things that are happening now he is even more wrong than he was.
You said "sinketh", but did you mean "stinketh"?
Yes, sorry about that.
I have less of a dog in the game than you do, Perrie, as you know. However, don't even think that I thought that Trump was way better than Clinton. I thought I had always made it clear that you had a real problem in having to choose between the two of them.
OK I apologize for that. I thought that you did.
You know the member who keeps accusing me of championing Trump, but he is so wrong, and with a couple of the things that are happening now he is even more wrong than he was.
Well, I am glad to see that you are always reevaluating. That is important.
I think that they were both deeply flawed candidates, but one had a very long history behind her, and the other seemed like something new and untainted by big government, and so his flaws were pushed aside for the nifty things he was saying. The only problem is that he had flaws unknown and now we are seeing.
Sorry Perrie, I love you but this is nonsense. Donald Trump's flaws were there for all to see. There were dozens of articles written exposing his disqualifications, and he also exposed them himself through his idiotic, simplistic and false comments throughout his 17 month long presidential campaign. There is no excuse for anyone having voted for Trump other than they wanted "their country back". That was not a sufficient reason, because it is not "their" country.
Let me tell you John, with all of Trump's faults and he has many, he still stands far above the greedy, corrupt Cyborg Fascist Hillary Clinton.
If only your opinion had any credibility to it. Alas, it doesn't.
From John:
Sorry Perrie, I love you but this is nonsense. Donald Trump's flaws were there for all to see. There were dozens of articles written exposing his disqualifications, and he also exposed them himself through his idiotic, simplistic and false comments throughout his 17 month long presidential campaign. There is no excuse for anyone having voted for Trump other than they wanted "their country back". That was not a sufficient reason, because it is not "their" country.
John, that is an over simplification of what happened. Yes, there were republicans/conservatives who would for almost anyone over Hillary to "get their country back". But Trump could not have won on their votes alone. His message went out to the disenfranchised voter, too, who liked his taglines like "Drain the swamp". That and Hillary being as flawed as she was and over confident of her win, lost her the election.
And yes it is their country. The country voted, and this is how it came out. Is their buyers regret.. yeah I bet there is. The kicker here is even if you get your wish of Trump stepping down or impeachment, you end up with Pence..
From Sixpick:
Let me tell you John, with all of Trump's faults and he has many, he still stands far above the greedy, corrupt Cyborg Fascist Hillary Clinton.
Six, that is an opinion, no different than John's. Furthermore, I am not sure why we have to result to this name calling. I mean really, Cyborg Fascist? That is just silly.
Wake up call, they both suck in different ways. Both of you being partisan are blinded to that. It's a shame.
Wake up call, they both suck in different ways. Both of you being partisan are blinded to that. It's a shame.
Please stop equating me with someone who has posted dozens of ridiculous conspiracy theories to this forum. Frankly, it is offensive.
Is this one a little better? It's not quite a year old.
The Obama Regime’s Criminal Syndicate
N early a decade after the crash of the U.S. Housing market, the Obama administration continues to pursue claims against large financial institutions accused of contributing to the crash. For instance, in the past three years the Department of Justice (DOJ) settled with JPMorgan Chase & CO. in November 2013, Citigroup Inc. in July 2014, and Bank of America in August in 2014. These settlements concerned allegations related to the issuance of residential mortgage backed securities, and collectively these three settlements alone have totaled $36.65 billion in payments from the banks to various federal, state, non-governmental organizations, and direct consumer relief.
In a report released on Thursday by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee detailing how the DOJ has essentially become a massive crime syndicate in the business of shaking down financial institutions, the report noted that the DOJ’s Housing settlements removed millions of dollars of third party payments from the Congressional appropriations process as well as judicial review. Of the settlement funds set aside for consumer relief, at least $640 million was set aside for third party payments to be disbursed by the banks according to the the settlement terms. By routing funds away fro the U.S. Treasury, the settlements have been able to circumvent congress’s spending authority as well as oversight.
Meaning, the DOJ unilaterally controlled the allocation of billions of dollars absent congressional and judicial involvement by forcing banks, under the terms of the settlement agreements, to distribute hundreds of millions of funds to third party organizations pre-approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Moreover, the DOJ did not require third party disbursements to go to homeowners actually aggrieved by the alleged wrong doing. Of the $36.65 billion in total settlements reached by the DOJ with these three financial institutions alone, the DOJ earmarked $13.5 billion for “consumer relief,” of which hundreds of millions are to be dispersed to selected third party groups approved by the adminstration. Naturally, the third party organizations are all politically active radical leftists groups.
To understand how the shake-down works, the DOJ, as the federal government’s representative in Criminal and Civil suits affecting the interests of the United States, has the ability to enter into settlements with other parties. This isn’t the issue in question. What is in question is how the DOJ is using this power in order to execute settlement agreements requiring banks to disburse money to third party groups, rather than collecting fines that are appropriately subject to the Congressional appropriations process. The reason the DOJ is going this route, rather than imposing fines that would collect more money from the banks, is because under these settlement agreements the DOJ is allowed to act without any congressional oversight completely outside the purview of Congress itself.
For an example of how this works, in August 2014, Bank of America settled with the DOJ for $16.5 billion based on a settlement agreement that was premised on the DOJ’s inquiry into “the packaging, origination, marketing, sale, structuring, arrangement, and issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debit obligations.” The settlement agreement required Bank of America to pay more than $8.2 billion in civil monetary penalties to federal entities and individual states. Furthermore, the agreement also stipulates that Bank of America must pay more than $7 billion in “direct consumer relief.”
In order to fulfill it’s $7 billion consumer relief obligation, Bank of America is required to provide, “a minimum of $2.15 billion in first lien principal forgiveness, $50 million in donations to community development financial institutions, $30 million in state-based Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account organizations, and $20 million in donations to HUD-approved housing counseling agencies.” In addition, Bank of America is also required to take a $100 million loss in support of affordable rental housing. Which means, the DOJ has required Bank of America to make a $100 million donation to selected third party organizations, $20 million of which is also required to go to HUD approved “housing counseling agencies.” This example with Bank of America alone follows virtually the same exact requirement stipulated in the settlement agreement that the DOJ reached with Citigroup Inc., a pattern which the DOJ has followed against major financial institutions.
Following this pattern the DOJ has required these banks to distribute portions of their settlement payments to certain third-party groups which the DOJ directly influenced which groups would receive disbursements. Specifically, the DOJ narrowed the list of entities eligible to receive funds by selecting “HUD-approved housing counseling agencies” as the only entities to which the banks could make disbursements for credit. As the Wall Street Journal outlined in a piece highlighting the DOJ’s liberal slush fund, “the department is in the process of funneling more than half-a-billion dollars to liberal activist groups.”
Among the radical leftist groups pre-approved by the settlement agreements to directly receive funds from the banks is none other than The National Council of La Raza , which bills itself as “the nation’s largest Hispanic activist organization.” Yet, a brief history lesson on the reality of La Raza , which literally translates to “the race,” shows us that the group has been connected to the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), an extremist Mexican race hate group which firmly believes in exploiting illegal immigration to bring about ‘La Reconquista’, a violent overthrow of the southern U.S. states that would be absorbed into Greater Mexico. It should come as no surprise that La Raza is favored under these settlement agreements given that the racist organization supports the Democratic cause of open borders while Cecilia Munoz, a La Raza senior vice president, also serves on the White House Domestic Policy Council.
According to a February 2016 independent monitor report, there are 147 “HUD-approved counseling agencies” that make up these third party groups like La Raza that are currently receiving hundreds of millions of dollars directly from the banks under the DOJ settlement agreements. You can read the monitor report in full by clicking here .
Moving on, the shake down continues as the DOJ, like every criminal enterprise, wants its cut of the funds agreed to under these settlements and under federal law they get it as the DOJ collects a three percent fee on each settlement agreement. Using the authorization granted to them by Congress in 1993 under the creation of the Three Percent Fund, the DOJ has been able to collect more than $1.5 billion through their Three Percent Fund from 2009-2015. According to the DOJ, “[t]he settlement funds subject to the Three Percent Fund are the federal payments in each settlement.” The DOJ may therefore collect three percent of every federal civil monetary penalty or settlement payment to a federal agency to settle claims before the funds make their way into the Treasury’s General Fund. Thus, these funds are never actually in the Treasury, and so they are not literally ―drawn from the Treasury, allowing the DOJ to circumvent congressional authority under the Appropriations Clause.
Further elaborating on this issue, Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz , Professor of Law at Georgetown University, explained on Thursday in a hearing before the the United States House of Representatives Committee on Financial Services , “If the banks had paid this money to the United States—which is, after all, the plaintiff in these cases—then the money would have gone into the Treasury. And if, subsequently, the President or the Attorney General favored using this money to subsidize various ‘community development organizations,’ they would have had to request an appropriation from Congress.” But, “by providing for direct payment from the banks to [third party] organizations these settlement provisions evade the Appropriations Clause and cut Congress out of the loop.”
The DOJ has used this windfall in an unprecedented manner to operate outside of Congressional review. For instance, according to statistics compiled from a 2016 GAO report , the Three Percent Fund in 2009 had collected over $83 million, while in 2014 that number had increased six-fold to over $525 million. Moreover, the DOJ’s current intake of $575 million from only three settlements exceeds expectations from the funds 1993 inception by a factor of fifty. The GAO report concludes that the DOJ is depositing larger sums of money each year into its discretionary fund, distributing larger amounts each year to DOJ components, and continues to carry over a large balance not dedicated to any particular needs.
In short, the DOJ, leveraging the settlement process under threat of prosecution, has bypassed Congress and the Courts to secure settlement agreements to provide consumer relief funds to third-party radical leftist groups. Moreover, the DOJ has used a portion of the funds agreed to under the settlements to finance the administrations housing policy goals as the DOJ inserted its own spending priorities to pick certain groups, such as La Raza, to receive funds without any requirement that the funds be disbursed to aggrieved homeowners. Officials within the DOJ have also effectively skimmed off three percent from mortgage-related bank settlements and thus have been able to create a $500 million dollar slush fund allowing them to spend the money in whichever way they best see fit.
Like a criminal syndicate, the Obama administration shakes down banks, funds radical leftist organizations and makes themselves wealthy all the while using the power of the federal government under the guise of the DOJ acting with false pretenses to the law with purely political motivations.
Link
Fascism at its core.
Oh well ... there goes "no taxation without representation" .
One day we're going to wake up to what is really going on here in this country, but it is going to be too late.
Go back to sleep. We will get by without your input.
The liberals will likely so.much damage to our Republic and are freedoms, that we may never recover. This level of disdain for our electoral process cannot be undone.
The liberals will likely so.much damage to our Republic and are freedoms, that we may never recover. This level of disdain for our electoral process cannot be undone.
Such drama. Each one of the parties are doing damage to this country in different ways and we are stuck with a stinking 2 party system that gives you NO CHOICE. The one thing I will agree with you about is that the election is done and over with, and everyone must come to terms with that.
Perhaps a system that permits coalitions as in British Commonwealth nations would better serve compromise rather than polarity.