Showing posts with label Make-Believe media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Make-Believe media. Show all posts
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Media Echo Chamber applies Sharia to U.S. Freedom of Speech
The mainstream American media is floating the recent U.S. Embassy apology as a new world standard for universal free speech rights. The 9/11 U.S. embassy apology condemned “the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions” and “firmly reject[ed] the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
Undaunted by the cluster-fuffle of the statement's late disavowal by the White House, the Make-Believe Media advanced the new legal standard and began the witch hunt to blame someone – anyone – other than the Muslims who killed Americans in Libya or the predictable result of Obama’s failed foreign policy apology tour.
Media outlets including MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Christiane Amanpour on ABC, and her husband James Rubin on CNN, suggested that such "abuse" of free speech may be equivalent to falsely "yelling fire in a theater" and could excuse the Muslims’ murderous rage as an understandable form of righteous indignation. They focused on the filmmaker’s intention to incite violence. This is akin to blaming the American female journalist for the Muslim gang rape.
To CNN’s Islamic supremacist and apologist Omid Safi, professor of religious studies at University of North Carolina, offensive words are analogous to dropping bombs and military occupation. CNN’s national security analyst Peter Bergen says making a comment about free speech is okay, but actually speaking effectively so as to provoke a reaction, whether it be thoughtful, emotional, religious or political or otherwise, is “irresponsible.” Such broad definitions of hurtful speech would classify Rush Limbaugh as a weaponized conservative universal free speech abuser deserving of legal censure or physical attack for hurting liberals’ feelings daily.
By entertaining such bias and by fueling the political witch hunt to pin American deaths on an unknown Israeli filmmaker, or a small town Christian preacher, the Make-Believe Media is aiding and abetting Muslim extremists’ attack against the U.S. Constitution. They are massaging and redefining the First Amendment to fit a new universal world order to suppress any speech that could be offensive to the hearer, most particularly Islamic hearers. And justice comes not in court-based rulings but by unilateral forcible attacks against convenient targets of Islamic passion. This is quite simply a back-door introduction of Sharia law to limit American free speech.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Obama to Women: "Stay at home, Moms."
Don’t be misled. At the heart of the Motherhood debate is not whether “stay-at-home” mothers “work for a living”. That is the Make-Believe media and Democrat deflection. No, at the heart of this debate is the Democrat theme to nullify the opinions of “stay-at-home” mothers on the economy, to reduce stay-at-home mothers to second-class citizenship. That was the specific point of Hilary Rosen's assault last week - that Ann Romney is unqualified to speak to the economy because she raised her children at home. To women, especially suburban women, Obama and Rosen are saying: “Stay at home, moms.”
.jpg)
The motherhood controversy is part of the ongoing Obama strategy making “women’s issues” a foundation of his re-election campaign. Doing so serves two purposes. First, it distracts from the dismal economy. Second, it presumably motivates an important voting base - overall 56% of women voted for Obama in 2008 (The marriage gap was vast: Unmarried women preferred Obama by 70% while 50% of married women preferred McCain).
But this strategy is risky. Obama presides over more Americans living in poverty than anytime in U.S. history, and the majority of those poor are women. Emphasizing poverty and the economy as a women’s issue would be political suicide. This explains why Obama instead shills the distraction and deception of casting the GOP as the bogeyman attacking women, forcing them to become pregnant and chaining them to their kitchen stoves.
Thus when objections arose to Obama’s tyrannical bullying of religious groups, Obama and the Media promptly demagogued the issue by positing Republicans as oppressors seeking to deprive women of birth control. Obama cannot win the religious rights argument but he might win by cynically and deceitfully casting the issue as a reproductive rights argument.
Now enter the Motherhood controversy. Obama launched the issue last weekend claiming that he and Michelle didn’t have the “luxury” of having Michelle stay at home to raise Sasha and Malia (never mind that Michelle’s “work” consisted of collecting a $316K salary in 2005 doing "community affairs" for a university hospital that was earmarked by her then senator-hubby to receive a cool $1M in taxpayer money). The real message behind Obama’s remark is that mothers who raise their children at home do so as a “luxury”. Setting aside the snide arrogance and contempt behind the statement, what it did was set up Hilary Rosen’s comment a few days later that Ann Romney’s role as a stay-at-home mother disqualified her from speaking on any real world issues, including economics, since she hasn’t been outside her kitchen walls earning a living.
The Make-Believe Media, as well as Obama, subsequently appeared to “disavow” Rosen’s statements, but only to the extent of affirming the “value” of stay-at-home mothers. Critically, none of these disavowals addressed Rosen’s foundational point that such mothers do not get to voice an opinion about any important economic issues; that they may be seen, but not heard. Some Democrats candidly admit that stay-at-home mothers obviously understand economics and its impact on daily life, for example, knowing the price of gas, bread and eggs "better than their husbands". And that is the danger posed by voices like Ann Romeny - they realize all too well that Obama's contrived "war of women" is a cynical detraction from the miserable plight of women under the Obama Economy.
It is no coincidence that stay-at-home mothers are perceived as being more conservative and likely to vote Republican. And it is no coincidence that Obama wants to censor their voices in the national political debate
.jpg)
The motherhood controversy is part of the ongoing Obama strategy making “women’s issues” a foundation of his re-election campaign. Doing so serves two purposes. First, it distracts from the dismal economy. Second, it presumably motivates an important voting base - overall 56% of women voted for Obama in 2008 (The marriage gap was vast: Unmarried women preferred Obama by 70% while 50% of married women preferred McCain).
But this strategy is risky. Obama presides over more Americans living in poverty than anytime in U.S. history, and the majority of those poor are women. Emphasizing poverty and the economy as a women’s issue would be political suicide. This explains why Obama instead shills the distraction and deception of casting the GOP as the bogeyman attacking women, forcing them to become pregnant and chaining them to their kitchen stoves.
Thus when objections arose to Obama’s tyrannical bullying of religious groups, Obama and the Media promptly demagogued the issue by positing Republicans as oppressors seeking to deprive women of birth control. Obama cannot win the religious rights argument but he might win by cynically and deceitfully casting the issue as a reproductive rights argument.
Now enter the Motherhood controversy. Obama launched the issue last weekend claiming that he and Michelle didn’t have the “luxury” of having Michelle stay at home to raise Sasha and Malia (never mind that Michelle’s “work” consisted of collecting a $316K salary in 2005 doing "community affairs" for a university hospital that was earmarked by her then senator-hubby to receive a cool $1M in taxpayer money). The real message behind Obama’s remark is that mothers who raise their children at home do so as a “luxury”. Setting aside the snide arrogance and contempt behind the statement, what it did was set up Hilary Rosen’s comment a few days later that Ann Romney’s role as a stay-at-home mother disqualified her from speaking on any real world issues, including economics, since she hasn’t been outside her kitchen walls earning a living.
The Make-Believe Media, as well as Obama, subsequently appeared to “disavow” Rosen’s statements, but only to the extent of affirming the “value” of stay-at-home mothers. Critically, none of these disavowals addressed Rosen’s foundational point that such mothers do not get to voice an opinion about any important economic issues; that they may be seen, but not heard. Some Democrats candidly admit that stay-at-home mothers obviously understand economics and its impact on daily life, for example, knowing the price of gas, bread and eggs "better than their husbands". And that is the danger posed by voices like Ann Romeny - they realize all too well that Obama's contrived "war of women" is a cynical detraction from the miserable plight of women under the Obama Economy.
It is no coincidence that stay-at-home mothers are perceived as being more conservative and likely to vote Republican. And it is no coincidence that Obama wants to censor their voices in the national political debate
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Obama's Secret Service GITMOs 7th grader for FaceBook Post, Media Advises Caution about Posting Political Speech
Thirteen year old Vito LaPinta used his Facebook account to post a concern for President Obama’s safety, reasonably positing suicide bombers might seek revenge in the aftermath of Usama Bin Laden’s assassination. The Washington boy’s Facebook post had NO connection whatever to his middle school. Not on school time. Not on school equipment. Not about school matters, other students or teachers.
A week later, in the middle of the school day, the Secret Service showed up at the 7th grader’s public school and, with the aide and assistance of the local Washington state police and the school principle and staff, they GITMoed this kid. Secret Service
If this had happened to a Muslim terrorist, the Make-Believe Media would be screaming bloody murder.
I doubt the poor kid even knew he had any rights to assert in the face of his principal, teacher and Tacoma state police wearing badges and Secret Service agents in suits and possibly packing government issued firearms. The school delayed informing the boy’s mother until the Feds’
It’s been days since Vito LaPinta’s story appeared on Drudge and I‘ve been waiting to see the Make-Believe Media’s angle. Fox News picked up the story, and Yahoo ran a follow up report not on the boy’s civil rights or the mother’s legal options, but rather on the Not-So-Secret Service tweet confirming that Big Brother is indeed monitoring Fox News. (The Secret Service confirms it is indeed the Political Police monitoring all news at a fellow news network and Yahoo giggles over twitter etiquette!!! Ooops indeed.)
The issue of liberty within the original story seems to have been ignored by the serious media outlets. At MSNBC’s “Digital Life” blog, the take was flippancy with comments along the lines of “No Biggie”, or it’s all mom’s fault for not parenting properly. The writer Anthima Chansanchai quipped “if you think someone’s reading your tweets and Facebook posts, you’re probably right.” Her nearsighted caution was similarly parroted by Barabara E. Hernandez over at a local bay area NBC blog too: “keep your most controversial thoughts to your self” was her sage advice to Facebook fans.
At best, these ladies’ Bambi-esque “if you can’t say sumpthin’ nice…” analysis ignores the fundamental issue of liberty and free speech at stake and, at worst, accepts as normal the tyranny illustrated by government oversight imposed on everyday Americans’ political speech. Hopefully these ladies’ ovaries are even less functional than are their dysfunctional brains.
But set aside the lofty legal concepts of the 4th Amendment and Miranda rights. You don’t have to be an ACLU lawyer to figure this out. Whatever happened to the natural Mama Grizzly maternal instincts of protecting children against school yard government bullies?
BTW just where is the ACLU, that defender of minors who create questionable websites and who post provocative rap lyrics on line? Does the ACLU conveniently turn a blind eye when a Democrat President’s henchmen go around mugging childrens’ rights? So it would seem...
Contrast LaPinta’s case to the vigorous defense afforded by the ACLU and CBS to a kid who was sent home from school for wearing a T shirt sporting the image of President Bush bearing the words “International Terrorist.” And yes, you can still buy the T shirt here.
The ACLU was called in, followed by the MBM. Media interest in protecting student speech rights concerning any given president appears to depend on that president’s party affiliation.
So, what was a big story with Bush was a non-starter with Obama…. Typical leftist media, right? It’s worse than that. The T shirt kid dealt with school officials over a free speech issue that happened at the school. Nobody called in the Secret Service to interrogate the T shirt kid to determine whether he was plotting to kill President Bush from something he said out of school on his own time.
Lost in all of this is the media outrage over why anyone in the state, local or federal government had any right to corner any American, let alone a child, inside a secure government owned and operated building (public school) without legal guardian or lawyer for a vague concern over presidential safety over speech posted via the internet on Facebook .
Sadly, with today's twisted liberal bias in the MBM, this story would have gotten MBM coverage only if: 1) if a Republican President had sent his Secret Service to investigate the kid's public school English teacher and andy union connection to Al Qaida; and 2) if the school principal had offered littleVito LaPinta a sugar coated trans fat filled Twinkie or pint of chocolate milk after the interrogation was all over.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Dems Make Political Hay out of Giffords' Shooting Tragedy, introduce New Gun Control
Juxtapose these two recent news items and you have Republicans and Democrats in a nutshell.
Hours after the senseless shooting of Democrat Congresswoman Giffords, brand new Republican House Speaker of the House John Boenher postponed indefinitely the planned vote to repeal Obamacare, originally set for Wednesday, January 12th. A generous well-meaning gesture to reach across the aisle at a time of national tragedy by a noble, teary-eyed sap, I’m afraid.
As the hoary saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished.
Politico reports that liberal Democrat Carolyn McCarthy plans to promptly introduce new gun control legislation tomorrow (Monday) morning to capitalize on the Arizona massacre.
If Republicans inhibit McCarthy’s bill in any way whatsoever, you can bet your underwater mortgage the Make-Believe Media will scream vitriolic hyperbole all the while claiming that the laws we already have obviously weren’t enough to stop leftist pot-head Jared Loughner’s sick assassination plot. It won’t matter that at point blank range he could have dispatched the congresswoman more effectively with a good sharp kitchen knife.
While good men sleep, tyranny plots
Hours after the senseless shooting of Democrat Congresswoman Giffords, brand new Republican House Speaker of the House John Boenher postponed indefinitely the planned vote to repeal Obamacare, originally set for Wednesday, January 12th. A generous well-meaning gesture to reach across the aisle at a time of national tragedy by a noble, teary-eyed sap, I’m afraid.
As the hoary saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished.
Politico reports that liberal Democrat Carolyn McCarthy plans to promptly introduce new gun control legislation tomorrow (Monday) morning to capitalize on the Arizona massacre.
If Republicans inhibit McCarthy’s bill in any way whatsoever, you can bet your underwater mortgage the Make-Believe Media will scream vitriolic hyperbole all the while claiming that the laws we already have obviously weren’t enough to stop leftist pot-head Jared Loughner’s sick assassination plot. It won’t matter that at point blank range he could have dispatched the congresswoman more effectively with a good sharp kitchen knife.
While good men sleep, tyranny plots
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)