Obama: No One Talks To The Media, Class Dismissed

"So much for Freedom of Speech? Obama wants to control what the media tells us about health and human services. Lovely."

Hey folks,

Here is the LINK: The Commentary- HHS Bans Staff from Speaking Freely with Media

Health and Human Services has just released a revised media policy, which forbids staffers from talking to journalists without first getting authorization from the HHS press office. The policy also bans employees from speaking off-the-record with reporters, rules that could significantly hinder investigative journalism.

Health-focused trade publications, which are dependent on confidential sources in agencies like the HHS, are already blasting the policy. Jim Dickinson, editor of FDA Webview and FDA Review called them a “Soviet-style power grab” and warned that the “existing [trade] media will likely die out” because of them:

The new formal HHS Guidelines on the Provision of Information to the News Media represent, to this 36-year veteran of reporting FDA news, a Soviet-style power-grab. By requiring all HHS employees to arrange their information-sharing with news media through their agency press office, HHS has formalized a creeping information-control mechanism that informally began during the Clinton Administration​ and was accelerated by the Bush and Obama administrations.

Consider how impossible these guidelines make the acquisition by a journalist of confidential internal sources in an agency like FDA. The existence of such confidential sources gave an economic foundation to and made possible the foundation of my own media, and the founding of earlier trade media such as The Pink Sheet and Food Chemical News, among many others.

The rules will make accurate coverage of the HHS much more difficult. Banning HHS staffers from talking off-the-record could have a chilling effect, and requiring them to get their conversations with journalists authorized by the media relations office means that the public will get less truth and more spin.

And as Cato’s Michael Cannon points out, the policy changes come at a noteworthy time:

Since this came on the heels of an HHS official announcing that the agency is scuttling ObamaCare‘s long-term care entitlement, a.k.a. the “CLASS Act,” one wonders if there is a connection. Or maybe HHS is just motivated by a general fear that the more the public learns about ObamaCare, the less we will like it.

It sounds like the changes have been happening slowly for some time, but the agency’s decision might have been prompted by an embarrassing email leak from the CLASS Act office last week. The major concern now is that if HHS gets away with this new policy, other government agencies could end up following suit.

Well? This is not new. One, the Mainstream Media Drones, the MMD, have simply reported whatever they are told to Report, and NOT to, for DECADES. They just stopped trying to hind it since 2000 when Bush got Elected. They REALLY gave up hiding their Liberal Lean since Bush's Re-election. But this is not new. That's why I call them the MMD. Hell, what is it, MSNBC I think that even ADVERTISE that they now "Learn Forward." In other words, "Progressive." Which is another word for LIBERAL.

Second, I have worked FOR Companies and Organizations that had Policies that Stated that NO ONE could speak to the Media without Permission to do so. So none of this is NEW or surprising. None of it is really News. But THIS is. This one line in this Piece IS News.

Since this came on the heels of an HHS official announcing that the agency is scuttling ObamaCare‘s long-term care entitlement, a.k.a. the “CLASS Act,” one wonders if there is a connection.

Ah, yes. The Class Act. Remember that? That was a long term care funding for Seniors. Nursing Homes and Such. End of Life Care. It was said to be set to rake in $86 billion in premiums from 2012-2021. This was included in Obamacare to "prove" that is would actually lower costs and keep it under that One Trillion number. But the problem is, that it was all a lie. Class would pay out substantially more than that over the long term, rapidly generating Deficits and go into Bankruptcy. Even Obama's own Crew Members said so. They even said that the Class Act should not be included in Obamacare. That is WAS unsustainable.

So back on September 22, 2011:

This morning, Bob Yee, who was tasked with serving as the actuary of the CLASS program, sent out an email to his colleagues, announcing his departure from HHS, given that “HHS has decided to close down the CLASS Office effective tomorrow.” Yee writes that “I believe I have made a contribution to CLASS to the best of my ability and hope I haven’t embarrassed the actuarial profession too much.”

So no more Long Term Care for Seniors? We already know Obama's Plan for old People. "Take a Pill." {Smile} So the real News here is NOT that Obama wants to control what his Crew say to the Media. The real News here? Class dismissed.
Peter

Sources:
The Commentary- HHS Bans Staff from Speaking Freely with Media
FORBES - HHS Official: Administration is Shuttering CLASS, Obamacare's Long-Term Care Entitlement

They Use To Hide This

They use to pretend to be non-bias.

Hey folks,























I'm talking about the State Run MMD. {Mainstream Media Drones} The Corporate Media. The Obama Media. The Lamestream Media. Whatever you want to call them. They use to pretend to be non-bias. They USE to pretend to report facts and the NEWS and let YOU decide. They USE to have an active Policy to be NEUTRAL. Remember I pointed out the ACTUAL Ethics Guidlines from the New York Times.

Taken directly from their "ethics" rules and regulations.

And second, no one may do anything that damages our news staffs' reputation for strict neutrality in reporting on politics and government; in particular, no one may wear campaign buttons or display any other form of political partisanship while on the job.

And on "Voting, Campaigns and Public Issues"

89. Journalists do not take part in politics. While staff members are entitled to vote and to register in party primaries, they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of our news operations. In particular, they may not campaign for, demonstrate for, or endorse candidates, ballot causes or efforts to enact legislation. They may not wear campaign buttons or themselves display any other insignia of partisan politics.

90. Staff members may not themselves give money to any political candidate or election cause or raise money for one. Given the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributions, any political giving by a staff member would risk feeding a false impression that we are taking sides.

91. No staff member may seek public office anywhere. Seeking or serving in public office violates the professional detachment expected of a journalist. Active participation by one of our staff can sow a suspicion of favoritism in political coverage.

92. Staff members may not march or rally in support of public causes or movements or sign advertisements or petitions taking a position on public issues. They may not lend their names to campaigns, benefit dinners or similar events if doing so might reasonably raise doubts about their ability or their newsroom's ability to remain neutral in covering the news. Neighbors and other outsiders commonly see us as representatives of our institution.

93. Staff members may appear from time to time on local or national radio and television programs devoted to public affairs, but they should avoid expressing views that go beyond the news and analysis that could properly appear under their regular bylines. Op-Ed columnists and editorial writers enjoy more leeway than others in speaking publicly, because their business is expressing opinions. They should nevertheless choose carefully the forums in which they appear and protect the impartiality of our journalism.

94. A staff member with doubts about a proposed political activity should consult a responsible manager. These guidelines protect the heart of our mission as journalists. Where the conflict with our impartiality seems minimal, top news executives may consider matters case by case, but they should be exceedingly cautious before permitting an exception.

Then on Monday, November 13, 2006 I posted this. The MMD Have Given Up Hiding It Then I continued to post the Guru Series.

It is clear now that the MMD do not even try to hide it anymore. They are OWNED by, and merely an extension of the Liberal Wing of the Democrat Party. Now we even have Michelle Obama ADMITTING it. I'm not joking folks. According to this Video posted by Real Clear Politics - Michelle Obama: "Fortunately, We Have Help From The Media"

CNN reporter: "How's the family ready for this [the election]? It's going to be quite vicious, isn't it? How do you prepare for that?"

First Lady Michelle Obama: "You know, it's … we're ready, you know. Our children, you know, could care less about what we're doing. We work hard to do that. Fortunately, we have help from the media. I have to say this: I'm very grateful for the support and kindness that we've gotten. People have respected their privacy and in that way, I think, you know, no matter what people may feel about my husband's policies or what have you, they care about children and that's been good to see."

Basically, they will not report anything we tell them not to. They will not talk about anything we ask them not to. We have their support and they will report what they are told. I understand she is talking about her kids here. But remember that hoopla about the way Chris Christie answered the question about why he sends his kids to Private School? "It's none of your business." Well, why does Obama and Michelle send THEIR Kids to Private School and why did Obama kill vouchers in DC? Yup. None of our business. Right?

The Media has given up trying to hide it. There can only be two reasons for this. One, they actually believe that most of you are Liberal Kooks that appreciate what they do. Two, you are too stupid to know better. That you will simple believe anything you hear, read, or see in the MMD. Problem is, you are NOT a Liberal Kook. Most in this country ARE Conservative. Most lean Right. You are NOT Stupid. This is why Papers are nearly obsolete. There are no Liberal Rush Limbaughs. Viewership of Network and Cable News is plummeting. Yet, they are STILL reporting what they are told and NOT reporting what they are told NOT to. Thank God for the New Media. The Internet, Talk Radio, and Fox News. This is why it is so important to not allow these people to pick our Candidate for 2012. They are a tool of the Left, pure and simple. Thank you Michelle for telling the truth about this.
Peter

Sources:
Real Clear Politics - Michelle Obama: "Fortunately, We Have Help From The Media"

Media Still Not Getting It?

I start having problems, the first thing I do is look into ME.

Hey folks,

This is just too funny. They really still do not get it. Then again, some of you most likely do not get why some are still there to begin with. According to Your News.com - American's to corporate media: We don’t trust you

A Gallup poll has revealed that a record majority of Americans fundamentally do not trust the mass media and believe it to be politically biased.

By Steve Watson

NEW YORK (NY) - When asked how much confidence they have in newspapers, TV and Radio to accurately report events, 57% of Americans surveyed said that they generally have “not very much or none at all”.

The figure marks a one percent rise on 2008’s record high of 56%, while the general trend shows an increase in mistrust in the media of around 13% over the past decade.

Just 43% of Americans said they now have “a great deal or fair amount” of trust in the mainstream media, a record low, and a plummeting drop from a height of 72% in the mid 1970s.

You know why right? The New Media. Back in the 70's, 80's, and into early 90,s The Media had no competition. They also attempted to at least mask their Liberal Insane agenda and their Bias. People trusted anything they saw on the Local 5pm News.

However, since the launch of the New Media, Talk Radio, the Blogs, the Internet, Cable News, ETC. they have been losing readers, viewership, ETC. Why? Because the Mainstream Media can no longer get away with MAKING the News. They get caught now in reporting misleading, or fraudulent Stories. They get caught every time they try. They have given up even trying anymore to hide their Bias. Now people get the truth. They get FACTS. They make up their own minds.

A total of 63% of Americans said that they perceive a political bias in the mainstream media, with 48% believing it to be too liberal and 15% too conservative.

Interestingly, the survey finds that those identifying themselves with Democrats and liberals are happier with their daily feed of corporate news, with 59% and 54% respectively saying they currently have a great deal or fair amount of trust in the mass media.

The results reflect the rise of the alternative media and Internet news sources, which are rapidly gaining popularity amongst Americans, who are turning away from traditional media sources.

In another recent Gallup poll, just 25% of people of all ages stated that they had trust in newspapers and television news.

So why are some of them still there? Why does it seem that they do not care that their Bias is on full display? They are OWNED by Corporations, and Liberals, that FUND them. They simple report whatever they are told to.

Yes folks, they do not rely on their Readership, Viewers, or the common folks. They are well funded by those that are still hoping that the majority of Americans still trust them over the New Media. That is not the reality of the situation as these numbers show. But they will continue because they are PAID by and Funded by Liberals. The truth is, Private Non-Profit Organizations Funding The NewsSome even want the Government to bail out some of them.

So I think they actually DO get it, they just do not care. They will continue to report, or not, whatever they are told, as long as the funding continues.
Peter

Sources:
Your News.com - American's to corporate media: We don’t trust you

Since 2006, I Have Told You the Media IS Controlled

From the MMD Guru, to Scripted News.

Hey folks,

Let's start things off today with this.

Let me take you down Memory Lane a bit. Happy Wednesday to you by the way. Yes I told you about Soros. George Soros IS the MMD Guru. {Mass Media Drones} He owns and controls much of what they do and say. He OWNS Obama, therefore, Obama says and does what he says. Obama may even OWE Soros for getting him elected President.

Back on October 20, 2006, I posted this. Getting Closer To Unmasking The Mass Media Guru.

"As I’ve said before, I’m sure that there is a Mass Media Drones Guru behind the curtain, giving out the word or phrase of the day. Actually, I like that, mass media drones {MMDs} Today the magic word is multiple 500 pound bombs. The Guru wants them to use this as much as possible to put the image of a massive, over needed, use of force against a house. Then he wants them to conjure up the imagine that there is some kind of cover up. Then on top of that, make sure that you throw in there, innocent people dying."

I have given many examples.

Like their use of "Towel snapping", "Collective Punishment." "Katrina", and my all time favorite, if there was any doubt, it was done away with "Political Jujitsu." September 8,

"Oh and the Guru word of the day seems to be "jujitsu", for those that might have missed that. Over and over again, in various outlets, "jujitsu" seems to be the definition of the President’s announcement. But no, they do not work together."

I pointed out this little tidbit

ABC’s "The Note." Guess what it says?

"The Old Media -- giddy with excitement over the prospect of the Bush-Cheney-Rove-Mehlman machine losing, filled with guilt over complicity in an Iraq war it wants ended, flush with anticipation over two years of anti-Bush leaks from a gavel-wielding Henry Waxman, and substantially more interested in revelations about congressional pages than in trying to tell voters the truth about whether or not the economy is strong and getting stronger -- can barely contain itself on its secret morning conference calls with Howard Dean and George Soros, during which it was agreed just this morning that, yes, we can keep the meta-narrative ('The Democrats are going to beat Bush and run Congress!!') going for another 19 days, without interruption."

WAIT A SECOND!!! "secret morning conference calls with Howard Dean and George Soros" The media is having morning conference calls with Howard Dean and George Soros? Then it says, "during which it was agreed just this morning that, yes, we can keep the meta-narrative ('The Democrats are going to beat Bush and run Congress!!') going for another 19 days, without interruption." The media ADMITS that they get their walking orders from Howard Dean, and or George Soros? They ADMIT that they have an agenda to get the LWL in power?

If I had to bet, at least between these two, I would bet that, the little man behind the big black and white curtain is none other than George Soros. Could HE really be the MMD Guru? It makes sense.

Now folks, with things like Political "jujitsu," it's pretty EASY to see that the News is nothing but a scripted delivery by the MMD from someone. Look, If the a Senator falls through a Clown Tent while watching a Circus, and I say "Senator so and so, fell through a Clown Tent." Then you hear Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Tom Sullivan, Savage, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. ALL say "Senator so and so, fell through a Clown Tent." that is not Scripted News. That is not Contrived News. It's not Collusion. It is simply, many outlets reporting what actually happened. It would also be pretty funny if true.

However, if I said something like "Senator so and so, is trying out a new day job. He is trying out to be the next Bobo." Then you hear, Rush, Sean, Tom, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. ALL come out with "Senator so and so, is trying out a new day job. He is trying out to be the next Bobo." Or just "Bobo the Clown?" That IS Scripted, Contrived News. It IS Collusion. No not everyone would think of Bobo the Clown. Although that may seem possible to you, how about "jujitsu?" You get the point.

Even Rush came out in 2009 and admitted I was right. He said this.

"Now, I have said in the past, long ago, in discussing media bias, that I don't think that the old media and the drive-bys got together and had their conference calls in the morning to decide what news was going to be and how it was going to be reported, what wasn't going to be news and all that, I said because they don't have to. They basically think the same, they see things the same, and I think if they do get together it's in the bar after work over adult beverages where such unified phrases as gravitas and other things happen to spread throughout the Drive-By Media."

He then admitted he was wrong and talked about "The Note." Now we have even FURTHER proof that the MMD and the Loony Left are in Collusion. According to The Daily Caller - Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright

"In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, 'Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists.'"

The MMD are STILL doing this today. The Blogs, the News Papers, the Networks, Lib. Talk Radi,,uh, well, you know. If you disagree with Obama and Crew, YOU are a Racist. Now defend yourself while we attempt to pass our insane agenda. Look at the Tea Party? The Media is making a big deal out of that, yet IGNORING the New Black Panthers VOTER INTIMIDATION. The Justice Department saying they will not entertain cases with Black Defendants, or this Scumbag.



Oh Obama will even call Terrorist Racist because they do not promote Black People. {Sigh} Folks, I have been telling you this for over 4 years. The MMD will ignore anything that is bad for Democrats, hence anyone Soros likes, and attack ANY Republicans, and or ANYONE that goes against the Liberal Agenda. Ask Joe the Plumber. Remember this?

"Macaca" Front Page News? While THIS,

"Webb's comments to the Times-Dispatch prompted Allen campaign officials to direct a reporter to Dan Cragg, a former acquaintance of Webb's, who said Webb used the {N}word while describing his own behavior during his freshman year at the University of Southern California in the early 1960s. Webb later transferred to the U.S. Naval Academy.

Cragg, 67, who lives in Fairfax County, said on Wednesday that Webb described taking drives through the black neighborhood of Watts, where he and members of his ROTC unit used racial epithets and pointed fake guns at blacks to scare them. Nothing more than this blip.

This Daily Caller Piece points out how these Idiots are truly in Collusion. Talking about Obama being questioned about Rev Wright, they said this.

Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.

“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.

Tomasky approved. “YES. A thousand times yes,” he exclaimed.

The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”

They CLEARLY work together, scripted, and in collusion to attack anyone that gets in Obama's way. This is a great piece. I encourage you to check it out. Yet, this should come as no surprise to you out there. I've been telling you this for years.
Peter

DLA For Sunday 052310

Finally, and MMD Reporter tells the truth.

Hey folks,

This is amazing. It really is. A Mainstream Reporter going AGAINST the template. According to The Wall Street Journal - Anti-Incumbent? Try Anti-Obama By FRED BARNES Serious Democratic analysts concede it's their party that's facing trouble in the fall.

The hordes are not massing at the gates of Washington—not yet. They won't arrive until after the midterm congressional election in November. Most are likely to be Republicans, a good number of them old Washington hands. Yesterday's primary elections, including the impressive victories of Republican Rand Paul in Kentucky and Democrat Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania, didn't change that.

The idea that anti-incumbent fever, striking equally at Democrats and Republicans, is the defining feature of the 2010 election is as misguided as last year's notion that President Obama's oratory would tilt the nation in favor of his ambitious agenda. Yet the media, echoing the Obama White House, has adopted anti-incumbency as the all-purpose explanation of this year's political developments.

Their latest (supposed) evidence: Mr. Sestak's ouster of incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter. But incumbency, though it played a part, wasn't the main reason Mr. Specter (who switched parties from Republican to Democrat last year) lost. After voting against the 80-year-old Mr. Specter in five elections dating back to 1980, a majority of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania couldn't bring themselves to vote for him yesterday. They didn't trust him.

Mr. Sestak, a House member since 2006, played on this sentiment. He was the "real" Democrat, Mr. Sestak insisted, while Mr. Specter was an imposter. Recognizing that Mr. Specter might be vulnerable, the White House leaned on Mr. Sestak to stay out of the primary. Mr. Sestak stubbornly refused.

Nor was Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas forced into a runoff with Lt. Gov. Bill Halter yesterday because she's an incumbent. A bigger problem for her was a reputation as an unreliable vote for Democratic initiatives—Mr. Halter attacked her from the left—and polls consistently showed her badly trailing any Republican opponent.

It's true that anti-incumbency was marginally responsible for the defeats recently of three-term Republican Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah and 14-term Democratic Rep. Alan Mollohan of West Virginia. Voters do at times get tired of elected officials. But Mr. Bennett lost chiefly because he was seen as having "gone Washington" and too eager to compromise with Democrats. Mr. Mollohan was defeated by a conservative opponent more in tune with the state's drift to the right over the past decade.

What demolishes the notion of anti-incumbency as a scourge on both parties are the calculations of credible political analysts—Democrats and Republicans from Charles Cook to Jay Cost to Nathan Silver to James Carville—about the outcome of November's general election. They believe dozens of congressional Democrats either trail Republican challengers or face toss-up races, while fewer than a handful of Republicans are in serious re-election trouble.

Even Gallup, hardly known for its bold analysis of polling data, doesn't appear to regard anti-incumbency as a problem for Republicans. Its current surveys indicate Republicans are likely to trounce Democrats in November.

"Republicans have had a significant turnout advantage in midterm elections," Gallup said. "This means . . . Republican candidates would most likely receive a higher percentage of the actual votes cast [and] would also be virtually guaranteed major seat gains, possibly putting them in range of recapturing majority control of the U.S. House."

In Dr. Paul's defeat of Trey Grayson in the Kentucky Senate primary, he benefited from anti-Washington and anti-establishment feelings rampant across the country. Mr. Grayson, Kentucky's secretary of state, was the favorite of Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, and suffered for that. Like Mr. McConnell, he defended earmarks. Dr. Paul, who'd never before run for office, is an eye doctor in rural Bowling Green and the son of Ron Paul, the renegade Republican congressman and presidential candidate from Texas. He denounced earmarks.

But there was more to his 59% to 35% victory than simply exploiting popular trends. Dr. Paul was by far the better candidate. He kept his most controversial views—opposition to the Iraq war, doubts about sending American troops to Afghanistan—largely under wraps. Instead, he sounded like a vintage 1994, Contract-with-America Republican, calling for term limits and a balanced budget amendment.

And Dr. Paul wasn't shy about his support from tea party activists. They turned out to be anything but a stigma on his campaign, contrary to their characterization in the media. Without their fervent backing, he might have lost. That should be a lesson to other Republican candidates.

Republicans suffered one significant setback on Tuesday. Their polling suggested they might win the special election to fill the House seat of the late Democratic Representative John Murtha. The heavily Democratic district wraps around Pittsburgh in western Pennsylvania. A victory there, Republicans figured, could foreshadow a Republican landslide in the fall.

But their candidate, businessman Tim Burns, lost badly to Mark Critz, a former Murtha aide. Mr. Burns failed to stir Republican turnout with his anti-Obama message. In contrast, Democratic turnout was buoyed by the furious Senate race between Mr. Specter and Mr. Sestak. Republicans insist the mix of voters will be different in the fall. We'll see.

If there's a Republican wave in November, Republicans will capture the Senate seats in Kentucky and Arkansas and probably in Pennsylvania as well. The most important political event of the week may have been the revelation that the Democratic Senate candidate in Connecticut, the state's Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, had falsely claimed to be a Vietnam veteran. That gives a Republican a chance to win in Connecticut, too—and maybe even a Senate majority.

That's right folks. Even some in the MMD can't help but tell you the truth. It IS all about Obama and Crew. It is all ABOUT the Insane Liberal Agenda. Thank you Mr. Barnes. You are the Winner of the Display of Logic Award. Thank you for at least attempting to report the TRUTH.
Peter

Drilling Rig Explodes, Oil Refinery Catches Fire, Media?

Obama says we need more off shore drilling. A Drilling Rig explodes two weeks later. Now an Oil Refinery. Media? "Obama Blames Bush for {Insert reason here.}"

Hey folks,

When the Rig accident first happened, I told a friend of mine, "My gut says Sabotage." I also said this in an Email to another friend of mine.

There are only Two possibilities.

One, it was a complete and total GROSS INCOMPETENCE of someone in the Industry.
Two, Sabotage.

I understand that accidents can happen. I understand that this is a dangerous Job, Oil Recovery. I understand that Humans can and DO make mistakes. Yet, the TIMING has to lead one to entertain option two.

NOW? Now we have an 18 wheeler, just sitting at the dock, exploding at a Oil Refinery. Cindy Campbell, the Controller at AGE Refining Inc., said a truck caught fire while at a loading dock at their plant at Southeast Military Drive and South Presa Street.

So what is AGE Refining Inc.? It is a Refinery. It refines Oil into fuel. The company also serves the U.S. Air Force, handles Jet Fuel and Diesel.

Right after the explosion, some workers were being treated at the scene. No numbers were immediately provided as for the wounded, and or dead. I do not know if there was any casualties. Residents within a one mile radius were being evacuated.

So I'm asking. Seriously, Oil Rigs do not just blow up, 18 wheelers sitting at a dock, just do not blow up, and NONE of these things just happen two weeks following a President calling for MORE Off Shore Drilling. Yet what is the Media reporting? "Obama Blames Bush for {Insert reason here}." and of course, "The Oil spill is the worse disaster in our recent history and we could all DIE!!!!!!" OK, a bit exaggerated, but you get the point. But nothing even remotely close to WHY it happened.

I scanned all over the place this morning. I find NO ONE is talking about this. I could not even find anyone talking about the Refinery at all. There are some very important questions out there that no one seems to want to be asking. But then again, look at the Car Bomber in New York. He trains for five months at a terrorist training camp, has all this cash. Knows that Emirates is tarty at reporting Cash ticket Purchases. Buys an SUV, makes a Bomb, and the Media? "Family man hurt by the Bush Economy, being foreclosed on, hates the Arizona Immigration Law." Hell, some in the Media even openly state that they were hoping it was a Tea Party Member. The Mayor of the City bet a quarter that it WAS a Tea Party Member. When talking to Katie Couric, Mayor Bloomberg and her had this exchange

Mayor Bloomberg: "If I had to guess, 25 cents, this would be exactly that. Somebody --"

Katie Couric: Interrupting "A homegrown."

Bloomberg: -- "homegrown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything."

Another elite member of the Media open stated that she was FRUSTRATED that the NYC Bomber is who he is. A Islamofascist. Contessa Brewer actually said this.

"I mean the thing is that- and I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry."

OK. Just like the Underwear Bomber, Fort Hood, Muslim Jihadist, the Arkansas Military Recruiting Center Attack, and now the Times Square attempted bombing by a Muslim Extremist. The Media and Obama himself, have downplayed the significance of all of these events when the rest of the country know exactly what was and is going on.

Now we have the Energy Industry having explosions all over the place? Big disasters, and the timing? No one is looking into this either of course. They are moving on. Let's talk about Bush. Let's talk about all these Democrats retiring,, Uh,, I mean,, lets talk about how all these things are,, uh, bad for Republicans. Yes, yes, that's it, all this is bad for Republicans. The Tea Party is bad, and full of Racists. That is why the Media is so stunned that 32 black Republicans are running for Congress this time around and they ALL want the Tea Party backing them. Listen to this.


The Media just doesn't get it anymore. They are not even trying to get it. They report whatever they are TOLD to report. They SAY whatever they are told to say. The further whatever lie they are told to further. It really is just that simple.

Yet, with this, the two "accidents" in the Oil Industry, THIS, will cost me, you, them, EVERYONE, a lot of money in the future. They are completely ignoring it. Well, except to further the agenda of Oil Evil and "Green" good. Yet there is NO Alternatives yet. Nothing to switch to. But forget all that. Eleven people died on that Oil Rig in the Gulf, countless others may have been injured in San Antonio. Do they NOT deserve a full investigation as to what the TRUTH of the Matter is. What happened. You know, the Press use to be all about the FACTS. They use to be all about the TRUTH. Who, what, where, when, why. Now?
Peter

Sources:
Chron - Truck explodes at San Antonio refinery
Newsbusters

From The Emails 012508

The Liberal Press Is Real

Hey folks,

You know I have been talking about some in the Press, being nothing more than drones. I talked about them being owned and controlled bu a Guru. That they do not report news anymore, they report what they are told to. Just type in MMD in the search here, and you will see I have talked about this in detail. On November 111606 I posted this in the article The MMD Have Given Up Hiding It

Then we found out about this. ABC’s "The Note."said,

"The Old Media -- giddy with excitement over the prospect of the Bush-Cheney-Rove-Mehlman machine losing, filled with guilt over complicity in an Iraq war it wants ended, flush with anticipation over two years of anti-Bush leaks from a gavel-wielding Henry Waxman, and substantially more interested in revelations about congressional pages than in trying to tell voters the truth about whether or not the economy is strong and getting stronger -- can barely contain itself on its secret morning conference calls with Howard Dean and George Soros, during which it was agreed just this morning that, yes, we can keep the meta-narrative ('The Democrats are going to beat Bush and run Congress!!') going for another 19 days, without interruption."

Then THIS exchange between Suzanne Malveaux and Paula Zaun on CNN, on air,

Malveaux said, "We hope and we think that all of this is going to go away tomorrow, but we'll just have to wait and see."

Zahn responded, "Oh, I don't know whether we can count on that or not."

They wonder why they are losing readers and viewers?

Then on 101407, I said this.

That’s right folks, on October 20,2006, I unmasked the MMD Guru. George Soros.

WAIT A SECOND secret morning conference calls with Howard Dean and George Soros The media is having morning conference calls with Howard Dean and George Soros? Then it says, during which it was agreed just this morning that, yes, we can keep the meta-narrative ('The Democrats are going to beat Bush and run Congress ') going for another 19 days, without interruption. The media ADMITS that they get their walking orders from Howard Dean, and or George Soros? They ADMIT that they have an agenda to get the LWL in power?

If I had to bet, at least between these two, I would bet that, the little man behind the big black and white curtain is none other than George Soros. Could HE really be the MMD Guru? It makes sense.

And it is George Soros. Now EVERYONE is talking about it. We learned just recently that he funds MoveOn.org, Media Matters, {Along with the fact Hillary herself helped start it} among other thing. I have been telling you that the MMD now merely report what they are told to.

Everyone was talking about it. Rush, Bill, Sean, other bloggers. Everyone. This is just a tinge of what I have told you over the years on this subject.

So I got this in the Emails Wednesday this week.

Pollaganda—political polling as propaganda
By Mark Alexander

At the time of our nation’s founding, journalists, like judges, were expected to comport with the highest standards of objectivity in order to protect the public virtue. Neither has held to that standard.

The press was charged with a heavy burden—that of providing impartial reports about the issues of the day and those running for political office. Unbiased reporting was essential so that the people could discern for themselves what was best for our country.

First Amendment champion James Madison wrote, “The right of freely examining public characters and measures... has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right.” Likewise, Thomas Jefferson penned, “Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.” (Of course, neither Madison nor Jefferson could have imagined the power of television, or that of tabloid media’s dumbed-down message for the masses.)

Two centuries later, “the press” is composed largely of Leftmedia propagandists, those who have mastered the art of partiality cloaked as objective journalism.

There are explicit examples of this partiality on the pages of major organs such as The Washington Post and The New York Times.

Last week, when it appeared that The Post’s darling, Hillary Clinton, might lose the New Hampshire primary, it ran a front-page story questioning whether Barack Obama was a closet Muslim. Assistant Managing Editor Bill Hamilton later apologized for how the story had been “misunderstood,” but the damage was done.

One of the most deceptive techniques used in national election cycles, especially presidential elections, is the countless political polling sponsored by media outlets.

Polls, ostensibly, represent the views of a particular group of voters within an acceptable margin of error, but they are also used for a much more subtle and sinister purpose.

At best, reputable pollsters can get it wrong—even though they poll representative statistical samples and ask objective questions.

For example, in New Hampshire last week, Hillary Clinton was pronounced DOA. Only 24 hours before the primary in that state, ten major polls predicted that she would lose to Barack Obama by a substantial margin—more than ten points. Yet when all was said and done, Clinton, with a little help from her friends at The Washington Post, was the victor.

So, on a good day, objective polling by reputable pollsters can be wrong, even well beyond the so-called “margin of error.” However, most media-designed and reported polling is as “objective” as the mainstream media (MSM) outlets that sponsor them.

To that end, it is worth familiarizing oneself with the practice of Pollaganda, a propagandistic disinformation technique where political polling masquerades as “objective journalism” and instead advances a liberal bias.

Americans who participate in public-opinion polls about political performance are not political analysts, national-security specialists, economists or policy experts. They are folks who hold common labor and professional jobs in order to support their families and make ends meet. They are thus the backbone of our nation. Unfortunately, a large measure of their perspective on politics, national security, the economy and public policy is shaped by the MSM.

Pollaganda uses outcome-based opinion samples (polling instruments designed to generate a preferential outcome) reflecting prior-opinion indoctrination or cultivation by the media. The results are then used to manipulate public opinion further by advancing the perception that a particular opinion on an issue enjoys majority support. The MSM then presents this “data” as if it were “news.”

I say “outcome based” because most polls reflect intentional propagation of a particular bias by Leftmedia television and print outlets to manipulate public opinion. They accomplish this by first indoctrinating viewers with “reporting” that reflects a particular bias, then conducting “opinion polls” which, of course, reflect that indoctrination.

Then the media uses poll results to proselytize further by treating the results as “news,” which, in turn, induces “bandwagon” psychology—the human tendency of those who do not have a strong ideological foundation to aspire to the side perceived to be in the majority—and thus further drives public opinion toward the original media bias, ad infinitum.

Pollaganda, then, is self-perpetuating.

Polls are so often manipulated for this purpose that The Patriot Post NEVER reports polling (conservative or liberal) as legitimate news because virtually all polling is nothing more than a well-crafted lie used to propagate a particular bias.

This is not to say that polls don’t provide an accurate account of public sentiment. It is simply to say that such sentiment is largely a reflection of MSM indoctrination—and thus comports with a liberal viewpoint. Conservatives are therefore forced to run a considerable and unrelenting MSM opinion gauntlet.

Given the Left’s domination of the mainstream media, it’s remarkable that any political candidates to the right of the news editors of ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN or NPR, or their ideological kin on the editorial boards of The Washington Post and The New York Times, ever make it to Washington.

Indeed, several academic studies to assess the political views of national reporters in the major press pools of Washington and New York, conclude that those reporters overwhelmingly self-identify as “liberal” or “Democrat.” In fact, only eight percent of reporters say they would consider voting for a conservative—no surprise to objective media analysts.

I do not suggest that there is anything but a benign Leftmedia conspiracy to undermine anything conservative; the bias is largely the consequence of the mass-media zeitgeist and culture, which are uniformly and profoundly left of center. Such liberalism has become so embedded within the collective consciousness of print copywriters and television talkingheads that it flows freely from every front page and broadcast.

So much for the “free examination of public characters and measures.” When confronted with the next headline or talkinghead report about the latest poll results, caveat emptor!

Mark Alexander is executive editor and publisher of The Patriot Post, the Web's "Conservative Journal of Record". His strong academic vitae in constitutional government and policy combined with his real-world occupational experience ensure his contributions as an essayist and analyst reflect the grassroots conservatism of the heartland revitalized by Ronald Reagan, rather than ubiquitous Beltway news and opinion.

Here is an interesting note:

In 1987, Alexander accepted an executive level federal appointment in a reserve national security capacity under President Ronald Reagan, and was reappointed to that post under President George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush. He retains that appointment today with the Department of Homeland Security.

The link to their website is PatriotPost.us.

Have a great Weekend folks, see you SUNDAY!
Peter