Posted tagged ‘Obama and media’

Tom Fitton gives updates on Obama Spying Scandal, Unmasking Scandal, Rep. Adam Schiff, & Seth Rich

May 26, 2017

Tom Fitton gives updates on Obama Spying Scandal, Unmasking Scandal, Rep. Adam Schiff, & Seth Rich, Judicial Watch via YouTube, May 26, 2017

(This video covers a lot of ground and is very much worth watching. — DM)

 

Report: Obama Administration Carried Out Massive and Unconstitutional Surveillance Programs

May 26, 2017

Report: Obama Administration Carried Out Massive and Unconstitutional Surveillance Programs, Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, May 26, 2017

(Be patient. The media will cover the FISA report fully and fairly after the source of President Trump’s mother’s recipe for Borscht is discovered, documented and fully analyzed. Did Putin give it to her and is his devotion to the Trump family at the root of Hillary’s defeat? Clearly, that is far more important than mere unconstitutional spying on American citizens by the Obama administration.  — DM)

By any measure, this story deserves the attention of the national media and Congress.  However, it is being buried in the crush of controversies related to the Russian investigation, embarrassing leaks, and other items. The media is correct in pursuing these legitimate stories but it should also give attention to this chilling report. There was equally limited coverage of the expansion of surveillance authority in the final days of the Obama Administration.  Privacy advocates have serious concerns about these privacy stories being pushed from public review.

******************************

With the steady stream of controversies swirling around the White House, there has been little attention given a highly disturbing report that the Obama Administration engaged in previously undisclosed and violations of the Fourth Amendment.  Just a few days from the 2016 election, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) reportedly raised a highly unusual alarm over the creation of “a very serious Fourth Amendment issue” by possibly unconstitutional surveillance conducted under President Barack Obama.  If true, this should be given equal attention to the other stories crowding our front pages and cable coverage.  The Obama Administration has a well-documented history of abuse of surveillance and stands as one of the most antagonistic administrations toward privacy in our history.  Indeed, if true, many of the former Obama officials currently testifying against the Trump Administration were responsible for a far broader scope of abusive surveillance programs.

Recently disclosed top-secret documents from the FISA court suggest that the government admitted that the NSA was regularly violating surveillance rules. Not that these violations were occurring after the unconstitutional surveillance programs revealed by Wikileaks and Snowdon were curtailed.  It also would have occurred after the disclosure that the Obama Administration put journalists under surveillance.

The FISA indicate that the government informed the court that NSA analysts had been violating rules, established in 2011, that protect the privacy of citizens on the Internet.  Once again, the NSA claimed new “inadvertent compliance lapses.”  The Court noted in its dealings with the NSA a certain “lack of candor” in its disclosures to the FISA court.

It is very rare for the FISA court to make such statements.  (For full disclosure, I had occasion to go to the FISA court when I was an intern with the NSA and later became a critic of the court).  The standards for FISA are so low and easily satisfied (with little judicial review) that it is difficult to establish any illegality under the law.

Passed in 1978 as a compromise with the Nixon Administration, FISA allows for “foreign intelligence” surveillance and was designed to evade the fourth amendment protections governing the use of warrants.  FISA surveillance is permitted based on a finding of probable cause that the surveillance target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. That is manifestly different from probable cause to believe someone has committed a crime.   It is true that, if the target is a “U.S. person,” there must be probable cause to believe that the U.S. person’s activities may involve espionage or other similar conduct in violation of the criminal statutes of the United States.  However, citizens can be collateral to the primary target under FISA. In 1994 Congress extended FISA further to allow for covert physical entries in connection with “security” investigations, and then in 1998, it was amended to permit pen/trap orders. It has been used to gather business records.

By any measure, this story deserves the attention of the national media and Congress.  However, it is being buried in the crush of controversies related to the Russian investigation, embarrassing leaks, and other items. The media is correct in pursuing these legitimate stories but it should also give attention to this chilling report. There was equally limited coverage of the expansion of surveillance authority in the final days of the Obama Administration.  Privacy advocates have serious concerns about these privacy stories being pushed from public review.

The Trouble With Barry

March 13, 2017

The Trouble With Barry, PJ MediaDavid Solway, March 13, 2017

Former President Barack Obama leaves the National Gallery of Art in Washington, Sunday, March 5, 2017. ( AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

There is now a President and an Anti-President. A government and a shadow government. The anti-President controls more of the government through his shadow government than the real President.

**********************************

Alfred Hitchcock’s black comedy The Trouble with Harry bombed at the box office when it was first released in 1955; it has now achieved the status of a classic. Today, a bizarre melodrama playing in all the major political theaters, which might be called The Trouble with Barry, has become an overnight smash hit. Starring Barack Obama, a prodigy of the art of surveillance and Teflon-like resilience, it will eventually run its course. However the plot may develop, one thing is certain: it will not be regarded as a classic.

The trouble with Barry, like Hitchcock’s moribund Harry, is that he never seems to go away, constantly emerging at the most inopportune moments. Unlike every other president in American history, Obama has dedicated himself to the practice of what the Washington Examiner has described as “post-presidential meddling.”

He has thrown himself fully into Alinsky-style “community organizing,” stirring up resistance to the Trump administration in every way conceivable: installing, according to the New York Post, a “shadow government,” dubbed Organizing for Action, comprising more than 30,000 agitators and 250 chapters across the U.S., in order “to sabotage the incoming administration”; renting a dwelling and setting up command headquarters around the corner from the White House; cooking up the Russian hacking fable; and most recently, allegedly wiretapping Trump Tower, which seems disturbingly probable following the salient remarks of Ret. Army Intelligence Officer Tony Shaffer on Fox and the revelations from Breitbart News. Mark Levin’s accusation that Obama is orchestrating a “silent coup” against Trump rings true. As Daniel Greenfield points out:

There is now a President and an Anti-President. A government and a shadow government. The anti-President controls more of the government through his shadow government than the real President.

Obama and his Deep State have engaged in “a criminal conspiracy of unprecedented scope.”

And yet, even today, few media outlets are willing to investigate the innumerable instances of lying, lawbreaking, corruption, broken promises and cronyism for which Obama is clearly answerable. That he is likely involved in a wiretapping operation against a political opponent should not come as a surprise to anyone who has observed or researched the man. As Matthew Vadum comments in FrontPage Magazine, “It might be said that every day of his presidency he committed at least one impeachable offense” — whether abusing executive powers, bypassing Congress, leaking classified information, misrepresenting Obamacare, being ultimately responsible for the Fast and Furious and Benghazi infamies, and more.

The wiretapping affair is only the latest in a vast and ongoing sequence of misdemeanors, scandals and illegalities — a list compiled by Doug Ross runs into hundreds of such instances of impropriety and malpractice. No matter. The list will only grow. The editor of a prestigious conservative site wrote me calling this latest outrage a “game changer.” That remains to be seen. I would have thought, for example, that Obama’s first Executive Order (13489) on January 21, 2009 sealing his vital records would have been the game changer we were waiting for, but Barry sailed on unscathed.

There have been weak presidents, deluded presidents, and harmful presidents before him, but never has there been anyone as sinister or questionable as Obama, not excluding even the malefic Jimmy Carter or the sleazy Bill Clinton. What J. R. Dunn writing in American Thinker has said of Hillary, “the most repellent and corrupt American presidential candidate since Aaron Burr,” is equally true, in my estimation, of Barack Obama. Meanwhile, it is Trump who faces a barrage of threats, calls for impeachment and acts of disobedience that would have been more explicable if levied against Obama for his historic deceptions and malfeasances. Under the pestilential reign of Obama, and indeed years of Democratic incumbency, the shining city on the hill has become a murky city in the swamp.

The trouble with Barry is not only that he refuses to go away, materializing like Harry where he has no business being, or that he enjoys, à la Hitchcock, making cameo appearances in whatever political film he happens to be directing at the moment. All this would be perfectly acceptable, even agreeable, were he a benign presence or if he had Hitchcock’s talent for deadpan humor and high entertainment rather than a penchant for malice and misconduct.

The trouble with Barry is, quite simply, that he is Barry, a “Third World man,” to cite Phyllis Chesler’s psychological analysis of Obama, trying to become the father he never really had, an anti-white, anti-colonialist, anti-capitalist, anti-Zionist, anti-American, Marxist revolutionary. Why then, would he not use any means at his disposal, legitimate or illegitimate, including those that reek of “police state tactics,” to achieve his ends? Was this not predictable from the beginning? He will keep popping up working his characteristic mischief wherever he possibly can. This is what the man does and will continue doing. If he is not finally indicted for his multiple derelictions, there will be other “game changers” to come, all to no effect. A fall guy will inevitably be found to take the rap. We need to realize that what has been called “Obamagate” is nothing out of the ordinary. Obama is Obama. What did we expect?

Hitchcock’s film ends decisively with the legend: “The Trouble with Harry Is Over.” Unfortunately, the trouble with Barry isn’t.

Nunes’s Notes & Queries

January 8, 2017

Nunes’s Notes & Queries, Power LineScott Johnson, January 8, 2017

(As to the likely relationship between Trump and Russia, please see also, Why Trump and US intel clash over Russia. — DM)

Devin Nunes is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Appearing on FOX News Sunday this morning, he had a few heterodox observations about the news surrounding the story of Russian interference in our election (video below, about 10 minutes). The interview captures a few of the dissonant notes that have generally been ignored in the hysterical din to which we are now subject. Rep. Nunes knows what he is talking about and is not a man to be trifled with. The interview in its entirety is worth your time.

Rep. Nunes refers in the course of his interview to the “gang of eight.” This particular gang of eight comprises the eight congressional leaders who are briefed on classified intelligence matters by the executive branch.

Quotable quote 1: “…so this has been going on for a long time, that Russia is a very sophisticated, bad actor in the cyber realm. Many members of Congress, not just members of the House Intelligence Committee, have been warning the Obama administration about Russia’s continued cyber attacks on this country and they did nothing. And so now as you look forward they lose an election and it appears that they want to change this narrative [by promoting the line] that Russia was responsible for Hillary Clinton losing this election.”

Quotable quote 2: “I am not happy that this report that we were briefed on — just the gang of eight was briefed on Friday morning — yet many news media outlets already had the information that was just briefed to the gang of eight. So this looks like the political rollout of a narrative just a couple of weeks before Donald Trump’s inauguration…by the Obama administration….How does the news media have this information before it’s briefed to the gang of eight?”

Obama Says Magazine That Published Hoax Gang Rape Article Does ‘Great Work’

December 1, 2016

Obama Says Magazine That Published Hoax Gang Rape Article Does ‘Great Work’, Daily Caller, Chuck Ross, November 30, 2016

Rather than address Rolling Stone’s massive failure, Obama assailed another news outlet in his interview with Wenner.

He complained that Democrats have failed to win white working class voters because, in part, “Fox News in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country.”

“The challenge is people are getting a hundred different visions of the world from a hundred different outlets or a thousand different outlets, and that is ramping up divisions,” Obama lamented in the interview.

****************************

President Obama is praising Rolling Stone for doing “great work” even though the magazine was recently ordered to pay $3 million for its role in the biggest act of journalistic malpractice committed so far this century.

Obama offered the glowing assessment in an exit interview with Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner.

“Good journalism continues to this day. There’s great work done in Rolling Stone,” Obama told Wenner after being asked about the status of the news business.

It is unclear from the interview if Obama was aware of the high-profile case of Rolling Stone’s Nov. 2014 article, “A Rape on Campus.”

In the piece, Sabrina Rubin Erdely reported claims from Jackie Coakley, a UVA student who said that she was gang-raped by a group of fraternity members at a house party in 2012. Erdely was heavily critical of Eramo in the piece.

Evidence emerged weeks after the article was published that showed that Coakley lied about the incident and that Erdely failed to conduct basic due diligence in checking out the hoaxer’s claims.

Erdely did not attempt to contact any of the alleged assailants or three of Coakley’s friends who she claimed met her after her alleged rape.

Earlier this month, a jury in Virginia ordered Rolling Stone and Erdely to pay Eramo $3 million over the lie-filled article.

Rather than address Rolling Stone’s massive failure, Obama assailed another news outlet in his interview with Wenner.

He complained that Democrats have failed to win white working class voters because, in part, “Fox News in every bar and restaurant in big chunks of the country.”

“The challenge is people are getting a hundred different visions of the world from a hundred different outlets or a thousand different outlets, and that is ramping up divisions,” Obama lamented in the interview.

“It’s making people exaggerate or say what’s most controversial or peddling in the most vicious of insults or lies, because that attracts eyeballs. And if we are gonna solve that, it’s not going to be simply an issue of subsidizing or propping up traditional media; it’s going to be figuring out how do we organize in a virtual world the same way we organize in the physical world. We have to come up with new models.”

For his part, Wenner has defended his magazine throughout the lawsuit over the false gang rape article.

In a deposition recorded as part of the lawsuit, he claimed that he “suffered as much as” Eramo. He also said that he disagreed with former managing editor Will Dana’s decision to retract the article in full.

“We are deeply committed to factual accuracy,” he said in the deposition. “We did everything reasonable, appropriate, up to the highest standards.”

 

New York Times Hails ‘Our National Poet’ Obama’s ‘Stirring Valedictory Address’

July 29, 2016

New York Times Hails ‘Our National Poet’ Obama’s ‘Stirring Valedictory Address’, MRC NewsbustersClay Waters, July 28, 2016

(All bold face type is in the original. Ain’t media love grand?– DM)

obama blabs

New York Times coverage of Night 3 of the Democratic National Convention could be characterized by an hour-long swoon over Barack Obama’s speech — pardon, his “stirring valedictory address.” Also, Democrats were (again!) finding their voice on gun control, and Bill celebrated Hillary, TMI-style, and Frank Bruni celebrated the president as “our national poet.”

Reporter Maggie Haberman, helping provide live nytimes.com coverage, was smitten by an introductory video: “Adam, as I watch this video, which is quite gauzy at points, it really does remind me that part of why Obama was re-elected in 2012, polls showed, was that a majority of people thought that his heart was in the right place and that he cared about people like them.”

During and after Obama’s speech Haberman hailed Obama’s style over any substance: “The man knows how to give a speech….It’s a dramatic moment….No matter what people think of Obama and Clinton, like them or don’t like them, the first black president just handed the baton to the first major-party female nominee in this country…..”

Jonathan Martin and Patrick Healy were no less laudatory in Thursday’s paper, “Obama Champions Optimism, Passing Baton to Clinton.”

President Obama delivered a stirring valedictory address at the Democratic convention Wednesday night, hailing Hillary Clinton as his rightful political heir and the party’s best hope to protect democracy from “homegrown demagogues” like the Republican Donald J. Trump.

Taking the stage to rapturous roars of “We love you” and “Yes we can,” Mr. Obama acknowledged that Democrats were still divided after a bruising nomination fight and that Mrs. Clinton had made “mistakes.”

….

President Obama’s eyes welled with tearsas he spoke of his faith in the American people and urged voters to transfer their trust to the woman he hoped would succeed him.

“Welled with tears” was a popular phrase in theTimes’ convention coverage. Julie Hirschfeld Davis and Michael Shear used it in “The Diagnosis: Disunity. His Remedy: ‘This Fighter.’

Mr. Obama’s eyes welled with tears as he spoke of his faith in the American people and urged voters to transfer their trust in him to the woman he hopes will succeed him. “Time and again, you’ve picked me up and I hope, sometimes, I’ve picked you up, too,” he said. “Tonight, I ask you to do for Hillary Clinton what you did for me.”

It was Mr. Obama’s lyrical rejection of “a politics of cynicism” 12 years ago to the night, as the keynote speaker of the 2004 Democratic convention, that dazzled a national audience and thrust him into the spotlight, setting him on his path to two terms in the Oval Office.

Davis consistently hailed Obama, from before the beginning to the very end of his presidency.

In his 2004 convention speech, a testimonial to John Kerry, the Democratic nominee that year, Mr. Obama decried the “spin masters and negative-ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes,” and he foreshadowed the political theme that would ultimately carry him into the White House by urging “a politics of hope.”

Then as now, Mr. Obama was vouching for someone else, but what many Americans actually heard was a compelling argument for his own leadership.

White House reporter turned columnist Frank Bruni couldn’t stop quoting the chirpy, optimistic speech of President Obama, “our national poet,” in Thursday’s “Freedom From Fear.

It’s hard, frankly, to stop quoting from his remarks because they amounted to one of the most moving, inspiring valentines to this country that I’ve ever heard, brimming with regard for it and gratitude to it.

We’re going to miss this man, America. Whatever his flaws, he’s been more than our president. Time and again, he’s been our national poet.

This coming from the same journalists who mocked Reagan’s optimism and spent decades criticizing America for racism, sexism, heartlessness, etc…

And Patrick Healy showed Bill Clinton getting up close and personal with Hillary in the icky “Words Depict Feminine Side of Candidate as Strength.”

He spoke of desiring her: her thick blond hair, her flowery white skirt, her magnetic personality.

He was almost titillating as he recalled chasing after her and getting close enough to “touch her back.”

He used intimate details to reveal her feelings about his three marriage proposals.

Healy portrayed Bill Clinton, womanizer extraordinaire, as doing his bit for feminism.

In doing so, Mr. Clinton began redefining the American presidency as a female institution.

A Clinton win in November would obviously give the country a female president. But for 227 years, the presidency has been associated with stereotypically male qualities — strength, resolve, fearlessness — and the embodiment of power in a deeply patriarchal political system….

….

Whether his speech causes people to see Mrs. Clinton differently — or makes people uncomfortable with the Clinton marriage all over again — will become clearer in time, not only through polls but also in the chatter among voters.

The gush got unbearable by the end.

Political wives often make their husbands sound like saints. Mr. Clinton made Mrs. Clinton sound likable, which is no small thing in politics.

“I married my best friend,” he said. “I have lived a long, full, blessed life. It really took off when I met and fell in love with that girl in the spring of 1971.”

His implication was obvious. America would really take off as well, if voters would just fall in love with that girl, too.

Veteran congressional reporter Carl Hulse’s column, “Gun Laws, Long Avoided, Return to the Agenda,” was devoted to the Democrats (this time for real!) finding “their voice” on gun control. On a busy day for politics, it somehow made the front of Thursday’s paper.

After treating gun control as political poison for two decades, Democrats led by Hillary Clinton are again vigorously championing new gun restrictions as a central element of their campaigns.

Hulse saw current events as helping the Democrats (as he so often does).

But a string of mass shootings involving high-powered weapons, rising anxiety about domestic terrorism, and killings of and by police officers have emboldened Democrats. They say the shootings are intensifying support for gun control, elevating weapons policy to a top-tier issue, with particularly strong appeal to suburban female voters.

Nothing about the spate of terror attacks helping Republicans on national security issues.

Citing polls showing strong support for new restrictions even among gun owners, gun control advocates believe the public is open to expanded background checks, new limits on gun purchases and more scrutiny of gun manufacturers and dealers. They intend to enthusiastically press the case in races across the country.

….

Given deep Republican resistance in Congress, major changes in gun laws anytime soon seem unlikely. But the convention is demonstrating that Democrats have recovered their voice on the issue.

Once again.

The Democrat Media Complex

June 27, 2016

The Democrat Media Complex, Politically Short, June 26, 2016

media

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.

*********************

The 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’sGood 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. On 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’sToday 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.