BREAKING: Eric Holder Recuses Himself From Leak Investigation
Katie Pavlich | May 14, 2013
Attorney General Eric Holder has recused himself from the Associated Press leak investigation. He will officially announce his recusal at a press conference Tuesday afternoon. Fox News is reporting his recusal comes partially because Holder has testified about potential national security leaks surrounding a May 7, 2012 Associated Press story.
Yesterday, the Associated Press revealed the Department of Justice had been secretly monitoring both the personal and work phones of numerous AP editors and reporters. DOJ responded to these revelations by releasing the following statement.
We take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations. Those regulations require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media. We must notify the media organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation. Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws.://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/05/14/breaking-eric-holder-recuses-himself-from-leak-investigation-n1594600
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Tue May 14, 2013 10:57 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
Washington Post suffers 85% earnings drop
50 By MACKENZIE WEINGER | 5/3/13 12:00 PM EDT
The Washington Post Co. on Friday reported bad news for its newspaper division, with revenue totaling $127.3 million for the first quarter of this year — down four percent from 2012 — and an operating loss of $34.5 million.
Overall, the company posted a profit of just $4.7 million, an 85 percent drop in earnings from the net income of $31 million for the first quarter of last year.
In the newspaper division, daily and Sunday circulation at the Post dropped 7.2 and 7.7 percent, respectively, compared to 2012. Average daily circulation totaled 457,100 copies, with Sundays at 659,500. The report also noted that in January of this year, the Post increased the paper’s price for daily home delivery and daily and Sunday single copies. And print advertising revenue at the Post in the first quarter of 2013 dropped 8 percent to $48.6 million, down from $52.7 million in the first quarter of 2012.
As for online — primarily washingtonpost.com and Slate — the company had better news to report. Revenue generated by the company’s online publishing increased 8 percent to $25.8 million for the first quarter of 2013, compared to $23.9 million for the first quarter of 2012. The company also posted a 16 percent increase in online display advertising, although online classified advertising revenue on washingtonpost.com fell 6 percent for the first quarter of 2013.
The company, meanwhile, has announced plans for a paywall this summer.
For this year’s first quarter, the company noted much of the $34.5 million in operating losses come from pension, early retirement and severance expenses. In the first quarter of 2012, the company’s newspaper division lost $20.6 million, for comparison.
Newsprint expense was down 12 percent for the first quarter of this year compared to the first quarter of 2012 “due to a decline in newsprint consumption.”
Overall, the company reported an 85 percent drop in net income for the first quarter, with revenue up slightly compared to last year — $959.1 million to 2012’s first quarter of $955.5 million.
“The Company reported operating income of $23.1 million in the first quarter of 2013, compared to operating income of $21.3 million in the first quarter of 2012,” the press release stated. “Revenues increased at the television broadcasting and cable television divisions, offset by declines at the education and newspaper publishing divisions. Operating results improved at the education, television broadcasting and cable television divisions, offset by a decline at the newspaper publishing division.”
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Fri May 03, 2013 12:30 pm
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
Interesting photos found here.
Statistics: Posted by Tonibug — Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:34 pm
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
MEDIA BULLY FIVE GUYS ENTREPRENEUR FOR TELLING TRUTH ABOUT OBAMACARE
by LARRY O’CONNOR 13 Mar 2013, 5:16 AM PDT
When Mike Ruffer, an eight franchise owner of the Five Guys hamburger chain revealed this week that the economic impact of Obamacare would force him to raise the price of the popular burgers, he received national attention including a segment on The Rush Limbaugh Show.
Did you see the story, one of the franchise owners for that hamburger chain, Five Guys hamburger chain or whatever (paraphrasing), "We’re gonna have to get rid of a whole bunch of employees, get down to mostly part-timers. We can’t afford Obamacare. We can’t stay in business with it. The prices are gonna go up. The consumer’s are gonna pay for it. That’s the only way my employees can have health care, is if I raise the price of the food here and the customers pay for it." And he’s worried the customers aren’t gonna have any money, nobody is, because of the budget situation and the economy.
When a business owner sticks his neck out and criticizes big government policies like Obamacare, you can count on the media to try to bully him into silence.
Matt Yglesias at Slate.com called Ruffer a liar because, you know, Yglesias knows the hamburger business better than the North Carolina entrepreneur:
This is self-refuting nonsense. The only situation in which it would make sense for Ruffer to raise prices is if price increases will on net lead to higher revenue. And if price increases will lead to higher revenue (which they might) then it makes sense for Ruffer to raise prices no matter what happens with Obamacare.
Yglesias then negates his own argument for the sake of demonizing all corporations who dare to make profits with their businesses: (emphasis mine)
In fact, Ruffer himself articulates the truth later which is that Obamacare is going to reduce his profits by about one-eighth and he (and any investors in his business) will eat the loss. With corporate profits as a share of the economy at an all-time high, nobody’s going to cry for him either.
Center for American Progress, John Podesta’s team of bullies, basically called Ruffer a dead-beat for denying his employees "basic health care":
As the Examiner explicitly states, Ruffer is actively trying to “escape” the health reform law, and has had his mind made up about it for a while. That’s become an increasingly common position among large employers — particularly in the service industry, where large restaurant chains have been threatening to cut workers’ benefits by shifting costs onto them, cut back on wages, cut back on hours, or raise their products’ prices. Ruffer has, by his own admission, considered every single one of those options. But that isn’t a reflection of the reform law itself — it’s a reflection of companies’ desire to protect their own bottom line by having their low-wage employees go uninsured or obtain coverage through Medicaid, rather than provide them with basic benefits.
Center for American Progress goes on to claim that companies who have gone public with the problems implementing Obamacare suffer due to the bad publicity they receive. They point to Olive Garden as an example:
The negative press led the company to reverse course on its threat to shift employees to part-time status to avoid covering them under Obamacare. The latest report on Darden’s earnings prove that was a good move, since the restaurants did take a turn for the worse as a result of their bad publicity. Its net income fell 37 percent:
The claim that criticizing Obamacare hurts your bottom line due to bad publicity is a self-fulfilling prophesy, as Center for American Progress is one of the driving forces trying to drum up that bad publicity by trying to bully skittish CEOs who don’t want any bad publicity ever for anything.
The report on Olive Garden points to a Huffington Post article titled Darden Restaurants Profit Plunges 37 Percent After Bad Publicity Over Attempt To Skirt Obamacare. Ironically, Huffington Post also weighed in on the Five Guys story, thus showing the chain of information flow from liberal think tank to liberal media outlets and back again.
The clear lesson to businesses like Five Guys, or Olive Garden, or Papa John’s, or Wendy’s, or Whole Foods is obvious: If you dare criticize Obamacare, the media will out you, bully you and shame you into silence. Forget about the news. Forget about the truth. The White House can not be criticized.
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Wed Mar 13, 2013 11:49 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
Woodward is the left’s latest whipping boy because he is endangering the carefully crafted narrative of sequestration horror
The Obama-Media vs. Bob Woodward
- Arnold Ahlert Friday, March 1, 2013
As the result of his efforts to recount the genesis, and likely effects, of sequestration, the across-the-board spending cuts slated to begin Friday, Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward is getting a taste of what happens to those who challenge the Obama-Democrat-media machine.
Woodward’s allegations of inappropriate pressure from the White House were not only met with attacks from high-level administration lackeys, but Obama allies in the press immediately joined the feeding frenzy before any objective evidence was available—a chilling warning to anyone who would dare defy the power structure in Washington. And while debates about the intensity of the White House’s intimidation tactics are handy for undermining the credibility of the veteran reporter, looming in the background is the real source of the Left’s mob attack: Woodward’s vocal objections to the Obama administration’s narrative on the sequester.
Woodward began roiling the waters with a Feb. 22 piece for the Post, reiterating what he wrote in his book, “The Price of Politics.” He explained that the White House, not the Republican Party, was responsible for proposing the sequester. “Obama personally approved of the plan …according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved,” Woodward explained. This directly contradicts Obama’s assertion during the third presidential debate. “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said at the time. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”
Woodward undoubtedly antagonized the White House even more when he said the president was “moving the goalposts,” in reference to the idea that Obama insisted any new deal replacing the sequester would have to include additional revenue, not just spending cuts. “His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more,” wrote Woodward. “But that was not the deal he made.”
Yet Woodward still wasn’t through. On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” show broadcast February 27, Woodward criticized Obama again, for overstating the consequences of sequestration. “Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?’” Woodward asked. “Or George W. Bush saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need’ or even Bill Clinton saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ as he did when Clinton was president because of some budget document? Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country. That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time.”
On Wednesday night, he revealed that he had received pushback from the White House. During an interview with Politico, Woodward insisted that a top White House official, later identified as National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling, “yelled at me for about a half-hour,” and followed up that tirade with an email. “I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today,” Sperling wrote. “You’re focusing on a few specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. … I think you will regret staking out that claim.”
Woodward was seemingly annoyed by exchange. “‘You’ll regret.’ Come on,” he said. “I think if Obama himself saw the way they’re dealing with some of this, he would say, ‘Whoa, we don’t tell any reporter ‘you’re going to regret challenging us.’”
Woodward continued. “They have to be willing to live in the world where they’re challenged,” he insisted. “I’ve tangled with lots of these people. But suppose there’s a young reporter who’s only had a couple of years, or 10 years’ experience and the White House is sending him an email saying, ‘You’re going to regret this.’ You know, tremble, tremble. I don’t think it’s the way to operate.”
After that, the liberal media marshaled themselves against the reporter they have long considered an icon for bringing down the Left’s number one bete noire, Richard Nixon.
“Woodward Does Duty With the Phony Outrage Machine,” says the Huffington Post’s Eric Boehlert, who insisted that “by signing up for duty with the Phony Outrage Machine and by parading around on Fox News wringing his hands over a fictitious threat, Woodward does serious damage to his reputation.”
“Bob Woodward demands law-ignoring, mind-controlling presidential leadership” claims Salon’s Alex Pareene, who characterizes the reporter as one whose “modern reporting style does not put too much of a strain on his Ferragamo loafers: He simply talks to powerful people in his kitchen and then ‘re-creates’ events based on what they tell him.” Pareene longs for a Washington, D.C. “where no one talks to Woodward,” concluding that “Bob Woodward has lost it, let’s all stop indulging him.”
On Yesterday’s “Morning Joe” show, Mika Brzezinski mocked Woodward’s revelations about Sperling, wondering if he were “really afraid of a little aide who said that to him,” while panelists Mark Halperin and Andrea Mitchell, eager to promote the “everybody does it” meme to deflect criticism away from the current administration, insisted that they had been threatened by staff members of the Bush and Reagan White Houses, respectively.
Yet it was on Twitter where the left was in full attack mode. David Plouffe, former Obama campaign manager and current member of Organizing for America, claimed that “Watching Woodward last 2 days is like imagining my idol Mike Schmidt facing live pitching again. Perfection gained once is rarely repeated.” Former L.A. Times reporter Steve Weinstein said Woodward “is senile.” Politico White House reporter Glenn Thrush wondered if Woodward has “humped up his book sales from GOPers.”
Numerous other tweets ridiculing Woodward can be seen here and here. A common theme was that Woodward’s claims of being “threatened” were overblown. Yet Woodward never claimed he was threatened. It was the media who characterized his exchange with Sperling as such. Woodward told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that he felt “very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, you’re going to regret doing something that you believe in.” In his Politico interview he said, “Color me a little baffled. I don’t understand this White House. Do you?”
On the other hand, what Bill Clinton’s former attorney Lanny Davis revealed yesterday sounded very much like a threat. In an interview with WMAL radio, Davis said that during his stint writing columns for the Washington Times, his editor, John Solomon, “received a phone call from a senior Obama White House official who didn’t like some of my columns, even though I’m a supporter of Obama. I couldn’t imagine why this call was made.” Davis claims the aide told Solomon, “that if he continued to run my columns, he would lose, or his reporters would lose their White House credentials.”
Davis stood up for Woodward as well. “Firstly, you don’t threaten anyone. Secondly, you don’t threaten Bob Woodward,” he said. “He’s one of the best reporters ever. He’s factual. You can disagree with facts that he reports, but he’s factual. Don’t mess with him about his facts. You can mess with him about the interpretation of his facts, but this is not a reporter you tangle with.”
Yet that is exactly why Woodward has been targeted by a press corps that long ago abandoned truth-telling for two things they consider far more important: advocacy and access. Vast swaths of the media have become nothing more than an Amen Choir for the progressive agenda championed by Democrats and the Obama administration because they themselves are ideologically aligned with it.
As for access, the White House has made it clear that the greater the advocacy, the better the access. Nothing speaks to this better, albeit in the negative sense, than continuing efforts by this administration to delegitimize Fox News, an ongoing saga best illuminated by self-professed liberal columnist Kirsten Powers. Yet Powers clings to the anachronistic idea that “liberalism is founded on the idea of cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.” Founded perhaps, but abandoned long ago. Powers would do well to recall the Journolist scandal, a coordinated effort to stifle dissent perpetrated by 400 media and academic leftists. That “dissent” was an effort to expose the truth about the president’s relationship with racial arsonist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, which had the potential to endanger Obama’s 2008 election chances.
Woodward is the left’s latest whipping boy because he is endangering the carefully crafted narrative of sequestration horror—and Republican responsibility for it—being disseminated by the left. Woodward is being singled out precisely because all media leftists are expected to fall in line behind that narrative. Plenty of conservatives have hammered the president’s take-no-prisoner approach to sequestration. None of them have been taken to task by a White House aide, or thrust into the national spotlight for the purpose of ridicule.
In short, one of the “faithful” has wandered off the Obama-Democrat-media reservation. In the long run, it is likely that no one will be more surprised than Bob Woodward when he discovers that there will be no wandering back onto it
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Fri Mar 01, 2013 6:57 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
One good reason not to trust Fox News
Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2013 7:00 pm | Updated: 10:40 pm, Sat Feb 23, 2013.
FRANK MIELE/Daily Inter Lake | 3 comments
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and the same thing goes for Al Gore and Rupert Murdoch, right?
I wrote a column recently excoriating Al Gore for selling his Current TV cable channel to Al Jazeera, the Arabic news broadcast company based in Qatar. It isn’t just that Al Jazeera is Arabic, but rather that it is a mouthpiece for the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist causes.
Turns out that the new Al Jazeera America may not be the only problem, however. An interview with columnist Diana West on the website www.radicalislam.org has pointed to Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News as another unlikely point of origin for Islamic propaganda in the United States.
Before we consider the particulars, let’s look at the larger picture.
Does American freedom of the press mean that our country is obligated to provide a forum for those who would destroy us? That is the central philosophical question on which hinges our cultural survival — for if we cannot ban anti-American propaganda within our own borders, then the Constitution is indeed a suicide pact, as a Supreme Court justice once famously assured us it wasn’t.
Yes, I know we are a diverse society, and we welcome all opinions, but nonetheless it is insane to allow foreign agents to promote anti-American viewpoints from within our very own shores. That’s why I wrote a column last month that blasted Gore for selling his company to Al Jazeera and its Muslim Brotherhood backers.
But this isn’t just a problem created by liberal Democrats. It is a social problem, and it reaches so deep that it avoids any partisan label. There was plenty of evidence of American subservience to Islamic sensitivities during the Bush administration. President Bush was famous for calling Islam a “religion of peace” at the same time when its clerics were calling for his head on a platter.
More recently, a perfect example is the failure of the Army to declare the attack at Fort Hood either a military attack or terrorism. Nope, just a plain old psycho who coincidentally happened to be a Muslim in communication with Islamic terror leader Anwar al-Awlaki.
And one more example: The U.S. military has responded to attacks on our soldiers by their Afghan trainees not by halting the training programs, but by implementing “Islamic sensitivity” sessions so that our GIs know why they annoy the Afghans so much.
Which brings us back to Fox News and Rupert Murdoch. I’d been vaguely aware that a minority shareholder in Fox News was Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, but the interview with Diana West showed just how much concern that should cause. Not only does bin Talal own 7 percent of Murdoch’s News Corp, but Murdoch also owns 19 percent of Rotana, which is bin Talal’s Arabic media group. These two are intimately involved in each other’s profit motives, and West makes a convincing case that Fox News has avoided controversial topics involving Islam ever since bin Talal made his first investment in News Corp in 2005.
Indeed, bin Talal bragged publicly that year about complaining to Murdoch that Fox News was characterizing street violence in Paris as “Muslim riots.” A short while later, Fox joined the rest of the mainstream media in referring to the “civil riots” in Paris without reference to the Islamic origin of the unrest.
It appears that Alwaleed’s investment in Fox News, as well as Al Jazeera’s purchase of Current TV, both represent the culmination of a plan which Alwaleed himself expressed in a 2002 interview with his own Arab News:
“Arab countries can influence U.S. decision making “if they unite through economic interests, not political… We have to be logical and understand that the U.S. administration is subject to U.S. public opinion. … And to bring the decision-maker on your side, you not only have to be active in the U.S. Congress or the administration, but also inside U.S. society.”
That is an absolutely transparent confession of what is going on, and yet Congress, the news media and the American public just act as though it doesn’t matter. They apparently believe that the United States is invulnerable to any threat — foreign or domestic — and that we really ought to just welcome our Muslim brothers to our shore as part of the great American melting pot that is now so diluted that there is virtually nothing American left about it.
Ask yourself: How exactly does the United States benefit by having the propaganda arm of the Muslim Brotherhood and the worldwide Islamic revolution being welcomed into millions of homes across the country?
I guess there’s nothing like humanizing the face of jihad so that Mr. and Mrs America can start to feel better about submitting to sharia (Islamic law) and dhimmitude (subservience by non-Muslims to their Islamic betters). Not much chance we will be watching programming on the “Real Oppressed Wives of The Casbah” or “My Big Fat Obnoxious Terrorist.” Instead, it will be a steady stream of how reasonable, rational and peaceful everyone is in the Middle East when they are not throwing together a “spontaneous demonstration” outside the U.S. mission in Benghazi, sentencing rape victims to death for provoking men by not wearing a burka, or stoning Christians for… well… for being Christians.
Oh, wait, I remember now. As I have been informed by my liberal betters, there is no reason to fear Islam. It is just right-wing hate speech to point out the historical basis of that fear. It is bug-eyed McCarthyism to suggest that foreign elements might not have America’s best interests at heart (even though history has proven that McCarthy was right about the Soviet Union’s spy network operating throughout the U.S. government in the 1950s).
Muslims, we are told, are not our enemy until they do something to prove they are an enemy. But tell that to journalist Danny Pearl, who was kidnapped in Pakistan in 2001 by Islamic fundamentalists who later cut his head off. Tell it to Nick Berg, a Jewish American businessman who was executed in Iraq by the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in 2004. Tell it to Eugene Armstrong or Jack Hensley, American contractors who were also decapitated after being captured in Iraq in 2004. These are but the tiniest indicators of the nature of Islam, but like the arrow of a compass aiming infallibly toward the magnetic field at the North Pole, these murders point inexorably toward the gathering force that confronts Western civilization.
But, of course, we need to all try to get along — so the less said about those brutal murders the better. We don’t want to insult our Muslim brothers by making them feel unwelcome. Remember, our self-interest as a free society should always come second if there is the slightest chance that our honesty might offend someone from a more oppressive, less tolerant culture. Otherwise we are being selfish, and that is politically incorrect.
Which is why, I suppose, there is absolutely no way for our country to stop our enemies from taking over our media centers, our digital networks, our manufacturing facilities, probably even our military and our government eventually. We are just too darn polite to ever say anything about how much our institutions and traditions mean to us. We used to fight to the death to preserve our culture, but now we are way TOO cultured to presume that the American way of life is in any way better than any other.
Hey, maybe that anti-American propaganda is working! Just a thought.
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Sun Feb 24, 2013 3:44 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
By Michael, on February 14th, 2013
Do you believe that you really think for yourself? Did you come up with your attitudes, opinions and beliefs on your own, or are they continually being shaped and molded by someone else? Could it be possible that you and everyone around you is actually hooked into a real life version of "the matrix" that is constantly defining your reality for you? Sadly, the truth is that almost all of us have willingly hooked ourselves into a colossal media system that literally tells us what to think. In the United States today, the average American watches 153 hours of television a month. We also spend huge amounts of time watching movies, surfing the Internet, reading books and magazines, playing video games and listening to music. Many Americans are so addicted to being "connected" that they will actually become physically uncomfortable if they are at home and there is total silence. Unfortunately, as I pointed out in a previous article, somewhere around 90 percent of the "information" that we are allowing to be endlessly pumped into our heads is owned by just 6 gigantic media corporations. So could it be possible that the thousands of hours of "news and entertainment" that you are allowing these gigantic corporations to fill your head with each year is having an effect on you? Does the mainstream media have more control over you than you ever dreamed possible? If you want to continue on in blissful ignorance, stop reading now, but if you want to take "the red pill", keep on reading because the further down the rabbit hole you go, the stranger that things get.
When you go to work or to school in the morning, what is everyone talking about?
Usually, people are talking about something that they saw on television or that they heard about in the news.
In our society today, the limited interactions that we do have with other people are usually defined by our mutual connection to the media.
The mainstream media literally defines for us what is important and what is not. If the mainstream media does not talk about something, then it simply does not matter.
I don’t know how many times over the years I have heard someone tell me some version of the following statement: "If that was true we would have heard about it on the news."
Has anyone ever said something similar to you?
The funny thing is that most of the time I won’t even mention something important that I may have heard in one of my articles unless I can back it up with a "mainstream source", and I don’t even trust the mainstream media.
I know that the mainstream media often distorts the facts and often tells outright lies, but I regularly link to them because that gives my articles more "credibility" in the eyes of those that are still fully hooked into the matrix.
In a world where the big media corporations have so much power, is there any hope for us?
As long as the big corporations that control the media are dominating and controlling the conversation, is there any chance that there will ever be a mass awakening among the American people?
Our young people seem particularly addicted to being constantly "connected" to the media matrix that is being constructed all around us. The following is a brief excerpt from a recent article by Daniel Taylor…
According to a 2010 LA Times report, young people spend on average 53 hours a week watching TV, playing video games, and sitting at the computer.
Facebook users spend about 15 hours a month on the social networking site.
People are walking – and driving – blindly while texting, sometimes walking into fountains and even falling off cliffs.
Wow – our young people spend more than 200 hours a month connected to the mainstream media?
But we only have about 480 waking hours a month to work with.
If they are being exposed to that amount of continuous propaganda, what hope do our young people have?
In the old days, kids actually played with each other in the streets and adults actually left their homes to interact with one another.
But these days we spend nearly all of our time sitting passively in our homes staring at flickering screens.
Is that a sign of a healthy society?
We were created to be social creatures. We were designed to love and to be loved. But these days people "love" their favorite sports teams or they "love" their favorite television shows but we have an increasingly difficult time having real relationships with each other.
Meanwhile, the global elite rely on the mainstream media to keep us distracted and to control the boundaries of public discourse. Most of the time, the mainstream media focuses on the latest celebrity scandal or the latest dogfights between the Republicans and the Democrats and they systematically ignore many of the more important things that are taking place out there.
Let me just give you one example of how the mainstream media shapes the news. For decades, there was almost a complete and total media blackout on the Bilderberg Group meetings that happen every year. Top newspaper executives from the United States would actually attend these meetings, but then their newspapers would not say a single word about them.
If anyone out there did bring up "the Bilderberg Group", they were dismissed as wacky "conspiracy theorists" and were told that it simply does not exist.
Of course now we all know that it does exist, although the mainstream media in the U.S. still mostly ignores it. In fact, this has been by design. The following is what David Rockefeller is alleged to have said during a Bilderberg Group meeting back in 1991…
We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. … It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.
Even today, many prominent "journalists" in the U.S. mock people when they bring up the Bilderberg Group. For example, Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC says that he is "way too lazy" to look into the Bilderberg Group and that he "doesn’t know about it, so it must not exist".
For much more on the connection between the mainstream media and the global elite, please see this article: "Who Runs The World? Solid Proof That A Core Group Of Wealthy Elitists Is Pulling The Strings".
Instead of telling us what is really going on in the world, the mainstream media keeps us endlessly distracted. The following are just a few of the headlines that can be found on the front pages of major mainstream news sites right now…
-College student creates condom delivery service
-Michael Douglas is feeling ‘good’
-Golf tournament delayed by kangaroos
-Rock ‘n’ roll hamburger experience
-Lady Gaga cancels tour, set for surgery
Wow – those are some examples of some really hard-hitting journalism right there.
So why do most Americans continue to fall for this nonsense?
Sadly, part of the reason is because we have become so "dumbed down" as a society.
Recently, the Guardian conducted an evaluation of the reading level of every State of the Union address in U.S. history. What they found is that Barack Obama’s State of the Union addresses have had the second lowest reading level average in history, and that in general the reading levels of the speeches have been significantly declining over time.
But it is not just our presidents that appear to be getting stupider. The truth is that our public education system is a total joke at this point. Many of our high school students are as dumb as a rock, and if you can believe it, 23 percent of all Americans cannot even read beyond a fourth-grade level.
Of course the elite are quite pleased with this, because a stupid public is a public that is easier to dominate.
When a large segment of the population can barely read and is accustomed to letting others do their thinking for them, it becomes easier to lie.
For example, on Thursday Paul Krugman of the New York Times made the following statement…
"Growing dependence on government is mostly a myth"
Of course most of you that are reading this know that is a flat-out lie. The charts in this article clearly show that the number of Americans on food stamps is at an all-time high and the percentage of the population that is on food stamps is at an all-time high.
Back in 1983, less than a third of all Americans lived in a household that got money from the federal government each month, Now, an all-time high 49 percent of all Americans live in a home where at least one person receives money from the government each month.
For many more stats and charts that demonstrate the stunning growth of government dependence, please see this article and this article.
Sadly, the truth doesn’t seem to matter too much to the media these days. The mainstream media tends to be incredibly arrogant, and most of the time they don’t even pretend to be "objective" or "neutral" anymore.
Fortunately, more Americans than ever are becoming dissatisfied with the mainstream media and are starting to seek out alternative sources of information. According to a recent Gallup poll, the level of trust that the American public has in the mainstream media is now at an all-time low.
So perhaps there is hope after all.
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Fri Feb 15, 2013 12:19 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
Jimmy Savile Was Part of Satanic Ring; Other BBC Star Stuart Hall Charged with Sexual Abuse on Children
Jan 23rd, 2013 | Category: Latest News
In the past months, we’ve seen an incredible amount of information surfacing regarding Jimmy Savile and his decades of sexual abuse. As I stated in the article entitled Jimmy Savile: A Prime Example of an Entertainment Industry Abuser Protected by the Elite, Savile was not just a deranged molester, he was part of a large, organized and elite-protected network that systematically abuses and traumatizes children for its own twisted ends. Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) is practiced in closed elite circles and is one of the basic techniques used in Monarch Mind control. The following article from the Sunday Express describes the ordeal suffered by two victims.
JIMMY SAVILE WAS PART OF SATANIC RING
JIMMY SAVILE beat and raped a 12-year-old girl during a secret satanic ritual in a hospital.
The perverted star wore a hooded robe and mask as he abused the terrified victim in a candle-lit basement.He also chanted “Hail Satan” in Latin as other paedophile devil worshippers joined in and assaulted the girl at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Buckinghamshire. The attack, which happened in 1975, shines a sinister new light on the former DJ’s 54-year reign of terror.Savile, who died aged 84 in October 2011, is now Britain’s worst sex offender after police revealed he preyed on at least 450 victims aged eight to 47.The girl kept her torment hidden for nearly 20 years before finally opening up to therapist Valerie Sinason.Dr Sinason told the Sunday Express she first spoke to the victim in 1992. “She had been a patient at Stoke Mandeville in 1975 when Savile was a regular visitor.“She recalled being led into a room that was filled with candles on the lowest level of the hospital, somewhere that was not regularly used by staff. Several adults were there, including Jimmy Savile who, like the others, was wearing a robe and a mask.“She recognised him because of his distinctive voice and the fact that his blond hair was protruding from the side of the mask. He was not the leader but he was seen as important because of his fame.“She was molested, raped and beaten and heard words that sounded like ‘Ave Satanas’, a Latinised version of ‘Hail Satan’, being chanted. There was no mention of any other child being there and she cannot remember how long the attack lasted but she was left extremely frightened and shaken.”Savile was a volunteer porter and fundraiser at the hospital between 1965 and 1988 and had his own quarters there.
Five years after the hospital attack, he abused a second victim during another black mass ceremony held at a house in a wealthy London street.
The woman was 21 at the time and was made to attend an orgy, which later took on a darker twist.
Dr Sinason, director of the Clinic for Dissociative Studies in London, said: “A second victim approached me in 1993. She said she had been ‘lent out’ as a supposedly consenting prostituted woman at a party in a London house in 1980.
“The first part of the evening started off with an orgy but half-way through some of the participants left.
“Along with other young women, the victim was shepherded to wait in another room before being brought back to find Savile in a master of ceremonies kind of role with a group wearing robes and masks. She too heard Latin chanting and instantly recognised satanist regalia. Although the girl was a young adult, who was above the age of consent, she had suffered a history of sexual abuse and was extremely vulnerable.”
Both victims contacted Dr Sinason, who is president of the Institute of Psychotherapy and Disability, while she was involved in a Department of Health-funded study into sexual abuse committed during rituals and religious ceremonies. She said: “Both these witnesses did speak to police at the time but were vulnerable witnesses and on encountering any surprise or shock did not dare to give all the details.”
The police took no action.
Dr Sinason added: “Savile was still a huge celebrity in the early Nineties, let’s not forget, and there was never any action taken against him or any of the others involved.“Neither girl knew one another, they lived in different parts of the country and contacted me a year apart yet their experiences are very similar. Whether Savile was a practising Satanist or merely enjoyed dressing up to scare his victims even more will perhaps never be known but he left those two girls mentally scarred.”
Dr Sinason has passed details of the abuse to officers from the Savile inquiry, Operation Yewtree.
A joint report published on Friday by the Metropolitan Police and the NSPCC uncovered at least 30 claims of abuse at Stoke Mandeville.
The hospital said it was unable to discuss individual cases while its own “Speaking Out” investigation was ongoing.
Anne Eden, chief executive of Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, said: “As the investigation’s name suggests, it is very keen to hear from anybody with any knowledge that they feel could help its work or anybody that needs support because of Jimmy Savile’s alleged behaviour.”
- Source: Sunday Express
Yes, you have read correctly. Satanic Ritual Abuse was happening right in government-owned NHS Hospitals. Eerily enough, a few months before this scandal surfaced, I mentioned in the article on the 2012 London Olympic Ceremonies how the bit on the NHS oddly referred to child abuse and trauma-based mind control. I guess it was truly the elite celebrating its abuse of children within NHS buildings.
During the 2012 London Olympics Ceremonies, the NHS was “celebrated” in a disturbing way, by showing helpless children being terrified by dark forces. The show ended with a strange giant baby with a “fracture” on its forehead.
Other BBC Star Stuart Hall Charged with Sexual Abuse on Children
More proof that we are dealing with an elite network of child abuse: BBC sports commentator Stuart Hall was charged with rape and sex offenses against children. Hall had close ties with the Royal Family and was even made Officer of the Order of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth in 2012. The Royal Family sure loves child abusers.
BBC star with royal links charged with rape, sex offenses against children
LONDON — A BBC sports commentator and entertainer — so popular that members of Britain’s royal family once took part in his game show — has been charged with raping a woman and indecently assaulting girls as young as nine, according to police.
Stuart Hall, 83, who was made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire by Queen Elizabeth in 2012 for services to broadcasting and charity, was arrested Tuesday morning after going to a police station voluntarily. He had covered soccer for BBC Radio 5 Live until recently.
The Associated Press noted the allegations had deepened “concerns about sex abuse by top BBC personalities decades ago.”
In 1999, more than 50 British lawmakers signed a motion in parliament to congratulate Hall for 40 years in television with one, Tom Pendry, describing him as an “icon with the youth of today.”
Hall, famed for laughing hysterically, has commentated on soccer matches since the 1950s. He is known for his off-the-wall approach to covering the sport.
He also hosted the comedy game show “It’s a Knockout” in the 1970s and 1980s.
In 1987, four members of the U.K. royal family – Prince Andrew, Princess Anne, Prince Edward and Sarah, Duchess of York — took part in a one-off version of the show for charity, which was hosted by Hall. Stars such as Meatloaf, John Travolta and John Cleese also participated.
In a statement Tuesday, Lancashire Constabulary said Hall, of Wilmslow in Cheshire, England, was alleged to have raped a 22-year-old woman in 1976.
“The indecent assault offences are alleged to have been committed between 1967 and 1986 and to involve 10 girls aged between 9 and 16 years,” the statement said.
Hall was given bail Tuesday and is due to appear before a court in Preston on Feb. 7.
In December, police said Hall had been charged with three counts of indecent assault.
The charges against Hall come amid a string of claims that famous Britons committed sexual offenses, mostly during the 1960s and 1970s.
These came to light after it emerged that the late Jimmy Savile, who was one of Britain’s top entertainers for decades, was a prolific sex offender.
Earlier this month, police released a report cataloging more than 50 years of rapes and indecent assaults, saying he had committed at least 214 sex crimes against victims as young as 8.
Like Hall, Savile was also honored by the British queen, receiving a knighthood.
A number of other high-profile figures have been questioned by police, including former glam rock singer Gary Glitter and comedian Freddie Starr, who both deny any wrongdoing.
- Source: NBC News
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Sun Jan 27, 2013 2:20 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:05 pm
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com