Video: Has The Media Also Met Its Waterloo?
Limbaugh contended “they have sacrificed whatever integrity, character, professionalism, ethics that they've had” so now “their total reason – most of them –for existence” is “propping this guy up.”
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air agrees with Rush that the media has committed their "voice" to supporting Obama's economic policies:
"Rush has this dead-on correct, especially in the weird promotion of the press conference. Perhaps they did the same thing for George Bush, who held very few prime-time press conferences in eight years, but I don’t recall it. The media, especially the televised media, appear to have hung their economic fortunes on Obama."
From Brent Bakers post at the Media Research Center recapping Rush's interview with Greta:
"Journalists are “sitting around with the tingles up their legs all day” as “they marvel at how Obama is so smooth and elegant,” yet, Limbaugh observed in the interview conducted in Florida, over 50 percent of the people “oppose this health care plan,” prompting him to ask and answer: “Who's telling the people what's in it? Alternative media, your network, talk radio, the conservative blog network. The mainstream media has cashed in its chips, they have become nothing more than stenographers for Rahm Emanuel.”
As I posted here a while back, (that Megyn Kelly and Bill Hemmer pointed out), the mainstream media is not only "cheerleading" for Obama and the Democrats agenda to nationalize healthcare, they refuse to REPORT ON ANY FACTUAL LEGISLATION that is getting "created" in the House or the FINANCIAL IMPACT this nation must endure over the next decade. While Ms. Pelosi and Rham Emanuel believe they have enough votes in the House to ram this bill through, the reality is this debate if far from over. The direction "our" mainstream media lapdogs for this liberal agenda may very well become their Waterloo. Stay tuned.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Friday, July 03, 2009
Independent Thoughts
"The Iraqi people have decided that they want a unified country"........Joe Biden
Gee Joe, what a novel thought.........Do you think this unification obsession might also include yearning to be free from an oppressive and intrusive government? Is this “decision” even possibly inherent in most civilized societies when they discover that a representative government means each individual has a say in how they will be governed? Does “we the people” ring any bells? Further, did the Iraqi people also have “an enlightenment” when they realized that an embraced religion could be a matter of choice, and not a mandate by their government? Could other neighboring societies such as Afghanistan and Iran also be looking inward to ask similar questions about how their futures could look like? Lastly, did George W. Bush possibly facilitate his own version of Reagan’s vision to “tear down these walls”?
That it can be argued, (as our dear liberal friends on the left profusely perfected), that “we” (our government), should not be in the practice of “nation building”--while using terms such as “occupiers”—doesn’t our own history of leaving “conquered” governments, (that were oppressive to its people and other nations), back into the hands of its people? Does the perfect examples of liberated countries like Germany and Japan, (two nations that transformed themselves into relatively peaceful democratic societies), after they were crushed by a determined American army hell bent on ending their oppressive and destructive governments? Or are words like liberty and freedom only reserved for the elite left who think other societies and governments should be left alone to fester their oppressive tendencies? Reagan saw the Soviet Union breaking down from within, and, (without firing a shot), he built up our defenses in a “race” he knew the Soviet government could not win, but felt compelled to participate in. By shifting precious, (and limited), economic resources the Soviet government destroyed their infrastructure preparing for a battle that would never come to fruition. And the people of the Soviet Union trusted their leadership in this decision through a state run media that had no input or dissenting opinion to change the course. The rest is history.
Are there any similarities here where a government, (who clearly has an overly zealous media that inhibits impartial judgment) is embattled in a philosophy/ideology that it is the governments’ sole responsibility to provide every need of its people? And are we dangerously ceding* too much control and power to this government to the point where reliance becomes outright dependency? The “shifting of resources” from a private market system, (capitalism), to a government run entity, (dare I say embracing socialist tendencies), may be enticing and appear to have good intentions, but at what point did “we the people” decide to cede* our independence, liberty, and freedoms, (where we proclaimed individual responsibility, and rights endowed by our creator), to our government?
*(special thanks to "lefty" in comments for correcting my grammar---seeding/ceding)
"The Iraqi people have decided that they want a unified country"........Joe Biden
Gee Joe, what a novel thought.........Do you think this unification obsession might also include yearning to be free from an oppressive and intrusive government? Is this “decision” even possibly inherent in most civilized societies when they discover that a representative government means each individual has a say in how they will be governed? Does “we the people” ring any bells? Further, did the Iraqi people also have “an enlightenment” when they realized that an embraced religion could be a matter of choice, and not a mandate by their government? Could other neighboring societies such as Afghanistan and Iran also be looking inward to ask similar questions about how their futures could look like? Lastly, did George W. Bush possibly facilitate his own version of Reagan’s vision to “tear down these walls”?
That it can be argued, (as our dear liberal friends on the left profusely perfected), that “we” (our government), should not be in the practice of “nation building”--while using terms such as “occupiers”—doesn’t our own history of leaving “conquered” governments, (that were oppressive to its people and other nations), back into the hands of its people? Does the perfect examples of liberated countries like Germany and Japan, (two nations that transformed themselves into relatively peaceful democratic societies), after they were crushed by a determined American army hell bent on ending their oppressive and destructive governments? Or are words like liberty and freedom only reserved for the elite left who think other societies and governments should be left alone to fester their oppressive tendencies? Reagan saw the Soviet Union breaking down from within, and, (without firing a shot), he built up our defenses in a “race” he knew the Soviet government could not win, but felt compelled to participate in. By shifting precious, (and limited), economic resources the Soviet government destroyed their infrastructure preparing for a battle that would never come to fruition. And the people of the Soviet Union trusted their leadership in this decision through a state run media that had no input or dissenting opinion to change the course. The rest is history.
Are there any similarities here where a government, (who clearly has an overly zealous media that inhibits impartial judgment) is embattled in a philosophy/ideology that it is the governments’ sole responsibility to provide every need of its people? And are we dangerously ceding* too much control and power to this government to the point where reliance becomes outright dependency? The “shifting of resources” from a private market system, (capitalism), to a government run entity, (dare I say embracing socialist tendencies), may be enticing and appear to have good intentions, but at what point did “we the people” decide to cede* our independence, liberty, and freedoms, (where we proclaimed individual responsibility, and rights endowed by our creator), to our government?
On this “Declaration of Independence Day”, perhaps “WE THE PEOPLE”, should revisit the separation our forefathers intended between a government and its people where the delicate balance may be dangerously shifting too far in one direction.“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
*(special thanks to "lefty" in comments for correcting my grammar---seeding/ceding)
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
11th-hour votes on state budget fail
Rich Pedroncelli / Associated PressAssembly Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles), with Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), responds to a question concerning the cash crisis during a news conference at the Capitol.
Full story posted at Hot Air----The Green Room
(Sister Toldjah has a caption contest up here, but I've respectfully protested, claiming these two above also deserve recognition.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)