Ron Paul: Obama ‘deserves an F’ ANDY BARR Politico
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Thursday that President Barack Obama deserves a failing grade for his first 200 days in office. The libertarian-minded Republican ultimately graded the president at a just-passing “D” when asked to rate Obama’s performance during an interview on CNN’s “American Morning,” though only because he decided to factor in extenuating circumstances.
“I’d probably give them a D. He deserves an F, but I give him a D to make one point is that he’s not responsible for this mess,”
Paul said. “The last administration has a lot to do with this. The Congress has a lot to do with it,” the former presidential candidate added. “So I would say he’s failing, but he doesn’t deserve all of the blame.”
http://yournetwork.tv/episode_constitutional.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INtoIkn0k28
http://www.shatteringdenial.com/obama.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama’s-embrace-of-a-bush-tactic-riles-congress.html
Obama’s Embrace of a Bush Tactic Riles Congress
CHARLIE SAVAGE NY Times
President Obama has issued signing statements claiming the authority to bypass dozens of provisions of bills enacted into law since he took office, provoking mounting criticism by lawmakers from both parties. President George W. Bush, citing expansive theories about his constitutional powers, set off a national debate in 2006 over the propriety of signing statements — instructions to executive officials about how to interpret and put in place new laws — after he used them to assert that he could authorize officials to bypass laws like a torture ban and oversight provisions of the USA Patriot Act. In the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama called Mr. Bush’s use of signing statements an “abuse,” and said he would issue them with greater restraint. The Obama administration says the signing statements the president has signed so far, challenging portions of five bills, have been based on mainstream interpretations of the Constitution and echo reservations routinely expressed by presidents of both parties. Still, since taking office, Mr. Obama has relaxed his criteria for what kinds of signing statements are appropriate. And last month several leading Democrats — including Representatives Barney Frank of Massachusetts and David R. Obey of Wisconsin — sent a letter to Mr. Obama complaining about one of his signing statements.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc
http://www.prisonplanet.com/you-tube-pulls-hundreds-of-ron-paul-videos.html
You Tube Pulls Hundreds Of Ron Paul Videos
Popular C-Span Junkie user channel suspended, 6400 videos gone
Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com
You Tube has expanded its zealous copyright crusade by suspending the popular C-Span Junkie user channel, and in doing so has pulled hundreds of viral Ron Paul videos, which are now completely dead.
The C-Span Junkie user channel, a non-partisan archive of short clips taken from C-Span broadcasts of events in the Congress and the Senate, has been the home of the vast majority of You Tube videos you have seen of Bernanke, Geithner, Paulson and others being confronted in Congress, as well as Ron Paul’s speeches on the House floor. A total of more than 6400 videos in all have been pulled, hundreds of which featured the Texan Congressman.
Whether or not C-Span itself requested that You Tube pull the channel is not known, but it is clearly in the public interest and constitutes fair use to show a clip less than 10 minutes in length of what the people who are supposedly our Representatives are saying in Congress on our behalf. As we have highlighted before, You Tube arbitrarily suspends accounts based on flimsy copyright claims that aren’t even properly
investigated.
We had our own You Tube account suspended following a copyright complaint from a separate party who didn’t even own the copyright on the original material. In addition, the copyright claim was clearly erroneous as it was based on the fact that Alex Jones held up a printed version of an online newspaper story for a few seconds on camera. The channel was eventually reinstated after You Tube received a flood of complaints.
I dont know if you can imagine what its like to in a moment see 6400 videos gone, writes the channel owner on the C Span Junkie website, Figure 6400 hours (easily) poof GONE! I did this for the common good and now it all gone.
The channel has now been replaced with a new account but its unlikely to survive long if the owner dares to post anything of substance.
Truth is no longer acceptable on You Tube as it transforms itself into a pale reflection of Hulu, a site owned and operated by NBC Universal (GE) and Fox Entertainment Group (News Corp), that is to say a joint venture by a corporation owned by a death merchant (GE manufactures attack helicopters and jet engines) and a disinformation platform owned by a notorious neocon, Rupert Murdoch.
In the Hulu-ized universe, there is no room for truth or alternative media all channels will contain the same schlock and mindless pablum already available on cable and broadcast television.
Videos of members of Congress grilling Bernanke and his cohorts about auditing the Fed and finding out where trillions in missing TARP funds has disappeared to just arent part of the sanitized and lobotomized video landscape that You Tube wants to portray.
If you post videos about people eating each others vomit or clips of plastic bimbos with their breasts hanging out then youll be left alone, but God forbid should anyone try to give the country a window on whats actually happening in Congress and what their own Representatives are talking about in that case your thought crimes will immediately be censored and removed.
grandchild isbella peace - jesus peace childrenlove
Jesus love isbella love friend love family love truth love ellen
| YOURTRUTH- Big Media Part 1 | YOURTRUTH- Big Media Part 2 |
http://yournetwork.tv/episode_media.php
Big Media Episode Tools of Action Resources Transcript Back To Episodes
The late comedian George Carlin once observed that Americans have "owners" who "control just about all of the news and information you get to hear." Do you think of our mainstream media outlets as mouthpieces for balanced journalism? theN3TWORK's creative team has put together its most comprehensive episode to date, dissecting the power structures behind American corporate media and exposing glaring conflicts of interest. We also encapsulate the most critical changes in media regulation policy over the last century and discuss the implications for the rise of alternative media with the current Director of Project Censored, Peter Phillips. http://www.projectcensored.org/ Tools of Action
http://www.thecorporation.com/ The Corporation- a film by Mark Achbar, Jennifer Abbott & Joel Bakan-Watch the film and get involved
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/ Downing Street Memo Take action Send a letter to your representative to pass a Resolution of Dissapproval HJ Res 79 to limit media consolidation
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/ Stop Big Media Start a Blog and find out how to advertise for it Start an online radio show Start an ezine Burn DVDs of any online documentaries or videos that you want to share, and pass them out to your friends, family, and community. Print out flyers of information that concerns you and leave them around your city in coffeeshops, concerts, libraries, and community centers.
Common Cause Media & Democracy Program Spark a grassroots firestorm on Media Ownership Rules
Support Low Power FM radio Tell the FCC: no more media consolidation! Become a Free Press E Activist Tell your Representatives to Fight Media Consolidation. Write and Call your Represenatives here Resources
Big 6: CBS (http://yournetwork.tv/episode_media.php )
Big 6: General Electric (http://yournetwork.tv/episode_media.php .)
Big 6: News Corporation (http://yournetwork.tv/episode_media.php )
Big 6: Time Warner (http://yournetwork.tv/episode_media.php .)
Big 6: Walt Disney (http://yournetwork.tv/episode_media.php .)
Big 6: Viacom Board (http://yournetwork.tv/episode_media.php )
Articles The 1949 Fairness Doctrine The Trial ofJohn Peter Zenger PBS-History of the Fairness Doctrine PBS- Big and Bigger Media Ted Turner speaks up against Big Media FCC on its Knees Deregulation of the Media Comcast censors criticisms of itself and Rep. Carney
UPDATE: PREPACKAGED NEWS Fake News and Propaganda: Shaping our Reality Bush Media Manipulation In Turbo Mode:
The Fleecing and Flogging of Americans
Operation Mockingbird: CIA Media Manipulation Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News Media Manipulation Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: "Media Isn't Doing It's Job" 1996 Telecommunications Act under Bill Clinton More Americans are turning to the Web for News Billions from the Bailout given to Goldman Sachs Bank for Future Salary Bonuses Bush planted fake news stories on American Tv Rumsfeld Fake News Campaign Kucinich's Articles of Impeachment Case for Impeachment Builds,The Downing Street memo The Guardian- Downing Street has Blair in Firing Line UK Times Online- The Secret Downing Street memo Christian Science Monitor- Why has the Downing Street memo been a dud in American Press? Media Matters- Mainstream media cover up of Downing Street memo 9/11 Timeline News Dominated Clinton's sex scandal Kucinish presents case for Impeachment Washington Post- Bush Administration spends 1.6 billion dollars on fake news Station Fails to Disclose Video News Releases Democracy Now Covers VNR star Presenting VNR's without disclosure may Violate Federal Law Mass Media Unleashed- How Washington Policymakers Shortchanged American Public Public Trustee Obligation Fcc on its knees-Mark Fowler and Media Policy Websites Constitutional Role of the Media in our Democracy An Apology for Printers Freedom of the Press Big Media Overview with Bill Moyer Big Media Interlocks with Corporate America Media RegulationsTimeline Regulating Broadcast Media Majority of adults get their information from TV Networks Colombia Journalism Review-Who Owns What-General Electric Colombia Journalism Review-Who Owns What- Disney Colombia Journalism Review-Who Owns What- Time Warner Inc. Colombia Journalism Review-Who Owns What- Viacom Colombia Journalism Review-Who Owns What- CBS
Colombia Journalism Review-Who Owns What- News Corporations Columbia Journalism Review-Who Owns What- Clear Channel Communications Goldman sachs The Brookings Institution Over 50% of Americans don't trust mainstream press World Trade Center #7 27% of Americans wanted Clinton Impeached Media
and Communication Policy After Downing Street Wikipedia- Video News Release Additional Links of Interest: Project Censored- Media Democracy in Action Free Press- Reform media.
Transform Democracy Stop Big Media PBS- Media Consolidation Big Media vs. the Grassroots: A status report Important dates for the Freedom of Expression Freedom of the Press Timeline Global Issues- Media Manipulation Newswatch Commoncause.org Videos Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand MSNBC refuses to show Building Seven collapse video from Physicist Steven Jones Fox News reporters fired for telling the truth Computer Programer admits to building software to rig elections Video- Kucinich presents 35 articles of impeachment Book Goodman, Amy, and Goodman, David. Static:
Government Liars, Media Cheerleaders, and the People Who Fight Back. New York: Hyperion, 2006 Transcript Welcome to yourTruth. In this episode we wanted to investigate why corporate news outlets weren't highlighting issues that greatly affect our health, pocketbooks, and our freedom. That's when we heard that the news didn't have to tell us the truth, and that there are no regulations or laws that make news outlets tell us what our corporations, our government, and our decisions makers are doing. Don't believe us? After learning
about the Fox news case, we investigated what the FCC's policy was on news stations or broadcasters distorting or slanting the news. What we found out is that there is no law in place against distorting the news, only a suggestion for broadcasters.
The Federal Communications Consumer
Facts states: "As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. Broadcasters are responsible for deciding what their stations present to the public". Once we knew it's not against the law for corporate news to distort the truth, our next question was could they also be censoring stories from the American public? That's when we found Project Censored, founded in 1976. Project Censored uncovers the top 25 national news stories censored by corporate media. We sat down with Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University,
and current Director of Project Censored, Peter Phillips, to get the scoop. Stories are being censored to protect corporate interest? But there are hundreds of different channels! It seems absurd to think that all of these channels are conspiring to censor information from the public. That's when we found out that these hundreds of channels, news stations, and other media outlets are all owned by only six corporations. How does this media structure protect and benefit the corporate elite? Let's start at the top. There are six major corporations, commonly called the "Big Six". They are: General Electric or NBC, Telemundo, Universal pictures, Walt Disney, ABC, The History Channel, and ESPN, Viacom or MTV, BET, and Paramount Pictures, CBS, who in 2004 split from Viacom, owns CBS radio, CBS television, and Showtime, News Corporation or Fox news, the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, and MySpace, and Time Warner Inc. or CNN, Time Magazine, and Warner Brothers. These six corporations have become the voice for America, but how do they protect the corporate elite? Introducing: the corporate family tree.
Every corporation has a Board of Directors and Executives, but the people on these boards don't just serve one corporation. Most of them sit on numerous corporate boards, think tanks, lobbies, institutions, and government agencies. For example, Lloyd Trotter is the Divisional CEO, President, and Vice Chairman of General Electric, Director or Pepsi CO. and Director of Textron Inc., a weapons contractor. Is there a conflict of interest when a board member sits on the board of a media company and a weapons contractor when we are at war, and when war is profitable to weapons contractors? Could the media be distorting news on genetically modified foods because a board member sits on a media company and one of the largest snack and beverage distributors that uses genetically modified foods? Another example is Aylwin Lewis, the Independent Director of Walt Disney and Director of Halliburton, the company contracted to rebuild Iraq. Is there a conflict of interest when a person sits on the board of a media company and on Halliburton? Could this media board member be invested in the war? John Bryson, Director of Disney, is also the Director of Boeing, the world's largest aerospace and military engineering firm that makes missiles, 747's, launch vehicles and more. He is also invested in a number of banks. Frederic Salerno, Director of Viacom, is also the Director of CBS (both companies are part of he Big Six). Additionally, he is the Director of National Fuel and Gas Company. Did the media properly investigate the gas crisis if one of their board members is invested in the market? Viet Dinh, is an Executive of News Corporation, and also authored the Patriot Act.
http://www.pbs.org/moyersonamerica/BIG AND BIGGER MEDIA Why is a media board member writing government legislation that undermines our civil liberties? Our final example is Stephen Bollenbach, the Independent Director and Chairman of the Finance Committee for Time Warner Inc. He's also a consultant for Hilton Hotels, a board member of CVC Capital Partners, an investment firm, Chairman of the Finance Committee of Catelius Development Corp., a real estate investment firm, KB Homes, a housing and commercial building developer, and lead Independent Director of American International Group, or AIG, one of the largest insurance companies that caused the collapse of the housing market and prompted the bailout. Could the media be covering up information on why the bailout happened, and on where the projected four trillion dollar bailout money is going? With all of this entanglement, do you think there is a conflict of interest? If you want to find out about every board member and their corporate ties, go below the TV to our resources section and click on the Big Six. It seems like a lot of people don't seem to trust the corporate media. In fact, according to a Harris Interactive Poll, over 50% of Americans said they didn't trust the corporate news. So we wanted to investigate, is there a reason why we shouldn't trust the news? You tell us.
Do you know what a Video News Release
(VNR) is? A Video News Release is a video segment created by a PR firm, an advertising agency, corporation, or government agency, and provided to television news stations for the purpose of informing, shaping public opinion, or to promote individuals and commercial products. What is the point of a Video News Release? When a VNR is placed in your 6:00 news program, you believe that your local news station went and investigated the story, interviewed those featured in the story, and uncovered the facts themselves. In actuality, many VNRs are written and produced by Public Relations agencies, advertising agencies, government agencies or corporations. After creating the VNR to fit their agenda, they pay corporate media outlets to run their VNR, just as they would an advertisement. The difference is that an advertisement shows up during commercial time, where a VNR runs as a part of your local 6:00 news report. For example, here's a Video News Release created by Multi Vu, A PR Newswire Company that produces and distributes VNRs. This VNR showed up in various news reports. The one we are going to show you was aired on December 19, 2005. Len Rome, the Health Reporter for station WYTV-33, introduces MIMYX. The television news station made the report look like it was their own, by having Len voiceover the VNR. The news station also omitted important health and safety information regarding the product MIMYX. As a viewer, this tricks your mind because you trust you local news station, and when you see a broadcast like this you want to think that it is an accurate and balanced report. However, if you would have seen this aired as just another commercial, would you trust it just as much?
Why would corporate media insert fake news? The Government Accountability Office reported that from 2003- mid 2005,
the Bush Administration spent 1.6 billion dollars of the taxpayer's money on media campaigns shaped to fit the agenda of the Bush administration! The next thing we wanted to find out was if there had been cases where corporate media has hidden or censored information from the public. That's when we came across the report of World Trade Center
Tower #7. Did you know that there were three towers that fell on 9/11? The corporate media consistently showed us Towers # 1 and #2 collapsing, but hardly mentioned Tower #7, the third skyscraper that collapsed in on itself but was never hit by an airplane. Although this collapse was shown on the day of 9/11, it was barely mentioned again on corporate news. In fact, corporate news outlets have consistently refused to show the collapse of WTC 7. When it is mentioned, they often turn to character attacks and humiliation of anyone bringing forth a different opinion or viewpoint. Here is a clip of Physicist Steven Jones attempting to show the collapse of WTC 7 on MSNBC.
If these six corporations think that their voice is the only one that matters, then they are shutting out over 80% of Americans who think that there should be a new investigation into 9/11, according to a recent CNN poll. Another underreported news story from the American corporate media is regarding the impeachment of George W. Bush. Remember when Bill Clinton was caught with Monica Lewinsky? Who could forget with all that press? According to a Pew Research Study, only 27% of Americans wanted Clinton to be impeached for lying about having sexual relations with that woman. But even though such a low amount of Americans cared about seeing Bill Clinton impeached, it dominated the corporate news for about a year. Did you know that in June of 2008, Representative Dennis Kucinich presented 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush? So why did the corporate media never highlight this impeachment case even though over 51% of Americans wanted to see George W. Bush impeached?
In fact, the corporate press barely touched upon the Downing Street Memo, although other world media was calling it a hard case for impeachment. The Downing Street Memo is actually the transcription of a meeting between Senior British government officials that talked about how Bush had made up his mind to remove Saddam Hussein, and that intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy to invade Iraq. The Downing Street Memo was proof of how the Bush administration "fixed" evidence to make their case for America to go to war in Iraq. What is more important, proof of fixing a war, or Britney Spears shaving her head? What is the role of the media anyways? Is it to highlight celebrities, be the mouthpiece for the corporate elite, or be the watchdog for the people of this country? There used to be many laws in place that made it illegal to own more than one division of media in the same market. For example, if you owned a television station in San Diego, it would be illegal to own a radio station, newspaper, or another television station in the same city. The hope was that this would create a diverse and unbiased distribution of information. According to federal law in the Communications Act of 1934, the airways were seen as public property. Commercial broadcasters were licensed to use these airways under the condition that the broadcaster served "the public interest, convenience, and necessity". This is like us having the privilege of a driver's license.
If we go around crashing into cars and being a hazard to the public, we get our license revoked. Those were the guidelines that the 1934 Communications Act established. During Reagan's administration, Mark Fowler became the new Chairman of the FCC, and had a few different ideas on the role of media. He said, "Its time to move away from thinking of broadcasters as trustees and time to treat them in the way that almost everyone else in the society does- that is, as a business… The perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants." He was able to persuade Congress to loosen the reins on Communications laws. What laws were changed? Guidelines for minimal amounts of non-entertainment programming were abolished. FCC guidelines on how much advertising could be carried per hour were also eliminated. Most importantly, The Fairness Doctrine was eradicated, which required the media to cover contrasting points of views. The FCC also used to require that stations perform a public service by reporting on crucial issues in their communities. Wow, all these changes happened within seven years? Unfortunately, it didn't stop there.
When Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, all of the original principles the FCC had put in place with the Communications Act of 1934 became null and void. This new Act allowed the corporate consolidation of our media, leaving us with what we have now: six corporations controlling every major media outlet. This consolidation doesn't allow for free speech, viable democracy, or any other new media outlet to have a chance on the market. The point is to make more profit. How does this affect us as citizens? Like we said before, the original role of the media was to act as our watchdog and as our liaison.
The media's accomplishments were measured by performance on the basis of public welfare, not profit. The media cannot be treated as just another product because the influence over people is just too significant. On the other hand, how does this affect us as consumers? Well, when the media is run as a business, they are competing to develop new products, watch costs, issue stocks, and gain larger market shares just as any business would. Their end goal is to get us to buy more. The idea is that we, as consumers, will regulate the marketplace and force companies to behave in the way that serves us best (like supply and demand).
What have we been demanding from the media? We have forgotten that we ultimately run the media, and if we demand a change, then our government can step in and reinstate the laws that were once there to protect our free press. The first thing we must decide is on what kind of news we want. Do we want corporations to give us news that's informative, balanced, and accurate? Or do we want news that will shock our senses to distract us from the real issues that are affecting our lives? Before you decide, ask yourself this. If we were an informed public, would we have allowed our tax dollars to bailout bank executives who use the bailout money for their own personal
benefit? If we were an informed public, would we still be at war? Would we even have gone to war? If we were an informed public, would we allow ourselves to be lab rats for the genetically modified food producers? Knowledge is power, so let's demand our power back.
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/fairness.html Let's demand the truth. Here's a story about a man that got his power back. Imagine leaving your home and country in the hope of making your dreams come true. You sail across the ocean to a land of freedom, equality, and opportunity: the land of America. This is the story of John Peter Zenger. Zenger arrived in America hoping to live a life free from the control of the British monarchy, but he found that in this new land there was still the same corruption and control. Zenger spoke out, and started the New York Weekly journal to remind his fellows that the old system of colonial rule didn't have to control their lives anymore. He distributed papers to everyone, encouraging them to take a stand and fight for their independence.
His voice was so strong, and his use of the press was so effective, that when our Founding Fathers created the Bill of Rights, they made sure a free press was established as part of the
First Amendment. The Founders knew that in order to protect the best interests of the people, a free press was essential. Now we know that one person has the power to make a difference, so what can you do? If breaking up the corporate consolidation of our media is important to you, please help the House of Representatives pass Resolution of Disapproval 79 to limit further media consolidation. Just visit our tools of action section below the TV to find out what else you can do. You can also find your own truth about everything we say, don't take our word for it! Go below the TV to the resources section and come to your own conclusion. You can also support and start your own independent media. We have an opportunity right now to break free of the system and start our own N3TWORK For the People, By the People. Are you in?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment