You are here: Home / Archives for Pravda

What Difference Does It Make…?

April 8, 2013 by 4 Comments

Media Protests What difference does it make...?

Author’s Note - I began my most recent post with the following:

“I never imagined that I’d find myself quoting Bill’s one-time heart throb (okay, eons of time ago), but using her just happens to suit my purpose. (Guess Bill and I aren’t so different after all….)”


Due to an inadvertent title change (the title was to have been the same as this one’s), readers were no doubt puzzled by this. Hopefully, this will clear things up.


Anyone who registers even the faintest EKG response realizes that the “Mainstream Media” isn’t mainstream. So if you felt your not insignificant intelligence was being insulted…and therefore didn’t dive headlong into the piece, I’d ask you to reconsider, as I believe our perception of the establishment media (which almost no one in this audience either reads or watches) is at the very root of all that ails us…and I mean that with absolute sincerity!


Note that I did not say that the endangered media is the problem, but that our perception of it is. Hear me out….


Every national Conservative pundit I know, with the exception of Rush Limbaugh (who has famously – and accurately – dubbed them the “Drive-by” or “Endangered Media”), Michael Savage, and Joseph Farah (who both refer to them as the “so-called ‘mainstream’ media”), mindlessly refers to them as the “mainstream” or “MSM” – freely bestowing upon them the highest of both compliments and credibility!


Would we have called the Communists’ Pravda (far more conservative today than our own state-controlled press!) the Soviet Union’s “mainstream” media? Of course not! It was nothing more than a state-owned organ of propaganda…and while George Soros may not own the New York Times outright (or even in part), it is clear that he, his allies, and his pawns are in lockstep with its entire agenda. (Obviously everything I have said about the networks applies to the so-called “Newspaper of Record,” as well as to its counterparts from coast to coast – whose viewership and coffers are also universally, and happily, “on the brink.”)


To put this in perspective I will recount an experience I had last spring, when AZ State Representative Carl Seel took me by to introduce me to then Speaker of the House, Andy Tobin. It was a Friday afternoon, perhaps 2:00 or 3:00, and the Speaker had gone for the week, as it turned out. His secretary dutifully wrote down my name and phone number, however, promising to have him call me…which, of course, he never did. I knew little about the Speaker at that time, but have since learned all I need to know: he’s a “Republican” – not a Conservative, and a “politician” – not a Statesman, as best I can tell. (It’s difficult, of course, to know any of our “representatives” well when they refuse to respond to their constituents!


As I left his office that day, and passed through the deserted anteroom, there on a freshly-polished inlaid-Mahogany desk, positioned with almost reverential deference it seemed, was a symbol of everything that was wrong with our “veto-proof” Republican Legislature, buoyed up (?) by our Republican (CINO) Governor. There, as a voice from the past, lay the day’s copy of the once-great, once-revered Arizona Republic – no doubt in a far-distant time, the voice of the People of the Great State of Arizona…but no longer.


Like every other “news” outlet and major establishment newspaper in America, it had long since ceased to speak for the People, but had become a pointed instrument through which the errantly-named “servants of the People” could oppress them (in the name of “the oppressed”), and deprive them of their God-given, and at one-time Constitutionally-protected, rights.


Yet how are The Republic and its ideological counterparts nationwide referred to by virtually everyone on our side to this day? As the “mainstream media” – the theoretical “voice of the People.”


In truth, however, almost none of us reads The Republic any more (I know of no one personally); and its circulation attests to that; but as long as the politicians (our putative representatives) do – and as long as they mindlessly accept that the rest of us do – it will continue to inform their every emotional impulse. (I almost said “every thought,” but would have missed the mark in so doing!)


Make no mistake about it, John McCain, Jon Kyle (formerly), and now Jeff Flake have no doubt that The Republic speaks both FOR and TO the citizens of Arizona…although nothing could be further from the truth. (Circulation today is 275,622 daily, and 483, 556 on Sunday, out of a population of 4,289,323, or some 1,578,471 households; thus making the portion of households receiving The Republic 31% on Sunday, but only 17% during the week.


As long as they (our elected officials) believe that The Republic speaks for (and to) the citizens of Arizona, however – and they no doubt will continue to do so until we drive them from office for failing to represent us – they will continue to rule over us with disdain and disregard for our sovereignty and for our rights.


While they may well know that these outmoded organs no longer represent the views of the People, they simultaneously know that they DO represent the views of the elite Ruling Class…and towards the latter is clearly where their loyalty lies! (There are exceptions among elected officials, but they are just that…and rare indeed!)
Our president’s mentor Saul Alinsky said this: “Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have” (pp. 126-127, Rules for Radicals).


As long as we the People – and our “leaders” – continue to accept that the OEM (Obsolete Establishment Media) either represents the People, or is being listened to by the People, they will continue to be considered the voice of authority, the FINAL word on what WE want or believe.


And yet, they have ONLY the power which WE, the People, give them…and no more. (Those whom we employ to represent us may choose to follow the lead of the OEM, but as their employers we can terminate their employment when we finally rise up and do so (John McCain being the perfect place to start!).


This all begins, of course, with an understanding of the true strength of our position, and the abject weakness of theirs! (That is what this entire article has been about.) We needn’t mindlessly and obsequiously grant them a status and an authority which not only belie reality, but are completely undeserved!


So here is a tip for all of us: Turn them off! Don’t buy, watch, or read them…and refer to them no more as the “mainstream media” or “MSM”! You wouldn’t consciously give money to the DNC (or perhaps even the RNC at this point!), so why would you give money to, or otherwise support, those who trumpet their failed message to the world, in defiance of the voice of the majority of the American People?


Enough is enough! We don’t need to “tune in” in order to know what they are up to! (If you couldn’t write their every story, giving their every officially-approved party line – on any subject, on any given day – then, with respect, you haven’t been paying attention!) Any one of us could write for any one of their publications starting tomorrow…or sooner! All we’d need to do is lip-sync their anemic platitudes…and cease to engage in rational thought. Like you, however, I’m afraid I can’t – and won’t- do that!

To be continued….

Tom Ballantyne is the author most recently of Uncommon Sense…Apparently! A Call To Arms, and Oh Really, O’Reilly! – both available at Amazon.com and at his website: www.UncommonSenseNow.com.  You may email Tom with comments at ThomasMBallantyne@gmail.com.

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , ,

‘Mainstream Media’ Not Mainstream

March 23, 2013 by 4 Comments

Media bias1 Mainstream Media Not Mainstream

I never imagined that I’d find myself quoting Bill’s one-time heart throb (okay, eons of time ago), but using her just happens to suit my purpose. (Guess Bill and I aren’t so different after all….)

A persistent (make that constant) theme I have extolled in both writing and speaking is that as Conservatives we should not fall prey to the ingrained habit of referring to the all-but-obsolete establishment media as “the mainstream” or “MSM.” Could anything be further from the truth? Stop and think about it for a minute….

As I like to tell audiences, “You’ll never see [David Gregory or Katie Couric, et al.] at a Denny’s!” It isn’t going to happen!

Back during the Roger Staubach Era, the Dallas Cowboys were affectionately referred to as “America’s Team.” As one might imagine, such a moniker would be considered the gold standard in the world of marketing or PR.

Imagine that you are starting a new grocery store chain, and through a stroke of luck you become known as “America’s Grocer.” Could it get any better than that?

Imagine, on the other hand, that you are one of the “Big Three” television and news networks – NBC, ABC, or CBS. Imagine also that over the past 50 years your viewership has plummeted from a virtual collective dominance of 100% to, say, 25% of the “news”- viewing public.

That would still represent one out of four American adults watching, but put in perspective, three out of four “news”-watchers would have rejected your collective “news” coverage. Not very good!

While that was merely a hypothetical construction on my part, here are some actual numbers for “Evening News Ratings,” obtained at MediaBistro.com:

NBC – 9,640,000 (Total Viewers)
ABC – 8,628,000 ( ” ” )
CBS – 7,482,000 ( ” ” )

Those numbers combined make 25,750,000 out of the current U.S. Population of 315,497,649. The annual population increase is estimated elsewhere (by extension) to be .76%. The U.S. Census Bureau estimated the number of adults 18 or over to be 234,564,000 in 2010, which would be roughly 240,000,000 today, in 2013.

Thus the “Big Three” viewers among the total U.S. adult population (over 18) would be approximately 10.7%…far less than my “guesstimate” of 25%.

One site I came across seemed to indicate that some 74% of adults watch at least some news program weekly. According to this site, “CNN (20%) and FOX News (18%) are the television channels adults most often turn to when they want news or information related to politics or public affairs. These are followed by the networks, including ABC (9%), NBC (8%) and CBS (7%). Other channels include MSNBC (5%), C-SPAN (3%), PBS (3%) and CNBC (1%).”

These figures – for those who watch news or “political/public affairs” programs, as opposed to strictly the “Nightly [Network] News” – show an aggregate of 24%of Adults watching the Big Three.

Getting back to the Nightly Network News (America’s staple before Cable and the Internet)…it would appear that my hypothesis was spot on among viewers ages 25-54, whose numbers looked like this:

NBC – 2,643,000
ABC – 2,328,000
CBS – 2,141,000

For a combined total of: 7,112,000

Removing those 18-24 (31,377,456) and those 55 and over (78,516,273), from the total number of those 18 and over (140,000,000), we end up with 30,106,271. Of that number, the 7,112,000 nightly network “news” viewers ages 18-24 make up some 23.6%.

I’m not sure, frankly, why MediaBistro.com chose to include a breakout for that particular statistical bracket – surely those over 54 are still keenly interested in what is going on in their country, even if many of those 18-24 are not – but in either case, the percentage of those watching network news range between an estimated minimum of 10.7% and a maximum of 23.6%.

Enough of statistics already, but I felt the need to support my thesis with more than just my opinion. It would be easy to dismiss my argument (that the Establishment Media is anything but the “mainstream,” and should not be thoughtlessly granted cult-like status by calling it that) as or as merely semantical or “academic.”

To do so, however, would represent a colossal failure to recognize the power of labels, or, in a broader sense, the power of language, or that of thought itself (the subject of my first book series, entitled The Secret of Life – Xlibris, 2008).

For those not versed in the science of the mind, the human subconscious (in contrast with the conscious mind) takes things we say and hear quite literally, as fact, as it were…especially when these “facts” are heard and parroted incessantly, by virtually everyone in the culture, on “both sides of the aisle” – including ourselves!).

Those of us who are parents may be keenly aware of the dramatic power – for better or for worse – of labels. While each of my daughters rightly considers herself to be her dad’s “favorite,” I have nicknames for each of them, as well as for our sons. For the most part these nicknames are more on the “cute” side – some having been derived from the inability of younger siblings to pronounce their older siblings’ names, for example – but one of them simply evolved from my repeatedly calling her “special.”

One day at the grocery store or doctor’s office – I wasn’t there, but received the report from my wife later on – an older woman complimented this particular daughter on her big, beautiful eyes, and asked, “What’s your name, little girl?” To which she replied, with the utmost in child-like sincerity and belief – “Special.” And from that day to this she has officially been known as “Special”…and it seems to have had a profound effect upon her life! (I am proud of each of my children, but I believe the success of this particular one has been directly attributable to the self-affirming “label” she has carried throughout her life.)

I will end my obvious point by reminding each of us that the Obsolete Establishment Media (or OEM) is just that. No, it isn’t 100% obsolete, but when less than 1 in 9, or 1 in 4 adults continue to “tune in” (perhaps tune out reality would be more accurate), it can hardly be called the “mainstream media” or “MSM.” Think of it: either 3 out of 4, or nearly 9 out of 10 “adults” are no longer watching – down from 10 out of 10 (of those who were watching anything in the way of “news”) some 20-30 years ago!

Let me underscore that in another way: 75-90% no longer watch the so-called (absurdly-called) “mainstream” media! So enough of the madness! (Those on the Left, of course, completely accept that they are the “mainstream” – even though polls clearly indicate that self-identifying “Conservatives” outnumber “Liberals” by 2 to 1 – 41% to 21% in 2011.)

Think about that: twice as many Conservatives as Liberals…and yet we refer to those extolling the views of the latter (a mere fifth of the adult population) as the “mainstream.” This is a coup of which both Edward Bernays , the “Father of Propaganda,” and his Nazi adherent Joseph Goebbels would have been extremely proud!

To be continued….

 

Tom Ballantyne is the author most recently of Uncommon Sense…Apparently! A Call To Arms, and Oh Really, O’Reilly! – both available at Amazon.com and at his website: www.UncommonSenseNow.com.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , ,

NBC Edited Videos Corrode America’s Trust In The Media

February 4, 2013 by 6 Comments

“NBC is Pravda!” Glenn Beck discusses the ability of news organizations to manipulate the news, and he shows how easy it is to mislead people. Clearly doctored tapes are more a part of the news every day. And this should serve as a warning to all. Don’t believe every video you see. It may be doctored.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With: ,

Barack Obama: A Case Of Identity Crisis

January 8, 2013 by 5 Comments

Obama Communist SC Barack Obama: A Case of Identity Crisis

Reprobation is a condition of moral confusion that the scriptures say will be pervasive in the last days of time as we know it. (Romans 1: 27-32) It is a result of spiritual deprivation that always accompanies moral decline according to every historical record of man. Nations rise and fall on the outcome of this powerful and recurring social and spiritual malady.

In this clouded nether region of convoluted thinking, identifying exactly who leaders are is part and parcel to the confusion entire generations have concerning their own identities. Teens are thought to rebel and act out largely because they are struggling to ascertain their own identities.

We are not sure if politicians are crooks or statesmen, Republicans or RINO’s. Is the cop a public servant or a mobster; is the teacher an educator or a molester? Is the sports hero a role model or a drug abuser? Our failure to properly identify people is often discovered far too late. Is it too late to discover who is leading us today, or who led us to the truth in the past? We are moving dangerously close to a simple “yes” on that question. Let’s see.

In a day when minds were less muddled, a day Jesus called a “green tree” (Lk 23: 31), the single most important question ever asked was laid upon the band of twelve men who followed him daily. It was the question of the hour, and it is still the single most important question of all time. It is a question of identity.

“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” (Mt 16: 13)

His followers gave him a mixed answer that included the various opinions of the entire community. It was much like a blog response where every viewpoint is voiced, but none are definitive or completely authoritative. The disciples told Jesus that some of the people thought he was a prophet or the reincarnation of John the Baptist. Many of the people thought he was a fake and a charlatan and possibly demon-possessed. (Jn 8: 48)

Christ told them to get off the opinions of men and answer the question for themselves. In an answer as clear as the sky, the Apostle Peter answered the question in no uncertain terms for himself and those who followed Christ from day to day observing his speech and the many miracles he did.

“He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Mt 16: 15, 16)

In this day of the – “dry tree,” (2 Ti 3: 1-7), identity confusion reigns but is most apparent in the strong varying views of just who our President really is. A list of seven possible identities barely covers the full range of identity questions for Barack Obama, but it is a start.

1. Is he a good old American prez or a communist? Many people think his economic policies, which tend to favor government care for all but little help for entrepreneurs and capitalists, is a clear sign that his proclivities are communistic. But none could speak with more authority than the former communists. Author Xavier Lerma, writing in Russia’s online version of Pravda, formerly the voice of communism in the old Soviet Union, compares Russian President Putin to Ronald Reagan while Obama is seen as an old line communist in policy and vision.

2. Is our president a family man or the first gay president? Newsweek emblazoned the artistically-produced likeness of Barack Obama (with a halo) on its cover with the caption “The First Gay President” in May of 2012. Gay blogger Andrew Sullivan wrote the cover story after Obama told the nation he supports gay marriage. Sullivan said Obama’s proclamation brought him to tears, even as those who understand the scriptural teaching on homosexuality were brought to tears for altogether different reasons.

3. World Net Daily’s introduction to the January Whistleblower edition said that the often-asked question about whether Obama is a Muslim has been “one of the most radioactive questions surrounding his presidency.” While no Muslim country has yet nailed Barack as a hardline Sunni or Shia Muslim, the hope he chooses to place in the Muslim Brotherhood movements in the Arab world indicate where his affections lie. If recent events in Benghazi are any reflection of Obama’s Muslim-ness, we are forced to conclude that in a showdown, American interests, her citizens, and her constitution may not count for much.

4. Is the President as genuine as a gold dollar on the bite, or is he an incredible fake? According to Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his posse, Mr. Obama is a total fraud. What was once a single issue known as the ‘birther’s question’ has burgeoned into a mystery of epic proportions. Now it’s missing school records, a fraudulent social security number, a forged selective service record, and a bevy of forensic experts claiming that the birth certificate is as phony as a three dollar bill. Just about anyone with an ounce of casual curiosity could hardly pass by all of these blaring inconsistencies without raising an eyebrow. And yet millions of voters did just that, only a few short months past.

In crowd-conscious America, what would be the easiest: to push a few conspiracy theorists off into a corner and label them all as paranoid kooks, or get over 62 million liberal-leaning voters to admit they have been willfully defrauded?

5. The question of whether Mr. Obama is a law-abiding citizen is now lost in a storm of impeachment threats, investigations, and accusations. Obama has kept lawmakers in the dark on everything from the ‘unified agenda’ to the facts about the gun-running circus called ‘Fast and Furious.’ A one-man government may look a lot better if it is run by a pop culture icon; but it is by any other name, just another dictatorship.

6. As an economist, Barack has broken all records. He has promised recovery and claimed to put America back to work even as the jobless rate soars and trillions of dollars of debt are rising like a tsunami threatening the very existence of the nation. His cavalier spending mentality almost succeeded but for the full resistance of the Republican-controlled house.

Laying another three trillion dollars on the nation was followed by whisking himself back to Hawaii to finish his vacation on the taxpayer’s dime. It is a dime estimated at 20 million dollars. Using taxpayer’s money to tour the globe, while raising taxes on citizens, goes far beyond an identity crisis. Is Mr. Obama an economist or a rank amateur with a Robin Hood syndrome bordering on the psychotic? You decide.

7. Many people around the nation have wondered if Mr. Obama is the dreaded but well prophesied antichrist. Not a week passes for this writer where I am not found addressing that question for someone. No, I don’t think he is the antichrist; but should I be wrong, I can safely say it is a bit too soon to tell.

Inasmuch as he has directly opposed the Word of God (supporting the gay agenda and abortion), he is according to the Apostle John, at the very least, an antichrist.

John said: “Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.” (1Jn 2: 18)

I would go on record for saying that if Mr. Obama is in office at the time antichrist is revealed, he will most likely welcome him into the world’s political arena as an innovator and statesman of extraordinary ability.

The Bible says the antichrist will be aided by a figure called the false prophet. He takes little or no credit for himself but instructs the world to give all allegiance and submission to his guide and mentor, the antichrist. I think it is far more likely that Obama could be this man. Outlandish? Not when you consider that identity crisis queen Oprah called Obama “The One” and actor Jamie Foxx called him “our Lord and Savior.” My estimation is both probable and far more honest.

America is in an identity crisis herself; and the only question remaining is – if we cease to be America, exactly what will we be?

 

American Prophet.org has since 2005 featured the articles and reports of journalist Rev Michael Bresciani along with news and reviews that have earned this site the title of The Website for Insight. Millions have read his timely reports and articles in online journals and print publications across the nation and the globe. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Photo credit: SS&SS (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

You Know You’re A Communist When…

December 1, 2012 by 27 Comments

Obama Communist SC You Know Youre A Communist When...

Here’s a simple question: At what point do you know you’re a communist?

As a strongly principled Conservative/Libertarian, I feel like I could easily recognize other strongly principled Conservatives and Libertarians because their views fall similar to mine.

Using this logic, shouldn’t one communist be able to identify another communist? Better yet, wouldn’t someone who lived through Communism be able to identify a communist leader?

I think the answer is yes, and there is some frightening (only if you haven’t realized it yet) proof.

Recently an opinion article appeared in Pravda (a Russian newspaper), by a relatively unknown writer, Xavier Lerma.

Let me start out by saying that after doing a little research on Xavier, I have found that he is not a Communist, Socialist, or Marxist. He is a Conservative, but of Russian standards of course, with a true love for Vladimir Putin. If you read the column, you would catch on quickly to his favorable bias towards Putin.

While the column contains extreme spin and favorability towards Putin, everything that Xavier said about America and Obama is true – well, mostly true:

Recently, Obama has been re-elected for a 2nd term by an illiterate society, and he is ready to continue his lies of less taxes while he raises them. He gives speeches of peace and love in the world while he promotes wars as he did in Egypt, Libya, and Syria. He plans his next war with Iran as he fires or demotes his generals who get in the way.

What about this isn’t true? Except for the ‘illiterate society’ comment, this paragraph expresses some of my feelings with the reelection of Obama to a tee.

Why do we study history?

We study history in an attempt to learn from it and (to the best of our ability) not commit the same mistakes twice. However, we almost never learn from history, and we always commit the same mistakes twice.

Xavier gets history, though. He has learned from the past of the nation that he holds near and dear to his heart, and he is strongly against Russia committing those same mistakes twice.

Xavier knows that communism doesn’t work, nor does socialism. Xavier knows that low taxes are the way to go. And finally, Xavier knows that faith, morals, and strong principles are the key to prosperity.

History tells us these things, and this is why Xavier is able to exploit all of Obama’s mistakes. Not only is Obama and his administration not learning from history, but they are going in the direction of a “Soviet Plan”, something of which we know does not work. History tells us this.

The American media should be covering this story – its news. But they aren’t going to; that’s why you probably haven’t even heard about it. Because American media doesn’t report the news anymore.

However, when Glenn Beck says something that is deemed to be “politically incorrect”, he is persecuted by the media.

What’s the difference between Beck’s thoughts on America and Xavier’s?

Nothing, and that’s why the media isn’t covering this story.

I suggestion you click on the link and read the column. It could do without all of the favorability towards Putin, but Xavier’s views about Obama and the current state of America are Right. On. Point.

Follow Chris On Twitter

Photo credit: SS&SS (Creative Commons)

 

 

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Will Political Reform Occur Only After A Catastrophe?

July 27, 2012 by 3 Comments

Congress Will political reform occur only after a catastrophe?

John Brown was an American revolutionary abolitionist, who in the 1850s advocated and practiced armed insurrection as a means to abolish slavery in the United States.

He was tried for treason, the murder of five pro-slavery Southerners, and inciting a slave insurrection; he was found guilty on all counts and was hanged on December 2, 1859.

On the day he died, Brown wrote: “I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think, vainly flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.”

Less than two years later, the U.S. Civil War began, the American casualties from which exceeded those of World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam combined.

The United States is now facing its greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. As Abraham Lincoln asked, will a nation conceived in liberty and a government of the people, by the people, and for the people perish?

The 2012 election is the most important in U.S. history, but not for the reasons either the Republican or Democrat Parties would have you believe because there is little difference between them.

They seek to win elections, not to uphold the Constitution, not to show respect for the rule of law, and not to serve the American people, but to obtain power and to use that power to accrue career and financials benefits for themselves and their major supporters.

Mitt Romney does not offer a significant change from the political status quo. So far, the most accurate slogan for his campaign seems to be: “I’m not the other guy.”

The real issue of the 2012 is whether or not the American people will endorse permanent political corruption in Washington, D.C. by voting for the status quo presently represented by the Republican and Democrat Parties.

The United States is heading for a financial meltdown. Projected government spending rates over the next twenty-five years will drive federal debt to unsustainable levels from 50% of Gross Domestic Product in 2010 to 101% and 195% of GDP for 2021 and 2036, respectively. By 2036, every American citizen will own $135,547 in U.S. Government debt compared to $36,267 today.

Article I of the U.S. Constitution requires Congress to pass a federal budget. Despite the imminent threat to the financial stability of the United States and the clear priority the Constitution gives to maintaining discipline in federal spending, the last time the Democrat-controlled Senate enacted a budget was April 29, 2009.

Republicans continue to be derelict in their duty and violate their oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution by refusing to vet Barack Obama’s Presidential eligibility and personal history. They are also recommending Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Republican Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal for Vice President, both of whom do not meet the Constitutional requirements for that office.

Republican congressional leaders, particularly Senator John McCain and House Speaker John Boehner, endanger national security by refusing to probe Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the Obama Administration and condemning those who legitimately request such an investigation.

On July 17, 2012, Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio provided convincing evidence that Barack Obama’s birth certificate, as presented by the White House on April 27, 2011, is a forgery.

In the presence of evidence that there is a criminal in the White House, what actions do Republicans and Democrats take? None.

In general, our elected officials are not concerned about the financial stability of the country, its national security, or upholding the rule of law.

In 2012, American voters are being offered nothing more than a continuation of a status quo incompatible with the survival of the country.

Barack Obama is being protected by a corrupt political establishment. Exposing Obama before the election will thwart the installation of permanent and pervasive corruption in the U.S. Government and pave the way for political reform.

Without that, change will eventually come, but more likely in the form of national collapse and fragmentation.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq. Colonel Sellin is the author of “Afghanistan and the Culture of Military Leadership”. He receives email at lawrence.sellin@gmail.com

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/27-07-2012/121769-usa_political_reform-0/

Photo credit: Jessie Owen (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

News And Truth

July 22, 2012 by 4 Comments

Supported By Media Obama Knocked Out SC News and Truth

One of the cornerstones of our Republic is a “free press” that is able to publish the truth on any given public figure, endeavor or initiative.  In our nation, we have the 1st Amendment to the Constitution that guarantees this absolute right.

When the press becomes the organ and mouthpiece of governmental leaders, the citizens then are subjected to all manner of abuse.  Pravda and Izvestia in the old Soviet Union were known to be anything but news and truth, which is what their names implied; Pravda means “truth” with Izvestia meaning “news.”   These publications were authorized by the “State”, more specifically the Politburo, the ruling committee in the Soviet Union.  They presented the information that the government wanted published and nothing more.

What is happening in our nation is much more insidious as the truth of the government-controlled press was an openly known secret in the Soviet Union by the old and stale joke “you could not find any truth in Pravda or any news in Izvestia.”   While everyone knew in the Soviet Union, many in our nation do not even have a clue as they receive their information from the established news services and believe what they see, hear, and read.

What do we call a supposedly “free press” that is indoctrinated by a political ideology that self-censors the news for the current administration, the Democrats, and liberals in general?

It used to be true that journalists were trained in the ethics of their profession to seek “truth” as a noble calling onto itself, no matter where it may lead as the ideals of their profession demand that they report honestly to our nation; and many believe they will do just that!

However, that no longer happens anymore.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio held another news conference on Tuesday about further evidence in the continuing story of the fraudulent birth certificate the president posted on the White House website last April.  After the presentation of evidence, the only intelligent question came from Mr. Tom Ballantyne, who identified himself as a “citizen journalist” who was germane to the issue. The rest of the questions were personal attacks against Mike Zullo and Sheriff Arpaio, like:

“there never was a conspiracy theory you didn’t like”

and

“how can you claim to be honest when you profit from the sale of the first news conference with your e-book”

How can these journalists even claim that they are impartial guardians of the truth when they discredit themselves with such partisan, demeaning, and contemptible questions?  There was not one pointed question regarding the “facts” that were presented during the news conference from the established press. In this light, it is interesting to see how the news media and supporters of Obama have portrayed this in general with an ever-increasing frequency of doubletalk, misdirection, personal slurs, and propaganda.

Case in point: I am sure there is going to be an entertaining rebuttal prepared by Kevin Davidson, the author of Obama Conspiracies.  He will be channeling the long-defunct and dead spirit of Perry Mason (a 1960’s television show character) for his audience of willing Obama supporters to prosecute Mike Zullo for his insistence that Obama has perpetrated a fraud on this nation!  He intends to write a series of articles that will imagine that Mike Zullo is cross-examined in a court of law by Perry, with Mr. Zullo being treated as a hostile witness.

Everyone needs to draw his or her own conclusions in this case.  The question everyone seem to neglect is that this is over a “politician.” Most politicians have always been known to be less than honest and devoid of credible morals and values, and most have a less than sterling character.

So why is Obama held to be this morally superior “being” by the press and his supporters?

We only see this type of canonization in dictatorships with tyranny being the result of their despotic rule; history is replete with examples.

While Mr. Davidson is not a serious journalist, he certainly typifies the average supporter and typical journalist when it comes to all things Obama.  Obama’s supporters will twist any evidence, coincidence, and fact into a club to beat anyone with who does not believe the “party line” that Obama is the most sainted leader to ever grace the White House.

Any complaints about his performance (or as I like to call them “scandals”) are being driven by racially or ideologically motivated factors, so they are dismissed out of hand.

Some of more entertaining stories from around the NET are as follows:

“Joe Arpaio’s Scooby Doo Gang Nails Obama on Damning Phone Interview With 95-year-old Woman and Zero Evidence”

 “MCSO birther posse: Our evidence is ironclad”

 “Sheriff Joe’s Birther Squad Concludes Obama’s Birth Certificate Is A ‘Forgery And Fraud’”

The more serious journalists reported a tamer but nonetheless slanted and dismissive perspective:

“Arpaio again doubts Obama birth document”

“Obama eligibility reveals ‘national security threat’”

This one is truly in a class all its own and should be given some special award by the National Press Club for such a well-done job from CBS news.

  “Arpaio: Obama birth record definitely forged”

 “Arpaio said his investigation has also found evidence tat Obama’s Selective Service registration form was fraudulent, KPHO reports.”

(note: they used other stories in the articles body to discredit the investigation and the Sheriff and could not even be professional enough to keep misspelled words out of the story- the underline is my emphasis)

Update:

The story as of today 7/19/2012 has been edited with the misspelled “tat” being corrected, cut and paste above is from the same article yesterday.  They also did not note that the story has been edited after publication.

This is what is being presented as serious reporting by the news media; if anything, it is softball presentation of the facts with absolutely no follow-up by what is fast becoming a “fawning press corp.”

Without re-iterating the news conference, there was an overwhelming presentation of “facts” that a crime has been committed, and that it directly benefits our president.  With all the other scandals that have rocked this administration and are almost too numerous to name; here is a partial list:

  • Obama campaign contributors receiving sweetheart government loans
  • creation of a hit list of citizens who contributed to Mitt Romney
  • summary execution of citizens
  • Fast & Furious
  • illegally appointing administration officials without Senate confirmation
  • law by executive order and regulatory edict
  • complete shrouding of Obama’s past
  • creation of his own Kenyan birth story
  • leaking national security information
  • extending executive privilege to Eric Holder and the Justice Department
  • changing immigration law by caveat

It is ironic to think that we had two presidents face impeachment for lesser crimes in my lifetime: Richard Nixon for a harmless break-in caused by his own insecurity against the DNC, and Bill Clinton (all because it hung on what your definition of “is” is.)

These were kindergarten stunts compared to what we are facing, and the media cannot be bothered to even report, investigate, or demand that a full airing of the facts be forthcoming.  To show how far we have fallen is a recent article penned by a retired U.S Army Reserve Officer and published in Pravda; it should have been front page news in our nations’ newspapers and news broadcasts. Not from a foreign source with such an abysmal history of censorship and oppression against their own people.

We have a serious problem in this nation, and until we can come to grip with our institutions being complicit with the dismantling of our Republic and the creation of a fascist state by a dictatorial leader, we will be doomed to live out this inevitable clash with forces that wish for the destruction of our way of life.

Obama and his supporters are winning.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Filed Under: Commentary Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Obama’s Legal Humiliation

April 12, 2012 by 24 Comments

Barack Obama speech 4 SC Obama’s Legal Humiliation

Part 2 of: Barack Obama Foreign Student – American Media Threatened into Silence

Today, there is no American news outlet factually covering the illegal actions of the sitting President of the United States in context. Nor is there one consistently exposing the laws his administration has flagrantly broken, though this corruption now demonstrably permeates every level of the federal system.

Attorneys General Tom Horne, Arizona; Pam Bondi, Florida; Sam Olens, Georgia; Bill Schuette, Michigan; Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma; Marty Jackley, South Dakota; Alan Wilson, South Carolina; Greg Abbott, Texas; and Ken Cuccinelli of Virginia produced a joint memo on March 5th, 2012 detailing 21 blatant violations of law committed by the Obama administration.

By now it is unsurprising the media has by and large ignored this announcement, although AG Cuccinelli did appear in an extended segment with CSPAN (the relevant segment can be found here) on March 18th.

Fortunately, The Tea Party Tribune published the Attorney’s General memo, “A Report on Obama Administration Violations of Law” in full the same day it was released. It is nothing short of a flashing legal headline story, yet cannot be found at the Washington Post or the New York Times.

“Whether it is through the EPA, NLRB, Office of Surface Mining, FCC or other entities, the Obama Administration has aggressively used administrative agencies to implement policy objectives that cannot gain congressional approval and are outside of the law.” – A Report on Obama Administration Violations of Law

An abbreviated list of broken laws includes:

  • PPACA (Obamacare): Individual Mandate; To be heard by Supreme Court of the United States in March
  • FCC: Regulation of the Internet in the face of a court order from Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet
  • EPA 1: GHG (Green House Gas) lawsuit; EPA’s own Inspector General reported last September that EPA failed to comply with its own data standards; Heard in Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. in February
  • OSM: Attempting to impose regulatory requirements on the 19 states with authority for exclusive regulation of their coalmines for the first time in more than 30 years
  • DOJ: South Carolina & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States; DOJ ignored section 8 of the Voting Rights Act which calls for protections against voter fraud, and used section 5 to administratively block measures to protect the integrity of elections passed by state legislatures in preclearance states including South Carolina; South Carolina voter ID law merely requires a voter to show photo identification in order to vote or to complete an affidavit at the pain of perjury if the voter does not have a photo ID
  • DOJ: Arizona & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States
  • DOE: Yucca Mountain; In 2009, Administration arbitrarily broke federal law and derailed the most studied energy project in American history when DOE announced intent to withdraw 8,000 page Yucca Mountain licensing application with prejudice.

- A Report on Obama Administration Violations of Law

14 more violations of law are listed in the AGs’ memo. At one time or another, many of these violations have made the news, yet the full list is never presented to the public. When compiled, it is apparent even at a glance that the federal government as led by Barack Obama has no respect for the law. Clearly, the Obama government is acting as it deems fit. Much as a monarchy would. As if the States did not exist. As if the Constitution of the United States did not apply.

Indeed, when it comes to Obama and his government, the Constitution is a barrier to be removed. As Obama stated in a 2001 interview with NPR, “generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.”  Undeniably, the Constitution limits government negatively; it states what the government cannot do. From the point of view of someone attempting to expand government powers beyond that which the Constitution limits it to, it is extraordinarily (and negatively) limiting. It was designed that way. It is the keystone, the cornerstone, the foundation of a free people; one freed and protected from government tyranny.

 

The M-1/A-2 tank in the room

If more evidence were needed to delineate the obvious disrespect coming from the Oval Office for the Law, on Monday, April 2nd 2012, President Barack Obama attempted to erase 200 years of legal history, stating in a press conference with world leaders that the law codified in the Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137) 1803 is not valid:

“Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress.” – Barack Obama 4-5-2012

Hundreds of bills have passed out of Congress and been found unconstitutional, overturned by the Supreme Court, since Marbury V. Madison established in 1803 the Supreme Court’s right of judicial review.

The Supreme Court has been the final arbiter of law, determining the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress for over two hundred years. There is no article or section in the Constitution which specifically bestows this power within the Court. Instead, Marbury was the court’s interpretation of the Constitution; furthermore, the legal precedent it set in that decision still stands as good law today.

This is not the first time Mr. Obama has attempted to re-write history to his liking. The difference here lay in the fact that the media is in a feeding frenzy over this one.

The day following this massive falsehood, April 2nd, Eric Holder was ordered to address Obama’s statements by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, forcing the administration to publicly acknowledge the law established in Marbury.

Attorney General Eric Holder stated in the department’s court ordered response: “The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation.” Even the Attorney General of the United States is hanging Obama out to dry on this issue.

Marbury V. Madison is not just an elephant in the room; it’s more like M-1/A-2 tank running flat out, but not for the reasons most immediately apparent. What is missing from this conversation, so ravenously devoured by the press, is this: Marbury was decided in 1803, it’s has been cited hundreds of times. It has never been overturned. The Attorney General of the United States affirms that it is good law. There is absolutely no question it is binding law, so commonplace it wasn’t even a discussion piece outside first year law school until the president tried to undo it in a press conference.

So far, so good, but what’s missing here?

If Marbury has never been overturned and is binding law with decades of citable history behind it, what makes it different from a case decided in 1875 which has also never been overturned and has been cited to for decades?

Nothing. They are both still law.

Minor V. Happersett in 1875 decided that Ms. Virginia Minor did not have the right to vote. While originally a Women’s Suffrage (voting) case, the Court in Minor interpreted the Constitution, determining that citizenship itself did not give right to vote, unequivocally stating in the final paragraph of the decision: “Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one” – Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162).

Constitutional Amendments against discrimination preventing a person from voting based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th)., are taken for granted as being a constitutional rights to vote; yet in reality, there is no constitutionally protected “right” to vote (there are amendments against discrimination.)

To re-state this immeasurably important distinction, there is nothing in the Constitution which gives Americans the right to vote; instead, the Constitution eliminates circumstances such as gender and race from preventing voting. This is a legal distinction perhaps only a lawyer can properly love, yet the fact remains that the difference between the two is as great as the difference between lead and gold.

This is why the Minor Case has never been overturned; its conclusion is a statement of fact. Because it has never been overturned, the basic definitions of citizenship made in Minor still apply today because they are the independent grounds upon which the court made its decision.

To use a metaphor, ‘The light bulb turned on because there is electricity. Electricity is the flow of electrons in a current which heats a wire making a light bulb glow.’ The definition of electricity is the independent ground upon which we can say the light bulb turned on.

This is not an issue of dictionary semantics or the meaning of words changing over time. The Minor court defined natural born citizenship as part of its independent ground for deciding the case, making it a part of the “holding” – for deciding the case as it did. “Citizenship does not give the right to vote. Citizens are…” These definitions were codified in law which, like those made in Marbury V. Madison, makes them inviolate.

The court in 1875 chose to define through its specific wording what natural born citizens were and still are today, just as in 1803 it decided the right of judicial review lay with the Supreme Court and nowhere else.

 

Illegal governments do illegal things

Why is the Minor case relevant in 2012 as it applies to the federal government breaking laws left and right?

The answer is not only insidiously dangerous, but terribly simple. The man at the head of that government is there illegally. How can this be? Because Minor V. Happersett is still law, it has not been overturned any more than Marbury V. Madison has.

“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.” Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162)

The Court did not need to decide if Virginia Minor was a citizen because she was obviously a natural born citizen, born in the United States to two parents who were its citizens. The Minor case instructs clearly and concisely that those not born to two citizen parents will have doubts cast on their citizenship status, which in some circumstances, such as qualification under Article 2 Section 1 of the United States Constitution, will demand answers.

Simple logic tells us that where there is doubt about something, proofs must be offered to confirm its status. The proof offered by Barack Obama of his Natural Born Citizenship and placed by him on the White House website has been found to be a “probable forgery” by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, in a legitimate law enforcement action undertaken at the written insistence of the Citizens of Maricopa County and presented to them in person on March 31, 2012. The Sheriff is a five time, popularly elected law enforcement official who has served 20 years in that office.

This is the M-1/A-2 tank roaring through the room. If Marbury V. Madison is still law, so too is Minor V. Happersett.

If Barack Obama was completely wrong to state: “…the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress…”, then he is equally incorrect to claim Natural Born Citizenship because he was not “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” He has offered no legitimate proof that he could be a citizen; his father was a British subject of Kenya and was never a citizen of the United States. What proof Obama has offered has been proven a forgery by law enforcement officials.

The simplest of conclusions is unavoidable: Illegal governments do illegal things. Expect nothing less.

Mrs. Cotter is a senior at American Military University, recipient of the Outstanding Student Essay of 2009, a member of Delta Epsilon Tau and Epsilon Pi Phi Academic Fraternities and on the Dean’s and President’s Lists for academic achievement. She has published at American Thinker, Examiner.com, Accuracy in Media, Family Security Matters, Post and Email, English Pravda, Tea Party Tribune, Patriot Action Network, and The Western Center for Journalism.

The author can be contacted at cotter.d.c@gmail.com, or at DiannaCotter.com

Filed Under: Blogs, Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Barack Obama Was A Foreign Student – American Media Threatened Into Silence

April 2, 2012 by 63 Comments

Joe Arpaio speaking 2 SC Barack Obama Was A Foreign Student American Media Threatened into Silence

On March 7th, 2012, Pravda called out the U.S. press for its deliberate neglect of the largest scandal in modern American history. Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio released credible forensic evidence that Barack Obama, presumed President of the United States, presented to the world a forged Birth Certificate on April 27th, 2011.

Since then, the scandal has only expanded. Former United States Postal Service worker Allen Hulton has recently come forward with compelling testimony given under Oath, which leads to only one conclusion: Barack Obama attended College in the United States as a Foreign Student.

In the summer of 2008 the presidential primary season was winding down, and America could not help but note the fervor a significant number of media personalities expressed while supporting the candidacy Barack Obama. Indeed, it was collectively decided within the liberal media, that Obama’s associations with racist pastors and violent domestic terrorists was to be suppressed.

The exposure of the “Journolist” email scandal in 2010 made this glaringly clear: Stories like Obama’s ties to Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. of the Trinity United Church, and more relevant, to Bill Ayers and his radical past in the Weather Underground Organization were to remain largely un-reported and uninvestigated. Any realistic investigation into Barack Obama’s background was to be minimized, inquiries eventually mocked, and investigators labeled racists.
These tactics have isolated honest media who could and should have reported on these and other important stories yet have inexplicably remained silent. Now we know why. More on this in a moment.

The Postman
Retired United States Postal Worker Allen Hulton recently signed a sworn affidavit for the Maricopa County, Arizona Cold Case Posse convened by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, attesting under oath, to conversations with Mary Ayers, the mother of Bill Ayers. He made his testimony public in a three hour long taped interviewed on March 19th, 2012. Mr. Hutton, by signing an affidavit has subjected himself to laws regarding perjury, not something to be taken lightly as telling the truth is now for him a requirement of law.

His testimony states Mary and Tom Ayers (Parents of Bill ”I don’t regret setting bombs” Ayers) were sponsoring Barack Obama as a foreign student, and financially supporting his education.

This is a huge revelation on not one, but two separate fronts.

Bill Ayers of dubious “Weatherman” fame, was not just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood”, as then candidate Obama brushed aside. The video linked here comes from a televised DNC Debate in the summer of 2008. As Hillary Clinton revealed then, Obama served in a paid position on the Woods Foundation with Bill Ayers and the two were involved in several projects dispersing millions of dollars over several years.

Realistically, the Ayers family could be said to have adopted Barack Obama, if not as a son then certainly as a kindred Marxist spirit, and treated him to one of the finest educations possible.

There is little doubt Mr. Obama has been less than honest with regard to the Ayers family and their significance in his life.
As disingenuous as this is, it is by no means the most important revelation.

If correct, and Obama was introduced to Hulton as a Foreign Student, this means Barack Hussein Obama would have been using a Foreign Passport to get and prove his foreign student status for entrance into Occidental College, Columbia, and later Harvard Universities. Because Hulton has signed an Affidavit, this cannot be disregarded as mere hearsay; it is instead evidentiary in nature.

The significance of this development may not be immediately apparent until one recognizes American law regarding citizenship status. Citizenship laws as expressed in Title 8 of the United States Code states the use of a Foreign Passport constitutes adult recognition of relinquishment of American Citizenship:
8 USC 1481

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent, after having attained the age of eighteen years; 8 USC 1481

Using a foreign passport in order to obtain status as a foreign student is precisely that, proof of naturalization in a foreign state.

The child Barack Obama became an Indonesian Citizen when he was adopted by his stepfather Lolo Soetoro and the family’s subsequent relocation to Indonesia.

Young Barack by law needed Indonesian Citizenship in order to attend school, and his adoption provided this. Indeed, in young Barack’s situation adoption was necessary to gain it.

In his defense, Obama supporters have claimed for years if the president had lost his American Citizenship as a child, he did not in fact lose it because the actions of a parent cannot permanently remove a child’s American natural born citizenship status. This fallacious argument once had some validity within the confusing morass that is American Citizenship law, the nature of which is a challenge for immigration attorneys even today.

However, Hulton’s story and sworn affidavit would confirm that Barack Obama renounced what American citizenship status he had as an adult over the age of 18, by attending college as a foreign student using a foreign passport.

This would explain the president’s refusal to release his college records. These records will easily prove or disprove his status as a Foreign Student. This is the importance of U.S. Postal worker Allen Hulton’s testimony. Unless Obama formally renounced that foreign citizenship, there is the distinct possibility he is not an American Citizen, let alone a Natural Born Citizen.

In reality, due to his father’s British heritage, Mr. Obama was never a Natural Born Citizen to begin with, and admitted precisely this on his “Fight the Smears” website, stating that he was born under the British Nationality Act of 1948. This website “http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/” has since been removed from the live internet to re-direct to Attackwatch.com “http://www.attackwatch.com/”. Clearly Mr. Obama has relied upon confusing the American people as much as possible in order to make the truth as difficult as possible to ascertain.

Selective Service Fraud

Equally unreported by the U.S. media is that of the Selective Service Card which registered Barack Obama for the Draft in 1980. Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse released information on March 1st 2012 that this document is also “Highly Suspicious” of being a forgery, along with Mr. Obama’s “Long Form Birth Certificate” which was released by the president in the White House press room on April 27th, 2011.

One of the few media outlets reporting fully on the Cold Case Posse is the Tea Party Tribune of Arizona. On March 21st, the Tribune reported that Sheriff Arpaio has asked the Selective Service headquarters in Virginia for the original card itself in an effort to determine its authenticity within the Selective Service System. According to the Tribune, Sheriff Arpaio expressed his confidence that the agency would investigate the matter. This remains to be seen.
Has the wider American media addressed any of this in context? It may be the largest scandal in American history, certainly the most significant constitutional crisis the nation has faced since the end of the Civil War…

No.

They don’t dare.

Censorship: It is not a rumor.

Amendment I
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Amendment will not prevent a few thugs funded by a private citizen or corporation from paying strategic individuals personal visits though, will it? Now we know why the remaining honest media has remained suspiciously silent.

Rumors of censorship of the American press have circulated at various times over the last several years. It seemed impossible that credible and realistic questions could exist concerning Barack Obama’s qualifications for President, yet be somehow missed by the main stream media. Indeed, the media in general is very aware of these questions, however they cannot ask them, let alone report on them. Just one example is Media Matters, funded by the George Soros Foundation, which has repeatedly and openly threated Talk Radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and his advertisers. Many have given in to the threats merely to stay in business.
In late May 2011 Dr. Jerome Corsi PhD. published “Where’s the Birth Certificate?: The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President”. At about the same time, a concerted behind the scenes effort was made to silence the press with regard to the ever increasing questions about Barack Obama’s eligibility.

A telephone interview March 22nd with Cold Case Posse Lead investigator Mike Zullo revealed the Posse had received “highly credible” information from three separate, unrelated, credible sources detailing information regarding a nationally syndicated Conservative Talk Radio show. This major very well-known host had a fill-in the day the script called for a discussion of Barack Obama’s persistent and unanswered questions regarding his citizenship status.

The executive producers of the national show, 3 hours before air time, pulled the script literally leaving the temporary host with no script whatsoever.
For a nationally syndicated show, this is absolutely unheard of, particularly with a fill-in doing the show. Programing is scheduled days in advance as hours of work and preparation often go into them; it is after all a business and one which must inform accurately. To have a script tossed just hours before airing is simply not done without explanation or substitution.

Lead Investigator Zullo revealed in this conversation that several individuals have come forth to provide testimony; the identity of these witnesses is being withheld for their protection. They identify producers, reporters, T.V. and radio personalities who have been told specifically by intimidating individuals who state clearly, they are not going to report on this story. These witnesses have been told: “If you breathe a word about it on air, we will make certain you never work in this business again,” said Investigator Zullo. Apparently those making the threats have the power to carry through on them.

Some of these witnesses have been told this along with a sinister inquiry into how a family member is doing over at XYZ (details have been changed to protect witness identity), or some other means of letting that person know the powers that be know exactly where their family members are…

There are a few however with the courage to speak out and report on this story. Talk radio show host Rodger Hedgecock recently had Sheriff Joe Arpaio on his show. “This is probably the biggest censorship blackout in the history of the United States…” said Arpaio, “Why?” he continued, “Because it has to do with the White House? The President?”.

How can the American media possibly pass on a story so huge, and so important – fraud committed by a sitting president? – Simple, it has quite simply been threatened into silence, and law enforcement is now well aware of it.

Those who are threatening the media are apparently dead serious: to the extent that no member of the media who has been threatened is willing to admit publically to it. However, there are several who have given their witness testimony, but have done so under the very strictest of confidentiality agreements. Collectively they are afraid of losing their jobs, or of their employees being further threatened.

This is no game, this is no rumor. Sheriff Arpaio and the Cold Case Posse have the information directly from witnesses who have specific knowledge of the threats, and there are a significant number of informants. Whoever is making these threats has the power to make those threats happen. It is being taken so seriously that no major media outlet has dared to break the silence.

Lead investigator Zullo, mirroring the comments of Sheriff Arpaio commented, “This is probably one of the most concerning aspects of this investigation.” When asked if this was thuggery, the reply came without hesitation, “That’s exactly what it is.”

Media moguls at the levels of a Rupert Murdoch are justifiably nervous. The implicit threat – beyond the direct threats made to their employees – involve investigations of media outlets along with their websites and their parent companies by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

“During our investigation, we actually were told [that media] had been threatened with FTC investigations. Commentators [had been] threatened with their jobs.” Lead Investigator Zullo told Bob Unruh of World Net Daily on March 7th. These are the auspices of the federal government with the resources of a powerful nation backing them. The justifications for using such power are almost unlimited as RedState pointed out in August of 2011.

These federal agencies can yank broadcasting licenses, or take a variety of other actions which have the effect of making it impossible to do business let alone broadcast. It’s a brutal quid pro quo: don’t breathe a word on Barack Obama’s citizenship issues or constitutional qualifications for the office he has usurped, and we will let you stay in business.

To be brutally clear, the power and backing of the United States Federal Government is being used to silence the press about Barack Obama. Either outright or through coercion, the media is complicit in covering up the crimes of the fraud Barack Obama and his unconstitutional government. These patterns are clear and unmistakable.

Part two of this column will report on 9 State Attorneys General who have taken the unprecedented step of listing the continuing crimes of the Obama Administration with the clear intent to prosecute, which has also received little media attention.

Mrs. Cotter is a senior at American Military University, recipient of the Outstanding Student Essay of 2009, a member of Delta Epsilon Tau and Epsilon Pi Phi Academic Fraternities and on the Dean’s and President’s Lists for academic achievement. She has published at American Thinker, Examiner.com, Accuracy in Media, Family Security Matters, Post and Email, and English Pravda. The author can be contacted at Cotter.d.c@gmail.com, or at DiannaCotter.com

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“A Scandal That Will Shake This Country To Its Foundations”

March 16, 2012 by 13 Comments

Joe Arpaio SC 300x199 A scandal that will shake this country to its foundations”

Is President Obama’s birth certificate a forgery? Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz., believes it is. He recently held a press conference in Phoenix to discuss the findings of a new 10-page report. Mr. Arpaio’s investigators have come to a stunning conclusion: The long-form birth certificate Mr. Obama released last year is a “computer-generated forgery.

With the exception of The Washington Times, however, no major U.S. media outlet reported this bombshell story. The liberal press corps is desperately trying to suppress any discussion of Forgerygate – potentially one of the biggest scandals in American history. The media class is betraying its fundamental mission to pursue the truth.

“Based on all of the evidence presented and investigated, I cannot in good faith report to you that these documents are authentic,” Sheriff Arpaio said. “My investigators believe that the long-form birth certificate was manufactured electronically and that it did not originate in paper format as claimed by the White House.”

The Washington Times story, written by Stephen Dinan, points out that Mr. Arpaio has called for Congress to investigate the matter. Think about this: A high-profile sheriff orders a team of former law enforcement officials to examine whether the president is truly a natural born citizen and that he has the constitutional and legal right to occupy the White House. Their official report is that Mr. Obama’s documents are shoddy and he likely engaged in deliberate fraud. And yet, most of the American press corps doesn’t believe this is an important news story? The liberal media has become rotten to the core.

Ironically, the foreign press reported widely on the story. For example, Pravda – that’s right, the former official organ of the Soviet Communist Party – did an extensive analysis of Mr. Arpaio’s findings. The article by Dianna Cotter asks the obvious question: What are U.S. journalists afraid of?

Read More at The Washington Times

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,