Posts Tagged 'START HOLDING OUR PRESS ACCOUNTABLE'

HISTORY, CIVICS, AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY PART 2

HISTORY, CIVICS, AND PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY PART 3

THE GOVERNMENT’S GUARD DOG

Because most local newspapers and television stations in the United States are now owned by remote media corporations that are financially associated with politicians of both the Democratic and Republican parties, the American press is no longer the people’s watchdog on the government, but the government’s guard dog against the people.

STOP PERPETUATING ZIONISM IN THE NAME OF HONEST NEWS REPORTING.

President Trump is right about the media—more specifically the press.

The press lies all the time.

President Trump likes Jews, his best friends and confidants are Jews, his son-in-law is a Jew.

By constantly lying about President Trump, the American press continuously distracts us from the real problems with President Trump—the real reasons Donald Trump is not suitable to be President.

Our press needs to stop using the term, “anti-Semitic.”

That term is a misnomer—just as the term, “African-American,” is.

Just like the term, “African-American,” the term, “anti-Semitism,” has never been a legitimate term, in the way that it has always been used.

The person who has murdered eleven people at a Pittsburgh synagogue—and wounded several others—is a bigot.

And his crime was driven by mindless, misplaced rage that was born of bigotry—not “anti-Semitism.”

The term, “anti-Semitism,” was coined by Zionist Jews in 1882, to silence all critics of their Zionist movement, and of their proposed Zionist State of Israel.

The Semitic ethnicity—which originated in the Arabian peninsula, many thousands of years ago—is comprised of both Jews and Arabs.

Though Jews are not an ethnic or racial group—but an ancestral group, of the Semitic ethnicity, and the Caucasoid race—the term, “anti-Semitism” is defined as “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.”

Do you see the problem here?

Arabs are also Semitic—why isn’t hostility toward or discrimination against Arabs also called “anti-Semitism?”

The term, “anti-Semitism” is a weapon used by Zionist Jews to equate opposition to Zionism, and the Zionist State of Israel, to opposition to Jews.

Though most Jews are not anti-Zionist—there is a growing number of anti-Zionist Jews.

And Zionist Jews call these anti-Zionist Jews “anti-Semitic”—thus labeling these anti-Zionist Jews as “hostile toward Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group.”

Isn’t that ridiculous?

Every industry of our mass media in the United States is owned and controlled by Zionist Jews.

This includes the press—print and electronic.

Not all Jews in the United States are part of this Zionist elite that controls every industry of our mass media—not even most Jews in the United States are part of this Zionist elite that controls every industry of our mass media.

But every industry of our mass media in the United States is owned and controlled by Zionist Jews—and this is why this latest mass shooting in the United States is labeled, by our press, as “anti-Semitic,” instead of “bigoted.”  This is why this latest mass shooter in the United States is labeled, by our press, as an “anti-Semite,” instead of a “bigot.”  This is why this latest mass shooting in the United States is labeled, by our press, as being driven by “anti-Semitism,” instead of “bigotry.”

Nevertheless, I still ask our press to stop lying.

I still ask our press to stop using variations of the Zionist term, “anti-Semitism,” to describe the evil act of a bigot.

Stop perpetuating Zionism in the name of honest news reporting.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2018: THE TESTIMONY THAT STOOD OUT THE MOST, TO ME

FORD: . . . Once the press started reporting on the existence of the letter I had sent to Senator Feinstein, I faced mounting pressure. Reporters appeared at my home and at my workplace, demanding information about the letter in the presence of my graduate students. They called my bosses and co-workers, and left me many messages, making it clear that my name would inevitably be released to the media.

 

FEINSTEIN: How did you decide to come forward?

FORD: Ultimately because reporters were sitting outside my home and trying to talk to my dog through the window to calm the dog down, and a reporter appeared in my graduate classroom and I mistook her for a student, and she came up to ask me a question, and I thought she was a student and it turned out that she was a reporter.

So at that point, I felt like enough was enough. People were calling my colleagues at Stanford and leaving messages on their voicemails and on their e-mail, saying that they knew my name. Clearly, people knew my address because they were out in front of my house.

 

MITCHELL: Do you know how that letter became public?

FORD: No.

MITCHELL: OK. After that letter was made public or leaked, did you reach back out to The Washington Post?

FORD: I reached out to The Washington — well, they were continuously reaching out to me and I was not responding. But the time that I did respond and agree to do the sit-down was once the reporters started showing up at my home and at my workplace.

 

GRAHAM: Are you aware that at 9:23 on the night of July the 9th, the day you were nominated to the Supreme Court by President Trump, Senator Schumer said 23-minutes after your nomination, “I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have, I have (sic) a bipartisan — and I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same. The stakes are simply too high for anything less.” Well, if you weren’t aware of it, you are now.

Did you meet with Senator Dianne Feinstein on August 20th?

KAVANAUGH: I did meet with Senator Feinstein…

GRAHAM: Did you know that her staff had already recommended a lawyer to Dr. Ford?

KAVANAUGH: … I did not know that.

GRAHAM: Did you know that her and her staff had this — allegations for over 20 days?

KAVANAUGH: I did not know that at the time.

GRAHAM: If you wanted a FBI investigation, you could have come to us. What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open and hope you win in 2020. You’ve said that, not me. You’ve got nothing to apologize for.

When you see Sotomayor and Kagan, tell them that Lindsey said hello because I voted for them. I would never do to them what you’ve done to this guy. This is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics. And if you really wanted to know the truth, you sure as hell wouldn’t have done what you’ve done to this guy.

Are you a gang rapist?

KAVANAUGH: No.

GRAHAM: I cannot imagine what you and your family have gone through.

Boy, you all want power. God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham. That you knew about it and you held it. You had no intention of protecting Dr. Ford; none.

She’s as much of a victim as you are. God, I hate to say it because these have been my friends. But let me tell you, when it comes to this, you’re looking for a fair process? You came to the wrong town at the wrong time, my friend. Do you consider this a job interview?

KAVANAUGH: If (ph) the advice and consent role is like a job interview.

GRAHAM: Do you consider that you’ve been through a job interview?

KAVANAUGH: I’ve been through a process of advice and consent under the Constitution, which…

GRAHAM: Would you say you’ve been through hell?

KAVANAUGH: I — I’ve been through hell and then some.

GRAHAM: This is not a job interview.

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

GRAHAM: This is hell.

KAVANAUGH: This — this…

GRAHAM: This is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap. Your high school yearbook — you have interacted with professional women all your life, not one accusation.

You’re supposed to be Bill Cosby when you’re a junior and senior in high school. And all of a sudden, you got over it. It’s been my understanding that if you drug women and rape them for two years in high school, you probably don’t stop.

Here’s my understanding, if you lived a good life people would recognize it, like the American Bar Association has, the gold standard. His integrity is absolutely unquestioned. He is the very circumspect in his personal conduct, harbors no biases or prejudices. He’s entirely ethical, is a really decent person. He is warm, friendly, unassuming. He’s the nicest person — the ABA.

The one thing I can tell you should be proud of — Ashley, you should be proud of this — that you raised a daughter who had the good character to pray for Dr. Ford.

To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics. You want this seat? I hope you never get it.

I hope you’re on the Supreme Court, that’s exactly where you should be. And I hope that the American people will see through this charade. And I wish you well. And I intend to vote for you and I hope everybody who’s fair-minded will.

 

HATCH: . . . Judge, welcome, we’re happy to have you here. My friend from — I’d just like to say a few words — my friend from Arizona emphasized yesterday that we have before us today two human beings, Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh. They deserve — each of you deserves to be treated fairly and respectfully.

We tried to do that with Dr. Ford earlier and I think we succeeded. It’s important that we treat Judge Kavanaugh fairly now. And it remains to be seen how that’s going to work out.

Judge Kavanaugh has been a federal judge for 12 years. And he’s been a great federal judge on the second-highest court in the nation. He’s earned a reputation for fairness and decency. His clerks love him. His students he teaches in law school as well, his students love him. His colleagues love him. This man is not a monster, nor is he what has been represented here in these hearings.

We’re talking today about Judge Kavanaugh’s conduct in high school — and even then, and as a freshman in college, I guess, as well. Serious allegations have been raised. If Judge Kavanaugh committed sexual assault, he should not serve on the Supreme Court; I think we’d all agree with that.

HATCH: But the circus atmosphere that has been created since my Democratic colleagues first leaked Dr. Ford’s allegations to the media two weeks ago — after sitting on them for six weeks, I might add — has brought us the worst in our politics. It certainly has brought us no closer to the truth. Anonymous letters with no name and no return address are now being treated as national news. Porn star lawyers with facially implausible claims are driving the news cycle.

I hate to say this, but this is worse than Robert Bork, and I didn’t think it could get any worse than that. This is worse than Clarence Thomas. I didn’t think it could get any worse than that. This is a national disgrace, the way you’re being treated.

And in the middle of it all, we have Judge Kavanaugh, a man who until two weeks ago was a pillar of the legal community. There’s been no whisper of misconduct by him in the time he’s been a judge.

What we have are uncorroborated, unsubstantiated claims from his teenage years. Claims that every alleged eyewitness has either denied or failed to corroborate.

I do not mean to minimize the seriousness of the claims. Yes, they’ve been serious claims, but the search for truth has to involve more than bare assertions. Like Dr. Ford, Judge Kavanaugh deserves fair treatment. He was an immature high schooler. So were we all. That he wrote or said stupid things sometimes does not make him a sexual predator.

I understand the desire of my colleagues to tear down this man at any costs. I do understand it. But let’s at least be fair and look at the facts or the absence thereof. Guilt by association is wrong. Immaturity does not equal criminality. That Judge Kavanaugh drank in high school or college does not make him guilty of every terrible thing that he’s recently been accused of.

A lifetime of respect and equal treatment ought to mean something when assessing allegations that are flatly inconsistent with the course of a person’s entire adult life.

With those comments, Judge, I’d just like to ask you a few questions if I can about how — and if you can be short in your answers, it’d help me get through a bunch of them — about how this process has unfolded. When did you first learn of Dr. Ford’s allegations against you?

KAVANAUGH: It was a week ago Sunday when — the Washington Post Story.

HATCH: Isn’t that amazing? Did the ranking member raise these allegations in your one-on-one meeting with her last month?

KAVANAUGH: She did not.

HATCH: Did the ranking member raise them at your public hearing earlier this month?

KAVANAUGH: No.

HATCH: Did the ranking member raise them at the closed session that followed the public hearing?

KAVANAUGH: She was not there.

HATCH: Did the ranking member or any of her colleagues raise them in the 1,300 written questions that were submitted to you following the hearing?

KAVANAUGH: No.

HATCH: When was the first time that the ranking member or her staff asked you about these allegations?

KAVANAUGH: Today.

HATCH: When did you first hear of Ms. Ramirez’s allegations against you?

KAVANAUGH: In the last — in the period since then, the New Yorker story.

HATCH: Did the Ranking Member or any of her colleagues or any of their staffs ask you about Ms. Ramirez’s allegations before they were leaked to the press?

KAVANAUGH: No.

HATCH: When was the first time that the ranking member or any of her colleagues or any of their staff asked you about Ms. Ramirez’s allegations?

KAVANAUGH: Today.

HATCH: I think it’s a disgrace, between you and me.

NPR_RESPONSE@NPR.ORG

Your customer service is lacking—you don’t read our emails, and you pass the buck.

This is why I never contribute money to NPR—even when I have enough money to contribute to it.

PBS’s customer service is lacking too—it never replies to our emails.

And that is why I never contribute money to PBS—even when I have enough money to contribute to it.

You take your listeners for granted—and sooner or later, all of your listeners are going to abandon you, and you’re going to go extinct.

The less money our government contributes to you, the more you advertise.

And the more you advertise, the more beholding you are to your sponsors—the more commercial you become, just like the mainstream radio networks.

It is no coincidence that you and PBS are controlled by elite Democrats—the same elite Democrats who completely lost out in 2016, because you ignored those of us in “flyover country,” and the same elite Democrats who still refuse to bear any responsibility toward your constituents (in this case, your listeners)—and will continue losing your constituents, and listeners, as a result.

You are liberals, not progressives.

You are no more progressive than the neocons are conservative.

You liberals are exactly the same as the neocons—the same corporate sellouts who are tearing our country apart.

Yes, this is a rant—it just goes on and on.

But what does it matter to you?

You never listen to your listeners—and this is why you will soon have no listeners.

We will abandon you.

JENNY@BUSTLE.COM

Ms. Hollander,

Who the hell do you think you are?

You are just another White kid from a privileged background, who has never truly suffered a day in her life.

Yet you just know that Bill Cosby is guilty, don’t you?

And you just know that all men take advantage of all women, every day, don’t you?

And you just know that no women take advantage of any men, any day, don’t you?

You Generation-Y and Generation-Z brats are ruining our world.

You don’t know how to do math on paper, you don’t know how to spell, and you don’t know how to use correct grammar.

You also never question anything the press tells you—or anything that liberal politicians tell you.

In fact, you never question anything at all.

You have no manners—and you have no respect for anyone or anything.

You are totally self-absorbed—and all you ever do is keep your heads up your apps, oblivious to everyone and everything around you.

Ms. Hollander, there is simply nothing good about you Generation-Y and Generation-Z bastards at all.

You are the most worthless human beings in human history, and I just wish to God we could expel you all from our planet—or at least disable all of the goddamned cell towers in the world, so we could at least wake you bastards up.

God damn you all to hell.

Scott Wesley Mayo

Pensacola, Florida

U.S.A.

Proud member of Generation X—the last good generation at all

“WHERE IS THE RESISTANCE TO THIS MONUMENT?”

“‘It’s always a good thing to remember and honor our history,’ said Claudine Kriss as reported by Troy Moon in his article referencing General Galvez’s sculpture by Captain Robert Rasmussen, USN, Ret. and Katherine R. Vineze.

“The addition of this monument will enhance the downtown area of Pensacola as does the existing monument in Lee’s Square atop the hill on Palafox Street of a Confederate soldier—a part of our history too.  The question begs, where is the resistance to this monument?

“The Spanish were instrumental in assisting the American Colonies to gain their independence from Britain, but are also responsible for enslaving, spreading disease, torture, maiming, theft, murder, rape, arson and other crimes that wiped out tribes of Native Americans along the Gulf Coast, Florida and the Southeast.

“Florida was, while under Spanish control, a refuge for runaway slaves.  However, the Spanish were quick to enslave the Africans and send them to their colonies in Cuba and elsewhere in the Caribbean Basin.

 

“If the Pensacola News Journal is indeed unbiased, offers responsible journalistic discourse with all sides having the light of truth to shine upon a subject, then this newspaper should relate historical facts with reference to the Spanish atrocities known throughout many publications, books and articles written on this very subject.

“We can’t change history any more than we can change who our parents are!  Our history is just that…history!  It is what it is!”

W. L. Stafford, Pensacola

Pensacola News Journal, April 24, 2018

BEWARE THE FEAST WE ARE PROMISED

“The mass media’s influence on the ethics of public life, as characterized by the press’s watchdog role in monitoring the conduct of government officials, is assumed to be vital to democracy.  The effectiveness of this watchdog role is less clearly understood.  Partial answers are found in the evolving institutional history of the press, including its control, ethics, laws, technology, organization, and the content of news stories.  Just as reporters rarely discuss their ethics in terms of teleology and deontology, the press does not conceptualize in sophisticated terms its impact on the ethics of public employees.  It traditionally finds motivation from the popular belief in watchdog success models from muckraking to Watergate.  As partisanship, news values, and reporting techniques evolve, effectiveness varies.  Research sheds light on media trends but focuses more on presidents than county clerks, more on political campaigns than government process.  Optimism, as new doors and new technology open to reporters, is tempered by competition from the marketplace and the new digital feast promised consumers.”

Warren Francke

January 1, 1995

SOME MEMES THAT MAKE YOU THINK


Categories