During a recent press conference with Angela Merkel, President Obama blamed the rise of Trump on the Internet and "communications" (Newspapers? Radio? TV?); claiming that these technologies need to be controlled because they are "disruptive". Disruptive to who? Him? The Democrats? Or, to those that call themselves globalists, who believe in open borders; a unified world government; and a single global currency?
The fact is, that Obama, once again, wants to control conservative talk.
Of course, he is talking about Fox News. In 2010, he said they had a "destructive" viewpoint. In May of 2015, at a conference at Georgetown University, when talking about the fact that the media must be controlled, he said this: "I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant menu -- they will find folks who make me mad..." Just recently, he went after them again when he claimed that Hillary Clinton's loss was due to the fact that Fox News is in "every bar and restaurant". Really?. Most bars I've gone to have sports on, and most restaurants play music, not Fox News. He really needs to get out more often and see what the real world is like!
I suppose that this blog as well, needs to be controlled. And, what about talk radio? Also I'm certain that he thinks Brietbart, Mediaite, and a whole host of other conservative websites must be sternly dealt with. In fact, any form of communications that doesn't show Barack Obama in a "good light" should be eradicated; or at least converted to a liberal format. Since he has been in office, he has used his appointees on the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Election Commission to shut down conservative speech of any kind.
But now he's even gotten Facebook and Google involved in limiting free speech. Both run by Obama and Democratic supporters, they are now in the process of cleansing the internet of supposed false/fake news. The question here is, who elected them the arbitrators of what constitutes fake news. And, where is the line drawn between opinion pieces and so-called fake news. Facebook and Google never had a problem allowing searches and stories when Harry Reid falsely claimed that Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years; for which Politifact give dirty Harry a full "pants on fire" rating.
But the media is full of false stories. Do a Google search on NBC and you will find dozens of occurrences by that supposedly major new agency (and Obama Supporter) selectively editing stories to favor a "Democratic" viewpoint. Then, we have the darling of the liberal left, Katie Couric, who selectively edited a documentary on gun control in order to make gun ownership advocates look like uninformed idiots.
The bottom line is that Obama doesn't really want to control the internet and communications on a fair basis. He only wants to control those aspects that he doesn't like. Of course, forget about that little thing called the First Amendment that guarantees freedom of speech. Even if it is false. Look at how many incorrect statements our politicians make. For example, Obama's "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
Finally, the rise of Donald Trump could best be explained as the country's rejection of excessive "political correctness" which is constantly encouraged by Democrats and by Barack Obama himself. The President still can't say the words "Islamic Terrorists". No major media outlet has even reported on Obama calling for the "control" of the Internet and Communications. That is a type of abuse, in itself?
References:
President Obama Blames the Internet for the Rise of Trump – Technology Needs “More Control”: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/18/president-obama-blames-the-internet-for-the-rise-of-trump-technology-needs-more-control/
Obama call to change ‘how the media reports’ raises concerns: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/13/obama-call-to-change-how-media-reports-raises-concerns.html
Obama Says Fox News Promotes ‘Destructive’ Viewpoint: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/obama-says-fox-news-promotes-destructive-viewpoint/
Obama Slams Fox News for Being On In 'Every Bar and Restaurant,' Blames Network for Hillary's Defeat: http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/11/746353-president-obama-slams-fox-news-for-being-on-in-every-bar-and-restaurant-blames-it-for-hillarys-defeat/
FEC Dems lay groundwork to ban Fox, WSJ political coverage: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fec-dems-lay-groundwork-to-ban-fox-wsj-political-coverage/article/2603177
FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulation --- like PACs: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fec-chair-warns-that-conservative-media-like-drudge-report-and-sean-hannity-face-regulation-like-pacs/article/2548163
Articles: Obama Declares War on Conservative Talk Radio: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/11/obama_declares_war_on_conserva.html
FCC Commissioner Warns of Federal Regulation of Online Speech: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/20896-fcc-commissioner-warns-of-federal-regulation-of-online-speech
Google and Facebook Take Aim at Fake News Sites: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/technology/google-will-ban-websites-that-host-fake-news-from-using-its-ad-service.html
Harry Reid says anonymous source told him Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/06/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-anonymous-source-told-him-mitt-rom/
Katie Couric Regrets "Misleading" Editing on Gun Doc: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/katie-couric-regrets-misleading-editing-898303
Google Search: nbc selective editing: https://www.google.com/search?q=nbc+selective+editing&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
pb
Showing posts with label control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label control. Show all posts
Monday, December 5, 2016
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Katie Couric Continues the Tradition of Gun Control Activist's Lies
One thing I've realized while doing research for this blog is that gun control activists lie because they can't win on facts.
In fact, Katie Couric just followed that tradition by lying in a documentary she recently aired called "Under the Gun". In a round table discussion with a panel of gun rights advocates, Couric asked "If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?". In the aired version, that question is followed by 9 seconds of silence with edited-in video clips of the panel looking perplexed or, as some say, stupid. However, the real version -- that was edited out -- showed thoughtful responses to the question by the panel members. But, like most gun control activists, they don't want "thoughtful" or realistic anything regarding gun control.
Take the gun show loophole that Hillary Clinton decries constantly. There is none. What she calls the gun show loophole is the fact that any private citizen, per the Brady Bill, can transfer the possession of a firearm to another private party without a background check. That was an intentional part of the law and not a loophole. She also claims that 40% of guns sold at gun shows and on the internet are sold without background checks. There isn't a single study or report that supports that claim. That statistic is a perversion of a 1994 telephone survey that asked the respondents if they bought their gun from a licensed dealer. It had nothing to do with background checks because they didn't even exist until 4 years later in 1998.
A group that calls itself Handgun Control, Inc. claims that 25 to 50 percent of vendors at gun shows don't have federal firearm licenses. That fact is only true when it includes the vendors that are not selling guns at the show. Like those selling hot dogs, hats, t-shirts etc.
Then, Denver congresswoman Diana DeGette said that 70 percent of guns used in crimes come from gun shows. This is another lie. The Department of Justice asked 18,000 prison inmates what was the source of the gun they possessed at the time of their arrest. Only 7-tenths of one percent said it came from a gun show. The highest response by almost 40% was the "Streets".
Here's the truth in just one graph:
Essentially, gun-related homicides have fallen, while the number of guns owned has risen since 1993. Almost proportionately. In addition, and not shown on the graph, is the fact that non-fatal gun violence has fallen 68% over the same period. Also understand that 80% of all crimes are gang related. Yet, gun control advocates seem to think that it is the average gun owners that are the problem.
Simply, I tune out any talk of gun control because it is almost always based on lies. Also, our energies would be better focused on gang control and not gun control.
References:
Katie Couric slammed for 'deceptive' documentary about gun rights: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/05/26/katie-couric-slammed-for-deceptive-documentary-about-gun-rights.html
Katie Couric Decried ‘Edited’ Planned Parenthood Footage, Then Doctored A Gun Owner Interview: http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/26/katie-couric-decried-edited-planned-parenthood-footage-then-doctored-a-gun-owner-interview/
The Facts About Gun Shows: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows
Fact Check: Clinton’s claim that 40 percent of guns are sold at gun shows and over the Internet: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/16/clintons-claim-that-40-percent-of-guns-are-sold-at-gun-shows-and-over-the-internet/
Firearm Use by Offenders: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
Source of Graph: https://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/
Gangs Blamed for 80 Percent of U.S. Crimes: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6773423&page=1
pb
In fact, Katie Couric just followed that tradition by lying in a documentary she recently aired called "Under the Gun". In a round table discussion with a panel of gun rights advocates, Couric asked "If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?". In the aired version, that question is followed by 9 seconds of silence with edited-in video clips of the panel looking perplexed or, as some say, stupid. However, the real version -- that was edited out -- showed thoughtful responses to the question by the panel members. But, like most gun control activists, they don't want "thoughtful" or realistic anything regarding gun control.
Take the gun show loophole that Hillary Clinton decries constantly. There is none. What she calls the gun show loophole is the fact that any private citizen, per the Brady Bill, can transfer the possession of a firearm to another private party without a background check. That was an intentional part of the law and not a loophole. She also claims that 40% of guns sold at gun shows and on the internet are sold without background checks. There isn't a single study or report that supports that claim. That statistic is a perversion of a 1994 telephone survey that asked the respondents if they bought their gun from a licensed dealer. It had nothing to do with background checks because they didn't even exist until 4 years later in 1998.
A group that calls itself Handgun Control, Inc. claims that 25 to 50 percent of vendors at gun shows don't have federal firearm licenses. That fact is only true when it includes the vendors that are not selling guns at the show. Like those selling hot dogs, hats, t-shirts etc.
Then, Denver congresswoman Diana DeGette said that 70 percent of guns used in crimes come from gun shows. This is another lie. The Department of Justice asked 18,000 prison inmates what was the source of the gun they possessed at the time of their arrest. Only 7-tenths of one percent said it came from a gun show. The highest response by almost 40% was the "Streets".
Here's the truth in just one graph:
Essentially, gun-related homicides have fallen, while the number of guns owned has risen since 1993. Almost proportionately. In addition, and not shown on the graph, is the fact that non-fatal gun violence has fallen 68% over the same period. Also understand that 80% of all crimes are gang related. Yet, gun control advocates seem to think that it is the average gun owners that are the problem.
Simply, I tune out any talk of gun control because it is almost always based on lies. Also, our energies would be better focused on gang control and not gun control.
References:
Katie Couric slammed for 'deceptive' documentary about gun rights: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2016/05/26/katie-couric-slammed-for-deceptive-documentary-about-gun-rights.html
Katie Couric Decried ‘Edited’ Planned Parenthood Footage, Then Doctored A Gun Owner Interview: http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/26/katie-couric-decried-edited-planned-parenthood-footage-then-doctored-a-gun-owner-interview/
The Facts About Gun Shows: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/facts-about-gun-shows
Fact Check: Clinton’s claim that 40 percent of guns are sold at gun shows and over the Internet: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/16/clintons-claim-that-40-percent-of-guns-are-sold-at-gun-shows-and-over-the-internet/
Firearm Use by Offenders: http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf
Source of Graph: https://www.aei.org/publication/chart-of-the-day-more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013/
Gangs Blamed for 80 Percent of U.S. Crimes: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/FedCrimes/story?id=6773423&page=1
pb
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Obama's Call For Net Neutrality: A Backdoor To Regulating The Internet
Do you remember who said those infamous words: "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." Well, that same person is indirectly saying something similar about the Internet: "If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet." That's why, like the takeover of healthcare, Obama now wants the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet. His guise for doing so is something called "Network Neutrality" or, simply, "Net Neutrality".
So, what is Net Neutrality? Well, the supporters of it, would tell you that it is needed to insure that the internet remains free (as in freedom of speech) and open (as in nothing gets blocked).
But, isn't it already free and open and, won't the free market place and competition keep it free and open in the future? Why does a regulatory agency like the FCC need to take control of it? Couldn't free speech and openness be guaranteed by the simple passage of a federal law that makes it a crime to control speech or content on the Internet?
There is a lot more to this than simply keeping the internet free and open. Already, the President wants his appointed Federal Election Commission (FEC) to put a stop to political speech on sites like Drudge. So, why not a two-pronged attack to do the same by having tThe FCC control speech on the internet in the same way it is controlled on the public airways for television and radio? Probably arguing that political speech on the Internet should be balanced by applying something like the Fairness Doctrine.
As many have said, Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem. Those saying that, don't understand that everything Obama does is politically motivated. In his mind, Net Neutrality is an attempt to minimize as much conservative speech on the Internet as possible.
References:
President Obama calls on FCC to keep Internet 'free and open': http://www.cnet.com/news/president-obama-calls-on-fcc-to-keep-internet-free-and-open/
FCC coordinated net neutrality with outside [liberal] group: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/04/fcc-coordinated-net-neutrality-with-outside-group/
Federal Communications Commission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission#Regulatory_powers_and_enforcement
Fairness Doctrine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Limbaugh is Right, Net Neutrality Is An Attack On Free Speech -- So Why Is Comcast For It?: http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2014/09/18/limbaugh-is-right-net-neutrality-is-an-attack-on-free-speech-so-why-is-comcast-for-it/
FEC Democrat pushes for controls on Internet political speech: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/24/fec-democrat-pushes-controls-internet-political-sp/?page=all
So, what is Net Neutrality? Well, the supporters of it, would tell you that it is needed to insure that the internet remains free (as in freedom of speech) and open (as in nothing gets blocked).
But, isn't it already free and open and, won't the free market place and competition keep it free and open in the future? Why does a regulatory agency like the FCC need to take control of it? Couldn't free speech and openness be guaranteed by the simple passage of a federal law that makes it a crime to control speech or content on the Internet?
There is a lot more to this than simply keeping the internet free and open. Already, the President wants his appointed Federal Election Commission (FEC) to put a stop to political speech on sites like Drudge. So, why not a two-pronged attack to do the same by having tThe FCC control speech on the internet in the same way it is controlled on the public airways for television and radio? Probably arguing that political speech on the Internet should be balanced by applying something like the Fairness Doctrine.
As many have said, Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem. Those saying that, don't understand that everything Obama does is politically motivated. In his mind, Net Neutrality is an attempt to minimize as much conservative speech on the Internet as possible.
References:
President Obama calls on FCC to keep Internet 'free and open': http://www.cnet.com/news/president-obama-calls-on-fcc-to-keep-internet-free-and-open/
FCC coordinated net neutrality with outside [liberal] group: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/04/fcc-coordinated-net-neutrality-with-outside-group/
Federal Communications Commission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission#Regulatory_powers_and_enforcement
Fairness Doctrine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Limbaugh is Right, Net Neutrality Is An Attack On Free Speech -- So Why Is Comcast For It?: http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2014/09/18/limbaugh-is-right-net-neutrality-is-an-attack-on-free-speech-so-why-is-comcast-for-it/
FEC Democrat pushes for controls on Internet political speech: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/24/fec-democrat-pushes-controls-internet-political-sp/?page=all
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
