Obama: We’re going to have to control the media, starting with Fox News

By 53 Comments 5,040 views

dictator-obama b

 

The mask is off. No more pretending. The dictator is displeased and things have to change.

President Straw Man:

I think that the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leeches, don’t want to work, are lazy, are undeserving, got traction. And look, it’s still being propagated. I have to say that if you watch Fox News on a regular basis, it is a constant venue. They will find folks who make me mad. I don’t know where they find them. They’re all like, “I don’t want to work. I just want a free Obama Phone, or whatever.” And that becomes an entire narrative that gets worked up. And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress, which is much more typical — who is raising a couple of kids and doing everything right but still can’t pay the bills.

And so, if we’re going to change how Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) think, we’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues, and how people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy looks like. And how budgets connect to that. And that’s a hard process because that requires a much broader conversation than typically we have on the nightly news.

As John Nolte notes, Barack Obama knows squat about being poor:

Obama attended prep schools as a child, lived with his well-to-do grandparents in Honolulu as a teen, where he attended Panahou, a fancy private school. Both of his grandparents were well educated; she even worked as the vice president of a bank. For a time, Obama had a nanny! From there Obama attended Occidental College in California, was well off enough to visit Pakistan for 3 weeks; he then attended two of the most prestigious colleges in the country: Columbia and Harvard.

The closest Obama has ever come to experiencing anything close to poverty was during his time as a community organizer in Chicago. And in that dynamic, the poor were just pawns for Obama to manipulate to achieve his political ambitions.

Obama knows nothing of struggle, or what life is like for those who do. And after 7 years of his failed economic policies, we also know he doesn’t give a damn enough about the poor to change his policies in a way that might actually help them.

Obama likes poor people fine — he likes them dependent on the government.

He also likes the news media to do what it’s told.

We have noted here that Obama famously said that he doesn’t watch the news, asserting “Whatever they’re reporting about, usually I know.”

And Obama doubled down, claiming that he doesn’t watch cable news at all!

“He’s a voracious consumer of the printed word — even the electronic printed word — but he doesn’t watch cable news”

said Jay Carney.

But we all know what an incontrovertible liar Obama is. Obama has had a feud with Fox News for a long time. This from 2009:

And the White House has gone beyond words, reports CBS News senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield. Last Sept. 20, the president went on every Sunday news show – except Chris Wallace’s show on FOX. And on Thursday, the Treasury Department tried to exclude FOX News from pool coverage of interviews with a key official. It backed down after strong protests from the press.

“All the networks said, that’s it, you’ve crossed the line,” said CBS News White House correspondent Chip Reid.

Almost from the beginning Obama has sought to “delegitimize” Fox News:

So why is the White House out to “de-legitimize” FOX? Not because it has opinions, but because its opinion voices are so hostile to Mr. Obama – and because FOX News is, as it has been for a decade, by far the most watched of the cable news networks. In fact, its ratings have increased 13 percent this summer. So if FOX is feeling any pain from the White House’s stance, it’s crying all the way to the bank.

The continued domination of Fox News must eat at the would be Mussolini.

On Special Report tonight Bret Baier wryly noted Obama’s obsession with Fox News saying

“He does seem to have us on his mind a lot.”

Charles Krauthammer added

“Well, the president speaks with such authority about what is on Fox News. He says, ‘if you watch Fox News on a regular basis,’ so he seems well-acquainted with what we do,” Krauthammer told Baier. “I think Fox ought to run a full-page ad welcoming Obama into the viewership of the number one network. He should be proud of us.”

and closed with

“Mr. President, if you’re watching us right now, you’ve got a tick. It can be cured.”

As his Presidency (gratefully) winds down Obama is reaching for powers well beyond any other President and now is angling for control of the press as part of his stated goal of fundamentally transforming this country into a “progressive” (as in Communist) state.

Obama is already well on his way to controlling the internet. Ajit Pai has been screaming at us about that. Control of the press is a natural part of the progression.

If and when Obama denies planning to control Fox News or the internet chills should run down your spine.

DrJohn’s Law.

All discussions about the current President have the same starting point.

Barack Obama is a galactic liar.

Post Script:

Did you ever see George Bush whining like a little girl about the press?

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

53 Responses to “Obama: We’re going to have to control the media, starting with Fox News”

  1. 52

    Greg

    The elimination of Assad’s extensive chemical weapons stockpiles didn’t include the elimination of chlorine, which is necessary for water purification. There are dozens of highly toxic gases having industrial applications that probably could be used as improvised chemical weapons just as chlorine gas has been used. They can’t all be classified as chemical weapons and eliminated. They historically haven’t been classified as chemical weapons.

    No one is arguing that chlorine gas has not been used in warfare. The chlorine gas attacks of WW 1 trench warfare are common knowledge. Chlorine was soon abandoned because it didn’t prove very useful. It tended to kill as many of the user’s own troops as it did the enemy’s—sometimes a lot more. It was replaced by more effective agents that no one would dispute for a moment were designed and produced specifically as weapons.

    What Obama said is clear enough:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhWGEWMtfTY&t=1m28s

    People apparently want to hear something else in order to have something to criticize. Rocks have not historically been considered weapons, despite the fact that countless people throughout history have been deliberately injured or killed when someone struck them on the head with one.

  2. 53

    Nanny G

    Greg, of course all chemical weapons cannot be eliminated and you are exactly right as to the reason why. They are necessary for other things essential to civilization, like clean water, fertile land, etc.
    But Obama said that chlorine ”historically, had not been listed as a chemical weapon.”
    Obama is parsing, just like the law professor he is.
    The Geneva Protocol in 1925 banned the use of chemical and biological weapons. It specifically forbade “the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases,” including chlorine.
    Around 1630, chlorine was recognized as a gas by the Flemish chemist.
    In 1915 chlorine gas was first introduced as a weapon and killed many by ”drowning on dry land.”
    Its use was ended during WWI only because it could not be delivered without killing so many soldiers on both sides.
    In Iraq truck bombs of chlorine were detonated (the drivers were aware it would kill them, too) several times before Saddam was gone. But the truck explosions were more deadly than the chlorine because it dispersed in the air so quickly.
    So, again, bad delivery system.
    In Syria and also by ISIS a new delivery system has been developed that causes many to be sickened and killed by chlorine.
    I sure hope that delivery system remains a secret.
    Otherwise more chlorine chemical weapons attacks might occur.

    What Obama might have more accurately said is that chlorine has not been listed as a particularly effective chemical weapon, traditionally……

    WNBC article cached at Free Republic.

    In 2004 chlorine bombs were thrown into 4 businesses in New Jersey……
    The definition of crimes of terrorism under New Jersey’s Anti-Terrorism Act includes people who attempt, conspire or threaten to commit a crime, including possession or production of chemical weapons, to terrorize five or more people.

    Chlorine is not listed as a chemical weapon, but the act notes that chemical weapons are limited to those listed.

    Roger Shatzkin, a spokesman for the state’s Office of Counter-Terrorism, said a prosecutor would decide whether the person or persons who threw the bottles would be charged under the anti-terrorism act.

    So, we’ve already made exceptions when the chlorine is used to attack US.
    Obama just didn’t want to do a thing with regard Assad.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *