Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Censorship Continued/Updated

Yesterday I wrote about MSNBC's censorship of a Tea Party photo in order to show the opposite of what it really was. (Reminds me of a saying I attribute to a much admired family friend of long standing; "He is such a liar even the opposite of what he says isn't true!")

You may have read about the Ben Rhodes interview published in the New York Times Magazine last week http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html?_r=2.

It has caused a stir quite amusing to those of us not on the political left. In essence Rhodes, a top aide to Obama, proudly confirmed what many of us already new. The Obama Administration peddles lies to an ill-informed (according to Rhodes and me) White House press corps which then dutifully publishes the lies. There are many unamused lefty reporters in Washington and New York. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/05/with-rhodes-as-my-witness.php

A lot of the article revolves around the Obama/Rhodes strategy for selling the Iran nuclear agreement to us. In that regard a Fox News correspondent, James Rosen, comments on his involvement with the issue. At a press briefing on that agreement he had questioned a State Department spokesperson on one of the issues touched on in the article. His report is below.

Toward the end of the report he shows us that the State Department has disappeared his portion of the briefing. For the authoritarians running the country at the moment, making unpleasant and embarrassing questions disappear is standard procedure.


Sometimes even totalitarians have to acknowledge popular outrage. The video has been restored to the State web site


"The Obama administration's Stalinist-level propaganda never looked so obvious and incompetent. No wonder the beltway media (AKA the White House "echo chamber") is hopping mad. No, not at Ben Rhodes, the White House's Chief Propagandist, but at David Samuels, the NYT journalist who brought this all out and made them all look like such willing dupes"

Coming to America

Courtesy of mind-numbingly stupid "progressives" who are determined not to see the obvious, this lovely demonstration of Muslim sensitivity and love of freedom:


It may well be that there are Muslims willing to live and let live. I do not see how, given the orthodoxy of their religion, but I am told they exist. Unfortunately, if they do exist, they are neither the face nor the dominant element of their religion. 

From all I have seen and read, Islam and freedom, as we understand it, are mutually exclusive.

Monday, May 09, 2016

An Essential Explanation

My complaints about the censorship of the news by "news" organizations have been frequent. I have read countless articles claiming that both sides of the political isle complain that the news is slanted in their opponents direction so things must, after all, be in balance and my complaints are nonsense. Nonsense.

I have mentioned Bill Whittle before. A brilliant guy, in my opinion. His clip below illustrates a routine example of censorship by a "news" organization which succeeds in using a picture to convey exactly the opposite of what it conveyed, pre-censorship.
(The photo in question was also used by countless other outlets including, if memory serves, a Newsweek cover.)

My reflex had always to give the benefit of the "good intentions" doubt to those who are found to be stretching the rules. The transgressions of "progressives" over the last thirty years or so (by which I mean since I have been paying attention) have eroded that instinct to the point of erasing it. They do not have good intentions. They do not operate in good faith, as I have mentioned before. Perhaps they never did.

It is impossible for me to believe that the MSNBC reporters discussing the Tea Party in the clip below did not know what the picture in question showed before it was censored. No good intentions. No good faith.

The censorship is not the most important part of the clip below. The most important part is Mr. Whittle's explanation of the how and the why.