Lame Stream Media

Another Obama Move Against Trump

Obama Puts Offshore Drilling Out of Trump’s Reach

December 22, 2016 by admin

 2

Latest News

Going directly against the will of the American people, President Barack Obama made a last ditch power grab to try to render President-elect Donald Trump’s agenda ineffective before his administration has even begun.

According to Time, Obama will permanently ban offshore drilling in most of the U.S.- controlled Arctic and Atlantic Seaboard, a move that will limit Trump’s ability to deliver on his promise to boost the oil and gas industry by scrapping Obama-era environmental regulations.

The ban was being disguised as an effort to conserve marine species by protecting against oil spills, but if those species were in danger, one would imagine that Obama would have made this move years ago — not one month prior to Trump’s inauguration.

The way this is possible is because of a seldom-used provision of a 1953 law giving the president authority to indefinitely block oil and gas drilling in some waters controlled by the United States, according to The New York Times. Because the law has never been used this way before, Trump’s ability to overturn Obama’s unilateral action was in question.

However, with a Republican-dominated Congress, what may be able to be undone is the law itself — though that may take some time, time during which Trump’s hands might be tied.

The left predictably ate this move up, hailing Obama as a hero for environmentalism.

Read More

Talk About Yellow Journalism

White Supremacist Group Gets Donald Trump Bump

• Tessa Berenson @tcberenson
 

11:12 AM ET

    

“Demoralization has been the biggest enemy and Trump is changing all that”

White supremacist groups say they’re seeing a bump in support because ofDonald Trump.

Stormfront, a prominent white supremacist website, is upgrading its servers to deal with all the extra traffic Trump’s candidacy has brought,Politico reports. Stormfront founder Don Black said he has also noticed a spike in listeners and callers to his phone-in radio show. He said Trump is helping bring white supremacy sentiment out into the open. “Demoralization has been the biggest enemy and Trump is changing all that,” Black told Politico. “He’s certainly creating a movement that will continue independently of him even if he does fold at some point.”

Trump does not support or belong to white supremacist groups. But detractors say his rhetoric surrounding undocumented immigrants and Muslims is inspiring a surge of racism in the country.

..."dive-bombing Sterling’s racist remarks like vultures..." Kareem Speaks Clearly. If Only We Could Hear Him.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Slams Media Culture Of Racial Sanctimony

April 30, 2014 by Ben Bullard 

 158 23

 

 0 289

THINKSTOCK

NBA legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is, like many famous people, plenty mad at Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling for saying some pretty inflammatory things about black people and the sport he loves. But he’s equally angry at the mainstream media for dive-bombing Sterling’s racist remarks like vultures, eager to gorge themselves on more of their own false sanctimony.

Abdul-Jabbar had a column in Time Monday that should be required reading for anyone thinking about taking a job as a race-baiting TV talking head. He quickly acknowledged that Sterling said stupid and racist things (duh), then got to the point: the media is full of hypocrites who long ago traded in any ambition to report real news for scintillating talking points that rely upon the ceaseless massaging of American racism’s desiccated corpse for one more wisp of righteous indignation.

“The whole country has gotten a severe case of carpal tunnel syndrome from the newest popular sport of Extreme Finger Wagging,” he wrote. “Not to mention the neck strain from Olympic tryouts for Morally Superior Head Shaking. All over the latest in a long line of rich white celebrities to come out of the racist closet.”

Sure, Sterling comes across as bad as he possibly can, Jabbar said. But what about everyone around him – all the people who are undoubtedly happy to profit from the fallout from his having said such vile things?

Man, what a winding road she [Sterling’s much younger girlfriend] led him down to get all of that out. She was like a sexy nanny playing “pin the fried chicken on the Sambo.” She blindfolded him and spun him around until he was just blathering all sorts of incoherent racist sound bites that had the news media peeing themselves with glee.

They caught big game on a slow news day, so they put his head on a pike, dubbed him Lord of the Flies, and danced around him whooping.

… Suddenly he says he doesn’t want his girlfriend posing with Magic Johnson on Instagram and we bring out the torches and rope. Shouldn’t we have all called for his resignation back then?

Shouldn’t we be equally angered by the fact that his private, intimate conversation was taped and then leaked to the media? Didn’t we just call to task the NSA for intruding into American citizen’s privacy in such an un-American way? Although the impact is similar to Mitt Romney’s comments that were secretly taped, the difference is that Romney was giving a public speech. The making and release of this tape is so sleazy that just listening to it makes me feel like an accomplice to the crime. We didn’t steal the cake but we’re all gorging ourselves on it.

“So,” he concludes, “if we’re all going to be outraged, let’s be outraged that we weren’t more outraged when his racism was first evident. Let’s be outraged that private conversations between people in an intimate relationship are recorded and publicly played. Let’s be outraged that whoever did the betraying will probably get a book deal, a sitcom, trade recipes with Hoda and Kathie Lee, and soon appear on ‘Celebrity Apprentice’ and ‘Dancing with the Stars’.

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban – himself a maverick among a constellation of high-profile sports conformists, said Monday it would be unwise to succumb to the mainstream media’s fascination with making people pay for what they say, instead of what they do.

“I think there’s a constitution for a reason, right? Because this is a very slippery slope,” said Cuban. “What Donald [Sterling] said was wrong. It was abhorrent. There’s no place for racism in the NBA, any business I’m associated with, and I don’t want to be associated with people who have that position.

“But at the same time, that’s a decision I make. I think you’ve got to be very, very careful when you start making blanket statements about what people say and think, as opposed to what they do. It’s a very, very slippery slope.”

Press Ignorance Over The History of The Constitution

 

 Walter E. Williams has always been one of those in academia and outside that has always made sense to me and he did again earlier this month when he discussed a Time Magazine article regarding the Founders.  The assertions that the author, Richard Stengel, makes in his piece shows an utter lack of understanding of how the Constitution was created. In his response, Mr. Williams made it clear that he  understands how the document that governs our country was constructed.

Mr. Stengel is an example of how people lie in today's world to prove their point, a view I expressed in a previous posting.  If the author had listened and learned his civics lessons in grade school or high school, he would understand where he erred. Where are his editors or is their knowledge of history so poor that they too do not understand or is their purpose to mis-inform? Regardless of the reason or rationale, it speaks very poorly of Time Magazine and its editors.

We read Time to gain information, unbiased reporting of the facts. We do not subscribe to get opinion, lies and deceit. If we want editorials there is a spot, it is called the editorial page where we expect to read the opinions of the Editors.   If Time continues down this path, it will soon be the same as the recently closed "News of the World" which tapped cell phones and who knows what else to get their scoops.

If those in the news business believe that they can continue down this  path because the "freedom of the press" will protect them, they are fools.  With this freedom as well as all freedoms comes responsibility. Only those who practice the judicious use of the ability to write freely are preserving it. One cannot say or write anything that comes to mind as that was not the intention of the Founders. They wanted the press to freely investigate and report and not to be hamstrung by government leaders dictating what should be reported.

If the press, a newspaper, magazine, radio or television news program continually misrepresents the issues, do they deserve to be protected by the Constitution? There are many who do not believe they should.

How does this effect talk radio or blogs for instance.  In my humble opinion, this is completely different.  These are opinion outlets just like the Editorial page.  When you tune in Rush Limbaugh or Randi Rhodes or read this blog, do you expect to read or hear all the appropriate facts? No, it is the hosts opinion you hear. You may agree or disagree with the view, but the host is not telling you that he has given you all you need to be informed. That does not mean they should either. Neither does the Editorial page for that matter.

The "talkers" or "bloggers" are covered under another right. The freedom of speech.  They are not the press nor should they be considered as that.  They help the public discuss, chew on, and decide their opinions. Much of the information these people use to discuss the "topic of the day" come from the media which makes the balanced reporting necessary by the press even more important. 

The press has a valuable place in a free society. To abuse that right by unbalanced reporting, is to minimize the significant value of the freedom of press. Those who abuse this right daily are saying that facts and balance are only important when trying to lead us to a certain decision. That is not the value of the press.

Here is Mr. Williams' article:

Walter E. Williams

Gross Media Ignorance

7/6/2011 |

There's little that's intelligent or informed about Time magazine editor Richard Stengel's article "One Document, Under Siege" (June 23, 2011). It contains many grossly ignorant statements about our Constitution. If I believed in conspiracies, I'd say Stengel's article is part of a leftist agenda to undermine respect for the founding values of our nation.

Stengel says: "The framers were not gods and were not infallible. Yes, they gave us, and the world, a blueprint for the protection of democratic freedoms -- freedom of speech, assembly, religion -- but they also gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senators as California, which is kind of crazy. And I'm not even going to mention the Electoral College."
My column last week addressed the compromise whereby each slave was counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of determining representation in the House of Representatives and Electoral College. Had slaves been counted as whole people, slaveholding states would have had much greater political power. I agree the framers were not gods and were not infallible, but they had far greater wisdom and principle than today's politicians.
The framers held democracy and majority rule in deep contempt. As a matter of fact, the term democracy appears in none of our founding documents. James Madison argued that "measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." John Adams said: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Stengel's majoritarian vision sees it as anti-democratic that South Dakota and California both have two senators, but the framers wanted to reduce the chances that highly populated states would run roughshod over thinly populated states. They established the Electoral College to serve the same purpose in determining the presidency.
The framers recognized that most human abuses were the result of government. As Thomas Paine said, "government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil." Because of their distrust, the framers sought to keep the federal government limited in its power. Their distrust of Congress is seen in the language used throughout our Constitution. The Bill of Rights says Congress shall not abridge, shall not infringe, shall not deny and other shall-nots, such as disparage, violate and deny. If the founders did not believe Congress would abuse our God-given, or natural, rights, they would not have provided those protections. I've always argued that if we depart this world and see anything resembling the Bill of Rights at our next destination, we'll know we're in hell. A bill of rights in heaven would be an affront to God.
Other founder distrust for government is found in the Constitution's separation of powers, checks and balances, and several anti-majoritarian provisions, such as the Electoral College, two-thirds vote to override a veto and the requirement that three-quarters of state legislatures ratify changes to the Constitution.
Stengel says, "If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so." That statement is beyond ignorance. The 10th Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Stengel apparently has not read The Federalist No. 45, in which James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
Stengel's article is five pages online, and I've only commented on the first. There's also little in the remaining pages that reflects understanding and respect for our nation's most important document