White House senior adviser and Obama crony David Axelrod recently made the claim that Fox News isn't a real news organization -
Not taking into consideration the programs of Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, and others who have a conservative/libertarian point of view, the overall programming of Fox News is vastly more representative of the American people than the alphabet organizations of ABC,NBC,CNN,MSNBC,etc...
While the alphabet fringe media are praising Obama and taking a position of on their knees while reporting the news, FOX refuses to accept Obama as a messiah, and thus, has incurred the wrath of the left, Obama, and the White House.
Axelrod claims that FOX news only portrays a specific point of view, unlike the alphabet media. This is clearly untrue, as anyone who watches a minute of both sets of programming will notice. The alphabet fringe media is clearly liberal and pro-Obama and skews news to fit their ideology. Obama and Government, I mean General, Electric are just two strings of the left-wing web of corruption, however, GE's media arm (MSNBC & NBC) is somehow more credible than FOX News, which doesn't have a parent company in bed with the White House.
If Axelrod's statements are true, it must be because Americans are so outraged with what is real, that they refuse to watch the news and instead watch the fictional news programming on FOX - after all FOX smashes the ratings of the alphabet news outlets are ALL times of the day, and their 3 AM slot featuring "Red Eye" is more popular than some prime time fringe media programming.
I'm sure it is shocking for Axelrod and Obama that not everyone is willing to drop to their knees and praise their liberal ideology, however, pretending that FOX isn't a real news organization only strengthens the opposition, and bathes Obama,Axelrod, and the left in a bright light of stupidity, ignorance, and bias.
How long before Obama takes lead from Chavez and bans free speech in order to skew his support numbers?
A tale of two marches on Washington....
ReplyDeleteOne took place in the late summer of 1963, the other in the late summer of 2009. One was promoted by a preacher from Georgia named Martin Luther King, the other by a former "shock jock" from the state of Washington named Glenn Beck. Ouch! Even mentioning the two of them in the same paragraph is somehow disconcerting.
In 1963, the the people were singing, We Shall Overcome.
Forty-six years later, the chant was, We Shall Undermine.
In 1963, a vast and varied demographic of the American people - all races and religions - descended on the nation's capitol to peaceably and nonviolently protest an injustice that was occurring in certain areas of the country to people of a certain skin pigmentation.
Forty-six years later, a Convention of Pissed-Off White People - united only by the fact that they were all habitual viewers of a single cable news channel - rolled into Washington to hurl invective at an African American president for creating a mess that he had absolutely nothing to do with creating.
In 1963, the signs people held up were optimistic: "With Liberty and Justice for All."
Forty-six years later, the signs were ominous: "We Came Unarmed - THIS TIME!"
On August 28, 1963, the hearts of people who marched on the city of Washington DC were filled with love and hope.
On September 12, 2009 they were just full of shit.
Let us boil the comparisons down to their juicy essentials, shall we? Martin Luther King had a dream. Glenn Beck has a scheme.
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen, NY