Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (301415)	4/16/2009 8:11:51 PM
From: mph	2 Recommendations Respond to of 793757

News management with Napolitano DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano did "Morning Joe," but administration officials told host Joe Scarborough he could only ask a single question about the department's recent intelligence assessment warning of right-wing extremists and potentially disgruntled veterans in the Timothy McVeigh model. Without having to face a follow-up, Napolatino said the flap amounted to "a lot of Washington spin. "[A]ll it was saying is look, there is a constant and constantly changing threat environment in the United States. our job is to protect against terrorism, whether it comes from abroad or internally," she said, adding that it's not about "accusing veterans." DHS has also issued threat reports warning of left-wing cyber-terrorists. But it's a reflection of the administration's concern about the veterans story that they took the step of demanding a top cabinet official only be asked once about the matter. UPDATE: CNN apparently struck a similar agreement. According to a transcript from today's "American Morning," Napolitano faced only one question about the right-wing extremist warning. "And Secretary, just have to ask you before you go," said host Kiran Chetry at the end of the interview. "You've been getting a lot of pushback over this leaked domestic intelligence report warning of right-wing extremist groups. Conservative and veterans' groups saying that it unfairly targeted returning military veterans and gun-rights advocates without actually citing specific threats. How do you respond?" Napolitano acknowledged that some veterans groups had been offended and said: "I apologize for that offense' She noted that she'll meet with vets groups next week. politico.com

To: Neeka who wrote (301415)	4/16/2009 8:42:42 PM
From: mph	7 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793757

Well, Arizona Janet may have made an alleged assessment, but she sure was protected from the necessity of defending it. (See my prior post: siliconinvestor.com Unlike Jannie, I am willing to venture an assessment and take the heat if I'm wrong. First, the Obama Administration must know its policies cannot withstand scrutiny because it goes out of its way to control the news media and will not give access to its people unless there is control. It is absolutely ridiculous for Napolitano to have put out that piece of crap report and then be protected from having to defend it. The answer is, the report's BS and indefensible. Take that to the bank. Second, but why was the report issued? Answer: The Obama Administration must control the news cycle (and, Obama can't stand being challenged or ridiculed). So, Obama coordinates a snore of a speech about the economy yesterday with the release of the BS assessment by Napolitano. Concept?: We, the Obama Administration, have everything under control. "Don't be looking behind that curtain, there's just a bunch of crazy right-wingers back there trying to get us off-track. They're nuts! DO NOT LISTEN TO THEM." Added to the boring speech (it even bored Obama and TOTUS), we have the daisy chain engaged in by the lefties of the MSM who just ate up the opportunity to return to their frat days and engage in double entendres and in-your-face-hand-on--hip commentary all day long. (I figure Carville was behind that. I can just picture those squinty little eyes and pointed pink tongue as he breathlessly gave orders to his gang of 4 conference call and other assorted minions.) Now, you have to ask yourself, why, if the Tea Parties were unimportant and organized by a bunch of kooks, did the Administration itself, along with well known personalities of the MSM, go to such great pains to undermine it? Seems to me that ignoring the events would have been preferable. You even saw lesser versions of the same approach on the SI lefty threads. (Well, they just do what their masters tells them.) Two possible answers: Obame has zero tolerance for any dissent, or he actually had some concern that a movement like this might get traction. What we do know for sure is that he was aware of the Tea Party plans and that he took affirmative steps to undermine them. He can deny that until the cows come home, but it won't be believed by any but his koolaid brigade. So where do I think this is going? First, it has become quite clear, at least to me, that the Obama Administration is a clear and present danger to free speech and privacy rights in this country. He and his minions are all about control and stifling dissent. Freedom of speech is a thing of the past unless the populace makes its will known. Second, even his supporters are being stifled. I imagine that there are some professional people in the media, with a liberal POV, who are not insane and who really have the best interests of this country at heart. I think that the radical Obama and his nutso contingent, are going to push these people too far. Even now, look at where things are. If MSM types don't fall in line with the Obama sanctioned approach, do you think they'll retain their jobs? I would bet that there are some people who are not happy with where things have gone. I think that Obama is going to continue with his radical approach and that little by little, more and more people will get left behind. That includes Democrats, even liberal ones. Obama is way out there on the left. That has to mean that most of the country is not as radical as he. That is exactly the reason that his administration is trying to control the flow of information. Once they lose control of information-dissemination, the electorate will be more well-informed and the ship of state can be returned to a state of equilibrium. The question is whether this can be done before Obama's policies destroy the country.