Presidential Paranoia

[Thordaddy]

456
16
3575
14

Email ArticleSend a Tip
by TONY LEE 19 Apr 2014 1446POST A COMMENT


Miley Cyrus Bangerz tour has less of a bang to it now, at least until August, as the 21 year-old's tour is postponed due to a severe allergic reaction to medication.

UP NEXT

1:32

Raw: Obamas Attend Easter Service

• Share on email

• 
  
  0:45
  
  Clinton Conspiracy Commerce Memo Released
  
  
• 
  
  0:45
  
  Clinton Conspiracy Commerce Memo Released
  
  
• 
  
  0:45
  
  Clinton Conspiracy Commerce Memo Released
  

Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was allowing average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.
The infamous 1995 "conspiracy commerce memo" tried to demonize and discredit alternative media outlets on the right to mainstream media organizations and D.C. establishment figures.

The memo notes that the "Internet has become one of the major and most dynamic modes of communication" and "can link people, groups and organizations together instantly."

"Moreover, it allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated data and information to be located in one area and available to all," the memo states. "The right wing has seized upon the Internet as a means of communicating its ideas to people. Moreover, evidence exists that Republican staffers surf the Internet, interacting with extremists in order to exchange ideas and information.”

The memo also states that conservative think tanks serve as a training ground for future leaders and says conservative institutions "are to today's media age of political organizations what the Democratic big city party machines were to the New Deal era of political organization"

The memo talks about the media frenzy, the blow back strategy, and slams outlets unfavorable to the Clinton White House as "sources without credibility" before calling Richard Mellon Scaife the "vanguard" of the conspiracy movement that spread stories and "theories" about Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Vince Foster.

“Scaife along with a handful of other wealthy individuals and foundations use their power to control the Republican Party's agenda and viewpoints," the memo says. "Scaife, in particular, is one of the major backers of Newt Gingrich. Interestingly enough, Gingrich's views on Vince Foster seemed to dovetail with Scaife's following Scaife's pumping of thousands of dollars into Gingrich's GOPAC's coffers."

Drudge forever changed journalism in January of 1998 when he reported that Bill Clinton had a sexual relationship with a White House intern and that Newsweek killed the story to protect its ally in the White House.

As former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has pioneered the use of social media to get her message out, has said, the "new media rose up precisely because the old media failed to tell the truth."

"That very first new media breakthrough was about 15 years ago when this lowly little store clerk in a lowly little apartment equipped with his computer and a modem broke one of the biggest stories of the decade. His name was Matt Drudge and the rest is history," shesaid. Palin added that the establishment "denounced Drudge as irresponsible and unprofessional and even dangerous and anti-everything from motherhood to apple pie."

"How dare that nobody from nowhere without a degree or a pedigree try to influence the national discourse? But the real reason they feared him was because he wasn’t beholden to the old media’s machine and the Thought Police. Unshackled, he was free," Palin explained.

And so were millions of other Americans who would have access to news and alternative points of view.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...cize-News-Three-Years-Before-Drudge-Bombshell


OFFERED WITHOUT COMMENT ,NONE REALLY NEEDED

 

[WelfareRam]

Didn't that Breitbart guy die after he was going to make some big news announcement?

 

[Ramhusker]

Didn't that Breitbart guy die after he was going to make some big news announcement?

He did pass away a little unexpectedly at a relatively early age.

 

[Stranger]

He did pass away a little unexpectedly at a relatively early age.

What, he's no longer here?

 

[Ramhusker]

What, he's no longer here?

Wikipedia says:

On the morning of March 1, 2012, Breitbart collapsed suddenly while walking in Brentwood. He was rushed to Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, where he later died.[32] He was 43 years old. An autopsy by the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office showed that he had cardiomegaly and died of heart failure.[33] Conspiracy theories arose about his death,[34] but the toxicology report showed, "No prescription or illicit drugs were detected. The blood alcohol was .04%. No significant trauma was present and foul play is not suspected."[33] Bill Whittle, a personal friend of Breitbart, had said that Breitbart had a "serious heart attack" just months before his death.[35]

 

[bluecoconuts]

If I'm remembering right he was a pretty intense/angry guy. That doesn't do your heart any favors, could have contributed.

 

[Stranger]

If I'm remembering right he was a pretty intense/angry guy. That doesn't do your heart any favors, could have contributed.

there seems to be an entire network of angry guys like this on the web.

 

[Thordaddy]

there seems to be an entire network of angry guys like this on the web.

and you know he was motivated by anger ......HOW?

 

[RmsLegends]

I would say it is the nature of the beast. We elect lawyers in our country. An what have lawyers made a life of doing, suppressing info getting testimony stricken. They make a living and a career of forming a image in the minds of a jury to get them to see what they want them to see. Then we elect these folks and the new jury just becomes a country. So I just think it is the nature of the folks we elect they have a lifetime of evidence of manipulation of words and events to try and sway a verdict in a certain direction. So to me just makes sense they will try to do crazy things like try and pass laws that would give them more control or direct say in what folks hear or see. An of course we all know of some example.

So I think ya just have a natural logical assumption ya can make generally that will apply to them individually. An by this say if we elected a slew of folks who were teachers to government I think we could reasonably conclude certain attributes of their character is formed by the occupation they spent their time in and that prism or character would effect their governance and their attitude.

I also feel it could be applied to every field of endeavor of man if we elected folks from a wide majority in those occupations to governance. So when we elect folks who are used to knowing facts or information and they have to spin it in a way to get a favorable verdict. I think when ya elect them it is just natural they will want to control the flow of info and so can come across as paranoid and secretive and back door dealings. As heck they are used to behind closed door deals or what we could call a plea bargain. Ya cop to this and we will not mention that and so forth.

So I just find it always the nature of the beast and why I believe ya get the government ya deserve as we are the ones who elect these folks. Can I ever expect different results or attitudes when the same characteristical animal is always elected and part of the equation. If I complained that when doing a mathematical equation I only moved up one number at a time, would the fault be mine or the equation if all I worked with where numbers like 1+1 or 3+1. If I time and again only use the number one to do my addition by then I can't complain at what my sum is or if I multiply what my product will be. As I can only get the expected result of what I use.

So I find it to be the same with the type of folks we elect we can only get the sum or product that their attributes will allow. While all are individuals I think we can safely assume in a general sense of a fairly and accurate predictable result or a like minded behavior.

An for a final evidence I say think about our own lives how occupations and what we know and how we practice what we know effects how we look at problems. The prism we tend to view things under due to the light of what we know and have done. I am sure we can see in our own lives a constant regularity of results based upon how we view the problem. Why the joke is the definition of insanity is doing things the same way and expecting different results.

So anyway when it comes to paranoia or whatever word we chose to use if we time and time again elect the same sort of folks of a shared same background and experiences. Are we not the ones who are dealing with the insanity problem when we find the same result or character in the seat of governance and thought we would get something different this time. So in opinion just the nature of the beast and what we should expect when we keep doing the same thing over and over.

 

[Ramhusker]

I would say it is the nature of the beast. We elect lawyers in our country. An what have lawyers made a life of doing, suppressing info getting testimony stricken. They make a living and a career of forming a image in the minds of a jury to get them to see what they want them to see. Then we elect these folks and the new jury just becomes a country. So I just think it is the nature of the folks we elect they have a lifetime of evidence of manipulation of words and events to try and sway a verdict in a certain direction. So to me just makes sense they will try to do crazy things like try and pass laws that would give them more control or direct say in what folks hear or see. An of course we all know of some example.

So I think ya just have a natural logical assumption ya can make generally that will apply to them individually. An by this say if we elected a slew of folks who were teachers to government I think we could reasonably conclude certain attributes of their character is formed by the occupation they spent their time in and that prism or character would effect their governance and their attitude.

I also feel it could be applied to every field of endeavor of man if we elected folks from a wide majority in those occupations to governance. So when we elect folks who are used to knowing facts or information and they have to spin it in a way to get a favorable verdict. I think when ya elect them it is just natural they will want to control the flow of info and so can come across as paranoid and secretive and back door dealings. As heck they are used to behind closed door deals or what we could call a plea bargain. Ya cop to this and we will not mention that and so forth.

So I just find it always the nature of the beast and why I believe ya get the government ya deserve as we are the ones who elect these folks. Can I ever expect different results or attitudes when the same characteristical animal is always elected and part of the equation. If I complained that when doing a mathematical equation I only moved up one number at a time, would the fault be mine or the equation if all I worked with where numbers like 1+1 or 3+1. If I time and again only use the number one to do my addition by then I can't complain at what my sum is or if I multiply what my product will be. As I can only get the expected result of what I use.

So I find it to be the same with the type of folks we elect we can only get the sum or product that their attributes will allow. While all are individuals I think we can safely assume in a general sense of a fairly and accurate predictable result or a like minded behavior.

An for a final evidence I say think about our own lives how occupations and what we know and how we practice what we know effects how we look at problems. The prism we tend to view things under due to the light of what we know and have done. I am sure we can see in our own lives a constant regularity of results based upon how we view the problem. Why the joke is the definition of insanity is doing things the same way and expecting different results.

So anyway when it comes to paranoia or whatever word we chose to use if we time and time again elect the same sort of folks of a shared same background and experiences. Are we not the ones who are dealing with the insanity problem when we find the same result or character in the seat of governance and thought we would get something different this time. So in opinion just the nature of the beast and what we should expect when we keep doing the same thing over and over.

You should research the original 13th Amendment to the US Constitution entitled The Titles of Nobility. It basically stated that lawyers and bankers could not hold public office. Too bad it was lost in history largely due to the outbreak of the War of 1812. Imagine our world today if it would of became law.