Powered by iSpeech
Rupert Murdoch. Ann Coulter. Rush Limbaugh. Bill Cunningham, are all rabid Republicans, and all have voiced support for Hillary Clinton. In fact, Republican strategist and FOX News owner Rupert Murdoch has held fund raisers for her, and Coulter has offered to campaign for her. Why?
If Hillary is nominated, she may lead the Republican candidate in the polls until shortly before the election. This is to be expected by the right. However, shortly before the election itself, previously censored news stories under the Clinton administration will resurface, stories so damning as to influence the decisions of both supporters and the undecided. They will come in a blitzkrieg of unprecedented disclosure that will be impossible to attribute to one source, but the stories will be true. To counter this, it will take weeks of propaganda and obfuscation when they only have days.
Wall Street Journal editor protests Rupert Murdoch ownership. In the months preceding the sale of the Wall Street Journal, Murdoch complained of being treated like a "genocidal tyrant" without ever stopping to think that using his press and broadcast assets to incite wars, or keep genocidal tyrants in power because their "democracy" is better for his business empire, does not make him any better than the genocidal tyrants who rely on him to stay in power.
Why? Because Murdoch knows she is a straw candidate, and straw burns easily. After the primaries, he will support the Republican presidential candidate just as he always has, with the usual rabid devotion. He hasn't done the Democrats any favors, he's pushing the candidate that he knows his party can easily beat. That means Edwards, Obama, et al. present a greater threat to Republicans than Clinton. The GOP's Murdoch isn't stupid, nor is he expecting Hillary to win the presidential election. Murdoch is akin to a boxing promoter with a stable of poor fighters.
He will do whatever he can to make sure his fighters have opponents that can be beaten. He will sacrifice appearances and even some of the purse, because what matters is who wins the fight. What matters is preemptively shutting out the good fighters, and securing the weak ones for the title fight. For our analogy, the title fight is the presidential election. For the wily Republican strategist, the primaries are the means to secure a weak Democratic fighter for that title fight, and this is achieved just by throwing money at his or her campaign, overtly or covertly. Hillary's weakness is known to the GOP, it will be fully and relentlessly exploited at the predicted round and Murdoch's fighter will win.
Make no mistake- Murdoch knows the GOP can beat Hillary, but he is not so sure about the odds against Edwards or Obama. He wants her to be nominated because he wants a Republican president. He's so sure he has the goods to destroy Clinton that he is throwing money at her campaign early on so he can ensure the GOP won't face anyone that represents a real threat. Let us now examine this unusual alliance between Murdoch, the Fox News owner, and the Clinton campaign...
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004) Documentary on reported Conservative bias of the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News Channel (FNC), which promotes itself as "Fair and Balanced". Material includes interviews with former FNC employees and the inter-office memos they provided. -imdb.com. Official site:outfoxed.org buy at: Amazon.com or Sendit.com
"The creator of the viral "Hillary 1984" video that sparked controversy between the presidential campaigns of Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama at one time lived with at least one member of Obama's staff. A photograph obtained by RAW STORY showing former Blue State Digital consultant Phil De Vellis with current Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt conflicted with a claim by Senator Obama that his campaign had "no way of knowing who this person was." But let's get one thing straight: Whomever you support on your own time, on your own dime, is no one's business. What is the crime of this ad creator? he likes Obama, not Hillary. He has claimed publicly that he supports Obama. As far as I know, that is his right. That is YOUR right.
If anything, the fall-out proves the very point of the ad made by Phil DeVellis; that the proposed Clinton Dynasty is not to be questioned, that your next president has already been decided for you by Big Brother, a wise and omniscient establishment of corporate interests and partisan news assets tacitly controlling the party. Furthermore, it proves that the woman being chased by an army of riot police, who swung the hammer at the giant screen of conformity, now represents the candidate- any candidate- who dares oppose the appointed leader. As for the charges in the article, I don't know how it conflicted with the claim by Obama, because no one had any way of knowing who made the ad until its creator came out publicly, and lost his job over it.
A husband can keep a secret from his wife, or a wife from her husband, though they share the same bed. No reasonable man can assume Obama should have known the anonymous author's identity if even that same spokesman was in the dark. No reasonable man can assume DeVellis, the creator of the video, wasn't justly afraid of losing his job when it was certain that powerful interests would soon pressure his employers to dismiss him in retaliation. The fear was warranted, and he did lose his job. I want you to think about that. DeVellis' was the thought crime of dissent, his punishment was to lose his employment, and further; for pro-Hillary media assets to describe his actions as some kind of nefarious conspiracy when all it was amounted to this: he exercised his right to free speech. Using a Mac he had at home, the man toyed around with an old Apple commercial using some video editing software. DeVellis added some political commentary and a twist. He uploaded it to YouTube. No one knew it would be a smash. No one could have known. It resonated though, because there was truth in it. "I don't want people who already agree with me..." Hillary says in the ad. Precious. And obviously, complete bullshit. This isn't just the pot calling the kettle black, Roston's article was just bad journalism. This kind of crap wouldn't meet the standards of a high school paper. I'm starting to wonder, now, if Raw Story is pulling stories from pro-Hillary MySpace blogs. I think I saw the same exact story from MySpace user Hillary4Prez. I'm not sure though.... even her postings are more lucid.
By the way, while Roston is diddling his anal clitoris to Hillary, maybe he can explain why the GOP's Goebbels incarnate, FOX News owner Rupert Murdoch, is supporting Hillary Clinton and holding fund raisers for her. Or why in 1964, she worked for the Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, the latter whom opposed the Civil Rights Act. Time and time again, on Raw Story's very front page, we see example heaped upon example of FOX News' distortion of the truth, their creative use of graphics to designate scandalized Republican as Democrats. Well, this is the conservative smear king who made a tacit alliance with Hillary. Why? Maybe he knows the GOP has so much dirt on Hillary from her days in Arkansas onward, from Mena's CIA-Contra coke connection to details about the Waco fuck-ups, Timothy McVeigh's terrorist contacts at Elohim City, et al, any one of which can be verified by federal agents and former administration officials, all of which can sink her if she wins the nomination. Then they can shoe in the devil himself. Or maybe he knows she represents the status quo, a safe bet that things won't change, the same kind of safe bet Bill Clinton was in 1992's Democratic primaries when he was nominated to run against Bush. Yes, he could become president, but there was a conflict of interest: he was so compromised by a CIA-coke scandal in Mena, Arkansas the GOP could be comforted that the investigations would be ended. As such, they quietly backed him using Bush's own re-election campaign strategist, Mary Matlin.
What FOX News will Bring to The Table
FOX News is not the only network that regularly ejaculates an infected load of propaganda bukkaki on to the faces of unwary viewers, nay, it is not by far. In fact, under the Clinton administration, CNN illegally hired PSYOPS (psychological operations) specialists to work in their newsroom to perfect the literal brainwashing we call the cable news today. It is illegal for Army PSYOPS to be used on domestic audiences, though in Clinton's case, the aim was to promote public support for the bombing of Serb targets. The Serbs may well have deserved it, they were engaged in the genocide of Muslims on a massive scale and the UN was preventing Muslims from arming themselves, but as we can see now, it set a precedent. This same type of psychological warfare and PSYOPS was used by the next administration to bring war to Iraq. all of which is to say, such use on domestic audiences is prohibited for a damned good reason. ABC, CBS, NBC have all done it and still do. However, the internet has made them vulnerable to accountability whenever they try it now.... But with FOX News, here we have a true exception, a true state media organ with a claim to journalism so flaccid and impotent even their dogs and chickens laugh when they peck at their keyboards, convinced they are professionals. On at least three different occasions, Bill O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone" spun a twisted web of lies so transparent my immediate indignation and pity soon turned into laughter. Recall when Bill O'Reilly identified Republican Mark Foley as a Democrat, knowing full well Foley is a Republican, as his last few shows correctly identified him as a Republican and defended him on those grounds... that is, until more pages came forward and more emails and IM messages surfaced. Most telling, however, was the clip where a former page is interviewed, clearly the most damning piece on Mark Foley (R-FL). And as he gets into the revolting details, guess what graphics pop up? An image of the disgraced congressman and the following title: MARK FOLEY (D-FL).
|Murdoch's Propaganda Organ: Flaccid, Incompetent and Ever Shameless
Above, a typical misleading graphic pioneered by FOX News: mislabeling disgraced Republicans as Democrats.
The Huffington Post, Raw Story, and just about every liberal blog I can name has called FOX News to account for their smear tactics. Yet they never question Clinton's alliance with Murdoch, as if it was irrelevant. But it is relevant, most Democrats recognize Murdoch and FOX News for what it is, albeit, few know the connection between Hillary and Murdoch. It wasn't too long ago that the Nevada Democratic Party scrapped a debate because it was being hosted by FOX News. On March 9, 2007. The Huffington Post's Melinda Henneberger writes in Dems Dump FOX: Obama Comments "Went Too Far" (italics mine):
"The Nevada Democratic Party today backed out of a FOX News-sponsored presidential debate after Fox President Roger Ailes's recent remarks jokingly comparing Democratic Senator Barack Obama to al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. In a joint letter faxed today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Tom Collins, the head of the Nevada Democratic Party, informed Fox News executive producer Marty Ryan of the decision. "A month ago, the Nevada Democratic Party entered into a good faith agreement with FOX News to co-sponsor a presidential debate in August,'' Reid and Collins said in the letter.
"This was done because the Nevada Democratic Party is reaching out to new voters and we strongly believe that a Democrat will not win Nevada unless we find new ways to talk to new people. To say the least, this was not a popular decision. But it is one that the Democratic Party stood by...
"However, comments made last night by FOX News President Roger Ailes in reference to one of our presidential candidates went too far,'' the letter went on. "We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments. In light of his comments, we have concluded that it is not possible to hold a Presidential debate that will focus on our candidates and are therefore canceling our August debate. We take no pleasure in this, but it is the only course of action...
"Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards had already announced that he would not participate in the Fox debate. His party was under pressure from the more than 265,000 people who signed a petition calling Fox "a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, not a legitimate news channel" and urging Nevada officials to cancel. Danny Coyle, a MoveOn.org member who serves on the Executive Board of the Carson City Democratic Central Committee, yesterday offered a resolution calling on the state party to drop Fox, and it passed overwhelmingly among the grassroots Democrats in attendance. "I am glad and relieved that the Nevada Democratic leadership has come to its senses," Coyle said in a statement. "Any kind of relationship with Fox is bad for the party."
Initially, Senator Reid had defended the decision to work with Fox, reasoning that it might help Democratic candidates reach out to right-leaning Fox viewers. But party activists argued from the start that any connection with Fox was a mistake. Robert Greenwald, director of the movie Outfoxed, called the move a "victory for truth and journalism." Some 280,000 people have viewed Greenwald's new YouTube film "Fox Attacks: Obama" - located with the petition at www.FoxAttacks.com. "By standing up to Fox's right-wing smears," Greenwald said, "the patriotic grassroots, Netroots, Senator Reid, Senator Edwards, and the Nevada Democrats have all worked together to protect one of the most important elements of a free society - the press." And Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Civic Action, said he hoped the decision would "set a precedent within the party that Fox should be treated as a right-wing mis-information network, not legitimized as a neutral.
If Ailes jokingly referred to Obama as Osama Bin Laden, the rest of Murdoch's FOX News network did not. Recall the Madrassa allegations that were torn to shreds upon closer inspection, when FOX News attempted to tie Obama to a terrorist training school. CNN immediately debunked the report Also see the video of the school at Think Progress. Don't think for one second that Hillary didn't benefit, at least initially, from Murdoch's smear campaign. Don't think for one second that she didn't approve, at least tacitly, because one thing that stood out during that scandal was her silence. Why bite the hand that feeds her, right? FOX's Murdoch, Pro-War GOP Propagandist, Helps Clinton Break Fundraising Record:
- Hillary Clinton raises historic campaign money Chicago Tribune
- Clinton Shatters Record for Fundraising Washington Post