# WILL OBAMA TARGET MURDOCH?



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That't the headllines at one news site this morning: WILL OBAMA TARGET MURDOCH?

My thoughts are: is this real, or is it a synchronized effort to stop Fox News before the next election. Perhaps what is happening with the phone hacking in England by one of his top employees is real, but Obama sure is looking for a reason over here. I think this is something new for law enforcement to go looking for a crime that may not exist. Law enforcements job is to deter crime through presence, and the courts through punishment. I think they are a little out of line to go on a witch hunt.

My question is: is this real, or Obama campaigning. His last television appearance was worthless. It was not news it was campaigning. There is a law against unequal time, but who's going to enforce that? If we ask the question liberals will just come up with a name for us like they did the "birthers".

Article with the headline: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/ ... PH20110712

News Corp may be at risk for U.S. probe over bribery

By Jeremy Pelofsky and Carlyn Kolker
WASHINGTON/NEW YORK | Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:31am EDT
(Reuters) - Rupert Murdoch's News Corp could face probes by U.S. authorities for possibly violating bribery laws, compounding the media mogul's problems after a phone-hacking scandal in Britain.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Odummer is in campain mood and will do anything to get re-elected.

He does not care about the debt or anything other than bringing this country down. :******:

Americans and the Debt Ceiling Debate

By Liz Peek

It's too bad that Americans are just not smart enough for President Obama. First, we fail to understand why ObamaCare is a wonderful, wonderful program and now we don't comprehend the intricacies of the debt ceiling negotiations. The president probably wishes some mornings that he ruled over Venezuela, for instance, or Cuba- where people get excited about government overreach.

In yesterday's press conference, a reporter asked Mr. Obama why a recent poll showed that 69% of Americans don't think we should raise the debt ceiling. The president said that most of us weren't really paying attention, that we were more concerned with their own issues.

Wrong!

Americans are very concerned with the debt ceiling discussions - they are very concerned that towering deficits and debts are likely to crush our economy going forward. They are also wary of any deal that may emerge. We have raised the debt ceiling 74 times since 1962, always with accompanying music about reining in government spending and becoming more fiscally prudent. It was hogwash then; it cannot be hogwash now.

President Obama seems to have forgotten that only last November the country raced to the polls and delivered him a serious shellacking by electing 87 new Republicans to the House of Representatives. Did he think they were kidding? That somehow those same stupid Americans who fail to appreciate ObamaCare pulled the wrong levers time after time?

Last November the country lined up to elect representatives who truly believe that government has gone awry. They believe that, at 24% of GDP, spending is way, way beyond a reasonable level and that it must come down.

Other than during World War II, the country has never seen such a rate of spending. Many Americans would probably agree that during the emergencies created by the financial crisis, some increase in spending was warranted; today, though, it is time to reel it in.

In fact, there are now 235 Representatives and 41 Senators who have pledged they will not vote for a tax hike. They know their support of any kind of tax increase may cost them their jobs; most also fervently believe we should be encouraging investment and job creation - not penalizing those who might help gin up the economy.

It has been reported that any spending cuts proffered by the president in the recent negotiations only appear in the "out" years. That is, Mr. Obama is not agreeing to actually reduce the budget for 2012 or 2013 - he is only expecting to cut expected outlays, at some future date.

We all know how this will turn out. When that later date arrives, we'll hear some new excuse about why this is not the time to cut spending. It never is.

Of course, Mr. Obama hopes to be reelected in 2012. He should understand that Americans - even those dumb enough not to fully appreciate the terrific programs he has delivered - may hold him accountable when and if interest rates start to rise and inflation accelerates.

He may be hoping that the inevitable fall out from reckless spending and excessive money creation will be delayed until after the election.

He may be correct.

Though the other day he blamed the jobs crisis here partly on the uncertainty in the EU, Americans understand that it is just that crisis that has protected the dollar and kept our interest rates from soaring.

There are few true reserve currencies in the world; the dollar and the Euro compete for "safe harbor" funds flows. Recently, given the debt crisis in Greece and possible contagion of Italy, Portugal and Ireland, the dollar looks more sound than the Euro. If the monetary authorities in Europe fight their way out of their current mess, we could easily next be in the spotlight.

It is worth noting that Greece's budget gap is a little more than 10% of GDP. Ours is 9%. Their debt to GDP is 145%; ours is 65%, but the Deficit Commission report projects that by 2020 it will be 90%. This is not scare-mongering - it is facing up to the realities of an aging population and growing "entitlements" programs.

This is a great country, and we have a much better diversified and much deeper economy than Greece. However, we too can lose our way, making endless commitments to future generations that we will be unable to fulfill. We too can burden our productive class so as to dumb down our energies and our growth. This is the time to turn around this spending spree, and to tell President Obama that if he wants to keep his job he had better listen to the voice of the people - even if it's a stupid voice.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

We had so many medical bills that I don't have a savings account. All I have is my retirement and this idiot (Obama) could wreck that. If he does I'll be working until the day I drop dead. In that case better sooner than later. For those liberals that may think that is funny, I have news for them, they will never retire either. Perhaps none of this generation coming up will have a retirement, but then that's the way Obama and friends want it. Work all your life to support the entitlement crowd.


----------



## Gillbilly (Mar 21, 2007)

Yes its real,this all started in England.I really have to wonder why you are questioning President Obama regarding a rag from England.Murdoch or atleast his employees used devious methods to get info,how do you turn this onto Obama?It is also coming out that it was possibly being done to 9/11 victoms families.How or why would this even be defended?Stop protecting Fox news and bashing Obama for awhile and just see this for the pathetic filth that it is.No matter how you look at it,if it is proven,its just plain wrong.Murdoch put himself on a platter,and now its another Obama plot.You have to know Im really biting my tongue here Plainsman but its real hard when I hear the conspirosy theories.

Now for Zogmans article.Is this written by the same Liz Peek that works for Fox news?The same Liz Peek,married to Jeffrey Peek who ran CIT group into the dirt and then recieved Govt.corperate welfare?If so dont know that Id put alot of stock in what she says.Really yanks my chain when corps or individuals that have gotten handouts turn around and blame the economy on said handouts or programs for us low life types.I believe the ceiling was raised 7 times under Mr Bush.I think most all of us would agree that we need to get things under control but why wont the party that signed a bogus agreement with Grover Norquist(who the hell is he anyway)agree to close loopholes to help dig us outta this mess?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gillbilly, I am not questioning that it is real in England. So far it would appear that it is restricted to England. That is why I am wondering why Obama is looking at other things over here. It sounds like nothing has been reported and that they are simply going on a witch hunt. No one has reported phone hacking here. It's like no one looks for a body if a murder has not been reported and no one is missing right?


----------



## Gillbilly (Mar 21, 2007)

Plainsman,it has been looked at here regarding 9/11 victims.I also believe that business with U.S ties or individuals are under a multi national anti bribery law.Not real sure of all the legal ramblings on how it works myself but that is what I have heard.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ya, I had only heard about the troubles in England. If they hacked cell phones in this country we should hear soon. I'm not for investigating, but I was not sure why they were checking into the bribery thing. I don't trust Obama any further than I can throw him, and it is very evident that liberals have no love for Fox News or anyone that actually tells the truth and that left me scratching my head a little.'
It's like Obama's speeches lately. They are not informative they are insulting to the intelligence of the average American, and also more campaign than informative. Last night he indicated he didn't think people understood economics. He was asked why 69% of the people didn't agree with raising the debt ceiling. Maybe the problem is he does understand economics, but he has to destroy this economy before he can talk the people into a socialist economy. That's not a conspiracy theory that's right out of the socialist play book. Published by the way. 
I don't think my thoughts are as much conspiracy as observing political strategy. Conspiracy theories I leave to Hillary, if you remember the vast right wing conspiracy theory she had. I don't have conspiracy theories I have strategy theories. You can call it conspiracy, but that's normally a term to downplay someone else's thoughts. You see I think Obama will sign the United Nations Small Arms Treaty to cripple our second amendment rights. You may see that as conspiracy, and since it's not in the open perhaps I would call it more conspiracy than strategy too. Strategy on Obama's part perhaps, but when you undermine the constitution with the help of others like Hillary and the United Nations then it becomes conspiracy. Kind of a fine line isn't it?


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

They may be cranking up the media to get the people's attention off of the problem at hand, the debt ceiling and uncontrolled spending. This administration along with the media has done this before. How much did you hear about Toyota after the oil spill in the gulf started. It got quiet as a mouse! I own one and I was paying attention!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

ShineRunner said:


> They may be cranking up the media to get the people's attention off of the problem at hand, the debt ceiling and uncontrolled spending. This administration along with the media has done this before. How much did you hear about Toyota after the oil spill in the gulf started. It got quiet as a mouse! I own one and I was paying attention!!!


You may be right. I think Obama put off going to the gulf for the same reason. If he went it would draw more attention. That and part of the big Toyota scare was because the government bailed out GM. Nothing like knocking the competition.

I see they are going to milk the Murdock story for all it's worth. As far as I can find there is no evidence of wrong doing in the United States. I agree that it should be checked into, but the way they are going about it is grandstanding. If your investigating something you find out a lot more going about it quietly and unsuspecting. That's the way to start anyway. Going right to the media is simply a form of "look at what we are doing". I know the libs hate Fox News, and I can not help but suspect their motives.



> The statement by Senator Jay Rockefeller, a White House ally and Democratic chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, dramatically raises the stakes for Mr Murdoch by signaling potential legal repercussions in America.
> "The reported hacking by News Corporation newspapers against a range of individuals - including children - is offensive and a serious breach of journalistic ethics," he said in a statement issued following inquiries by The Daily Telegraph.
> "This raises serious questions about whether the company has broken US law, and I encourage the appropriate agencies to investigate to ensure that Americans have not had their privacy violated.
> "I am concerned that the admitted phone hacking in London by the News Corp. may have extended to 9/11 victims or other Americans. If they did, the consequences will be severe."
> US ethics earlier on Tuesday called on the Senate and House of Representatives to investigate the parent company of News International and hold "thorough public hearings" on whether the voicemails of Americans had been hacked.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Gillbilly wrote:


> I believe the ceiling was raised 7 times under Mr Bush.


and this is what the pres thought of raising the ceiling when Bush was in (posted elsewhere in this same forum)...



> "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better!"
> 
> -- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006


He must not have understood economics very well until now because in 2006 he voted against the raise and in 07 and 08 didn't even feel it was worthy of a vote!



> Also from the National Review-"In 2007 and in 2008, when the Senate voted to increase the limit by $850 billion and $800 billion respectively, Obama did not bother to vote. (He did vote for TARP, which increased the debt limit by $700 billion.)"


----------

