Subscribe: RSS Feed | Twitter | Facebook | Email
Home | Contact Us

The Media Is “The Enemy of the American People”

Posted by Larry Doyle on September 28, 2012 6:23 PM |

Having written about the importance of truth, transparency, and integrity in relentless fashion since the launching of this blog almost 4 years ago, I will not ask for forgiveness or beg indulgence while running the video below. This commentary is not political. It is far more important than that.

If you care about the truth and our nation, watch this clip. Then do with it as you may. I for one plan on blasting this throughout the blogosphere in tireless fashion.

What happened to our country?


Larry Doyle

ISN’T IT TIME to subscribe to all my work via e-mail, an RSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook?

I have no affiliation or business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. The opinions expressed are my own. I am a proponent of real transparency within our markets so that investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.

  • Bob
  • LD

    Larry Johnson at No Quarter provides inside analysis.

    The Benghazi Bungle

  • fred


    Not only does the left wing media not report all the news but it is also an active participant in any necessay coverup.

    The Romney “47% clip” was deliberately released by members of the “liberal democratic” media to distract the American public’s attention from the American embassy attacks in the middle east.

    Not only was the release of the “47% clip” suspect in terms of timing but also in terms of intent; it was an old clip kept on “moth balls” and prepackaged as a “game changer”.

    Within days of the “47% clip” release, “new and timely” opinion polls reported an “Obama surge” in an effort to influence undecided American voters and distract their attention from events in the Middle East.

    We have a huge media bias problem, on both sides, in this country which has been magnified by the popularity of cable TV and high speed internet. Even within “main stream” media, you can’t watch an episode of Letterman or The View without being repeatedly exposed to “Republican bashing”.

    I think we have reached a point where both sides feel an obligation to promote their bias in an effort to offset what it perceives as a threat from the other. When does it end? How does it end?

    Maybe it’s time to require members of the media, to divulge their political party affiliation when there is an obvious and recurring bias in content.

    Aren’t money managers talking publically required to disclose stock positions and how about marketers doing infomercials required to disclose paid advertising? Why not obvious political operatives in the media when they are talking or reporting on politics?

  • Peter Sivere

    Breaking it down.

    The average American does not understand nor appreciate the implication that mortars were fired on the Benghazi safehouse. A mortar is a crew served weapon. It requires a team of at least two people to set up, carry the rounds and fire. More importantly, such a weapon is based on knowing the coordinates of the target. This is not something someone gins up in the heat of the moment. It requires training and preparation.

  • Mark J. Novitsky

    There is a reason why the Founding Fathers “Freedom of Speech” the first amendment. People’s reality comes from two sources…personal experiences and what they are told. The ratio for Americans…who prefer entertainment and propaganda over hard news…is about conservatively is 90% what they are told. Which is why information resources like Sense on Cents is so vital. CNN’s Amber Lyon was recently fired because she wanted to tell the truth about what she witnessed in Bahrain. Remember CNN war correspondent Andrew Ware??? He got dismissed with “war fatigue”. That sends a message LOUD & CLEAR to other gutless reporters (you can’t call this “journalism”) report what “we” tell you! Or you might even end up like Tim Russert, Mark Haines, Andrew Brietbart…

  • MD

    Quite a leap of logic (and perception of reality) to see religious nuts demonstrating, however irrationally, in 20 countries (really 20? name them) and call those 20 incidents “terrorist attacks.”

    Not as irrational and over-the-top as the demonstrations, but irrational and over-the-top nevertheless.

    So calm down, Larry.

    • LD


      The question I have is whether the families of those murdered in Benghazi should calm down? How might they feel as they see Susan Rice et al march around spinning this scenario for political purposes while their loved ones lost their lives?

      Should they calm down?

      Democracy was not built nor will it be sustained by allowing a compliant media to run roughshod over the truth and the American people.

      • MD


        Thanks for the reply.

        You’re missing my point: I’m not denying the tragedy of the murders. I’m challenging your claim that it was a terrorist attack rather than the actions of ignorant, religious nut jobs.

        What is your evidence that the Libyan demonstrations and those in 20 countries (really?–again–name them) were “terrorist attacks”?

        So absent any substantial evidence (as opposed to one guy at a demonstration knew a guy who was a cousin of a friend who knew a guy he thought was in Al Queda . . .), you should calm down on the “terrorist attack” rhetoric.

        • LD

          With all due respect, you may be the only person alive who does not believe that the attack on our consulate in Bengahzi was not a terrorist attack.

          I am not saying that the demonstrations elsewhere in the world are terrorist attacks but the people demonstrating and burning our American flag certainly do not look like they are our friends.

          • MD


            With all due respect, I may not quite be all alone, as the linked article suggests.

            It gets so murky. We’ve come to associate the word “terrorism” with acts that have no immediate cause i.e. being attacked for our way of life, or ongoing politics.

            In the current situation, do you think that the Bengahzi (for-the-sake-of-argument) “planned” attack would have taken place absent the moronic video?

            God I hate this: we’re arguing semantics. “Terrorism” is the systematic use of fear to achieve ends. In Bengahzi, there may have been plans to attack the consulate, but those plans arose from the provocation of the video, not the result of a previously in-place program of terrorist attacks by Al-Qaeda or any other organization.

            I know. It sounds like Bill Clinton’s “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

            But to me there is a big difference between violence against our country for who we are and what we believe in and misplaced violence against our country for the lone act of some kook taking advantage of the freedom of speech.

            Given the events in the Arab world, and given that the Constitution is an evolving document as interpreted by the Supreme Court, has the time come to put another limit on free speech. Just as the right to free speech doesn’t permit one to falsely yell “Fire” in a crowded theatre, or, increasingly, not utter what is considered “hate speech,” or distribute or consume child pornography, for the sake of “safety” do we need to prohibit any negative representations of Muhammad or Islam?

            Since free speech is already not an absolute right, would this exception be harmful in any way? Is it “giving in” or just recognizing the reality that the Arab world, to be politically incorrect, is to an unfortunate extent a mass of ignorant young men who can be set off and exploited on almost any provocation–especially when it comes to religion?

            Happy to see that you calmed down about the terrorist attacks in 20 countries . . .


          • LD


            Having lost a number of business colleagues on 9/11/01, I am hard pressed to think that other 9/11 attacks are not only possible but probable. I do not believe attacks in the future will be the result of articles, videos, or any other deliveries. By the same token, I do not believe the attack on 9/11 in Benghazi was the result of that video. A convenient excuse perhaps but not so convenient for an administration that would have us believe that certain terrorist groups have been eliminated.

            We live in a very dangerous world. Taking proper security measures in high risk areas is of paramount importance. Our guard was down and we paid the price with the loss of these 4 lives.

  • Frank

    You are so very right! Keep up the good work. I look forward to your blog each day.

    We are treated like mushrooms: “fed manure and kept in the dark.”

  • Joyce

    Dear Mr. Doyle,
    And doesn’t such moral decay become intensified through Citizen’s United? Why haven’t impeachment proceedings been going on for the last 12 years? We’ve had plenty of valid reasons.

    We need a vehicle to make every person in gov’t accountable for their choices; because as it is, there will never be consequences for wrongdoing….but rather, continued enormous rewards for it.

    Just like rewarding a naughty child, they keep doing those things they’ve been rewarded for.

  • SP

    As we divide and conquer ourselves, our courts are becoming our regulators. We have heard from our courts that prospectuses aren’t worth the paper they are printed on, that shareholders should not be able to participate in the selection the directors that represent them, that foreign corporations can intervene in our elections, and now single entities should be allowed to corner the market!

    I know where you stand and I respect you for it. I will suggest that politics will always be politics – but our markets are what crushed our economy through devious devices, amoral and immoral behaviors – with the vast majority of Americans not having a clue. I also so suggest while this election heats up, banksters will be stealthily working our courts so to keep gaming the system.

    Sense on Cents is invaluable bringing to light the bad behaviors of Wall Street – make sure your beacon continues to encompass the financial issues that you so adeptly and courageously highlight.

    Judge Nixes New CFTC Trading Curbs

    • fred


      “As we divide and conquer ourselves, our courts are becoming our regulators”.

      I like it!

      A couple of comments/questions:

      1. Sounds like a country in decline bickering over the size of a pieces from a “diminishing economic pie”.

      2. Why are our courts becoming our regulators?
      3. What are our regulators doing if they’re not regulating?

      4. Keynes must have been about gov’t spending stimulating private sector demand in ways other than thru political patronage.

  • Jerry

    If this video isn’t political, I don’t know what is. Are you familiar wit AIM.ORG.

    Otherwise I have respected your newsletter.

    • LD


      I am very much familiar with the material on which I personally have worked over the course of the past 4 years. My own efforts to promote these virtues are similarly stymied by those in the government and the media who choose not to pursue the same.

      Truth, Transparency, and Integrity

Recent Posts