Posts Tagged ‘negative’

Who Painted A ‘Dark’ Picture Of Who??? The Vile Hypocrisy Of Obama And Hillary and the REAL Party Of Darkness Never Ceases To Astound Me

July 29, 2016

I recently wrote a couple of articles noting two things: the media fixation with everything that could possibly be depicted as going wrong with the Republican National Convention (such as protests outside and the possibility of violence due to the fact that Cleveland actually obeys the 2nd Amendment and allows open-carry of firearms) and the Obama and Hillary outcries over the “dark” picture of America that they continuously alleged that Trump paints.

An unrelated while simultaneously VERY related example of this vicious bias is the media and Democrat Party attack on Trump when he sarcastically asked for Russia’s help in finding the thirty-plus thousand emails that Hillary illegally purged from her secret, unauthorized server that no American and even no FBI agents looking into the case was allowed to see.  There was so much media anger at Trump – because after all the word “sarcasm” does not exist as a word or a concept and so Trump was very clearly actually saying Russia should take over our country; because after all every American would clearly rather be lied to by Obama and Hillary than hear the TRUTH from Russia – and no mention of all of the fact that the Clinton campaign had just officially implicitly admitted that Hillary had been lying all along when she dishonestly claimed that those 30-plus thousand emails were “personal” and contained her yoga routines rather than having any “national security” information.

Let’s take one second to examine the REAL culprits responsible for this hack of the DNC.  First of all, think of the incredibly incompetent Obama administration that has for the last six years patently failed and refused to do anything about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.  Just as they didn’t do anything about Pvt. Manning and the leaks that freak revealed.  Obama has done NOTHING to stop this and now his own chickens have come home to roost, to quote his infamous reverend who used that phrase to demonize America.

But then consider Hillary’s role in this.  She was warned BACK IN MARCH that the DNC and her OWN campaign computers were under hack attack.  And consider her incredibly pathetic and incompetent response to what she now claims was so terribly dangerous:

The FBI warned the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign in March that its computers had been the object of a foreign-government cyberattack, Yahoo News reported Thursday evening.

However, according to Yahoo News, when the FBI requested that the Clinton team turn over email logs and staff addresses, the campaign’s lawyers refused.

At the time, Mrs. Clinton was being investigated by the FBI for possible criminal offenses in her setting up and using a private email server to conduct government business and handle classified information.

So. amazingly, even though there is no factual question whatsoever that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are COMPLETELY AND ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE for this penetration of the Democrat Party, who is to blame?  Donald Trump, because he made an offhand sarcastic remark at a press conference AFTER THE DAMN FACT.

You simply have to MARVEL at these liars and how utterly craven and dishonest and dishonorable they are.  They make cockroaches look like superior moral life forms.

But let’s stay on track and talk about the “darkness” that Obama, that Hillary and that the leftist propaganda mill masquerading as the media tried to gin up about Trump and the RNC.

As I documented, the black, Democrat chief of police in Cleveland loudly pointed out how miserable the fascist media acted in their desire to get that propaganda angle that would create a negative image of the RNC: Chief Calvin Williams said of the mainstream media frenzy over the most minimal protests:

“Our jobs’ a lot more difficult, yes, yes.  Sorry, I mean, most of the time when we get there, we have 20 protestors; we probably have 80 people from the media there.  And we’re tyring to separate out and get a handle on what’s going on, and we have more media than protestors.”

There were twenty protesters at the RNC in Cleveland.  There were THOUSANDS at the DNC.  But whose counting?  Not the damn media, that’s for sure.

Propagandists masquerading as “journalists” also wrote terrifying articles about the fact that in Cleveland people had the right to open carry of firearms.  Which unless Democrats are simply flat-out WRONG about EVERYTHING they believe was going to lead to a bloodbath of horrific proportions.

Not one shooting.  Not ONE.  Because the people Democrats want to disarm are law-abiding, good people.  Because frankly the only people Democrats want with guns are illegal immigrant criminals and the Obama Gestapo that Democrats want to create after their Black Lives Matter wing generates enough hate toward our local and state police that a national Gestapo-style police force becomes the only alternative.  Because you shouldn’t have a right to your own police force any more than you should have a right to your own guns.

I remember hearing that Wednesday night, there were 156 hateful remarks generated at Donald Trump.  And given that Hillary’s Thursday night speech amounted to one long, continuous hate screed against Trump, it’s hard to imagine she didn’t smash that record all by herself.

But what did Obama say during the Republican National Convention???

President Barack Obama on Friday strongly denounced the dark and dire terms in which Donald Trump and the Republican Party described the condition of the United States after nearly eight years of his presidency.

While remarking that he did not watch the convention, the president commented on reading “some of what was said and the one thing that I think is important to recognize is this idea that America is somehow on the verge of collapse, this vision of violence and chaos everywhere, doesn’t really jibe with the experience of most people.”

“I hope people, the next morning, walked outside and birds were chirping and the sun was out and this afternoon, people will be, you know, watching their kids play on sports teams and go to the swimming pool and folks are going to work and getting ready for the weekend,” Obama said, speaking alongside Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto during a joint news conference. “And in particular, I think it is important, just to be absolutely clear here, that some of the fears that were expressed throughout the week just don’t jibe with the facts.”

Obama has shown a greater willingness to directly attack Trump, and has done so with gusto.

Trump was just so dark and so negative and so evil in his darkness and negativity.  And how could anyone be so dark and negative about America???  Isn’t America the greatest country on earth???

Not according to your own administration’s previous rhetoric in which you said that America was only one nation among many rather than a nation that was unique and special and had a right to act as such.  But let me stick to that narrative that painting a dark picture is bad.

Let me simply ask you one question: what picture did Obama and Hillary paint of America under a Trump administration???  Is anyone fool enough to think it was anything other than the most hateful, bitter, ugly and nightmarish thing imaginable???

What do you think about Obama directly comparing Donald Trump to ISIS in his DNC speech???

Is that dark and ugly enough for you???

The Democrats were rabid and savage in their hatred of Donald Trump.

After demonizing Trump and Republicans for their “dark” portrayal of America, they proceeded to paint the ugliest and darkest imaginable picture of an America under Donald Trump.

But wait a minute; ISN’T THIS AMERICA???  ISN’T AMERICA THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH???

Hillary Clinton called Donald Trump a “dictator.”

It’s a remarkable thing how Donald Trump was this horrible, “dark” man and his RNC was this terrifyingly vicious entity  for displaying a tiny fraction of the viciousness that Hillary and her convention displayed.

Hillary of Trump:

He wants us to fear the future and fear each other.

But what the hell do YOU want to do, you wicked witch???  You want nothing other than to incite fear and hatred of the future under Donald Trump, and you want to create a climate of hate – just like the climate that has resulted in Democrats assassinating police officers all over America because, after all, they are a racist death squad intentionally murdering innocent black people, aren’t they???

Another police officer was gunned down to death just today.

Because “Black Lives Matter.”

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Democrats have pitted people against their police.  It’s like Vietnam and the damned Viet Cong now, where police have no idea who the damn enemy is.

Please don’t forget that the people who vote for Donald Trump – last time I checked – are “AMERICANS.”  And Hillary Clinton is outright telling us that we’re these evil people who want to create a terrifying future.  And no, we don’t.

But let’s consider which side has created a terrifying damn PRESENT:

By the time Obama leaves office, terrorism will have skyrocketed by 1,900 percent.  That is what I call a terrifying present.  And pardon me for saying so, but after terrorism has exploded by SIX THOUSAND PERCENT because we elected Hillary Clinton who continued to follow Obama’s policies, THAT will be a truly terrifying future.

If you don’t believe me, the Democrats were screaming, “No more war!” over and over again over the speeches of Leon Panetta, of a four-star general, of a war hero.  Just as they without any honor and without any decency interrupted moments of silence for police officers who their own kind had assassinated.  Because you mark my words, Democrats WILL NOT keep this country safe and do what needs to be done.

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for lawlessness both here and abroad.  And that long, long embrace as Obama embraced his third term is all you need to know to know that as a FACT.

Meanwhile, our economy is a joke with wallpaper of a low unemployment rate masking the fact that our labor participation rate – the percentage of working-age Americans who actually have a JOB – is basically lower than it has ever been in the modern era.  One hundred Million working-age Americans AREN’T working.

The ONLY thing our businesses are investing in is cost cutting.  Because Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their Democrat Party have attacked job creators and the only way our job creators can survive is to create as few new jobs as possible.

Meanwhile, the Democrats demand that we keep bringing in tens of millions of more unskilled laborers by way of illegal immigration to a labor market already glutted with unskilled laborers.  Which if the LAW of supply and demand is true guarantees that wages can never realistically go up.  The law of supply and demand states that the more supply you have of something, the lower the value of that thing and the lower the demand for it.  Which is why wages have gone DOWN under Obama.

But only Obama and Hillary have a right to paint a “dark future”???

No.  If you take off the rose-colored glasses of Obama’s and Hillary’s big-government socialism, it’s an incredibly dark present which will lead to an unimaginably dark future if we continue in the trajectory of Obama-Clinton.

The dishonesty and hypocrisy of these people never ceases to stun me and offend me.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Biased Media Coverage Of RNC From Police: ‘when we get there, we have 20 protestors; we probably have 80 people from the media there’

July 21, 2016

Saw the Cleveland police chief on a video statement noting that there were often 20 protesters with 80 media trying to pimp the protest to create that sought-after propaganda narrative of unrest.

Prior to the RNC, I recall the frenzy of leftwing media speculation that the open-carry laws that Ohio has with guns would turn the convention into a massacre zone.  But at the moment this is where it stands:

Ohio’s open-carry provision had raised concerns that large numbers of armed activists might roam the streets, but only a handful have materialized at the main protest sites.

When asked what he thought of the Cleveland Police’s efforts to date for the convention Williams said, “Right now, I think so far, so good,” but agreed that the significant number of reporters at the convention had made the job of police “a lot more difficult.”

“We have more media than protesters,” Williams concluded.

As always, the problem isn’t guns; it’s the leftist propaganda that demonizes guns.  It isn’t guns that commit acts of mayhem anymore than it was a truck that committed that terrorist attack in Nice (where the terrorist managed to get a gun in spite of the toughest gun control laws in the world).

Let’s ban trucks.  Cars, too, just to be safe.  And I’m sure a kid riding a tricycle fast enough could kill an elderly person.  Better ban them.

Have you heard any “mea culpas” from the media about how WRONG they were about the hysteria on the open-carry laws and how they DID NOT RESULT IN THE VIOLENCE THEY PREDICTED???

The crickets are chirping.

But I just want a record of how the media is pimping every scintilla of anything negative they can.

The words of Cleveland Police Chief Calvin Williams:

“Our jobs’ a lot more difficult, yes, yes.  Sorry, I mean, most of the time when we get there, we have 20 protestors; we probably have 80 people from the media there.  And we’re tyring to separate out and get a handle on what’s going on, and we have more media than protestors.”

Just so desperate to get the dirt on Republicans and create their horrible image of the RNC that “reporters” are like hungry goldfish greedily swarming to eat bratty children’s spit at a pond in front of a family restaurant.

Let’s see if the media covers the 20 protesters at the DNC with those kinds of swarms and that kind of coverage.  I’ll just tell you in advance that they won’t.

Because to be a “reporter” today is to be a biased, leftwing ideologue propagandist.

And just consider the protests:

We’ve already seen this crap before as anti-Trump Democrats burn flags and terrorize and beat Trump supporters at other Trump events.  Democrats are traitors to every decent thing this nation has ever stood for; and the way they “demonstrate” has continued to be proof of their treason.

Thank God, now they’re setting themselves on fire when they try to burn the symbol of our nation that far better men gave their lives to defend.

And again, the same police that these same vile vermin target are on the job protecting these people from their own moral idiocy:

“You’re on fire! You’re on fire, stupid!” a Cleveland officer shouted at a protester while firing the extinguishing spray.

That’s why Democrats are so incredibly dangerous: all the stupidity of monkeys without the fear of fire and the corresponding instinct for self-preservation.

You tell me if you hear a speech begin with the words, “blue lives matter!” at the DNC.

Believe me, YOU WON’T.

The media are also hysterical covering the “negativity” of the RNC and how it’s all about tearing down Hillary.  Consider the New York Times story:

From Links to Lucifer to Calls for Execution, Republicans Seethe at Hillary Clinton

The Los Angeles Times says the RNC has ONLY been about:

Unifying a party against Clinton, not for Trump

Again, like the way the media swarmed those 20 protesters with 80 media, you just watch how the hysterical, hateful, anti-Trump rhetoric gets covered at the Democratic National Convention next week.  Because rest assured, IT WON’T BE.

I’m just stating as a simple fact that the mainstay speeches of this RNC convention have been from Donald Trump’s family.  And they have been VERY MUCH “for Trump.”  But the media simply ignore that.

ALL these propagandists will focus on at the RNC is the negative, because as ideologue rodents dishonestly masquerading as reporters, these people cannot and will not notice anything positive about the Republican Party.  It’s just not in their shriveled little roach souls.

We’ve seen this garbage throughout the RNC.  When Melania Trump “plagiarized” a small fragment of Michelle Obama’s DNC speech, I never heard a single balanced report about the fact that Joe Biden plagiarized an entire damn speech and Barack Obama plagiarized one of his most powerful speeches.  But then it was “just words,” I suppose.

Apparently, Michelle Obama invented “hard work” and the phrase that “your word is your bond” the way Al Gore invented the internet.

It would have been nice had “journalists” put Melania Trump’s “plagiarism” in a historical context.  You know, point out that both the Democrat president and vice president did far WORSE, and that Melania, after all, is just the WIFE of a candidate, and NOT THE CANDIDATE.

Just remember the slanted way they covered the RNC and then watch how suddenly everything that was so awful suddenly becomes so wonderful when the same reporters get to the DNC.

The one thing you can ALWAYS count on from the media is to be unfair and dishonest in absolutely every single thing they do and say.

 

Media’s Bias, Dishonesty Re: Reagan Vs. Obama Unemployment Bodes Ill For America

October 4, 2009

Our founding fathers believed a free and independent press – which would serve as a watchdog protecting the nation from the lies, corruption, mismanagement, and demagoguery of politicians – would be utterly essential for a functioning democracy.

It would be nice if we had one.

The fact is that going back decades, the media have become anything but either “independent” or a “watchdog.”  Rather than guarding and protecting the truth, they have become the “lapdogs” of the left, licking the faces of Democrats and turning viciously on Republicans, without regard to the truth or the facts.

A study comparing the media’s response to IDENTICAL job loss numbers between Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama pointedly demonstrate the deceit and hypocrisy of the mainstream media.  In short, Reagan was given negative coverage 91% of the time, whereas Obama received negative coverage 7% of the time.  For some reason, the same media that has repeatedly claimed that Obama “inhereited” the recession could never bring themselves to make a similar claim about Reagan’s inheritance via Jimmy Carter.

There are some useful charts and videos on the Businessandmedia site which hosts this article.  I cite the article here merely to preserve the record.  My discussion of the ramifications of the article will follow.

Networks Flip Flop On Jobs

Identical Unemployment Numbers ‘Good’ News for Obama, But ‘All’ Bad under Reagan.

Full Report

A study from the Business & Media Institute

By Julia A. Seymour

Executive Summary
PDF Version


These are tough times. More than 3 million people have lost their jobs just since February 2009 and consumer confidence fell unexpectedly in September. The unemployment rate has spiked from 8.1 percent to 9.7 percent in the first seven months of Barack Obama’s presidency and is expected to climb even higher.

Despite that grim news, the major news networks have spun their unemployment reports into “good news” and presented Obama positively. Journalists tried hard to present rising job losses in the best possible light.

ABC’s Charles Gibson called the loss of 539,000 jobs in April a “marked improvement” May 8, 2009, because fewer jobs were lost than in March. In June 2009, Gibson was talking again about “hopeful” signs in the job numbers as more Americans were out of work.

But flashback 27 years ago to 1982, the unemployment rate was in roughly the same range as it was in 2009. Yet, network reporters consistently presented the U.S. economy under President Ronald Reagan as the “worst of times” by showing people living out of their trucks under a bridge and collecting free food at a food bank.

CBS reporter Ray Brady told a “tale of two cities” on June 4, 1982. He found the “worst of times” in Waterloo, Iowa, where the unemployment rate was the highest in the nation: 25.4 percent. That was nearly 16 percentage points higher than the national unemployment rate of 9.5 percent. He contrasted Waterloo’s joblessness with 4.6 percent unemployment in Sioux Falls, S.D. where things were “close to” the best of times.

Brady’s report addressed two very different employment situations, but most 1982 reports focused heavily on places where “desperation has turned to hopelessness.” The unemployment rate under Obama and Reagan was nearly identical, yet they received almost exactly opposite treatment from ABC, CBS and NBC reports. Reagan was mentioned negatively in reports 13 times more often than Obama.

While in Obama’s case, reporters found bright spots – like 25 police recruits’ jobs being “saved” by the stimulus package – during Reagan’s term, journalists found tragedy everywhere. They interviewed a battered wife, a family that had run out of food and many unemployed people. One NBC anchor even warned that suicide and murder rates increase in such hard times.

Although there was a difference between the two presidents in how long they had been in office, the spin was still significant. Unemployment numbers rose similarly under both Reagan and Obama, but journalists continued a long-standing trend of spinning the numbers.

The Business & Media Institute analyzed network unemployment stories on the evenings that data was released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics between March 2009 to September 2009 and March 1982 to September 1982. There were 66 stories in all – 35 stories in 2009 and 31 stories in 1982.  BMI found that network reports were 13 times more negative in their treatment of Reagan than Obama.  In fact, 91 percent of stories (20 out of 22) mentioning Reagan’s administration portrayed it negatively – while only 7 percent (1 out of 15) of Obama administration mentions were negative. Obama was mentioned positively 87 percent of the time (13 out of 15). There was not a single positive mention of the Reagan White House.

Blame for ‘Wicked’ Reagan, but Praise for Obama’s ‘Important’ Stimulus

In 1982, network reports showed desperation, sadness and tragedy as a result of rising joblessness. NBC pictured lines of people waiting outside a food bank and interviewed crisis counselors in Seattle on May 7.

“More callers talk of despair and even suicide,” Don Oliver reported that night, before interviewing Jim and Pam Smalls. Oliver called them “victims of unemployment depression and anger,” because Pam had to seek help from a battered woman’s shelter.

Another network showed people living under a highway overpass out of their trucks because they couldn’t find work. But under Obama the networks found a man “doing backflips” when he was asked to return to work at a Minnesota window company and another man who was thrilled to be hired by a hamburger stand in Arizona.

Network reports on unemployment were mirror opposites. They made Reagan look bad in a huge majority of stories and conversely made Obama look good.

Broadcasts journalists tied “rising” unemployment to Reagan in 1982 by mentioning him in 71 percent of stories (22 of 31), but linked Obama to the economy slightly more than half as often in 2009 – only 40 percent of the time (14 of 35).

When the respective presidents were mentioned, political attacks on the Reagan administration over job losses were commonplace in the 1982 network coverage. Union leaders, Democratic politicians and the unemployed were all quoted blasting Reagan for his economic policies.

NBC’s Irving R. Levine found a soon-to-be unemployed textile worker who “blames President Reagan” for his situation on March 5, 1982. That worker, Gene Biffle, told NBC, “When he went in there he said it, he was gonna get jobs and help the economy, but don’t look like he’s doing too much about that.”Following Levine’s segment, anchor Roger Mudd took Reagan to task himself by responding to statements from the administration:

“Spokesmen for the Reagan White House are coming to dread each month’s unemployment numbers because it gets harder and harder for them to explain. Economic Adviser Weidenbaum says today the figures may mean the economy may be bottoming out. Communications Director Gergen says that while unemployment may get worse, the recession seems to be bottoming out. Meanwhile, more and more people are getting bottomed out.”

In August 1982, Sam Donaldson of ABC highlighted the “partisan savagery” of Congressional Democrats, including Rep. Parren Mitchell’s, D-Md., claim that Reagan was pursuing “sadistic fiscal policies.”

The dark and gloomy tone of 1982 reports was a near polar opposite of the tenor of 2009 unemployment stories.

In 2009, the networks praised Obama for merely trying to stop rising unemployment – even when he wasn’t succeeding. And month after month reporters tried to find the “good news” or signs of a turnaround.

All three nightly newscasts mentioned Obama favorably March 6, 2009, even though 651,000 jobs had been lost in February and unemployment had jumped half a percentage point to 8.1 percent from 7.6 percent. And all three of those broadcasts emphasized a mere 25 jobs “saved” by the stimulus package.

NBC’s Chuck Todd gave Obama credit that night saying, “For these 25 new police officers here in Columbus, Ohio, the president’s stimulus plan didn’t create these jobs, it saved them. Without the money these folks would be looking for a new line of work.”

CBS Anchor Katie Couric revealed her faith in Obama’s stimulus plan that night as well saying, “I know the government is going to be creating jobs, as we’ve mentioned, through this stimulus package.”

After the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced May 8 that more than a half million jobs were lost in April, another CBS anchor, Maggie Rodriguez, looked for a ray of sunshine saying, “There is new hope the sun may be starting to peek through those economic storm clouds tonight,” before delivering the news that unemployment had jumped .4 percent to 8.9 percent nationally.

Rodriguez’ optimism led into Anthony Mason’s report. Mason quoted Obama and emphasized his call for education as the solution to joblessness and request that states allow people to maintain unemployment benefits while going back to school.

Identical Unemployment Rates, Opposite Treatment

The unemployment rate reached 9.4 percent under Reagan and under Obama (twice), but received completely different treatment from the networks – and in one case from the same reporter.

In 1982, Dan Rather reported the rate as “9.4 percent and rising.” Dan Cordtz called it “rising steadily” on ABC, while Ray Brady warned that “job loss is still spreading.” NBC found lines at food banks “four times what they were six months ago.”

In 2009, ABC found “glimmers of improvement” for an identical unemployment rate. CBS’s own economic “grim reaper,” Anthony Mason said the “economy’s showed signs of improving.” NBC also found “positive trends” to discuss – specifically mentioning “2,100 new reasons” to be “hopeful” in Georgia.

But Charles Gibson illustrated how dramatically different the network coverage of Reagan and Obama really were.

Gibson, who was a Capitol Hill correspondent for ABC in 1982, told viewers May 7, 1982, “[T]here really isn’t any good news in the statistics. All the numbers are bad.” He then quoted two Democratic attacks on Reagan including Rep. Henry S. Reuss, D-Wis., who charged that Reagan’s “policies aren’t just mistaken, they’re wicked.”

But as an ABC anchor in 2009, Gibson was full of hope. He introduced that night’s story saying “sometimes a bad jobs report can look good.”

“345,000 Americans lost their jobs in May, a big number to be sure. Traumatic if you are one of the 345,000. But the number was smaller than economists had predicted, and that’s good news,” Gibson said before admitting that the unemployment rate of 9.4 percent was “pretty bad.” Neither Gibson, nor reporter Betsy Stark mentioned President Obama at all that night.

On Aug. 7, 2009, Gibson suggested “the economy may be finally turning the corner.”

Methodology

The Business & Media Institute analyzed network unemployment stories on the evenings that data was released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in similar seven-month periods – between March 2009 to September 2009 and March 1982 to September 1982. There were 66 stories in all – 35 stories in 2009 and 31 stories in 1982.

A story was counted as a mention of Obama or Reagan if it named the respective president, the administration, the “White House,” or any administration spokespeople. Each mention was then graded positive, negative or neutral based on context.

Conclusion

Despite having similar periods of rising unemployment, Presidents Reagan and Obama were treated very differently by the network news media. This fit the theme of the network news when it came to economic reporting.

Jobs and unemployment have been one of the most significant economic measures because they impacted everyone so directly. Network viewers who watched coverage of unemployment during the Reagan years were consistently told things were bad. For identical numbers under Obama, those very same networks claimed the economy was improving. That was clear-cut bias.

And it isn’t new. The Business & Media Institute released a Special Report in 2004 called “One Economy, Two Spins” which showed the way similar economic conditions (unemployment, inflation and GDP growth) were presented negatively during the re-election campaigns of George W. Bush’s Republican administration, but positively under Bill Clinton’s Democratic re-election bid.

BMI found that jobs stories in particular were positive more than six times as often under Clinton than Bush. The networks continued to distort the good economy under Bush in 2005 and 2006 giving negative stories more air time and using ordinary people to underscore those downbeat reports.

The Media Research Center also reported in 2004 that the news media sought to discredit Reaganomics with their news coverage. Virginia Commonwealth University professor Ted J. Smith III found that out of 14,000 network news stories between 1982 and 1987 the amount of network TV coverage shrunk and became more negative as the economy improved. When one economic indicator got better, the networks covered it less and focused on something unhealthy about the economy.

Recommendations

State the Facts: Unemployment data, like all economic data, should be presented as is without reporter opinions being inserted into the broadcast. Forecasting job losses or gains should be left only to the experts.

Be Consistent: If 9.4 percent unemployment is bad, then it should be treated so regardless of who is president. If the number discredits a Republican administration, it should also discredit a Democrat.

Use History as a Guide: It is up to the networks to ensure that they cover stories consistently over time. A reporter working on a story about unemployment being the worst in 26 years should consult the coverage from that time for guidance.

Don’t Spin the Economy: Reporters should be embarrassed when they highlight 25 jobs gained after telling viewers 651,000 jobs were lost. If a story is negative, then tell it that way. Don’t allow White House spin from either party to distort the final result.

Because of the media’s dishonest and deceptive propaganda, we end up believing half truths that fundamentally amount to whole lies.

As I set up why this propaganda is so fundamentally dangerous, let me quote myself:

When Ronald Reagan took office from Jimmy Carter, inflation was at a meteoric 13.3% and the country was in the throes of a fierce recession.  There was a real question as to whether workers’ wages would keep up with the costs of living, which made people afraid to either spend or save.  And nobody knew how to control inflation – which had risen from 1.4% in 1960 to the aforementioned 13.3% in 1980 – causing a real erosion of confidence in the future.  Jimmy Carter answered a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Reagan DID have a solution, and the result was the Reagan Revolution.

Unemployment had risen to 11%.  More businesses failed than at any time since World War II.  The picture of the economy was grim, indeed.

And then the Reagan policies – ridiculed by the very same liberal economic theorists whose policies created the inflation to begin with – began to work.  And the result – from such terrible beginnings – was the 2nd largest peacetime expansion in American history.  And now – to prove that there really is nothing new under the sun, liberal economic theorists are STILL ridiculing Reagan’s successful policy over twenty years after its success changed America.

Carter was at a self-confessed loss to solve the problem of inflation that his own administration had created.  It was Ronald Reagan who had the answer to the problem that Democrats had created and which Democrats could not solve.

I refer to the “Network Flip Flops On Jobs” article to evidence the fact that the liberal establishment thoroughly attacked Reagan for his policies.  But history clearly reveals that it wasn’t Reagan who was wrong; it was the liberals who attacked and sought to undermine him.

These same entrenched liberal establishment (and in the case of Charles Gibson, as one example, the very same people) have never learned.  They continue to believe that up is down and that down is up.  As they regard the world through a fundamentally flawed worldview, they simply cannot understand the world as it really is.  Rather, they project a liberal abstract template over the world (such as Marxist or socialist theories) which they continue to believe in — no matter how many times it is refuted by history.

We have a media that keeps seeing “unexpected rises in unemployment” and increases that – while clearly bad in and of themselves – are billed as either “better than” or less than expected” and therefore as good news.

An example of such bias is found in a New York Times article on the result of the Bush tax cuts that liberals have tried to kill ever since.  The article bagan:

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

They would NOT see that lower taxes stimulated more investment and productivity.  It simply HAD to be something else, something that their liberal filters could account for.

Under Bush, good news kept being “unexpected.”  Under Obama, it’s always bad news that’s “unexpected.”

As one poster put it:

Funny how when unemployment fell under Bush, it was always billed as a “Surprise Drop in Unemployment Numbers” or “New Job Growth Greater Than Experts Anticipated.” But when Obama is President it is always the Job losses and rising unemployment that “surprise” the experts.

In this critical time in our nation’s history – when we are more vulnerable to depression than we have been since the Great Depression itself – it is not merely the media’s bias and unfairness that is at issue anymore, though.  It is the fact that their unbalanced and prejudiced optimism is leading us toward disaster as they continue to support bad policies.

We are now the Titanic about to run full speed into the iceberg that will sink her.  There are icebergs aplenty: icebergs of shockingly high unemployment; icebergs of huge mortgage defaults which will only continue to rise; icebergs of massive and unsustainable debt; icebergs of a devalued currency; icebergs of soon-to-spiral inflation; icebergs of an-out-of-control government that WILL NOT recognize its folly until well after the soon-coming crash that will make the last one look like good times.

Stop and think about it: we’re told that we had a rise in unemployment that was worse than expected.  The median expert forecast had been 175,000 jobs lost; the actual number was 263,000.  Try way, way worse than expected.  The forecasters were a whopping 50% off.  But don’t worry; the mainstream media is still quite cheerful and optimistic.

The same media that unfairly and unrealistically demonized Reagan’s highly successful strategy is now unfairly and unrealistically praising Obama’s badly failing strategy.

The actual unemployment rate is 17%.  And yet the mainstream media presentation (with only an occasional moment to reflect on sobering news) has just been unrelentingly optimistic.  While conservatives and Republicans should rightly be outraged over the media’s bias and propaganda during Republican eras, the greater risk is the destruction that is increasingly likely to occur because the media refuses to critically examine the worsening negative effects of Obama’s policies.

The same people who continued to believe that Reagan was so, so wrong in spite of all evidence to the contrary now just as steadfastly believe that Obama is so, so right.  And that should terrify you.

This isn’t just “emperor’s new clothes”; this is wearing a View Master featuring a scenic roadway while driving the country right off a cliff.

Obama Camp Punishes RARE Reporter Who Asks Tough Questions

October 27, 2008

The Obama campaign has always had it pretty easy with the press.  It wasn’t too long ago that his extravaganza trip to Europe and Iraq were covered by the anchors of all three major networks.  John McCain couldn’t have PAID Brian Williams, Katie Couric, or Charles Gibson to accompany him on any of his trips to Iraq or Afghanistan.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs has followed the puppydog-like way the media has followed Obama:

The “big three” broadcast networks – NBC, ABC and CBS – remain captivated with Sen. Barack Obama, according to a study of campaign coverage released Tuesday by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University.

Numbers tell all: 61 percent of the stories that appeared on the networks between Aug. 23 and Sept. 30 were positive toward the Democratic Party. In contrast, just 39 percent of the stories covering Republicans were favorable.

“After a brief flirtation with Sarah Palin, the broadcast networks have returned to their first love: Barack Obama,” said Robert Lichter, the center’s president.

“John McCain has not been so lucky. He’s gotten bad coverage from the beginning. It has never varied from that,” Mr. Lichter added.

Unfortunately, the Washington Times decided this October 13, 2008 story titled, “Study: Big Three Networks Still Fixated On ‘First Love’ Obama” harmed “the One” more than they liked; they purged it.  But the fact of media bias for Obama remains whether stories pointing to it are purged or not.  It never ceases to amaze me how quickly articles critical of Democrats get taken down, while articles critical of Republicans stay up for years.

The Media Research Center is another media watchdog that has noticed that the media bias in favor of Barack Obama is pretty much disgusting:

A comprehensive analysis of every evening news report by the NBC, ABC and CBS television networks on Barack Obama since he came to national prominence concludes coverage of the Illinois senator has “bordered on giddy celebration of a political ‘rock star’ rather than objective newsgathering.”

The new study by the Media Research Center, which tracks bias in the media, is summarized on the organization’s website, where the full report also has been published. It reveals that positive stories about Obama over that time outnumbered negative stories 7-1, and significant controversies such as Obama’s relationship with a convicted Chicago man have been largely ignored.

Rich Noyes, the research director for the MRC, told WND Obama has “always received very positive press from the national media,” and that was a “huge boost to anyone seeking a national political career.”

That’s contrary to the normal “default position” for reporters of being slightly cynical and a little skeptical, he said. It is “not the normal professional approach you see in journalists,” he said.

And the most recent survey from the Project for Excellence in Journalism,  “Winning the Media Campaign: How the Press Reported the 2008 Presidential General Election” – Sep 6 – Oct 16, tells us that:

In short, Obama gets nearly 3 times more positive coverage than McCain, while McCain gets nearly twice as much negative coverage as Obama.  Does that sound fair to you?  How is McCain supposed to run against that?

It gets even WORSE for Sarah Palin, believe it or not; she received only 6% positive coverage, and 64% negative coverage!

Realize that John McCain has been routinely portrayed as “going negative.”  Aside from the fact that this is patently false – according to yet another media watchdog, the Wisconsin Advertising Project based at the University of Wisconsin – just what on earth is John McCain supposed to do?  The media is literally doing the lion’s share of Obama’s dirty work for him by negatively covering John McCain under the guise of “news.”  And then that same media attacks him when he goes negative!

Last week Colin Powell – in a powder puff ‘Meet the Press‘ interview – officially endorsed Barack Obama (after officially being one of his ‘advisors’ for months).  The kinds of questions I would have loved to see asked of Colin Powell, such as:

Mr. Secretary, given the fact that you were the man who made the case for war with Iraq at the United Nations – and given the fact that the man you are endorsing has called the war you supported one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in history – are you acknowledging your own personal incompetence.  Are you acknowledging that your judgment should not be trusted?

Mr. Secretary, given the fact that the man you are endorsing has opposed the surge strategy conceived of and carried out by General Petraeus as one that would fail, and which would actually INCREASE sectarian violence, are you stating for the record your belief that General Petraeus was wrong, and that Barack Obama was right?  Are you claiming that the surge has NOT been a military success? Should we take this as further evidence of your own personal incompetence and poor judgment?

Somehow never got asked.  Too bad Colin Powell got to talk with pompous liberal Tom Brokaw rather than having to deal with the likes of a Barbara West.

The amazing thing is that the Associated Press article by Nedra Pickler that acknowledged that the Obama had scrubbed his website of his criticism of the surge strategy has itself been scrubbed.  Fortunately I have preserved the article here.  Kind of reminds me of the great work done by the “Ministry of Truth” in George Orwell’s 1984.

So, what happens when some courageous journalist – looking at the total onslaught of pro-Obama bias and downright propaganda – decides to finally ask the Obama-Biden campaign some tough but legitimate questions?

Well, it finally happened, and the Obama campaign has come unglued over it.  Here is a transcript of WFTV anchor Barbara West’s interview with Sen. Biden:

WEST: I know you’re in North Carolina trying to help get out the vote but aren’t you embarassed by the blatant attempts to register phony voters by ACORN, an organization that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?

BIDEN: I am not embarassed by it. We are not tied to it. We have not paid them one single penny to register a single solitary voter. We have the best GOTV operation in modern history. We’ve registered the voters ourselves and so there is no relationship. So I am embarassed for anybody in ACORN who went out there and registered somebody who shouldn’t be registered. I’m not embarrassed by our campaign because we haven’t paid ACORN a single penny to register a single voter.

WEST: But in the past, Sen. Obama was a community organizer for ACORN. He was an attorney for ACORN and certainly in the Senate, he has been a benefactor for ACORN.

BIDEN: How has he been a benefactor for ACORN? He was a community organizer. John McCain stood before ACORN not long ago and complimented them on the great work they did. Does that make John McCain complicit in any mistake that ACORN made? C’mon. Let’s get real.

WEST: Okay, moving onto the next question. Sen. Obama famously told Joe the Plumber that he wanted to spread his wealth around. Gallup polls show 84% of Americans prefer government focus on improving financial conditions and creating more jobs in the U.S. as opposed to taking steps to distributing wealth. Isn’t Sen. Obama’s statement a potentially crushing political blunder?

BIDEN: Absolutely not. The only person that’s spread the wealth around has been George Bush and John McCain’s tax policy. They have devastated the middle class. For the first time since the 1920’s, the top 1% make 21% of the income in America. That isn’t the way it was before George Bush became president. All we want is the middle class to have a fighting chance. That’s why we focus all of our efforts on restoring the middle class and giving them a tax break. And John McCain doubles down on Bush’s tax cuts and gives a $300 billion in tax cuts for the largest companies in America. We don’t think that’s the way to do it. We think give the middle class a break. That’s the way to do it.

WEST: You may recognize this famous quote. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs. That’s from Karl Marx. How is Sen. Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?

BIDEN: Are you joking? Is this a joke?

WEST: No.

BIDEN: Is that a real question?

WEST: It’s a real question.

BIDEN: He is not spreading the wealth around. He is talking about giving the middle class an opportunity to get back the tax breaks they used to have. What has happened just this year is that the people making $1.4 million a year, the wealthiest 1%, good, decent American people, are gonna get an $87 billion tax cut. A new one on top of the one from last year. We think that the people getting that tax break and not redistribute the wealth up, should be the middle class. That’s what we think. It’s a ridiculous comparison with all due respect.

WEST: Now you recently said “Mark my words. It won’t be six months before the world tests Barack Obama.” But what worries many people is your caveat asking them to stand with him because it won’t be apparent that he got it right. Are you forewarning the American people that something might not get done and that America’s days as the world’s leader might be over?

BIDEN: No, I’m not at all. I don’t know who’s writing your questions but let me make it clear to you. The fact of the matter is that everyone with knowledge, from Colin Powell on down, the next president, whether it’s John McCain or Barack Obama. The reason is our weakened position in the world. We’re stretched thin throughout the world. Our economy is in freefall right now. And they’re gonna be tested. And the point I was making is that Barack Obama is better prepared to handle any crisis than John McCain…

Here’s Obama’s response:

The Barack Obama campaign called Barbara West’s interview with Sen. Joe Biden unprofessional and combative.

The first time that someone actually asks real questions, the Obama campaign whines that the interview was combative. That’s what happens when they’re used to getting softball questions. It’s great to hear West isn’t just sitting back and taking it. Here’s her response:

“I have a great deal of respect for him. I have a great deal of respect for Sen. Obama. We are given four minutes of a satellite window for these interviews. Four precious minutes. I got right down to it and, yes, I think I asked him some pointed questions. These are questions that are rolling about right now and questions that need to be asked. I don’t think I was rude or inconsiderate to him. I think I was probing and maybe tough. I can’t believe that in all of his years in politics, and all of his campaigning and such, that he hasn’t run into some tough questions before. He’s certainly up to it in giving good answers.”

Well, apparently he isn’t.  And apparently you’re not allowed to ask the Obama campaign’s tough questions.

For one thing, he misrepresents Barack Obama’s own stated position:

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

So when Biden said of Barack Obama, “He’s not spreading the wealth around,” he’s pretty much lying through his dazzlingly bleached teeth.  It’s too bad that Barbara West didn’t have four more minutes.

One would have to be incredibly determined to find a better 4-word definition of Marxism than “spread the wealth around.”  Biden’s response to an incredibly legitimate question was to lie, and then express his annoyance that anyone would dare to ask him a legitimate question.

For the record, the Obama campaign paid $820,000 to ACORN for “lighting” even as they were becoming involved in voter fraud in 15 states (and counting).  Biden says the campaign didn’t “give a single penny to ACORN.”  He’s right; they gave 82 MILLION pennies to them!  And citing the fact that John McCain once gave a speech to ACORN as a dodge for Obama’s years of involvement with ACORN doesn’t merit anything but contempt.

In any event, the Obama campaign didn’t like being asked hard questions – like McCain and Palin get damn near every time they do ANY interview (including ABC’s the View), so the arrogant and imperious Obama campaign arrogantly and imperiously decided to punish WFTV for West’s transgression:

The Obama camp then killed a WFTV interview with Biden’s wife Jill, according to an Orlando Sentinel blog.

“This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election,” wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign, according to the Sentinel.

Of course, given the trend, overly-specific articles of this interview will likely be shortly scrubbed by the same Ministry of Truth that has already been hard at work in this campaign, anyway…

The really funny (in a sick, twisted, ironic way) thing about the Obama campaign is that they are willing to negotiate with the leaders of rogue terrorist states without preconditions, but they aren’t willing to talk with reporters who will ask them legitimate questions.

Under a Pelosi-Reid-dominated and even filibuster proof Congress, you won’t have to worry about that kind of interview much longer.  Conservative thought will be criminalized and punished under the Fairness Doctrine.  Nancy Pelosi has already said as much.  People who wish to punish free speech under the guise of “fairness” should be frightening.  But we see just how intolerant Democrats are to free speech given knowledge of the past.

Obama’s Biggest Problem May Be His Skin, Not His Faults

September 21, 2008

As a Republican, I very much want Barack Obama to lose in November.  But I want him to lose for his policies, his distorted worldview, and his inexperience – and NOT the color of his skin.

According to one article, “More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama can’t win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don’t have such views.”

I have a personal experience of the so-called “racial misgivings” of white Democrats.  While most of my extended family are Republicans, a few are Democrats.  One has stated in the family’s hearing, “I’m not going to vote for a G-D ‘N-word.'”  I hasten to add that he is related only by marriage, and that he is one of only two kindred whom I have always personally disliked.  Hearing his attitude about black people only served to confirm an already established attitude on my part.

One selected passage from the AP article titled, “Poll: Racial views steer some white Dems away from Obama,” says the following:

The findings suggest that Obama’s problem is close to home — among his fellow Democrats, particularly non-Hispanic white voters. Just seven in 10 people who call themselves Democrats support Obama, compared to the 85 percent of self-identified Republicans who back McCain.

The survey also focused on the racial attitudes of independent voters because they are likely to decide the election.

Lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too, but the survey found they weren’t voting against Obama because of his race. Most Republicans wouldn’t vote for any Democrat for president — white, black or brown.

The survey results do not include statistics regarding Republicans and race, so the phrase “lots of Republicans harbor prejudices, too” seems to be more smear than polling.  Given the documented fact that journalists are likely to be liberals, I immediately suspect that fewer Republicans than Democrats demonstrated “racial misgivings,” or else the writer would have rubbed it in Republicans’ faces.  But it stands to reason that if a third of Democratic whites have “racial misgivings,” then some significant percentage of Republican whites do, as well.

That said, I’m not quite sure about all the questions, or about how the poll asked the questions.  For example, one finding was that “Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they ‘try harder.'”  Well, I happen to agree with that.  But then, I would also agree with the statement that “whites would be better off if they ‘try harder’,” too.

And when they used “negative adjectives” to impugn racial/racist attitudes, I am also somewhat skeptical.  For instance, it was observed in this poll that some 20% of whites applied the word “violent” more to blacks than whites.  That sounds bad, until you consider that, statistically, blacks do have a far more serious tendency to violence than whites – for example, black men ages 18-24 are more than 9 times more likely to have murder records than white men in the same age category, according to government statistics from 2005.  Other “negative adjectives” are likewise based in empirical realities.  The black community is dealing with dysfunction on a shocking scale – and many black community leaders are struggling to deal with these crises.

If something is true, than it is not “biased” or “prejudiced.”  Truth is seeing things without bias or prejudice, and I would argue that people who demand we do not consider the truth are the ones who have the problem.  But simply recognizing statistical realities is one thing.  The problem occurs when we wrongly label an individual for what is (statistically) going on in their society as a whole.  For example, it is a documented fact that young black men have a much higher murder rate than young white men, but that is no reason not to vote for Barack Obama.  Nor would it right to believe that Barack Obama is any more “violent” than anyone else just because of his melanin level.  As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. put it, we need to assess each individual as an individual, and make our decisions about each person based upon the content of his or her character rather than the color of their skins.

This is important to me not only as a Republican, or a member of a larger society, but as a human being.  Years ago while in college, I was leaving a nightclub when I heard a woman yelling for help in the parking lot.  I ran over – and was attacked by four young black men.  Obviously, I took a beating (where’s Chuck Norris when you really need him?).  From that experience, I have every right to understand that the statistics have a certain reality to them.   But if I decided that every young black man was guilty by association merely because they happened to be of the same race as the men who attacked me, then I would have lost out on a lot of great friendships over the years.  I might mention here that the men that came over to help me were also young black men, and I thank God for their assistance.

As a Republican, I yearn for the day when a black conservative puts a hand on a Bible and takes the oath of office as President of the United States of America.  I am rather ashamed to even think that significant numbers of Republicans would undermine themselves, their party, and their country by refusing to vote for the best candidate simply because of the color of his or her skin.

Unfortunately, given the response to the first (two) black Secretaries of State and the first black Supreme Court Justice, many black Americans would not view such a day as advancing any racial balances.

I wrote an open letter calling upon John McCain to nominate a woman.  When I heard that John McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his Vice President, I surprised myself; I was so overwhelmed I found myself weeping over the historical significance.  In the case of seeing the first black President to be elected from the Party of Lincoln, my lifelong love of history guarantees that I will cry like a baby.

Two other selected passages underscore Obama’s problems that don’t show up in the polling numbers:

Race is not the biggest factor driving Democrats and independents away from Obama. Doubts about his competency loom even larger, the poll indicates. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that.

Three in 10 of those Democrats who don’t trust Obama’s change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain.

Just 59 percent of her white Democratic supporters said they wanted Obama to be president. Nearly 17 percent of Clinton’s white backers plan to vote for McCain.

I believe that there are all kinds of valid reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with race for having doubts about Barack Obama.  And it is unfair – and even dangerous in an already polarized society – to insinuate that voters’ decision to vote for the more experienced and better known quantity of John McCain are therefore harboring “racial misgivings.”

Part of me wants to avoid the unpleasant reality and claim that an Obama defeat – and I do believe he will go down on defeat – will be due entirely to a public that finally sees his flaws as a candidate for President.  I personally believe that a significant percentage of the so-called “Bradley Effect” as it pertains to Barack Obama is nothing more than voters publicly claiming to support the candidate who has so continually been presented as the “cool” choice in the media, and then privately voting for the candidate they believe would be the better President.

This survey, or at least this survey as it appears in the Associated Press article, does not fully convince me that “racial misgivings” is as large of a factor as some pollsters and sociologists believe.  But to the extent that it is going to be a factor in this election, it would be clearly be the prejudices of Democrats, and not Republicans, that cause Obama to lose this race.

Barack Obama Speech: Great On Delivery, Lousy On Substance

August 30, 2008

Barack Obama knows how to deliver a speech well.  But, in all seriousness, a good delivery doesn’t make the message delivered any more true than if it is poorly delivered.  And the very worst liars are often enough the very best talkers.

According to FactCheck.org, Obama “stuck to the facts except when he stretched them.”  I would argue that he stretched them beyond the point of ridiculous on a number of occasions.

At the macro level, one serious criticism is that Obama fundamentally contradicted himself. He spent the first third of the speech engaging in classic old-style politics, delivering several unfair and frankly over-the-top attacks.  Then he spent the last third talking about new politics, rising above attacks, coming together, and having the grace to build bridges.  You can’t start off delivering an old-style attack, and then claim that you represent a new style.

Also at the macro level, Barack Obama, whose campaign theme has been “change we can believe in,” promised to “spell out exactly what that change would mean” and deliver a “workmanlike” speech.  But, as two Associated Press articles report, Obama too often only “touched on major issues quickly and lightly,” and when he actually offered specifics, the vision he presented “collided with reality.”

For the links to the AP stories, and for more analysis of Obama’s speech, continue reading. (more…)

Obama: Because America Is No Longer What It Once Was…

August 9, 2008

Barack Obama – the so-called “master orator” of the left – often has an awful lot of difficulty making his way through a sentence without a teleprompter.

Or as one youtube video reviewer characterized Obama’s speeches:

Uh, uh, um, uh ahhh, uh, um, er, CHANGE! er, ahhhh, ahhh, uhhhh, err, um, ah, er, HOPE! ah, er ummm,ahhh, er, ah, um uh, uh, uuhhh, uh, ahhh um, er, uh, uh, um, uh ahhh, uh, um, er,CHANGE! er, ahhhh, ahhh, uhhhh, err, um, ah, er, HOPE! ah, er ummm,ahhh, er, ah, um uh, uh, uh, uh,, ahhh um, er, ahhhh, ahhh, uhhhh, err, um, ah, er, HOPE! ah, er ummm,ahhh, er, ah, um uh, uhhhh, uh, uh,, ahhh um, er, uh, uh, um, uh ahhh, uh, um, er, CHANGE! er, ahhhh, ahhh, uhhhh, err, um, ah, er, HOPE! ah, er um.

I see this as a metaphor for just how completely over-hyped Obama truly is by the left.

I don’t think it’s just Obama’s words that fail him during unscripted dialogues; I think his rationality and common sense tends to go out the window as well.

With that little introduction, we turn to the encounter in Elkhart, Indiana, with a seven year old girl asking Obama why he’s running for president. Obama replied:

“America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children.” [Youtube].

The first question that ought to come to mind is, “When was it better?” Was it better before the Civil War, when slavery was legal? Was it better during all those years of “separate but equal” courtesy of judges who imposed their own views upon the Constitution rather than strictly interpreting its clear intent?

Was it – in some liberal fairytale fashion – somehow better during the Clinton years? Was everything bright and happy and wonderful, and then Bush was elected, and we all became bad people living under a wicked king? Is that it? Is Barack Obama our Prince Charming, who will wake this country up with a kiss as he takes the oath of office and restore everything that is good and wonderful throughout the land?

Why is Obama – who is presented to us constantly as the personification of hope – so negative about America?

If he isn’t elected, would he tell that little girl, “I’m afraid you have no future, after all”? Is Obama truly our Messiah, and rejecting him is tantamount to throwing away our very futures?

Rush Limbaugh had this to say:

LIMBAUGH: Alright, now here’s he’s brought it home. He had trashed his country in Germany, he has seen the result of that in his plummeting poll numbers. And now he does it again in Elkhart, IN. A 7 year old little girl. You’re running for President Sen. Obama, a little girl asks you a question, “Why did you start running for President?”

It’s a 7 year old Senator. Ya tell her because you love the country. You tell her because this is the greatest place on Earth. That we’ve got challenges, but you want to help the country through it. You don’t tell a 7 year old that her country isn’t what it once was. You do not lie to 7 year olds and tell them that your country sucks. You just don’t do it Senator.

This dark view of America AND ITS PEOPLE has come out before:

“You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Obama said in an address to fundraisers in San Francisco last week. “And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

And Barack Obama is well-married, in the sense that his wife Michelle thinks exactly the same way he does:

“Sometimes it’s easier to hold onto your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your ignorance. That’s America.” [Youtube].

And:

“Let me tell you something. For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is making a comeback.” [Youtube].

And how could we forget the views she expressed to The New Yorker:

[Michelle] Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”

And this bitter, cynical young power couple – like many Americans – found themselves a church that represented their views about life and the world:

The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda’s attacks because of its own terrorism.

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he told his congregation.

And, of course, I could provide quote after quote to describe the unrelentingly dark and negative view the church the Obamas chose had about America and about Americans.

If you don’t think there’s a pattern for a dark and even un-American view of this country, then you are a fool (or a liberal, which in my view is merely a fool by another name).

I don’t want Barack Obama’s America; I want Ronald Reagan’s America:

Reagan was described as an eternal optimist. He offered Americans a positive, uplifting vision of America and its future. Former President George Bush said of him, “Our friend was strong and gentle. Once he called America hopeful, big hearted, idealistic, daring, decent and fair. That was America and, yes, our friend. And next, Ronald Reagan was beloved because of what he believed. He believed in America so he made it his shining city on a hill. He believed in freedom so he acted on behalf of its values and ideals. He believed in tomorrow so the great communicator became the great liberator.” President George Bush observed, “He came to office with great hopes for America. And more than hopes…Ronald Reagan matched an optimistic temperament with bold, persistent action.” It’s important for leaders to hold an optimistic view of the world, so that they can stir the aspiration of people who will then follow with enthusiasm to achieve great accomplishments.

Just as Ronald Reagan’s vision of America and the free people who inhabited it was positive and uplifting; Barack Obama’s vision of America and of its people is negative and dark.

I came across an American Thinker article titled, “Blessing vs. Damning America” by Paul Kengor that is worth reading on this subject.

If you want a president who has the optimism to be able to lead America and Americans to greatness, don’t vote for Barack Obama. He simply doesn’t have that spirit within him, and you can’t give what you don’t got.