Posts Tagged ‘Time Magazine’

Mexican-‘Americans’ Boo U.S. Soccor Team AND THE AMERICAN FLAG. Democrats Help Them.

June 28, 2011

These are the people that Barack Obama and the Democrat Party want to screw the American people to in order to “win” (read “purchase”) their vote:

Mexican-American soccer fans boo the U.S. flag in Gold Cup? Not nice, los estúpidos
Rick Chandler
Jun 27, 2011, 5:12 PM EDT

Nice comeback win by Mexico to beat the U.S., 4-2, at the CONCACAF Gold Cup in Pasadena on Saturday. But Mexican fans, did you have to boo the U.S. flag? I mean, you live here and everything. You’re U.S. citizens, presumably. No one’s saying you have to root for the U.S. soccer team … pulling for Mexico in this game was completely understandable. But booing the flag, and other acts of hooliganism directed at the U.S.? Unless you believe that all of those folks traveled north from Mexico just for the game — and I don’t — then it’s obvious that people living and working in the U.S. booed and disrespected the American flag. You took it too far, los salvajes.

From the Sporting News:

Other than a column in the Los Angeles Times, the atmosphere at Saturday’s game was hardly noted. When it was, the crowd was called enthusiastic or impassioned.

How about boorish?

Certainly not all 93,420 fans, but enough to leave you wondering just what the U.S. did to get Mexico so enthusiastic and impassioned.

The antics weren’t anything new. In a 2005 World Cup qualifier, the Mexican crowd booed the U.S. national anthem and some fans chanted “Osama! Osama!” during the game. Two years ago fans threw containers holding urine and vomit at Landon Donovan.

If American fans had done that to Javier Hernandez on Saturday, there would be a national manhunt. But almost any criticism of Mexican fans is viewed as intolerant, if bit downright racist.

The question is: How much must we tolerate?

And how far do you take national loyalty at a sporting event? Your country of origin may be Mexico, but if you’ve come to the United States for a better life for you and your family, shouldn’t there be some sense of loyalty to your adopted land?

That’s like me moving to Canada, living and working there for a couple of years, then during the Winter Olympics shooting arrows at the Always Enjoyable Giant Inflatable Beaver. I just wouldn’t do that. Sure, I’d root for the U.S. in hockey, but I’d realize that Canada is my adopted home, and I’d also carry several strips of backbacon in my pockets. In other words, I’d find a place in my heart for both.

Mexican-American soccer fans, I think you went over the line. Apologize, or we’re canceling the George Lopez Show.

***
In Gold Cup final, it’s red, white and boo again [Los Angeles Times]
Sorry, Mexico, great win but fans were embarrassment [The Sporting News]

Democrats – who are themselves as un-American as these “Mexican-Americans” – want to sell out the American people in order to buy the votes of these disloyal slimeballs.

My view?  If we’re fortunate enough to overcome the biased media propaganda and win the White House and Senate in 2012, we need to kick down doors and haul illegals off to Mexico where they belong.  And then we need to build a giant fence to keep them where they belong and put a few military bases along the border so they can aggressively patrol it in the interest of national security.

If you get the sense that this kind of crap burns my butt you are correct.  Nobody needs to correct me and lecture me that there are Hispanic Americans that are just as repulsed by this loathsome display of ingratitude as any other decent American.  I have been blessed to know Hispanics who are prouder of America than 99.9% of their fellow Americans – because they remember where they came from, and they know America is a land of opportunity rather than a land to be exploited.

But the simple fact of the matter is that this kind of despicable display from “Mexican-Americans” HAPPENS ALL THE DAMN TIME:

Public School Teacher Says American Flag ‘Offensive’; Praises Picture Of Dear Leader Obama

Celebrating Cinco De Mayo In These United States Of Mexico

Who’s The Real American In This Picture?

Liberal Rallies Pimp Hard-Core Totalitarian Socialism

Illegal Immigrants: Amazingly, Conservatives Don’t Want These People In America

There are two groups of people living in the United States of America: there are conservatives who genuinely care about this country and its founding vision, and then there are Democrats and Hispanic and all these other anti-American “special interest groups” who want to exploit this country and feed of its people like leeches until our nation collapses.

Democrats have been saying they believe in the Constitution – as long as they can “fundamentally transform” what it means by ignoring it’s plain historical meaning in context and instead find “penumbras and emanations” – for most of the last fifty years.  We’ve got sneering liberal attitudes such as this one expressed in Time Magazine:

“We can pat ourselves on the back about the past 223 years, but we cannot let the Constitution become an obstacle to the U.S.’s moving into the future with a sensible health care system, a globalized economy, an evolving sense of civil and political rights.”

Richard Stengel goes on to butcher everything legitimate Americans stand for:

The Constitution does not protect our spirit of liberty; our spirit of liberty protects the Constitution. The Constitution serves the nation; the nation does not serve the Constitution.”

When I enlisted in the United States Army, I took an oath.  Did I vow to defend “the spirit of liberty”?  No.  I swore this:

“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Do you notice how that oath contradicts everything that the wretched liberal weasel Richard Stengel says?

For the record, members of Congress and federal judges take oaths that also REQUIRE them to “serve” the Constitution.  Liberals take it too.  They are just too damned dishonest to give a damn.  They’re like “Slick Willie” Clinton explaining how he didn’t really lie because it all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.  Only most of them do it to the Constitution rather than to White House interns.

And Richard Stengel is hardly the only liberal whose “honesty” extends to letting us know what liberals REALLY think about the Constitution.  Fareed Zakaria has said America should be more like Iceland – which ripped its Constitution up and is now writing a new one on Facebook.

Liberals despise the fact that we have a Constitution that protects us from them, and have done damn near everything they could to erode it away so it means whatever the hell they want it to mean at any given moment.

Basically, I swore to defend my country against liberals who are constantly trying to use our Constitution for toilet paper all the while paying lip service to it.  And of course the real constitutional crisis in this country is that we’ve elected a president who thinks the same loathsome way that Richard Stengel does.

I still remember the words of Michael Scheuer, who had led the CIA unit that pursued Osama bin Laden:

SCHEUER: Well, look at our borders, Sir. If National Defense doesn’t include border control, then National Defense is a nonsense. They don’t care — look at the jobs they have given to the men and women in Afghanistan that are impossible to do. They don’t care that so many of those young men and women are losing their lives, and not having a chance to win because they’re not supported.

They want to play games at home. They want to stay in power forever. They want their office. They don’t want to protect the United States. They somehow think that America is eternal and can never be defeated. Well, they’re going to be in for a great wakeup call, Sir.

And he’s right: they DON’T care.  They don’t give a flying damnSeriously.  They truly couldn’t care less.

I wrote this about “what didn’t matter” to Democrats a year ago, but it applies to Democrats every bit as well today as it did back then:

It doesn’t matter that illegal immigration is costing  the American taxpayers billions of dollars every single year that  are overwhelming our economy:

“Costs on average for every illegal alien headed  household about $19,600   more if they consume the city services than  they pay in taxes, so the   rest of the taxpayers have to part costs.  Schools become overcrowded,   English as second language programs push  out other programs.”

It doesn’t matter that the same illegal immigrants who are a burden  to our country are in fact a burden to their own damn country.  And that if  they’re a burden to their own country, how in the hell are they not a  burden to ours?

It doesn’t matter that the very Mexicans who are demonizing our  tolerant immigration laws don’t seem to care about how harsh the Mexican government is about dealing with THEIR illegal immigrants.

Not only do Democrats side with the people who boo the American flag, but they don’t even give a damn that they side with the people who boo the American flag.

Damn liberals and their damn George Soros “Open Society” and open borders crowd.

They are all going to hell.  And they are trying to take the once great United States of America down with them.

Update: here is an article detailing thirteen obvious factual errors in Richard Stengel’s despicable take on the U.S. Constitution.  Which clearly means the stupid people at Time Magazine should give him a raise.

Advertisements

Liberals: ‘It’s Okay To Burn The Bible, Just PLEASE Don’t Burn The Holy Koran’

April 5, 2011

This is just another example of the breathtaking liberal ignorance and moral stupidity of the mainstream media.

We’ve got Time Magazine world editor Bobby Ghosh explaining on MSNBC’s “Hardball” that burning a copy of the Qur’an was “much more inflammatory than burning a Bible” because of the greater spiritual significance of the Qur’an.

Here is a transcript via Mediaite:

GHOSH: The thing to keep in mind that`s very important here is that the Koran to Muslims, it is not — it is not the same as the Bible to Christians.

The Bible is a book written by men. It is acknowledged by Christians that it is written by men. It`s the story of Jesus.

TODD: Yes.

GHOSH: But the Koran, if you are a believer, if you`re a Muslim, the Koran is directly the word of God, not written by man. It is transcribed, is directly the word of God.

That makes it sacred in a way that it`s hard to understand if you`re not Muslim. So the act of burning a Koran is much more — potentially much, much more inflammatory than –

TODD: Directly attacking — directly attacking God.

GHOSH: — than if you were to burn a — burn a Bible.

TODD: Directly attacking God.

If you buy Time Magazine, allow me to correctly label you a DUMBASS.  You’ve got the international editor of Time ignorantly claiming that Christians don’t believe the Bible is “the Word of God,” and you’ve got the MSNBC host first agreeing with him that the Bible is just a book written by men and then trying to help Ghosh make his point by repeatedly saying “Directly attacking God” like some kind of particularly idiotic jihadist-trained parrot.

Muslims do not claim that God wrote the Qur’an and handed it to Mohammed.  Rather, they claim that a human being wrote it under an angel named Gabriel’s direction.

Here are a number of passages – and hardly an exhaustive list by any means – about the Bible:

‘Thy word I have treasured in my heart that I might not sin against Thee’ (Psalm 119:11)

‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God’ (Math 4:4).

“The word of God is alive and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword…” (Heb 4:12).

“So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11).

“For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Pet 1:23).

“And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17). 

‘All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work’ (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

I want you to carefully note that NONE of these passages is speaking about Allah or the Qur’an.  In fact, neither existed yet.  Muhammad had not yet been born to invent him and pirate Judaism and Christianity to fabricate his own religion.  And the doctrine of the inspiration of the Holy Bible is merely one of the things that Muhammad pirated.  In addition to Abraham and Jesus, Muhammad frankly even pirated the angel Gabriel whom he claimed dictated the Qur’an to him (Daniel 8:16; 9:21; Luke 1:11–19).  They ALL came from the HOLY Bible long before they had anything to do with the Qur’an.

I would submit that, given that the Qur’an plagiarized large portions of the Bible, whereas the writers of the Bible – both the human and the ultimate Divine behind their writings – would regard the Qur’an as incoherent rubbish, it should be rather obvious which of the two is truly “holy” and which is not.

I’ve read the Qu’ran.  It is virtual gibberish.  I couldn’t agree more with Robert Spencer in his description of the Qur’an in The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion:

“reading the Qur’an is in many places like walking in on a conversation between two people with whom one is only slightly acquainted.  When Islamic apologists say terrorists quote the Qur’an on jihad ‘out of context,’ they neglect to mention that the Qur’an itself often offers little context.  Frequently it makes reference to people and events without  bothering to explain what’s going on” (p. 20-21).

And Spencer proceeds to offer an example which proves just how muddy and indecipherable the Qur’an truly is.  Without a vast collection of volumes of very human Islamic tradition called the Haddith, nobody would have any idea of what is being said about what.

The Bible, by contrast, stands on its own.  And the best interpreter of the Bible is the Bible.  Commentaries are certainly useful for helping one understand a few passages here or there.  But with the Qur’an, they are utterly essential for having so much as the vaguest clue.

Do you ever notice how often mainstream media “journalists” who would NEVER refer to the “holy” Bible due to their “journalistic objectivity” invariably bow and scrape before Muslims lest they be murdered for failing to say “the holy Qur’an”???

Is it merely fear, or is it that journalists – who are far more atheist than the general population – agreeing with the most fanatic jihadist Muslims that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  With said common enemy being Judeo-Christianity???

Then there’s the manner in which these “journalists” have tried to create the perception that a crackpot preacher of a tiny church is more guilty of murder than the intolerant religion of hate that just racked up another 21 innocent murder victims.

I mean, who doesn’t go attack a U.N. compound and murder people who had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the thing you claim to be angry about, anyway?

Let me further ridicule the ignorant Time Magazine international editor who stupidly said that Christians don’t mind Bible burning as much because, after all, we don’t think the Bible is God’s book.  How about Jesus versus Muhammad?  Christians don’t just rightly call Jesus “the Word” (John 1:1-3), but they believe Him to be the Son of God, who assumed a human nature to free us from sin and death.  Do Muslims regard Muhammad as God?  As far as I know, they don’t.  And yet guess who didn’t turn into a murderous mob when their God was placed in a jar of urine and called “art” by secular humanist liberals???  If you guessed the same Christians who don’t erupt into a murderous frenzy whenever someone burns a Bible, you win a prize!!!

In other words, the problem isn’t so much that some nutjob burned a Qur’an; the real problem is that Muslims are murderers who can’t control their demonic urge to murder at any provocation.

Some liberals are so completely morally stupid that they think we should turn our backs with a wink and a nod while 1.6 billion Muslims annihilate Israel.  What they stupidly refuse to understand is that Israel is only the “LITTLE” Satan; America is the GREAT Satan.  We’ll have to go too.  Oh, and England will have to go.  And France.  And pretty much all of Western Europe.  And if it’s okay, anyone who doesn’t bow down and confess that Allah is greater, and Muhammad is his prophet.

As Spencer pounts out, Islam is a truly intolerant and violent religion.  Don’t burn our Qur’ans or we’ll riot and murder.  Don’t draw cartoons or we’ll riot and murderDon’t send female journalists to report the news or we’ll gang-rape and riot and murder.  Or at least beat the women with clubs.  And, of course, don’t oppose Islam or we’ll murder your women and children.  It is frankly amazing how “journalists” who claim to stand for free spech and free expression will so willingly if not eagerly censor themselves in the face of fundamentalist Islamic intolerance while so “courageously” attacking peaceful Christians and the Judeo-Christian worldview that made free speech and freedom of expression possible in the first place.

If you’re reading Time Magazine or watching MSNBC, you are trusting abject moral morons to inform you about the world.  And it’s frankly little wonder you’re so pathetically ignorant.

Finally, there’s Barack Hussein.  He falsely claims that he’s a Christian, but the man who routinely refers to “the holy Koran” has never once used the phrase “the Holy Bible” and has in fact even mocked the Bible in a way that he would never dare do to the Qur’an.

Men like Barack Obama and Bobby Ghosh are cowards and weasels.  And it’s long past time to expose them as such.

Americans Decide They Don’t Want Another Great Depression, Turn To GOP In Greatest Numbers Since 1930

September 9, 2010

Hmmm, do we want to go back to FDR and keep the Great Depression running like a Merry Go Round, or do we want to get off that particular ride?

Apparently, Americans are deciding that they don’t want the next liberal demagogue who will keep the country in a perpetual state of suffering.

GOP Turnout Exceeding Democrats’ For First Time Since 1930
By Ed Carson
Wed., Sept. 08, 2010 3:59 PM ET
Tags: Elections – Republicans – Democrats

Republican primary turnout for statewide offices is outpacing the Democratic vote for the first time since 1930, according to election expert Curtis Gans of the American University.

* The share of Americans voting in GOP primaries hit 10.5%, up from 8.2% in the 2006 primaries and the highest since 1970.

* The share of Americans voting in Democratic primaries was a record low of 8.3%.

* Republican turnout in their statewide primaries exceeded Democratic turnout by over 4 million votes.

A wide variety of polls and individual primaries have pointed to a big Republican enthusiasm gap vs. gloomy Democrats, but this survey offers a comprehensive look at actual voting patterns. “If there is an analagous election, it could be that of 1994, where the Democrats lost massively,” the report says.

The full report is here (pdf).

And you can express it negatively, too:

Study: Democratic turnout for primaries lowest in 80 years

During the 1930s America had King Überüberliberal FDR (at least before Obama came along to strip him of the title), to go along with more Democrats than you could shake a stick at, running and ruining the country.

And no matter how badly FDR and the Democrats in Congress failed, or for how long they kept failing, Americans just kept re-electing them.

Here’s another article about those days:

FDR’s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate
By Meg Sullivan
8/10/2004 12:23:12 PM

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.”

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

“President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services,” said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. “So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies.”

Using data collected in 1929 by the Conference Board and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Cole and Ohanian were able to establish average wages and prices across a range of industries just prior to the Depression. By adjusting for annual increases in productivity, they were able to use the 1929 benchmark to figure out what prices and wages would have been during every year of the Depression had Roosevelt’s policies not gone into effect. They then compared those figures with actual prices and wages as reflected in the Conference Board data.

In the three years following the implementation of Roosevelt’s policies, wages in 11 key industries averaged 25 percent higher than they otherwise would have done, the economists calculate. But unemployment was also 25 percent higher than it should have been, given gains in productivity.

Meanwhile, prices across 19 industries averaged 23 percent above where they should have been, given the state of the economy. With goods and services that much harder for consumers to afford, demand stalled and the gross national product floundered at 27 percent below where it otherwise might have been.

“High wages and high prices in an economic slump run contrary to everything we know about market forces in economic downturns,” Ohanian said. “As we’ve seen in the past several years, salaries and prices fall when unemployment is high. By artificially inflating both, the New Deal policies short-circuited the market’s self-correcting forces.”

The policies were contained in the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which exempted industries from antitrust prosecution if they agreed to enter into collective bargaining agreements that significantly raised wages. Because protection from antitrust prosecution all but ensured higher prices for goods and services, a wide range of industries took the bait, Cole and Ohanian found. By 1934 more than 500 industries, which accounted for nearly 80 percent of private, non-agricultural employment, had entered into the collective bargaining agreements called for under NIRA.

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943.

Roosevelt’s role in lifting the nation out of the Great Depression has been so revered that Time magazine readers cited it in 1999 when naming him the 20th century’s second-most influential figure.

“This is exciting and valuable research,” said Robert E. Lucas Jr., the 1995 Nobel Laureate in economics, and the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. “The prevention and cure of depressions is a central mission of macroeconomics, and if we can’t understand what happened in the 1930s, how can we be sure it won’t happen again?”

NIRA’s role in prolonging the Depression has not been more closely scrutinized because the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional within two years of its passage.

“Historians have assumed that the policies didn’t have an impact because they were too short-lived, but the proof is in the pudding,” Ohanian said. “We show that they really did artificially inflate wages and prices.”

Even after being deemed unconstitutional, Roosevelt’s anti-competition policies persisted — albeit under a different guise, the scholars found. Ohanian and Cole painstakingly documented the extent to which the Roosevelt administration looked the other way as industries once protected by NIRA continued to engage in price-fixing practices for four more years.

The number of antitrust cases brought by the Department of Justice fell from an average of 12.5 cases per year during the 1920s to an average of 6.5 cases per year from 1935 to 1938, the scholars found. Collusion had become so widespread that one Department of Interior official complained of receiving identical bids from a protected industry (steel) on 257 different occasions between mid-1935 and mid-1936. The bids were not only identical but also 50 percent higher than foreign steel prices. Without competition, wholesale prices remained inflated, averaging 14 percent higher than they would have been without the troublesome practices, the UCLA economists calculate.

NIRA’s labor provisions, meanwhile, were strengthened in the National Relations Act, signed into law in 1935. As union membership doubled, so did labor’s bargaining power, rising from 14 million strike days in 1936 to about 28 million in 1937. By 1939 wages in protected industries remained 24 percent to 33 percent above where they should have been, based on 1929 figures, Cole and Ohanian calculate. Unemployment persisted. By 1939 the U.S. unemployment rate was 17.2 percent, down somewhat from its 1933 peak of 24.9 percent but still remarkably high. By comparison, in May 2003, the unemployment rate of 6.1 percent was the highest in nine years.

Recovery came only after the Department of Justice dramatically stepped enforcement of antitrust cases nearly four-fold and organized labor suffered a string of setbacks, the economists found.

“The fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes,” Cole said. “Ironically, our work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.”

-UCLA-

LSMS368

One of the greatest indictments of FDR’s legacy comes from FDR’s own Treasury Secretary and closest personal friend:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enought to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939

In April 1939, after those two terms in office, unemployment was at 20.7%.  Morganthau was an honest enough man to admit that his and FDR’s policies had utterly failed.  But generations of dishonest liberal propagandist journalists and historians merely ignored Morganthau’s honest and accurate admission and heralded the man who did more to drive America into socialism than anyone until one Barack Hussein Obama stepped onto the scene.

FDR’s failure to do anything but further destroy the American economy becomes critical because Obama has been widely viewed as the 2nd incarnation of FDR.

I mean, the SAME Time Magazine that thought FDR walked on water gave us this cover:

And we don’t want that guy.  He’s the LAST thing we should want.  Because we don’t want to linger in the great misery of the Great Depression for year after year.

And thank God more Americans are realizing the Obama-as-FDR fraud than at any time since FDR came along to lead America into unparalleled misery.

Did Reuters Ever Capture John McCain With A Golden Halo?

February 17, 2010

World War II apparently wasn’t a complete waste.  It allowed American media liberals to learn how to do propaganda right from Joseph Goebbels’ example.

Another Subtle Obama Photo From Reuters That’s Not An Accident

Reuters has a habit of doing this..This photo was taken today at the IBEW in Maryland

photo via weaselzippers, Notice ‘attitude, skill, knowledge’ is perfectly in line with the edge

This is the IBEW seal that Obama was photographed in…

U.S. President Barack Obama tours a training center at the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 26 Headquarters in Lanham, Maryland, February 16, 2010.REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

2 weeks ago, it was Reuters capturing Obama with a halo

Drudge Tonight

Posted by HotAirPundit at 10:19 PM

I don’t begrudge political campaigns from photographing their candidates in a favorable light (although the halo thing is kind of spooky – and, yes, Bush’s handlers gave him a halo on at least one occasion).  But when journalists who are supposed to be objective do it – and do it repeatedly – you cross a line into true propaganda.

This was something that was done repeatedly with Obama Messiah:

Mind you, John McCain benefitted from some visual propaganda, too.  Here’s a shot taken by photographer Jill Greenberg, who had been hired by The Atlantic:

Some might argue that Obama’s propaganda treatment was more favorable than McCain’s.  But that’s a judgment call.

Outright propaganda and the political left have always gone hand in hand.  From Stalin to Hitler to Mao to Castro and Che Guevara, we have always seen the media glorify their chosen leaders in pictures and print.

The media used propaganda to influence stupid peoples’ votes in so many ways.  Unfortunately, there are an awful lot of stupid people in this country.

Fox News Most Demonized By Obama, Most Trusted By Americans

January 31, 2010

Fox News is now far and away the most trusted name in news, even according to left-leaning Public Policy Polling.

I didn’t need a poll to know that.

Last week I wrote an article entitled, “In Hindsight Of Massachusetts, Who Presented The Truth: Obama, Or Fox News?”  And my contention was that Fox News was basically the only news organization that was broadcasting the truth all along, while the “Obama media” reported propaganda.

But now common sense is confirmed by polling:

Poll: Fox most trusted name in news
By ANDY BARR | 1/27/10 7:38 AM EST

Fox is the most trusted television news network in the country, according to a new poll out Tuesday.

A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network.

Thirty-seven percent said they didn’t trust Fox, also the lowest level of distrust that any of the networks recorded.

There was a strong partisan split among those who said they trusted Fox — with 74 percent of Republicans saying they trusted the network, while only 30 percent of Democrats said they did.

CNN was the second-most-trusted network, getting the trust of 39 percent of those polled. Forty-one percent said they didn’t trust CNN.

Each of the three major networks was trusted by less than 40 percent of those surveyed, with NBC ranking highest at 35 percent. Forty-four percent said they did not trust NBC, which was combined with its sister cable station MSNBC.

Thirty-two percent of respondents said they trusted CBS, while 31 percent trusted ABC. Both CBS and ABC were not trusted by 46 percent of those polled.

“A generation ago you would have expected Americans to place their trust in the most neutral and unbiased conveyors of news,” said PPP President Dean Debnam in his analysis of the poll. “But the media landscape has really changed, and now they’re turning more toward the outlets that tell them what they want to hear.”

The telephone poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points.

Democrats – who completely rely on mainstream media propaganda to win elections – are panic-stricken.  Here’s what the Democratic Senatorial Committee said in a new pitch:

Republicans think Massachusetts was an endorsement of their stall tactics and personal attacks. A new poll names Fox News Channel as the most trusted news outlet. Sarah Palin has 1.2 million fans on Facebook and is the $100,000 headliner at the national tea party convention. If we don’t fight back, and stand up for America, then their version of America will get the upper hand.

We cannot let that happen. And with your help, we will not.

Republicans “don’t think” here; they simply recognize the obvious.  An unknown Republican running against the Obama agenda pulling out a win against a well known Democrat running for “Ted Kennedy’s seat” is a no-brainer confirmation of Republican opposition to Obama’s many high-spending boondoggles.

Sarah Palin has such a huge following on Facebook because in a few paragraphs she can destroy an eternity’s worth of Obama mistatement of the union lies.  Palin is routinely slandered as being dumber than a box of rocks, but she saw the failures of Obama a year-and-a-half before the brilliant liberals were able to comprehend the same things about him.

And let’s talk about the Tea Party protesters.

A recent Rasmussen survey ran under the following title: “WSJ/NBC News Poll: Tea Party Tops Democrats and Republicans.”  Which means they are clearly a major force.  But there’s more to say:

The loosely organized group made of up mostly conservative activists and independent voters that’s come to be known as the Tea Party movement currently boasts higher favorability ratings than either the Democratic or Republican Parties, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll coming out later today.

More than four in 10, 41%, of respondents said they had a very or somewhat favorable view of the Tea Party movement, while 24% said they had a somewhat or very negative view of the group. The Tea Party movement gained notoriety over the summer following a series of protests in Washington, D.C. and other cities over government spending and other U.S. economic policies.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, which controls both the White House and Congress, has a 35% positive rating compared with a 45% negative rating.

Who nailed that story right from the beginning?  Who charted the progress of the what may very well be the most important political story in decades?  Fox News.  Who completely dismissed it?  Everybody else.

It was the same kind of mainstream media ostrich that buried its head in the sand with the ACORN scandal, in which a couple of kids posing as a pimp and prostitute got ACORN office after office to demonstrate that they were willing to help a couple buy a house and cheat on their taxes  set up a prostitution ring of underage illegal immigrant girls.  ABC network news anchor Charles Gibson hadn’t even heard about the story, it was so low on their radar:

Gibson: HAHAHAHAHA. HEHEHE. I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. Uh. Uh. But my goodness, if it’s got everything including sleaziness in it, we should talk about it this morning.

Roma: This is the American way!

Gibson: Or maybe this is just one you leave to the cables.

And note that in that story I AGAIN lambast the media for refusing to honestly cover the Tea Party events.  I showed the picture of the massive crowds at the event (and you KNOW they would have covered a NOW rally with eight feminists marching in a tight little circle):

The UK Daily Mail reported that one million people showed up for that Tea Party event in Washington D.C. What was the mainline media response?  To either not report the event at all, or to try to dismiss the massive crowds as a few nuts.

Time Magazine didn’t even bother to mention the massive Tea Party movement in it’s ‘Year in Review’ edition.  Like it never happened at all.  Nothing to see here, folks.

Obama trivialized, ridiculed, and attacked both the Tea Party movement and Fox News in one swoop:

So, when you see – those of you who are watching certain news channels that on which I’m not very popular and you see folks waving tea bags around, let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security”

He finally met with Republicans after Scott Brown’s victory kicked him hard right in the gonads.  After a full year of completely shutting them out.  In the one meeting he had with them he arrogantly smirked, “I won,” when Republicans tried to share their clearly-in-hindsight legitimate concerns.  And every single one of his “town halls” have been carefully scripted events in which Tea Party people are most definitely not invited.

Obama’s senior media representativesone a self-admitted Maoist – proceeded to repeatedly attack the credibility of what is now recognized to be the most trusted name in news.

I wrote about how the mainstream media ridiculed the Tea Party movement.  Anderson Cooper used the sexually disgusting phrase “tea bagging” to refer to them.  And Keith Olbermann just went to straight rabid frothing hatred of them.  His interview with Janeane Garofalo on the Tea Party was so vile that I quit watching ’24’ as long as she was one it.

Keith Olbermann’s ratings have plunged 44% since last January as people get sick of his rabid lies.  Meanwhile Fox News not only runs circles around Olbermann in the ratings, but runs circles around the circles that they run around him and all the media leeches like him.

Obama is a liar and a demagogue, and he is the leader of a party of demagogues, supported by media propaganda.

Which is why the news organization that he demonized becoming the most trusted name in news is every bit as much of a slap in the face of the tiny degree of credibility he has remaining as it is a justification of Fox News.

Obama’s “New New Deal” Will Redistribute Wealth Of Shrinking Economy

November 14, 2008

The last couple weeks may well be a harbinger of things to come, as the people Obama promised to tax heavily continue to pull out of the market.  On November 4, the Dow closed at 9,625; today, it was at 8,497.  That means that the market has lost nearly 12% of its value since Obama became President-elect.  Hardly a measure of confidence.

The market spoke rather clearly on November 5:

NEW YORK, Nov 5 (Reuters) - Wall Street hardly delivered a
rousing welcome to President-elect Barack Obama on Wednesday,
dropping by the largest margin on record for a day following a U.S.
presidential contest.
 The slide more than wiped out the previous day's advance, the
largest Election Day rally ever for U.S. stocks.

Now, this wasn’t at all unexpected.  On October 24, I wrote an article titled, “Investors Ready For Dramatic Sell-Off If Democrats Win.”  A few days before that, I wrote an article pointing out that “Actual Job Creators Favor McCain 4-1 Over Obama,” which – among other things – points out that “74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.”

The people who invest, and create job opportunities, and build the economy, don’t want to have their wealth redistributed.  Would you want your wealth redistributed?

Democratic apologists point out that Obama promises on a meager jump in the top federal tax rates from 36% to 39%.  But that “insignificant” 3% comes right out of peoples’ profits.  It sounds a lot worse when the reality is understood: when businesses that had been making an 11% profit are now reduced to an 8% profit.  Or an 8% profit reduced to a 5% profit.  And Obama promises to increase capital gains taxes and several other taxes that will impact upon businesses and the investment climate that supports business.  How hard are job creators willing to work to experience a diminishing return on their time, labor, and risk?

Time Magazine – a publication that has gushed over Obama for months – has a new gushing cover:

It should frighten you.  FDR was no “moderate.”  He presided over a terrible time for the country, and – while he was a popular figure because of what he tried to do – his actual economic administration has been widely recognized by economists to have been a failure.  Studies have demonstrated that the average depression lasted only four years; but for some reason the Great Depression dragged on and on and on under FDR’s governance.  By 1938, after more than four years of FDR, the effects of the Depression were actually much worse than they had been when he first took office.

As an example of the new realizations regarding the 1930s, UCLA economists argue:

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt’s record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

Even the common man’s sense has largely been that World War II had more to do with getting us out of the Depression than FDR’s New Deal.  It certainly did get men who had been standing in bread lines put to “work.”  And as the nation coalesced together and began to pour resources into building weapons, factories that had been idled came back on line, and innovation increased to match the technological development of our enemies.  And certainly, the fact that, when hostilities ended, the United States alone was not reduced to rubble had a great deal to do with helping our economy surge forward.

But by that thinking, anyone who criticized President Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is correct only insofar as we need an even BIGGER war.  For Obama to truly be like FDR, we need to have a devastating Depression that drags on for 12 years while incompetent liberals continue to tinker, and then we need slug it out in World War III against Russia and China.

So pardon me for looking at the “New New Deal” FDR-lookalike Barack Obama and shuddering down to the marrow of my bones.

We’re watching the market beginning to go down the slide.  It’s going to go down a lot more.  And fear over Barack Obama’s policies is going to have a lot to do with the lack of confidence that keeps investment from pouring back into the economy.

The picture is far more frightening than the story the media is telling: there are more than $700 trillion in derivatives in the global economy.  That’s far more than the total currencies of all the governments in the entire world.  As one writer puts it, “In other words, every dollar of insurance on bonds issued by some deadbeat governments and corporations is leveraged 200 times!”  We’ve got a time bomb waiting to explode.  And we put a lot of the people who created that time bomb in the first place in charge of fixing the mess they themselves created.  People like Obama’s National Finance Chair, Penny Pritzker, who was at the epicenter of the subprime loan scandal and once paid $460 million to stay out of jail.  People like Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, and Jamie Gorelick, who pocketed over $300 million from Fannie and Freddie while juggling the books so they could get their bonuses.  People like Barney Frank, who claimed that nothing was wrong with Fannie and Freddie and the housing market they supervised, and repeatedly fought off President Bush’s efforts to regulate them at time when the crisis we are currently experiencing could have been averted.  People like Charles Schumer, who exemplified the sheer hypocrisy of the Democratic Party with his blaming others for what he himself did.  People like Joe Biden, whom two major studies said shared direct blame for the foreclosure disaster because of legislation he championed as the Senator from banking-capital Delaware.  And people like Barack Obama, who embraced more contributions from Fannie and Freddie – and from scandal-plagued finance institutions such as Lehman Brothers than anyone during his short time in the Senate.  Now all these people have been entrusted with fixing a mess of literally global proportions; a mess that they in large part created in the first place.

And Barack Obama wearing the “New New Deal” mantle of FDR’s Panama hat, glasses, and fancy cigarette is not going to make that time bomb go away.  In fact, it may be the very thing that brings the whole house of cards come crashing down.