Barack Hussein Obama — Report the candidate’s name please

Barack Hussein Obama — Why isn’t the mainstream, mass media reporting the presidential candidate’s full name?  America would like to know the background of the name Hussein?

 

Here is a case where the middle name was always used by reporters: John Wayne Gacy.

Kevin brings to light the type of propaganda that liberal journalists have been getting away with for the past 30-40 years — the “objective reporters” were all  in lock-step using all three names of the mass murderer from Chicago, John Wayne Gacy — this a smear on an icon for middle America, John Wayne. Why weren’t  there  any reports on Gacy’s Democrat party activisim? The report that he tried to rape a teenage boy at Democrat headquarters? The $5,000 he gave to Jimmy Carter? That was burried like the 30 boys the Democrat Gacy killed.

Albert Armand Gore was named after  the famous Armand Hammer. Did you know that? In that case, the middle name was not scoring any points for the Democrat/socialist  of America.

When it comes to Barack Hussein Obama, it’s never spelled out. Check out your local corrupt news source. Do you see how you’re are being played?

The liberal press had no problem with  LBJ, Lyndon Baines Johnson, JFK, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Martin Luther  King… those are  noble names with a nice ring to them. What rules are they following? Is it not covered in the AP stylebook. Although, I would put money on it, that Barack Hussein Obama will get a rule, off limits.

That’s not all of their bag of tricks. If the candidate’s name is  Richard, switch it to Dick: Dick Cheney and Dick Nixon. Tricky Dick.

Or there is the down home name change to help a liberal candidate.

Let’s look at Albert Armand Gore again. Did you ever read “Al Gore’s”  real name in the Washington Post, New York Times, or San Francisco Chronicle? His middle name comes from the family friend, Armand Hammer, the industrialist and owner of Occidental Oil, who was America’s richest socialist and friend of decades of leaders from the USSR. Albert Armand Gore’s father, also an Albert Gore, was a Democrat U.S. Senator who was on the payroll of Armand Hammer.

Google it if you don’t believe me.

Instead  we all know the former VP as “Al Gore.” The spoiled, rich kid raised with a silver spoon sounds like a friendly good ol’ boy now.

Democrats get free PR from the “fair and objective” press.

 

It’s a crime what the “gatekeepers” of the news have been able to get away with. Next, the “Fairness Doctrine” will be brought back. With that old FDR socialist-styled law back in action, what do you think will become of blogs?

How does that make you feel? Tell me about it.

 

The truth  is exposed thanks to citizen journalists like Kevin. For  a half century the liberal democrats have had control of the major media. Not any more.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Major national poll finds 70% of U.S. believe newspaper journalists are out of touch with reality — Newspapers are now the last source of news at only 10%

Mick Gregory

Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe traditional journalism is out of touch, and nearly half are turning to the Internet to get their news, according to a new survey.

While most adults think all forms of journalism are important to the quality of life, 64 percent are dissatisfied with the quality of journalism in their communities, a “We Media/Zogby Interactive” online poll showed.

Nearly half of the 1,979 adults who took the survey said their primary source of news and information is the Internet, up from 40 percent just a year ago. Less than 1/3 watch television to get their news, while 11 percent listen to radio and 10 percent read newspapers.

Newspapers are now at the bottom of the heap. What is the NYT trading at today? Next…

The New York Times Co.’s continued struggles with declining advertising revenue, circutlation, unehtical yellow journalism smear tactics and the bling support for the old guard, the Clinton machine, prompted Standard and Poor’s to caution Friday that it is inching closer to cutting the company’s debt ratings. That is a rare and serious threat.

The office at Standard & Poor’s said it placed all of the New York Times’ ratings, including its key long-term corporate credit rating, on CreditWatch with negative implications. In plain English, that means the rating agency is leaning heavily toward a downgrade unless current financial trends at the company improve.

Why the drop? A dissident investor stepped up pressure on The New York Times Co. Friday, formally proposing its own slate of four directors and saying the company needs to take more drastic action to compete online.
Harbinger Capital, an investment firm that now owns about 19 percent of the company, filed its own proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission listing its nominees for directors to be elected at the Times’ annual meeting April 22.

The Times has already filed its own full slate of director nominees, but has said it was still considering whether to accept Harbinger’s candidates.

Times spokeswoman Catherine Mathis said the company’s board was interviewing the Harbinger nominees. She declined to comment further on their proxy filing.

The looming proxy battle comes as the Times and other U.S. newspapers are facing huge challenges in adapting to the steady migration of readers and advertising dollars to the Internet. An economic slowdown coupled with a deep slump in the housing market is worsening the situation.

Earlier Friday, the Times reported that its newspaper advertising fell 11.4 percent in January, with a 22.6 percent dropoff in classified advertising, a once cash cow business for newspapers that is vulnerable to competition from online rivals like Craigslist, eBay and Yahoo.

The New York Times is hedging its future. They are big investors in WordPress.com.

President Bush Spares Scooter Libby a prison term

President Bush saved former White House aide “Scooter” Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case Monday, delivering a political thunderbolt in a highly charged criminal case. Bush said the sentence was just too harsh.

Hey, I’m starting to like “W” again!

Just in case you care, check out the hundreds of convicts that Clinton pardoned from his first term.
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm#december231999

The BBC shows bias and single-issue monopoly on global warming and socialism. At least they study media bias in the UK. Not in the USA.

By Mick Gregory

The BBC (the UK equivalent of PBS) has failed to promote real debate on major political issues because of the inherent liberal culture of its staff, a report commissioned by the corporation has concluded.

The report found that coverage of single-issue political causes, such as global warming and redistribution of wealth, and poverty, is often biased – and is particularly critical of Live 8 coverage, which it says amounted to endorsement.

The report warns that celebrities must not be pandered to and allowed to hijack the BBC reporting schedule.

The report found coverage of Live 8, the 2005 anti-poverty concerts organised by rock star campaigners Bob Geldof and Bono and writer Richard Curtis, failed to properly debate the issues raised.

Instead, at a time when the corporation was renegotiating its charter with the government, it allowed itself to effectively become a promotional tool for Live 8, which was strongly supported by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

Geldof, Bono and Curtis were attempting to pressure world leaders at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles, which was taking place at the same time, to help reduce poverty in developing countries under the banner ‘Make Poverty History’.

The BBC also ran a week long Africa special featuring a series of documentaries by Geldof and a day celebrating the National Health Service, prompting Sky News political editor Adam Boulton to tell a House of Lords select committee it was in danger of peddling government propaganda.

The report concludes BBC staff must be more willing to challenge their own beliefs.

It reads: “There is a tendency to ‘group think’ with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone.”

We should applaud the BBC for actually investigating and releasing the results of this study.

Tony Blair calls major media ‘feral beasts’

Mick Gregory

Even the UK Labor Party PM knows that the media are feral pigs.

I would vote for Mr. Blair for president over John McCain or Hillary/Obmama at this point. Maybe he could be VP to Guliani.

In a sweeping critique of the newspaper industry, Mr Blair claimed papers, locked into an increasingly bitter sales war in a 24-hour news environment, indulged in “impact journalism” in which truth and balance had become secondary to the desire for stories to boost sales and be taken up by other media outlets.

He admitted that his own attempts to bypass traditional media through websites and press conferences had been “to no avail”. He also conceded that he was partly to blame for the predicament, saying his determination to convey the Labour message in the period of opposition and early years in government had made him complicit in the decline in news standards.
But he said the fierce competition for stories had led to the media now hunting in a pack. “In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits, but no one dares miss out.”

He added that distinctions between comment and news had become so blurred that it was rare to find newspapers reporting precisely what a politician was saying. It was incredibly frustrating, he said, adding that politicians had to act immediately to rebut false charges before they became fact.

Mr Blair said he was describing “something few people in public life will say, but most know is absolutely true: a vast aspect of our jobs today – outside of the really major decisions, as big as anything else – is coping with the media, its sheer scale, weight and constant hyperactivity. At points, it literally overwhelms.”

The damage that can be done “saps the country’s confidence and self-belief”, he said. “It undermines its assessment of itself, its institutions and above all, it reduces our capacity to take the right decisions, in the right spirit for our future.”

The consequence was a fall in morale in the public services, a loss of trust between politicians and media and even a climate of fear in which those in public life dare not attack the media’s sensationalist culture for fear for the media’s counterblast.

In a world of 24-hour news and huge diversity of outlets, he said, it is impact that gives a competitive edge. “Of course the accuracy of a story counts. But it is secondary to impact. It is this necessary devotion to impact that is unravelling standards, driving them down, making the diversity of the media not the strength it should be but an impulsion towards sensation above all else.”

“News is rarely news unless it generates heat as much as or more than light. Second, attacking motive is far more potent than attacking judgement. It is not enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal. Conspiratorial.”

Calls for a gun ban next

Mick Gregory

He is said to have used a Glock 9mm pistol. How could the South Korean psychopath have planned his killing spree so well? Did he have an assistant?

Next, the gun bans will be called for by the presidential hopefuls. The 9mm pistol will be called an asult weapon.

Senator McCain had the honesty to say a gun grab is not the answer. Senator, you have my vote.

If we ban guns who, will protect citizens when more mass killings take place? It’s time to buy Ar-15. Nancy Pelosi, Obama and Hillary, Edwards “good hair” will have armed protection 24/7. But then, they are more important than average Americans.

The Press Blaming Charlton Heston

European newspapers are blaming the lack of gun control measures in the United States and implying that Charlton Heston is indirectly responsible for the scope of the killings.

What are the police going to do to protect you?

We have to protect ourselves.

Global Warming — the Biggest Hoax Ever Promoted by Mass Media, Lawyers and Progressive Democrats

Emerging economies such as China are justified in holding back on fighting greenhouse gas emissions until richer polluters like the United States do more to solve the problem, former Vice President Al Gore said Wednesday.

China, Indonesia, Russia and India are huge polluters.

We are so fortunate that Bush won Florida by 1,500 votes.

The world’s top climate scientists warned in a report last week that global warming was very likely caused by humanity and would last for centuries.

Chinese officials said they would act after industrial countries such as the United States and others make changes themselves, Gore said, addressing a conference in Madrid on global warming.

“They’re right in saying that. But we have to act quickly,” said Gore, who was nominated last week for a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in drawing attention to global warming.

“China’s reaction to the scientific report last week was disappointing, but it was instructive,” Gore said.

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. “It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn’t occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, “State of Fear” he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology – especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: “the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky’s book “Yes, but is it true?” The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky’s findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky’s students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com