So it’s come to this: Forbes cover story on “How Obama Thinks” is a gross piece of innuendo—a fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia. This is the worst kind of smear journalism—a singularly disgusting work.
Forbes for some reason gives Dinesh D’Souza the cover and lots of space to froth about the notion popular in the right-wing fever swamps that Obama is an “other”; that he doesn’t think like “an American,” that his actions benefit foreigners rather than Amurricans. It’s too kind to call this innuendo. It’s far too overt for that.
Here are some of the red flags up top:
Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history… The President’s actions are so bizarre that they mystify his critics and supporters alike… More strange behavior… The oddities go on and on… Obama’s foreign policy is no less strange. He supports a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center… the Obama Administration supported the conditional release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber convicted in connection with the deaths of 270 people, mostly Americans… One more anomaly: A few months ago nasa Chief Charles Bolden announced that from now on the primary mission of America’s space agency would be to improve relations with the Muslim world… Theories abound to explain the President’s goals and actions.
And then there’s this:
These theories aren’t wrong so much as they are inadequate. Even if they could account for Obama’s domestic policy, they cannot explain his foreign policy. The real problem with Obama is worse—much worse. But we have been blinded to his real agenda because, across the political spectrum, we all seek to fit him into some version of American history. In the process, we ignore Obama’s own history. Here is a man who spent his formative years—the first 17 years of his life—off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa.
A good way to discern what motivates Obama is to ask a simple question: What is his dream? Is it the American dream? Is it Martin Luther King’s dream? Or something else?
It is certainly not the American dream as conceived by the founders.
It’s all here but the birth certificate!
Let’s unpack that stuff a little bit. First of all, D’Souza perpetuates the Cokie Roberts idiocy—that Hawaii is somehow less American than the rest of the U.S. But hey—no problems with Alaska, which came into the Union the same year. Somehow, Sarah Palin always seem to be an examplar of “Real America.” Hmmm.
But D’Souza has some real nerve here: Obama is a native-born American and D’Souza is not. When he says “Here is a man who spent his formative years—the first 17 years of his life—off the American mainland,” he could be referring to himself. According to Wikipedia, anyway, he was born in India in 1961 and never came to the States until 1978. That adds up to about “the first 17 years of his life—off the American mainland.” Somehow the first-seventeen years thing raises questions about Obama’s Americanness but not about D’Souza’s qualifications to question somebody’s degree of native-born Americanness.
This is loathsome stuff. And, again, it’s the cover story of one of the three big mainstream financial magazines.
There’s more “Obama isn’t one of us” stuff here:
What then is Obama’s dream? We don’t have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father’s dream…
So who was Barack Obama Sr.? He was a Luo tribesman who grew up in Kenya and studied at Harvard. He was a polygamist who had, over the course of his lifetime, four wives and eight children. One of his sons, Mark Obama, has accused him of abuse and wife-beating. He was also a regular drunk driver who got into numerous accidents, killing a man in oneand causing his own legs to be amputated due to injury in another. In 1982 he got drunk at a bar in Nairobi and drove into a tree, killing himself.
- 1
- 2
Thanks, Ryan, for calling this odious stuff out in no uncertain terms. The rest of your colleagues, I'm disappointed to say, treated this swill seriously enough to make an equivocal argument of it. I was happy to see Peretz back away from his odious anti-Muslim bigotry when Kristof called him out this weekend, and then Fallows. Would that someone out in journoland would back you up against this kind of anti-Obama smear. Ugly, vile stuff.
#1 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 13 Sep 2010 at 08:08 PM
Gosh, you guys lack flexibility. All the essay did was try to understand Obama's motivations and you wheel out the paranoia charge. You don't even try to understand his arguments and refute them.
There is no such thing as anti-Moslem bigotry. The Moslems are the bigots. You'd have to be blind not to see it. Who cuts off women's noses? Think about it. Who runs up behind a Christian, douse him with gasoline and flips a match on him because he's flirting with your sister.
I really like you guys but I would have to question your ability to analyse a situation. But, gosh, you know, back to the think tank.
#2 Posted by R.E. Prindle, CJR on Mon 13 Sep 2010 at 08:21 PM
"There is no such thing as anti-Moslem bigotry."
I think I'll repeat that one more time, because it bears repeating.
"There is no such thing as anti-Moslem bigotry."
Every now and then you read something once, then look at it a second, third and fourth time, because you swear the person who wrote it must have done so by accident. But then the rest of the paragraph continues in the same vein, and you have to simply stand in awe of the sort of creature capable of producing such a train of thought.
The only sentence in which that statement would make sense would be one like "You'd need to have a lobotomy in order to believe there's no such thing as anti-Moslem bigotry," or "My pet goldfish, being a goldfish after all, is so oblivious to the world around him that he might even believe there's no such thing as anti-Moslem bigotry." Or maybe "My neighbor took a bunch of bogus LSD and now he's in a persistent vegetative state; at this point, he just sits on his couch all day blurting out random gibberish like 'There's no such thing as anti-Moslem bigotry.'"
#3 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Mon 13 Sep 2010 at 11:15 PM
Don't feed the trolls.
#4 Posted by MD, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 02:24 AM
seriously could you be any further off? Get a grip and look at some facts before you write anything next time. You can't continue to defend what is indefensible.
#5 Posted by Bob, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 07:53 AM
seriously could you be any further off? Get a grip and look at some facts before you write anything next time. You can't continue to defend what is indefensible.
#6 Posted by Bob, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 07:54 AM
Wow, another piece denouncing in very emotional terms an anti-Obama piece in 'Forbes'. CJR only gets this emotional when one side of the political divide is under attack, fairly or unfairly. By the standard state in this story, I suppose CJR should be scolding journalists who write about Sarah Palin every day or two, but I don't think Ryan, Joel, and the rest of the ambitious staff of CJR has that kind of intestinal fortitude. Believe it or not, a lot of writers 'froth' and 'smear' political figures on the Right, too - I've lost track of how many apologies Rush Limbaugh has collected from media figures accusing him of having said something he didn't say. Somehow CJR does not 'froth' at that sort of thing.
Isn't making up quotes and similar offenses worse than speculating on motives without much supporting evidence?
To give it its due, Liz Barrett did express some sarcasm at the ridiculous Vanity Fair hit piece on Palin recently for its reliance on unnamed sources. But Somehow she didn't get as lathered up as her colleagues. When a 'conservative' figure is unfairly treated, it may be regrettable at CJR. When a liberal figures is unfairly treated, well, my God, send out for the ambulances! Such advanced sensitivity! The amount of fainting that goes among the tough writers at CJR!
#7 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 08:36 AM
Actually, the paragraph you cite as "one of the stupidest" in the history of Forbes actually runs a distant second to this gem from the same story:
"Obama's foreign policy is no less strange. He supports a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center. Obama's rationale, that "our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable," seems utterly irrelevant to the issue of why the proposed Cordoba House should be constructed at Ground Zero."
First of all, last time I checked lower Manhattan was in the U.S., making this distinctly a domestic issue, not a foreign policy issue (albeit one with potential international implications). Well, whatever.
But it reaches true hilarious art when D'Souza asserts that Obama's focus on religious freedom in connection with this Islamic Center "seems utterly irrelevant to the issue." I'm not even sure how to unwrap this one, other than to ask what kind of mind thinks religious freedom is utterly irrelevant to a debate about religious freedom.
To be honest, I don't blame D'Souza. His work has never been impressive, but it is fair to ask what was going through the minds of Forbes' editors. I mean, at some point, how could NONE of them raise a red flag?
#8 Posted by aznew, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 09:05 AM
Thanks for the info re: Dinesh's first 17 years. The thought had occurred to me when I found he had been born elsewhere, but I hadn't followed through. Not even the pot calling the kettle black, but rather the pot calling the Farberware grill black. LOL
The one Item you didn't really get to (though no one else did either) is Dinesh's composition skill here. "Facts" aside, I felt like I was reading a composition written by a 6th grader, and not a very talented one at that. So shocked as I was by this, I checked out other writing by D'Souza to see if it was the same. Not at all. Not great, mind you, but certainly respectable. Which leads me to two questions: (1) Given that this was a cover piece in a major magazine, why was D'Souza so careless in his composition? It wasn't for lack of skill. (2) Why on Earth didn't Forbes' editors take a whack at this before they published it? Most of their stuff is much better written, so it's not like they didn't know how.
All in all, a disgusting piece, both factually and quality-wise. Forbes should know better.
#9 Posted by Benedict@Large , CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 09:45 AM
I read D'Souza's article on the train today. My neighbor printed it out for me. I actually enjoyed it. Seems to summarize the president very well. It is true that top 10% of earners pay 70% of taxes. This is very unreasonable. Why does the president want to keep taxing those who make more? How much is enough?Is that not a page from his dad's book? Who provides the jobs? It's like biting the hand that feeds.
I agree that the entire Hawaii thing is a little far fetched, but actually that is the only issue I have.
The fact that Obama has NASA reaching our to Islam is just nuts. The fact that he is trying to control every single industry in the USA is also nuts. This is not some emotionally driven talk, this is based on actions.
I had some faith in Obama at first, but now I see that this president is the worst president we have ever had. I am not some right wing nut job either. I usually vote for the democrats. This is a huge wake up call for me and my family and friends.
We used to defend Obama to no end. It's getting REALLY hard to defend his actions.
#10 Posted by Daniel J.S., CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 09:59 AM
To be sure, some observers think that Bush's unwillingness or inability to explicitly acknowledge his alcoholism indicates that he's a "dry drunk" -- an alcoholic who has stopped drinking but hasn't addressed his underlying problems, because he's too dumb and privileged. - Cary Tennis, Salon
Bush's deep hatred, as well as love, for both his parents explains how he became a reckless rebel with a death wish. He hated his father for putting his whole life in the shade and for emotionally blackmailing him. He hated his mother for physically and mentally badgering him to fulfil her wishes. -Oliver James writing in the Guardian
Ryan, I never you to be so emotional about these things …. I suppose you feel the sting when your ox is the one getting gored. After all, no one here had too much of a problem with half assed psychobabble when it concerned another recent president. You almost remind me of one of Palin’s mama grizzlies in this piece rearing up to defend your precious.
#11 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 10:29 AM
Looks like World Nut Daily paid troll Clay Waters is back on your board, Ryan! No latte-sipping elitist Democrat would ever write something as moronic as the one at 9:59AM or the one at 8:21PM either. Democrats are actually smarter than that. That's Waters' MO, too, using made-up names with initials.
#12 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 10:30 AM
Get that? The oil that Petrobras pumps will only go to Brazil because it’s owned by Brazil. So Hugo Chavez will sell us his Citgo gas, but Lula won’t? And even if it somehow did (it should be noted that Petrobras has an American affiliate), that would mean Brazil would need less oil from elsewhere, which means more for us. Supply and demand, dude. Oil is fungible. Gah.
Ryan, you really don’t see any issue whatsoever with an administration that hampers oil and gas exploration here but provides loan guarantees for an offshore project in Brazil? Cognitive dissonance much?
#13 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 10:32 AM
James
I am not sure who Clay Walters is. I am not some elitist democrat either. I was actually born in Warsaw, Poland and moved here when I was 8 years old. I served in the USMC in 89-93 and I am heavily involved in local politics. My opinion on Obama has drastically changed.
Dan
#14 Posted by Daniel J.S., CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 10:47 AM
Hardrada, modern anti-Muslim bigotry in the west involves an “insensitive” cartoon or burning a Quran, anti-Christian/Jew/Hindu bigotry involves burning churches, burning people, antipersonnel bombs at shopping malls and resorts and assassination of politicians and artists.
There’s lightyears of difference between the two.
#15 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 10:50 AM
Mark,
You commented on another post that you haven't even read D'Souza's piece. Nice.
aznew--That was a good one. I couldn't pull out every piece of junk in that piece or I'd still be writing it!
Daniel, Obama's trying to control every industry in America, but he can barely slap the wrist of the one (Wall Street) that cost us trillions of dollars and wrecked the economy? Also, those top 10% of earners take home half of all income--that's the primary reason they pay most of the taxes. And you're only talking about income taxes, which isn't fair. Look at total taxation and the tax system hardly looks confiscatory.
Mike H, I think there are a few obvious differences there, as bad as those quotes are. For one obvious one, I can't recall a presidential candidate and former speaker of the House picking up on the Bush as dry drunk thing. And re Brazil, that's not what I'm talking about.
#16 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 11:11 AM
Ryan
Lets not forget the heavy handed regulations that made banks loan to people who should not have been loaned to (could not afford). Even Barney Franks admits that was a mistake. Wall Street got more than slap on wrist. It got more regulations put in front of them that makes it hard to do business. Wall street is the instrument that caused the issue, but it was regulation that pulled the trigger. Why else was the government so hot to trot to bail out WS? They knew they put them in this mess in first place.
Daniel
#17 Posted by Daniel J.S., CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 11:53 AM
First "Daniel J.S." pretends like he's some dumbass Democrat who has been innocently fooled by Obama and now he is spouting Newsbuster's very nuanced rightwing talking points about sophisticated fiscal policy blaming the Wall Street collapse on regulation and -- he didn't say it, but CRA. Duhhh. It's Clay Waters, director of Media Research Center, a rightwing looney organization that tracks so-called "liberal bias" for Newsbusters. He's been outed before here at CJR. He outed himself, accidently. Welcome back, Mr. Waters!
#18 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 01:46 PM
Obama has failed to define himself and that always leads to having others do it for him. The gauzy image 53% of voters fell in love with, including virtually all the mainstream media, blinded to the reality that they really hadn't a clue who Obama was, where he came from, what his values were and whether he would be a competent president. Turns out he's not.
#19 Posted by Horace, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 02:41 PM
"It is true that top 10% of earners pay 70% of taxes."
They pay 70% of income taxes and taxes are a low percentage of GDP, much of the disposable income from which belongs to the wealthy.
FICA taxes are about equal to income taxes and the rich escape with paying only 6% on their first $100,000 while everyone under that limit pays 6% of their total.
Obama has been a weak, conservative president, and D’Souza is an ass for assuming his approach, which has been in response to eight years of republican dominance and incompetence, is somehow tied to exotic lands rife with anti-colonial sentiment and oriental attitudes.
But I suppose we should expect this from D'Souza when we consider his Indian background.
Just kidding, but seriously look at the guys background and tell me how an idiot like this gets mainstream respect.
"The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11 ... the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the non-profit sector and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world"
"Dinesh asserted that the abuse to the prisoners was due to the "sexual immodesty of liberal America" and that Abu Ghraib reflected "the values of a debauched liberalism run amok." Dinesh also claims that had Charles Graner and Lynndie England been "professors at an elite liberal arts college, their videotaped orgies might easily have become the envy of academia. If they were artists staging these pictures in a loft in Soho they could have been hailed as pioneers and encouraged by leftist admirers to apply for a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.""
Basically Forbes published a Glen Beck rant:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ0zaYwAaiQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBNPLnnNKNQ
And if they had shame, they should feel it about now.
#20 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 02:45 PM
FICA taxes are about equal to income taxes and the rich escape with paying only 6% on their first $100,000 while everyone under that limit pays 6% of their total.
Thimbles … Thimbles … I thought this was explained to you. The $100,000 cap is there because no one can collect benefits above and beyond what is “owed” to them and the maximum benefit amount is calculated with this $100,000 cap in mind. You aren’t saying that we should break the “social solidarity inherent to the program” by making people pay FICA taxes over $100,000 but only provide them benefits to $100,000, would you?
Obama has been a weak, conservative president, and D’Souza is an ass for assuming his approach, which has been in response to eight years of republican dominance and incompetence, is somehow tied to exotic lands rife with anti-colonial sentiment and oriental attitudes.
You should have stopped with weak.
had Charles Graner and Lynndie England been "professors at an elite liberal arts college, their videotaped orgies might easily have become the envy of academia. If they were artists staging these pictures in a loft in Soho they could have been hailed as pioneers and encouraged by leftist admirers to apply for a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts.""
Well, Bernadine Dohrn and Angel Davis got away with murder. There is a much different standard when evaluating the actions of the left and the right and how those effect their future professional prospects.
Horace is spot on. While the press fell over itself rifling through dumpsters in Alaska or trolling Facebook looking for dirt on Cindy McCain, they threw questions like “what was the New Party and what was Obama doing in it” down the memory hole.
#21 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 03:05 PM
The real funny thing here is that this appears on what ostensibly is a journalism site and has become little more than any other lefty location for spin.
Imagine if CJR was actually run by competent staff who cared about journalism instead of the leftwing agenda. It might actually be useful.
#22 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 05:45 PM
Where's CJR's put-down of the Sarah Palin piece in Vanity Fair?
#23 Posted by Charles, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 05:51 PM
James
I will donate 200 dollars to st. Jude's hospital if I am this Walters person. Email me Djs@Hyperx.com and I will give you my phone number in Chicago and we can chat. I have a 12 letter Polish last name. Not Walters.
Do you wager the same? You will donate 200 dollars to St. Jude's if you are wrong?
Daniel
#24 Posted by Daniel J.S., CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 05:57 PM
As Paul Krugman explains and the Export-Import Bank's Mission Statement confirms, loaning money to Brazil for offshore drilling is exactly what the Ex-Im Bank is supposed to do:
"Ex-Im Bank's mission is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets."
This loan was made to allow Brazil to import more U.S. manufactured goods. And it was approved by a board full of Bush appointees.
Doug Allen
adcerebrum.wordpress.com
#25 Posted by Doug Allen, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 06:10 PM
No use even devoting an article to debunk D'Souza. D'Souza wrote that idiotic book on how the left essentially was responsible for 9/11. Why do we give attention to this moron?
#26 Posted by Richard Hannay, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 07:43 PM
"Thimbles … Thimbles … I thought this was explained to you. The $100,000 cap is there because no one can collect benefits above and beyond what is “owed” to them and the maximum benefit amount is calculated with this $100,000 cap in mind. You aren’t saying that we should break the “social solidarity inherent to the program” by making people pay FICA taxes over $100,000 but only provide them benefits to $100,000, would you?"
Yeah, but Mikey, as you explained, the money that was pledged towards retiree benefits was spent inas general revenue and you + your ilk don't plan on raising income taxes to meet fund shortfalls. Therefore
a) The social solidarity contract means nothing to the wealthy who believe they can get by without its benefits and abhor the idea of paying for some of its costs.
b) If the funds have been spent as general revenue and the obligation justifying its collection has been undermined, if not abrogated, then there isn't much difference between Income tax and Payroll tax except in the sense one is paid for by the wealthy out of their abundance and one is paid for by employees and their employers out of the limited cash that they have.
Whether or not there is social solidarity and guaranteed benefits isn't important to the issue at hand. The 70% talking point is false. The wealthy pay 70% of income tax (if we don't factor in the escapes and tricks the rich use to protect their cash) which is 50% of government revenue. They pay considerably less FICA which is predominately paid for by the middle and poor. (Let's be generous and claim it's 45% of total revenue.) That 99th percentile saw much of the income gains over the last 30 years.
http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/entry/2266209/fs/0//
They're making 22 times per person what the bottom 99 percent per person are making.
They have abundant money and they pay less than 50% of the government revenue that makes the government they benefit from function.
#27 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 07:52 PM
Perhaps I misunderstand the current Obama plan for the expiring tax cuts, and perhaps I am an insufferable nitpicker, but I thought that even the top 2% would be keeping the tax cuts on their income below $250,000. So the phrase "Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the top 2%..." should read "Obama wants to let one of the Bush tax cuts expire for the top 2%..."
Otherwise, a fantastic article.
#28 Posted by Joseph Nobles, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 07:56 PM
Dan, the Clay Waters he's referencing is one of paid trolls from Dan Gainor's conservative outhouse:
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/pushing_back_against_facebooks.php
The people who Dan Gainor works with, you see, are so dumb that they out themselves on random message threads which they are paid to troll. Of course, if you read any of their crappy writing that comes out of Dan Gainor's crappy sites:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor
their stupidity would come as no surprise.
#29 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 08:01 PM
This is a well-written and well-reasoned critique of an awful, biased, embarassing piece of writing, that should never have been published. Dinesh D'souza can pretend to be an intellectual and use multi-syllabic words, but he's spewing the most loathesome propaganda here. Pathetic and nauseating! And I've read he;s the president of a "Christian college" in New York? What's wrong? Didn't any other sinecure of foaming-at-the-mouth right-wingers want to employ him?
#30 Posted by nancy cadet, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 08:05 PM
My guess is that Forbes ran this abomination of an essay because it supports Steve Forbes's opinion, and that of the Koch brothers and Pete Peterson, and the editors didn't clean it up because it nauseated them to the point where they couldn't look at it any more.
#31 Posted by roger expat, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 08:23 AM
To Ryan, you forgot to mention that on the other thread I took in on faith that d'Souza's piece was a 'stretch'. This doesn't change the fact - unless you can direct me to a CJR piece I haven't read, in which case I would be happy to revise my opinion of the political agenda of CJR and Ryan Chittum - that got similarly worked up over, let's say, made-up documents used by CBS against Bush, or made-up quotes used by CNN against Limbaugh, or MSM indulgence of plagiarists, such as Molly Ivins and Mike Barnacle and Doris Goodwin, as long as the political views of the latter stay politically correct.
Consumers who have been exposed to the journalistic treatments of Palin, the Tea Partiers, etc., aren't exactly going to turn a hair at Dinesh d'Souza's piece, on the evidence of your own spittle-flecked effort. That's the part you, and CJR, still don't grasp. I'll wait, without bated breath, for your citation of a comparable denunciation of some fanciful or mean-spirited left-wing screed.
#32 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 01:01 PM
I don't see any reason to think that Daniel J.S. is Clay Waters or any other paid troll, James.
But more importantly, what's with "Moslems"? R.E., next time, please refer to them as Mohametans, Turks, or Islamites. Thanks!
#33 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 01:03 PM
Mark Richard wrote: I'll wait, without bated breath, for your citation of a comparable denunciation of some fanciful or mean-spirited left-wing screed.
padikiller advises: I wouldn't hold that baited breath too long...
The "watchdogs" of "professional journalism" here at CJR are way too busy digging into the late-breaking JournoList scandal to dig up any examples of their evenhanded criticism of hit pieces on conservatives..
I can't wait to see the copy.
#34 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 03:15 PM
As far as Petrobras, the approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated:
"The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush."
#35 Posted by Aryadne, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 03:33 PM
From the lede:
"is a gross piece of innuendo—a fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia. This is the worst kind of smear journalism—a singularly disgusting work. "
For second, I thought I would be reading about the New York Times profile of John McCain.
#36 Posted by newspaperman, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 04:28 PM
From the lede:
"is a gross piece of innuendo—a fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia. This is the worst kind of smear journalism—a singularly disgusting work. "
For a second, I thought I would be reading about the New York Times profile of John McCain.
#37 Posted by newspaperman, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 04:30 PM
Wow. "Right-wing fever swamps." "Red flags." "McCarthyite junk." "Obscene."
For a second, I thought I was reading something by an Obama campaign staffer. But alas, it's a journalist at CJR. Or do I repeat myself?
#38 Posted by newspaperman, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 04:35 PM
Thimbles criticizes others and lacks the courage to use his or her own real name.
Yeah, that's news you can use.
As for your comments, I am a media critic. Last time I checked, CJR is part of the media.
#39 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 05:55 PM
Oh, oh danny-boy. You'd love to have my real name wouldn't you. It must burn that someone who is near anonymous is disparaging you on the comments section of a web site. If only you and your newsbuster crew could hit back IRL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrI7QUJfkvI
Trust me son, you don't have the chops physically or intellectually confront me. You're not a media critic, you're the kid who perpetually whines to mother over every perceived injustice on the playground. You and your organizations are hacks and liars who are focused on winning petty little fights, not communicating any deeper knowledge or truth.
Your type of conservative I scrape of my shoe. Go home you paid little hack. Have Bozwell make you cookies while you tell him how mean we media were today.
#40 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 02:27 AM
Thanks Thimbles. Now everyone knows exactly what, if not who, you are.
#41 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 08:50 AM
Dreams "From" My Father, not Dreams "Of" My Father, so he is saying his dreams come "from" his father's. The media coverup is finally over thanks to a real journalist.
#42 Posted by joe smith, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 08:57 AM
Trust me son, you don't have the chops physically or intellectually confront me.
Keyboard bravado and intimidating posters with grandiose claims of intellectual and physical superiority does little other than make you look like a small petty fool.
#43 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 11:53 AM
Anyone who wants to know what I am can read it here and other places I've been. I stand by what I've written as I have honestly attempted to acquire, share, and discuss the truth with others.
Anyone who wants to know who you are can go to your paid hack site, watch your hack newsbusted comedy (clap along with the canned laughter), and read your embarrassing paid hack writing where you conservatives wail about how victimized you are because Hollywood is too gay or whatnot.
Imagine if newsbusters was actually run by competent conservative staff who cared about journalism instead of goddamned crybabies who's version of conservatism is "Dear lord, we best be careful of what people watch on tv" while supporting expansions government torture, surveillance, and secrecy. It might actually be useful.
As it is, you and your work are trash.
PS. "As for your comments, I am a media critic. Last time I checked, CJR is part of the media."
Columbia Journalism Review is a media criticism site. I know, it's not obvious since "Review" is only in the title of the thing, so I'm not surprised that someone of your caliber missed it. But since you think a media criticism site should cover every gross violation of journalistic practice (and I do, as part of that "honest attempt to establish the truth" thing) where's your report on D'Souza's garbage misinformation? I don't see anything on your site saying "conservatives and their media should attempt to represent the truth and D'Souza, Glen Beck, and Rush Limbaugh are an embarrassment in this regard."
You're in a glass house. Put down the rock and put a fricken robe on for the love of Christ.
#44 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 12:10 PM
"Keyboard bravado and intimidating posters with grandiose claims of intellectual and physical superiority does little other than make you look like a small petty fool."
It's a fact, not an act. Can't sue me for stating it.
And he's the one who wants my real name for some nefarious reason, not that it would do him any good. It's not the first time he's made a deal over it.
#45 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 12:16 PM
Thimbles, CJR is a journalism review site, and what bother me and many commenters is the absolute stunning degree of hypocrisy with which they approach journalistic review.
For example, a recent post on the pre-eulogizing of Ted Stevens by Zachary Roth was shown to be the kind of hackery we come to expect from the MSM when I pointed out that Roth eulogized Ted Kennedy without mentioning any of his past controversies. This article too follows a similar vein in that Chittum’s righteous fury over D’Souza’s psychological profile becomes less righteous when similar examples were left “unReviewd” by CJR in the past when the subject wasn’t to their liking.
They always revert to the standard “we've always been at war with Eastasia” claptrap when confronted with these various ideologically driven standards of scrutiny, but based on the low esteem that the public holds journalists this thin veneer of self delusion isn’t an adequate defense any more.
But I should stop ragging on you lest you threaten to take time off from WOW and come beat me up.
#46 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 12:26 PM
Don't worry, I postponed my raid on Frostenheim just for this. I told my guild it was Mike H's fault and now they're looking for you. They have serious mouse clicking skills so sorry about that.
I too criticized the Ted Kennedy piece, but that's neither here nor there. I don't mind bringing up discussions of the Palin Vanity Fair piece if done in a respectful manner instead of a whiney bitchy one with evidence showing how one story is parallel to the other and should get cjr treatment. That's the stuff of thought provoking critical comment.
What I do not care for is people who are inconsistent badgerers who don't engage issues honestly, some of whom do so because they've accepted the wingnut welfare checks that give them the free time to do so. I don't go to their sites and spread my insights into their crappy products, largely because I know they'd censor my posts, ban me, and try and glean whatever dox they could off my ip address. Why should they come here? They have a whole site to themselves to bitch and moan. I sure don't want to read it.
So if they make me read it, I'll respond as it merits.
#47 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 12:58 PM
I am one of those that pay the 70% of taxes. I don't mind because the tax code is understandable, even though complicated. I don't even mind my taxes going up 13%, if it will help solve the budget problem. I do mind the change in taxes on capital gains and investment income. This is a chiller for the economy and my company. Capital gains tax will go up 58% and the dividend tax will go up 164%. What is even worse is that there is not even a planned tax for passing on my 50 years of labor to my kids. The tax is 55%. After I pay income tax at 50% (california) and 55% estate tax, my kids get 22 cents on the dollar. With four kids, they each get a nickel.
Who cares? My 35 employees may. I am now considering selling my company to a competitor who will close it down. No incentive any more unless things change. Can you imagine what the employment rate would be at 60% income tax or 70%? You folks at Columbia will only get a job with the Federal Government--but wait a minute--they need tax revenue to pay you.
For this country to prosper, you must have confidence in your leaders to try their best. This article instills doubt in our leader and I find it believable. My father was a drunk and died when I was eight. I have been trying my whole life to please him.
#48 Posted by RCSAM, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 02:30 PM
Thimbles
Some of us love journalism. I have since the age of 5. I'm happy to support what CJR the day it joins in that pursuit. But I've watched first Editor & Publisher and now CJR become nothing more than standard lefty rags instead of industry publications.
Journalism as practiced during my couple decades in it was supposed to be neutral. Too many journalists today don't get that. And those who particularly ignore it go to work at places like CJR.
So have fun with your little name games. But if you ever grow up and want to have a public discussion on journalism, ethics and more, let me know.
#49 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 02:59 PM
By their fruits ye shall know them Danny. Maybe cjr has problems, I've criticized them on their coverage and lack of followup when their coverage misrepresents the historical record.
Newsbusters promotes distortion on purpose when it suits their story. And when I want to have a public discussion on journalism, ethics and more I have it here because Ryan Chittum, in particular, and the other writers here not only feature some of the best work in journalism from a variety of media outlets, they are also offer bang on analysis of complex issues that you'll find in few other places.
And while CJR was doing it's Boiler Room expose pieces on the credit meltdown of 2008, pointing us to the npr The Giant Pool of Money presentation, and giving us the tools and analysis to understand the crisis, newsbusters was talking up dead in the water conspiracies theories about the Community Reinvestment Act
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/anthony-kang/2010/03/15/60-minutes-silent-government-role-financial-crisis
and the "losers' mortgages" which Obama somehow planned to somehow pay in some alternative universe where Rick Santelli wasn't an idiot and the tea party had a point.
Your crap doesn't inform people. It misinforms people. Therefore, you have no basis lecturing the people who do the job you would be doing if you were a better person.
#50 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 03:35 PM
Dinesh D'Storta writes books to make a quick buck before the facts can be checked and eventually debunked. As an immigrant from India who is no doubt feeling the "searing backlash" from "normal" Americans who might mistake him for arab/middle eastern, he was obviously looking for any means to shift the spotlight from those who "look like him" to Obama/Africa/blacks...but here's the kicker that 'D'Storta' has to look forward to: once Obama is out of office the focus will once again shift to jobs being outsourced to his HOME COUNTRY India and the the emerging muslim problem- in which little Dinesh will have to face with trepidation and great concern....
#51 Posted by conraddobler, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 04:00 PM
Thimbles,
So we get a rant and a link and no links to anything you have written, assuming you do anything other than just hide behind a phony name and whine.
Dan
#52 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 06:17 PM
I'm a news consumer, not a news professional, and not a witch hunter like yourself.
Boy, you really want that IRL info, don't you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nXGPZaTKik&ob=av3n
I thought you'd like to argue against my claim that:
"Your crap doesn't inform people. It misinforms people. Therefore, you have no basis lecturing the people who do the job you would be doing if you were a better person"
but I guess you're conceding the point.
Good day Danny.
#53 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 07:29 PM
Thimbles
No point arguing against bogus claims from a bogus entity. I simply find your act amusing and, giving what a lame wannabe site CJR has become, it's appropriate for much of the audience.
Dan
#54 Posted by Dan Gainor, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 11:23 PM
The right needs to run its course with this stuff. The world has gotten too complex for the American people to understand - imagine, the son of some crazy African guy as president! And by the way what the hell happened to all my money?? Of course they're gullible and ripe for manipulation. I'm sure there are Tea Party meetings happening right now debating whether being an "anti-colonialist" means that Obama was against the original 13 colonies. Imagine that, the president being against the founding fathers, on top of being a womanizing socialist necrophiliac - why aren't we all outraged and buying gold from Glen Beck??
This will only end when the middle class has been fully decimated by their corporate overlords and get sick of living like serfs, at which point they will see that some regulatory oversight of industry might be worth the improvement in water quality and a progressive tax actually isn't such a bad idea after all and the cycle will begin again. Hopefully we'll have another 70 years of relative prosperity. I just hope it doesn't take too long or bring us too low, or destroy yet another coastal region.
#55 Posted by Blud, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 07:34 AM
Dinesh D'Souza has already been discredited. He's a racist. It's as if he thinks that because he's a non-white Indian-American, he has some special right to say racist things about other American ethnic groups with hyphens... particularly African-Americans. Like when he wrote in a newspaper (he really did, look it up) that slaves in America were treated "pretty well." This guy's a scumbag.
#56 Posted by jm, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 10:39 AM
What is Forbes? I never read it. And now, I am quite glad that I don't.
#57 Posted by motamanx, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 02:37 PM
The 'outrage' at this partisan, attack is HILARIOUS in view of the deafening silence that the CJR put out in the face of years of withering, unfounded and false attacks on the former president.
There are very good reasons that most people consider 'Journalism' a despicable 'profession'. In general journalists are agenda-driven, and only interested in investigating spectacle, scandal and violence. Not because they believe in the 'right of the people to know', but because they are financially self-interested and get their jollies from trying to destroy people they do not like and making a name & money for themselves.
Public figures have no protections in this country from journalist assault. I have see this destructive force up close and personal.
The only reason this writer is mad is because his partisan interests have been challenged. Man up.
#58 Posted by NC, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 02:49 PM
How to make a dying brand more visible? Forbes is doing what Time did this past week with Israel...
Time's artcle was extremely shameful, but only that because Time's distorted view about Israel's progress was in line with the liberal minds, it did not get this high profile rebuke like the Forbes cover got.
( I am not making any comments on the Forbes article itself, which I did not read)
All those magazines are looking for ways to get attention... Time did it and Forbes is doing it per what you are saying....
#59 Posted by MB, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 03:16 PM
does anyone else think this whole NASA issue is actually quite legitimate? Spending time honoring muslim nations for their historical contributions to science and technology..yeah sure that's P.C. and warm and cuddly, but as Bolton's #1 and foremost directive? To do that? What about scientific discovery, the great frontier, what about SPACE?
I'm surprised at the lack of outrage.
#60 Posted by gabe, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 03:30 PM
What a pathetic attempt to find "smear journalism." How ironic that it's those you despise who actually found the errors in D'Souza's piece:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/what_dsouza_doesnt_get_quite_r.html
No wonder so many people correctly have contempt for the mainstream media. Hold a mirror up to yourself. It's your article that is a smear.
#61 Posted by Glen, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 03:34 PM
Blud- wow, you actually have bought into the depressing thought that you're not smart enough to comprend politics in America today.
I've heard from this "accusation" recently from one calling us the "Homer Simpson's" that need guideance and leadership so we don't take a particular type of medicine without the gov't making it safe for me, but goodness, when do we ever take responsibility for our own actions.
I'm not ever going to admit that which you've stated, "The world has gotten too complex for the American people to understand."
From what I am reading, this tea party stuff is all just trying to make the normal American aware that they have the right to actually understand their own world and surroundings. It's why they claim that we need to go back to the basics in the Constitution which start in really BIG letters - WE THE PEOPLE - good luck to you and your pessimistic outlook on life.
#62 Posted by nordspan, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 03:58 PM
Ryan Chittum is not very bright. He thinks he has "fisked" the D’Souza piece but ends up supporting D’Souza. Hawaii is a different place. Not only was it the 50th state, we have the famous Akaka bill giving special privilege to native Hawaiians. We do not see that in Alaska. So, yes, Hawaii is different.
Dreams of my Father is pretty well accepted as being ghost written by Bill Ayers. The book uses his word constructs and his phrasing. It was written as a political book and needs to be taken that way.
Chittum really runs off the rails when he tries to justify the Obama grants for oil drilling to Brazil (Petrobas) and the not included Mexico while he still has a hold on US gulf drilling. Venezuela has a particular problem that requires them to sell oil to the US. Their oil is very hard to refine and the US has the facilities to do that. Selling crude to people who could not refine it would not be very valuable to Venezuela. Brazil, on the other hand is currently energy independent, but they got that way by drilling. They have a growing economy (unlike the Obama economy) and will need about all the crude they can get. I wonder if Ryan understands the differences.
Ryan Chittum has written a "fantasy take down". Chittum can substantiate nothing he was written. The waste of pixels is on him, not D’Souza.
#63 Posted by Rick Caird, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 04:31 PM
Be still me bleeding heart!!! Ryan please stop and thing before writing such garbage. If your going to critique the piece, do so on the basis of content, technique or style. All you do is moan and pitch a hissy-fit about it being factually correct but written by someone you don't like, and is About a person you worship and adore and can't accept any criticism about. STOP WHINING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF PETE!!!!!!!!!!! GROW UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#64 Posted by Big Bear, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 05:20 PM
Yes, Ryan, as Big Bear says, Please stop and thing.
#65 Posted by mwh, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 05:48 PM
"Dreams of my Father is pretty well accepted as being ghost written by Bill Ayers."
Christ, Chittum, where do you find these people?
#66 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 06:00 PM
What I would have like to have seen would be a point by point dissection of the Forbes article. If you would have done that, rather than attack the author, you could have written an excellent piece.
The best way to win hearts and minds is through facts, not hurled insults. Leave George Bush, Dick Chenney, Sarah Palin and the Tea Party out of it FOR ONCE please, and dispute the right on facts and facts alone. No insults, no tea bagger, no wing nut, no slander or name calling of any kind. Just point by point conversation. As soon as the school yard name calling starts, the people under attack and on the sidelines immediately lose interest in going any further.
And please, not everyone who has right leaning views works for Newsbusters, DrudgeReport, AmericanThinker, Lucianne, Breitbart, TheBlaze, HotAir, MichelleMalkin, MichaelSavage, RushLimbaugh, SeanHannity or MarkLevin. Believe it or not, there are people out there who disagree with the left and aren't paid for their views. So please, I'm begging you, stop the troll accusations!!!!
#67 Posted by Andrew, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 06:31 PM
“I figured out D'Souza's problem, and he does have a problem. D'Souza still believes in the caste system, and he regards Obama, being black, to be of a lower caste. No doubt D'Souza got his caste mentality from HIS father.
"D'Souza was born in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India, to parents from the state of Goa in Western India. ,,,
"The Harijans, or the people outside the caste system, had the lowest social status. The Harijans, earlier referred to as untouchables by some, worked in what were seen as unhealthy, unpleasant or polluting jobs. In the past, the Harijans suffered from social segregation and restrictions, in addition to extreme poverty. They were not allowed temple worship with others, nor water from the same sources. Persons of higher castes would not interact with them. If somehow a member of a higher caste came into physical or social contact with an untouchable, the member of the higher caste was defiled, and had to bathe thoroughly to purge him or herself of the impurity. Social discrimination developed even among the Harijans; sub-castes among Harijans, such as the dhobi and nai, would not interact with lower-order Bhangis, who were described as "outcastes even among outcastes". [Wikipedia]”””
#68 Posted by Maureen Meyer, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 07:18 PM
As both a CC and Law graduate the ad hominem attacks here are truly embarassing. To discuss D’Souza's background as it relates to his criticism's of Obama are simply pathetic. What of the merits of his argument.
Additionally, those of us with real knowledge of the history of the University, and particularly the college can make a fairly educated guess about why someone with Obama's apparent policy leanings would have chosen the College to transfer to.
The seething resentment of the country that exists in the radicalism that has been present on the Upper West side since the early days of the American Communist and Anarchist movements are certainly present in the more polished, but no less radical, ideas of the President.
He came to Columbia specifically because of those ideas being incubated here.
#69 Posted by Stephen Luftschein, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 08:31 PM
"The seething resentment of the country that exists in the radicalism that has been present on the Upper West side since the early days of the American Communist and Anarchist movements are certainly present in the more polished, but no less radical, ideas of the President.
He came to Columbia specifically because of those ideas being incubated here."
I know what you mean. What could be more radical than filling your economic team with wall street rubinites and letting conservative democratic senators write the obamacare blueprint, so they can sabotage their own majority, invite republicans to slice out the most progressive parts of the bill, and leave the rest for a Wellpoint lobbyist to write and distribute.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ5tj4cN9Jk
What could be more radical than appointing that lobbyist to manage Obamacare implementation
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/07/14/former-wellpoint-vp-liz-fowler-to-be-in-charge-of-health-care-oversight/
You combine that with the radical steps he's followed on a path for a police state laid down by the Bush administration and the radical steps he's taken to put social security in jeopardy under the guise of deficit reduction and man, you see a radical.
He's a Washington radical, a conservative dressed in progressive clothing, a person captured by Washington culture, not a challenge to it at all. An "American Communist and Anarchist" radical? Sorry, but that's the fruit of a stupid person's imagination.
#70 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 17 Sep 2010 at 10:27 PM
Somebody paid big money for the crap in Forbes to be printed. To me it looks like the work of Rove. Rs are anxious about the tax cuts and further losing ground. In reality, all republicans know is: lie, spin, fear, hate, and distraction.
#71 Posted by Greengirl, CJR on Sat 18 Sep 2010 at 06:07 AM
Mike H, couple of quick points:
1. The Brazilian loan was started in the Bush admin and approved by the Bush administrators in April 2009 (3R, 2D)
2. Obama had EXPANDED offshore US drilling before the BP disaster, caused largely by industrial malfeasance and lack of regulation.
D'Souza has become an extreme right wing hack who uses his fundamentalist school, Kings College as cover.
#72 Posted by shigeru, CJR on Sat 18 Sep 2010 at 07:02 AM
Dropping a dime on the Obama administration is a dangerous thing to do for any "professional journalist" who refuses to toe the leftist line.
Doug McKelway just got canned by WJLA in DC for mentioning the "inconvenient truth" that Obama took more campaign money from BP than any other human in history.
Those damned fact-thingies sure do put a cramp on the liberal style. Luckily, the Powers That Be have the means to sweep them under the rug.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/16/AR2010091606645.html
#73 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 18 Sep 2010 at 09:15 AM
I don't agree that the guy should have been fired, but according to the "rules" of journalism, inserting a journalist's opinion into a story is bad. His comment about the "risky strategy of the far left groups" should not have been put in there. It implies allegiance and political motivation to protests that
a) were likely not far left
b) were likely about, you know, the big black slick in the water wrecking the coastal environment.
It should have been reported that Barack accepted BP money, but that fact did not need to be portrayed as one that damages the cause of protesters. That was a reporter's opinion and not a very well established one at that.
The same goes for "And the last thing they want to do is propose a huge escalation in your electric bill, your utility bill, before then." on a bill that was still being crafted in the senate.
Anyways, I thought you guys had no problem with reporters getting fired over their opinions in tweets and emails, never mind the ones they slip into the news coverage. Didn't you all jump over the ex-CNN reporter, Susan Roesgen, who slipped her commentary into her tea party coverage? What exactly do you want? Straight news in which reporter opinion, conservative or liberal, is minimal or color news in which reporters share their opinion, and viewers are free to disagree with it, but reporters need not fear their job is on the line with every off script utterance?
You can't have media which is color for you but straight for me. Be consistent or be ignored.
#74 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 18 Sep 2010 at 11:09 AM
Thimbles wrote: Didn't you all jump over the ex-CNN reporter, Susan Roesgen, who slipped her commentary into her tea party coverage?
padikiller responds: I'm not supporting McKelway's reporting and I don't condone commentary in any reporting.
However, your example illustrates the MSM's selective tolerance for such commentary.
Susan Roesgen kept her job until the end of her contract. McKelway got canned.
#75 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 18 Sep 2010 at 11:33 AM
McKelway got into a screaming match with his boss.
I don't expect that fact to numb your "MSM liburl" butthurt, but those damned fact-thingies sure do put a cramp on the padkiller narrative.
#76 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 18 Sep 2010 at 01:50 PM
I'm still waiting for Ryan or one of his apologists, in the interests of establishing standards that exclude 'disgusting' journalism, to direct me to CJR's response to the NY Times story, which - without a single named source - alleged an affair between John McCain and a lobbyist. For that matter, I remember when the Times front-paged Kitty Kelley's rather louche charge that Nancy Reagan was canoodling with Frank Sinatra while resident in the White House. Sure, Maureen Dowd, whose career did not suffer, treated it as a wink-nudge, probably-not-true-but-isn't-it-fun-to-think-so allegation, which was supposed to be all right. (No hyperbole about how those crazy anti-Reaganites will go to any fetid length to tar their enemy.) These strike me as far more disgusting than anything Dinesh d'Souza, whose piece was, after all, an opinion piece, wrote in Forbes, and which I have read. Attempting to 'explain' a public figure's politics by reference to his early influences, in terms of family culture, environment, and intellectual guides, is not new. When it is expressed in negative terms toward a lefty politician, however, panties bunch up all over the media Left, as can be seen by Ryan's over-the-top response (which suggests he doesn't get around much, if his intent is genuinely non-partisan, or else very young), and by the responses of some of the posters.
#77 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sat 18 Sep 2010 at 09:07 PM
1. D'Souza's article is not even original .. he has taken the idea from this article published in 2009, and combined them with snippets from Obama's book:
June 25, 2009
Obama, the African Colonial
By L.E. Ikenga
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obama_the_african_colonial.html
2. I am glad I cancelled my subscription to Forbes last year. Its trashiness was not so evident back then.
#78 Posted by V. Ray, CJR on Sun 19 Sep 2010 at 11:30 AM
Why doesn't Dinesh D'souza go back to India with his parochial backward thinking.One thing is for sure- Dinesh is not an American like you and me, he believes in outsourcing jobs so that his countrymen can get rich off the backs of Americans. It is apparent that his lens is a pathetic caste colored and rascist colored lens. Let us Americans judge other Americans. His last book was how liberals planned 9/11- really brainless piece of work. He is a human embarrasment to anybody with a synapse. What is comical is that Dinesh actually believes that he somehow can EVER be counted as a true American - Dinesh- buddy you the lowest trash there is, and I mean after everybody in American is taken into consideration.
#79 Posted by mimi, CJR on Mon 20 Sep 2010 at 05:05 PM
Let me stand up and defend Dinesh D'Souza from your racist nonsense, mimi. D'Souza is a naturalized American citizen and has been here for thirty-something years. If you ask me, that's more impressive than many of our fellow born-lucky countrymen, apparently including you.
You don't have to be an Indian to believe in outsourcing. Last time I checked well over 99 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs were not Indians.
#80 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Mon 20 Sep 2010 at 06:10 PM
Forgive me, Mark, for I cover the financial press. But my recollection of the
the McCain/Iseman story was that it had problematic sourcing, as Megan Garber wrote">http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/ancient_history.php">wrote here, but that it was based on fact reporting and that the essence of it was later confirmed by a McCain political adviser--on the record--when he told National Review that he warned Iseman to stay away from McCain.
The Times reported that McCain's advisers worried there was an affair going on or it might look like it. But the Times should have had more airtight sourcing and put it further down in the story.
I would normally be against reporting on private affairs like that, but this was with a lobbyist and the piece raised serious ethical questions about differences between McCain's screw-lobbyists image (pun not intended!) and what he was actually doing.
Long story short: The two pieces are two totally different levels of bad (again from my recollection of that two-year-old controversy). I don't know about MoDo/Kitty Kelley/Reagan era stuff, but I do know Bill Clinton has a beef or three about some of that Whitewater coverage. We could play this game all day.
#81 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Mon 20 Sep 2010 at 10:34 PM
Ryan, your critique would have more authority if you had ever made a similar defense of a conservative target. Accusing Bush of lying, evil intent, etc. was de rigueur in the press – and still is at CJR. Just think of the systematic demonization of Bush, Cheney, Palin – basically any conservative that ran for public office. The Forbes article might be over the top, but it’s pretty tame compared to many such diatribes against Bush. The only difference is that now it’s your guy in the crosshairs.
If nothing else I hope the journalists reading this might pause to consider before sending out a “hit piece” in the future.
#82 Posted by JLD, CJR on Tue 21 Sep 2010 at 01:12 AM
The things is Bush was a liar, he did things with evil intent (national security secrecy used to cover up prosecutable corruption), and was responsible for taking America from the rule of law to the rule of torture above the law.
And during these times, the press critique was light hearted because the Bush Administration went after people that criticized them too hard. It wasn't until late 2005 that Bush got serious media challenges and 2007ish before Bush became accepted by all sides as an irredeemable embarrassment. And it was mostly Cheney who did all the dirty work and was responsible for the majority of the incompetence, mainly because Cheney was in charge more often than not as VP for an oft vacationing president.
What you call systemic demonization, many have use a more concise term for: the truth. Systemic demonization is what you see with Obama because here you have a conservative
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/09/malkin-dissent.html
who is being envisioned as the second coming of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Jimmy Carter all at the same time. AND THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FOR IT. There's a bunch of people talking about what he wants to do, what he may do, what he really believes, where he was really born, but what they are talking about and what he has really said and done are vastly different. There are some real complaints you can make about his continuance of Bush style government secrecy and unaccountability, but you guys are talking about how he wants to kill old people with death panels and 9/11 mosques. Our conversations are not taking place on the same planet, and that's a problem.
#83 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 21 Sep 2010 at 06:06 AM
The very idea that Hawaii, President Obama's birthplace, is somehow less American than other states shows what a complete crackpot D'Souza is. Why doesn't he say that to Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, the Medal of Honor winner who lost an arm defending this country against the Nazis. The USA is about values, not continental contiguity, and this president proudly continues our traditions of social mobility, civil rights, and pulling together in time of crisis. Nice angle to sell books to the angry, D'Souza, but F in American history. Peter L. Reich, J.D., Ph.D., Professor of Law, Whittier Law School
#84 Posted by Peter Reich, CJR on Tue 28 Sep 2010 at 01:51 AM
It attempting to attack D'Souza and distort some Obama doubters, some here special plead.
1. Hawaii IS different from Alaska. Hawaii has a partially Polynesian Identity; Alaska has an American one. Visitors to Anchorage aren't welcomed off the plane with sharks tooth necklaces, blubber, and kayaks. Visitors to Honolulu are weccomed with leis, luaus, and poi. Although Hawaiians are US citisenw and fully American, the culture is definitely foreign in many key aspects that are in one's face.
2. The only argument I've read that disputes the birthers is (oddly enough) Glenn Beck's and Bill O'Reilly's that the birth announcement appeared in the local paper's archives. But it wouldn't be the first time documentary evidence waas planted; I find it highly suspicious that the White House continues to obstruct court challoenges demanding the original certificate, not a duplicate certificate or assertion from officials. It is argued that the version presented by Hawaiian authorities is not even acceptable under local law for some purposes.
Let me be clear: I am not birther but an analyst, and probative evidence simply isn't yet there publicly, especially in a matter as important as qualifications for the Presidency. No amount of attempting to dismiss skeptics as nut cases will alter that.
There is much more on the attacks on D'Souza that won't bear scrutiny (leaving aside the many ad hominem attacks by his critics), but this rejoinder is already too prolix.
#85 Posted by Commentator, CJR on Fri 1 Oct 2010 at 12:52 AM
It attempting to attack D'Souza and distort some Obama doubters, some here special plead.
1. Hawaii IS different from Alaska. Hawaii has a partially Polynesian Identity; Alaska has an American one. Visitors to Anchorage aren't welcomed off the plane with blubber, and kayaks. Visitors to Honolulu are weccomed with leis, luaus, and poi. Although Hawaiians are US citisenw and fully American, the culture is definitely foreign in many key aspects that are in one's face. In distinct6ion, one has to seek out elements of Eskimo culture.
2. The only argument I've read that disputes the birthers is (oddly enough) Glenn Beck's and Bill O'Reilly's that the birth announcement appeared in the local paper's archives. But it wouldn't be the first time documentary evidence was planted; I find it at least odd that the White House continues to obstruct court challoenges demanding the original certificate, not a duplicate certificate or assertion from officials. It is argued that the version presented by Hawaiian authorities is not even acceptable under local law for some purposes.
Let me be clear: I am not birther but an analyst, and probative evidence simply isn't yet there publicly, especially in a matter as important as qualifications for the Presidency. No amount of attempting to dismiss skeptics will alter that.
There is much more on the attacks on D'Souza that won't bear scrutiny (leaving aside the many ad hominem attacks by his critics), but this rejoinder is already too prolix.
#86 Posted by Commentator, CJR on Fri 1 Oct 2010 at 12:56 AM
Birds of a feather flock together....Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Dinesh D'Souza...must we say more...these scare mongers are lining their coffers from illgotten gains...i.e. from Rupert Murdoch type of handouts...shame on them for stooping so low!
#87 Posted by Lallisart, CJR on Wed 6 Oct 2010 at 09:09 PM
Really?! Why are you defending this man! Actions speak louder than his smooth words. He should not of even of been elected if he cannot produce a birth certificate. I cannot think of one thing he's done as a positive for our country. I can think of many things he's done as a positive for Muslim. He is turning our nation into a Muslim nation, that's the change, it's not the change we wanted. While us Americans are losing our jobs and on welfare, he's brings muslims and Islams over here on our Social Security, in our Colleges, in our Hospitals, all for free!. The writer of the article may of been from India but he's a lot more American than the "Presidant" and the Commentator!
#88 Posted by Andrea, CJR on Tue 4 Jan 2011 at 09:45 AM
Obama's father was asked to leave Harvard - very little time spent at Harvard as a student. Mr. Obama's book (Dreams Of My Father) was written by a ghost writer it is believed. How little time Barrack spent with his father and other relatives is not known and so I am guessing he learned little from the man who spent more time drinking and womanizing than being a father!
#89 Posted by Alice Curry, CJR on Sat 17 Mar 2012 at 08:52 PM
And here it is over two years later. Anyone that has followed what President Obama has done can see that D'Souza was and is correct on nearly everything that he wrote on Obama in this article. The author of this article, Ryan Chittum should provide D'Souza and Forbes with a written apology. But I doubt that will happen as he was obviously so far in the bag with Obama's Hope and Change BS that he is still blinded by his devotion to his savior that he still can't see what this man has done to our great nation in his first term and thank God more American's are seeing that Obama is nothing but bad news for America--he will be voted out and his destruction of America will be reversed by Mitt Romney and the Republicans that will be the majority in the House and Senate--America will be taken back and made great again. Shame on you, Ryan Chittum.
#90 Posted by Daniel Lewis, CJR on Sat 25 Aug 2012 at 01:54 PM
The striking things about D'Souza are how utterly irrelevant and blinkered he is. Only right wing extremists would be swayed by this coded racism, making the African heritage issue number one.
The right also continually cites bogus statistics concerning taxes, ignoring all the taxes paid in favor of citing only the stats that seem to make their point. They ignore all the state sales taxes, the federal taxes on communications, alcohol, tobacco, etc.
But to claim that Obama, who is basically RIGHT wing, is going to turn into Karl Marx one day, against all empirical evidence to the contrary, well that's just frothing propaganda.
The other problem I have with these people is the false dichotomy. I can't stand the Rethugs OR the Democrats. They are all corrupt, warmongering assholes in my view. Third parties are the only moral alternative to these monsters. The reich wing, however, will inform us that there are only "two sides" to all the issues of governance. This conveniently ignores the 80% of issues where Romney AGREES with Obama, where Gore AGREES with Bush, where the money launderers at the RNC AGREE with the money launderers at the DNC.
With D'Souza's latest abomination of a "film" we learn that what he really wants is imperialism, to expand the US global military empire. To gloriously prod the USA to behave like the Third Reich. He uses code words like "grow." He tells us "America must grow" in his contorted word games that bring up "colonialism" as if colonialism was a good thing in the first place.
Very dangerous, deceitful propagandists in our midst. These neo-cons are unconcerned with the questions of good and evil, and they find themselves on the side of evil pretty much most of the time.
#91 Posted by polfilmblog, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 03:17 PM
"Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history… The President’s actions are so bizarre that they mystify his critics and supporters alike… More strange behavior… The oddities go on and on"
Nothing of substance. No examples. Since he has no proof. Well, good for Obama, standing up to Big business. We're an election or two away from Corporate controlled America. In dystopian futures, corporations take control of America, and ruin her. We're at the point of no return people.
#92 Posted by Ather, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 09:50 PM
We middle class Americans know that the President of the United States was not elected to see to the needs of the middle class Americans who pay their salaries. That's really what all this nonsense is about. That's actually why Romney is the presumptive Republican nominee for president right this moment. The monied powers-that-be (some of them undoubtedly among the Forbes bunch) of America are outraged that a sitting president would have the audacity to put the needs of the little people, women, and 'gays' before the desires of the airhead rich fat guys at the head of major American corporations. It's unheard of...never been done in American history. Well, the founding fathers might disagree with that. This bunch doesn't know anyone actually knows any American history these days.
As for D'Souza, I'm always amazed how immigrants come to our country and decide they have the right to criticize us--in this case, our president, no less. This 'piece' is merely another example of how they have the audacity to 'bite the hands that feed them' or the country who allows them to have a better life than the country that is their home. This guy never pauses to consider that he is the one that was not born in America; President Obama was. All my lifetime, America has had 50 states; Hawaii was one of them. Heck, Hawaii's the only U.S. state that took direct fire in World War II, even. Don't think Alaska had the equivalent to Pearl Harbor, even though Palin claimed she could see Russia from her place up in Alaska.
Forbes couldn't sell me a newsletter, these days. Like so many other America icons, it's lessened its standards over the years. Not impressed with D'Souza's writing skills, most definitely. I agree with the previous comment that suggested a sixth grader could do better. I've seen some with much more credibility than this D'Souza's. I could, at least, validate their material by the references they listed. Where are yours, D'Souza?
#93 Posted by Edwyne Rouchelle, CJR on Sun 26 Aug 2012 at 11:28 PM
Talk all you want, but Obama's policies have been a big failure. And that's on him. It's also true that he didn't live in the US during some of his most formative years; so, birth certificate aside, it's true that he's not like most Americans. It's strange to see Liberals twist themselves into knots defending Obama. It's obviously partisan, illogical, rigid groupthink, but there must be some psychological need that keeps you so deep in the illusion that you don't see what's apparent to any normal person who is not extremely emotionally invested in an overconfident but very limited guy who happens to be president.
#94 Posted by JohnnyReb, CJR on Mon 27 Aug 2012 at 03:05 PM
Interesting. Above, a "Thimbles" wrote:
The things is Bush was a liar, he did things with evil intent (national security secrecy used to cover up prosecutable corruption), and was responsible for taking America from the rule of law to the rule of torture above the law.
He then went on to excoriate D'Souza's work proclaiming: AND THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FOR IT.
Thimbles.... please supply us all with evidence to support your opening sentence.
#95 Posted by Derick, CJR on Mon 27 Aug 2012 at 08:53 PM
Funny thing is that in reality Obama has been the most ZIONIST controlled president ever giving Israel over $5 billion over the table and countless other military and economic aid under the table. Israel consumes way more than they produce so how are they so rich per capita? US TAXES! Anyway and how ignorant are we still..here's a link that proves NO MUSLIMS played any part in 911 nor would any Muslim ever do such a thing! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijoM_RMuHHc&feature=related
#96 Posted by Larry S, CJR on Thu 30 Aug 2012 at 10:56 AM
OFF THE TOP: Bush was spending about 490 billion dollars a month when he left office--Obama has tripled that! Obama will one day be shown to have actually been born in Kenya--as to which his own grandmother has attested. Obama never spoke against the Black Panthers terrorizing of voters in Philadelphia, nor did he speak out against the Occupy Wall Strret clan, but likeminded others did. Occupy Wall Street has also garnered praise from Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez and Iranian Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Whhe Gulf of Mexico, and other U.S. holdings, remains closed to offshore drilling, the Santos Basin is being drilled at 4 times the depth of the site of the BP spill. You should study George Soros (principal of Petrobras) and HUGE Obama supporter, Mr. Chittum. And let's not forget the Solindra debacle, wherein Obama, personally, signed off to allow investors to recoup their losses--in yet another of his failed green energy mandates--BEFORE the American taxpayer whose funding was leached by this "leader".
“The only part of the so-called national wealth that actually enters into the collective possession of modern peoples is their national debt.” Karl Marx, The Criticism of the Gotha Program
Think about this before you complain about your taxes and just as some liberal Democrat tells you that we need Obama’s “Dream Act” to use your earnings to give FREE college educations to the 13,000,000 plus ILLEGAL aliens currently in the U.S. Ask your President to give your child a free college education and see what that’ll get ya! It's not racism; it's being accountable for your needs and responsibilities like the rest of us. Interesting when you work the numbers.
“Mathematics posses not only truth, but supreme beauty—a beauty cold and austere, like that of a sculpture, without appeal to our weaker nature, sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show.” Bertrand Russell, The Study of Mathematics
JOE versus JOSE
You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal." Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California.
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number, and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table."
Ready? Now pay attention . . . .
Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours= $1,000.000 per week, or $52,000.00 per year.
Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours= $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year.
Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year.
Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year.
Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year.
Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare.
Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year.
Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.
Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out
That’s $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance.
Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin’ insurance!" and…
Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
#97 Posted by C. Franklin Miller, CJR on Thu 30 Aug 2012 at 04:41 PM
OFF THE TOP: Bush was spending about 490 billion dollars a month when he left office--Obama has tripled that! Obama will one day be shown to have actually been born in Kenya--as to which his own grandmother has attested. Obama never spoke against the Black Panthers terrorizing of voters in Philadelphia, nor did he speak out against the Occupy Wall Strret clan, but likeminded others did. Occupy Wall Street has also garnered praise from Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez and Iranian Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Whhe Gulf of Mexico, and other U.S. holdings, remains closed to offshore drilling, the Santos Basin is being drilled at 4 times the depth of the site of the BP spill. You should study George Soros (principal of Petrobras) and HUGE Obama supporter, Mr. Chittum. And let's not forget the Solindra debacle, wherein Obama, personally, signed off to allow investors to recoup their losses--in yet another of his failed green energy mandates--BEFORE the American taxpayer whose funding was leached by this "leader".
“The only part of the so-called national wealth that actually enters into the collective possession of modern peoples is their national debt.” Karl Marx, The Criticism of the Gotha Program
Think about this before you complain about your taxes and just as some liberal Democrat tells you that we need Obama’s “Dream Act” to use your earnings to give FREE college educations to the 13,000,000 plus ILLEGAL aliens currently in the U.S. Ask your President to give your child a free college education and see what that’ll get ya! It's not racism; it's being accountable for your needs and responsibilities like the rest of us. Interesting when you work the numbers.
“Mathematics posses not only truth, but supreme beauty—a beauty cold and austere, like that of a sculpture, without appeal to our weaker nature, sublimely pure, and capable of a stern perfection such as only the greatest art can show.” Bertrand Russell, The Study of Mathematics
JOE versus JOSE
You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal." Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California.
Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number, and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.
Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table."
Ready? Now pay attention . . . .
Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours= $1,000.000 per week, or $52,000.00 per year.
Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.
Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours= $600.00 per week, or $31,200.00 per year.
Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year.
Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.
Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year.
Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year.
Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.
Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare.
Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year.
Joe Legal now has $9,631.00.
Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out
That’s $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance.
Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.
Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin’ insurance!" and…
Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.
#98 Posted by C. Franklin Miller, CJR on Thu 30 Aug 2012 at 04:42 PM
TO CONTINUE:
Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline for his car, etc.
Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.
Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part-time job after work.
Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.
Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while…
Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch.
Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program.
Joe Legal's children go home.
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.
P.S. As a footnote, here is some more interesting math: When she cashed that first check in May of 1940, Ida May Fuller paid $24.75 in Social Security taxes, but in the end, collected $22, 888.92 in benefits getting back all she put in to Social Security in just one month. In 1980, workers who retired (at age 65) got every penny back--with interest--in 2.8 years. Workers retiring in 2002 (again, at age 65) will have to wait 16.9 years to re-coup their money. Then, workers who will retire in 2020 will have to live another 20.9 years--and workers entering the workforce today will not live long enough to see even half their money returned to them. SOCIAL SECURITY HAS THE SAME PROBLEM OF A PONZI SCHEME--not enough new investors!
In 1940, there were 160 workers paying-in for each retiree collecting Social Security. Today, that number is down to 2.9 people paying-in to Social Security for each person taking out--and that number is dropping (50,000,000 tax-payer funded abortions haven’t helped either). The Obama administration assured us after the election three years ago, that Social Security was in good shape--and politicians say the money is in a 2.5 trillion dollar trust fund, but…while Congress was in a tizzy trying to fix the debt crisis; and in order to scare senior citizens, President Obama told CBS news that “I cannot guarantee that those checks will go out August third if we haven’t resolved this issue because there may simply not be enough money in the coffers.” That reveals the trust fund lie!...because the Treasury could mail out those checks regardless of a budget settlement. I believe a person 65 or older--and forced into Social Security--should get something. The question is “Who owes it to them?” The tragedy is: The young shouldn’t be fleeced because of the dereliction of politicians and seniors frankly don’t care who they get it from. Here’s an idea: The 650-million ill-gotten acres (30 percent of the United States) the federal government owns, brimming with natural resources that are going to waste, and valued at $15 Trillion dollars, could be used to pay-off those opting-out of Social Security…or sold to completely pay-off the national debt.
End of Part One
#99 Posted by C. Franklin Miller, CJR on Thu 30 Aug 2012 at 04:47 PM
“A hundred years from now my people will not be fit for Liberty. They do not know what it is, unenlightened as they are.” Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, 1824 Letter to U.S. Minister to Mexico, Joel Roberts Poinsett
Review your own paper, and Columbia's mis-stating of Obama's knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious and the subsequent lies told by Eric Holder who implicated Obama!
Originally, Operation Gun-Runner, under former President George Bush II, this joint FBI/CIA/ATF operation was designed to entrap and arrest members of Mexican drug cartels smuggling weapons across the border.
However, under President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder has allowed the smuggling WITHOUT the arrests and subsequent seizure of those weapons--they apparently don’t mind if those “dirty Mexicans” get killed--and 3 U.S. agents (Brian Terry among them # have since “bitten the bullet”--literally. This is an attempt to whip-up support for further gun-control laws by reeking murder and violence along our border!
John King of CNN inadvertently backed into THE TRUTH while interviewing Congressman Elijah Cummings #D-MD): On May 3rd, Holder testified before Congress that he knew nothing about “FAST and FURIOUS” until “…the last few weeks”. In an interview with CNN/Espanõl, in March, Obama contradicts Holder’s testimony when he says (so he can have “plausible deniability”# that he had heard “…off the news…[a] story [about] Fast and Furious…” How could Obama know, in March, what his Attorney General DIDN’T know in May?
NOW, IT’S GRENADES!!!
Jean-Batiste Kingery, a U.S. citizen, smuggled parts for nearly 2,000 GRENADES into Mexico--for drug cartels--under the watch of U.S. law enforcement #CIA and FBI#. Prosecutors in Arizona refused to make a case.
In January, 2010, the ATF had to watch as Kingery--already under surveillance--waltzed into Mexico with 50 grenade bodies! An attack on a casino would later kill 53 people. Six months later, Kingery, was caught with 114 disassembled GRENADES stuffed into a tire! Prosecutors--again--refused to make the case!
U.S. Attorney, Dennis Burke #the former assistant to Janet Napolitano), resigned after his assistant, Emily Hurley--who let Kingery go--was transferred after she stated that “Grenade parts are NOVELTY ITEMS…” What the f*ck does that mean? and, that “…the case lacked jury-appeal.” WHAT!!! Too boring for Court TV? Then, Kingery was caught with parts for over 1,000 grenades and was teaching Mexicans how to convert semi-automatic rifles into FULLY-AUTOMATIC ones! Prosecutors were ORDERED not to pursue a case--and by whom? HIGH CRIMES & MISDEMEANORS, people
#100 Posted by C. Franklin Miller, CJR on Thu 30 Aug 2012 at 04:53 PM
As for ObamaCare: Joseph Rago at the Wall Street Journal reports that a trove of internal e-mails uncovered by Congressional investigators shows that administration officials knew the program for long-term care would be a fiscal disaster and it’s that same disaster that Democrats knew it would be--remember how former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told us we couldn’t know what was in Obamacare until it was passed into LAW--and passed it anyway! In this act, known by the acronym C.L.A.S.S., the Obama administration back-stopped insurance for nursing homes, home-health aides, etcetera. This is one of the worst accounting gimmicks ever perpetrated upon you, the taxpayer and Obama supporter because you were duped into believing that national healthcare would reduce the deficit--that’s a lie! You were told you could keep your doctor--that’s a lie! Businesses would drop the health insurance on its employees and dump them into the plan…that’s the truth. The “voluntary” program being perpetrated by these Progressive-Democrats will collect premiums, up-front--beginning next year--but not pay any benefits until 2017! The $70,000,000,000--(Yeah, 70 BILLION DOLLARS) that accumulates will be used to pay for other parts of Obamacare--THEN THE C.L.A.S.S. PROGRAM GOES BROKE about 2020! That’s when it starts to drain the taxpayers. Why? Because, you simply cannot spend the same money twice. Those e-mails, obtained by the Joint Republican Panel led by Senator John Thune (R-SD) and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, show that the Obama administration knew the program was designed to fail but they went ahead anyway!
In case you’ve been asleep (and I speak to all Americans over 40 years old and to any logical and/or moderately intelligent person, because we don’t teach Social Studies in public schools anymore) please consider this: The Cloward-Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of a “guaranteed annual income and thus end poverty. (Socialism)” The strategy was formulated in a May 1966 article in the left-wing magazine The Nation entitled “The Weight of the Poor: A Stategy to End Poverty.” The idea is simple: Dump debt on the system until it collapses!
Cloward and Piven are a married couple who were both professors at the Columbia University School of Social Work. They were critical of the public welfare system and believed that by overloading it, blaming its failure on Capitalism, banks, Wall Street, etcetera, then, “…the federal government, and in particular, the Democratic Party, could force the implementation of a national solution to end poverty (Again, SOCIALISM). The couple noted that the side consequences of this strategy would include: easing the plight of the poor in “the short-term” and “shore-up support for the national Democratic Party”. It looks as if the Democrats have done this on purpose! Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary has repeatedly warned superiors and Democrat staff on the hill that the C.L.A.S.S. program “…seems like a recipe for disaster to me.”
The Chief Medical Actuary, Richard Foster warned that “…adverse selection could be a terminal problem for the proposal.” As early as May 2009, a year before Obamacare was passed, he warned “…because of the way the C.L.A.S.S. Act is structured, healthy people are unlikely to buy it and the premiums for the remaining sick will spike…leading to a classic insurance death-spiral.”
“Thirty-six years of actuarial experience to the Medicare Legislative Affairs Office leads me to believe this program would collapse in short order and require significant federal subsidies in order to continue.” Mr. Foster added that “…I assume you conv
#101 Posted by C. Franklin Miller, CJR on Thu 30 Aug 2012 at 04:56 PM
“Thirty-six years of actuarial experience to the Medicare Legislative Affairs Office leads me to believe this program would collapse in short order and require significant federal subsidies in order to continue.” Mr. Foster added that “…I assume you conveyed these concerns to the staff but, if not, let me know and we can express these concerns in a memo.” A staffer for the Secretary of Health and Human Resources responded that “…the Secretary doesn’t think she need any additional work on the actuary-side.” Meaning: “WE KNOWS IT’S GOING TO FAIL AND FRANKLY, WE DON’T CARE”
FINALLY, as to Obama's place in history--first black/Afro-American President--here is what the likes of the Obamas (and the Democratic Party) have done for the Black man in America:
Walter E. Williams is a professor of Economics at George Mason University and one of the most intelligent men you’ll ever read.
“Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares tools fit for the designs of ambition” Thomas Jefferson
Here’s the history they don’t want you to know! Overall U.S. un-employment is just over 9%--for all of us. For white adults it’s about 8%, for white teens, 23%. For black adults, un-employment is at 17%--black teens, 40% (and as high as 50% in Washington, D.C.). Once upon a time…
From Walter Williams’ new book Race and Economics, Chapter 3:
“Some might find it puzzling that, during times of gross racial discrimination, black unemployment was actually lower and blacks were more active in the labor force than they are today.” Haven’t we been told that blacks never had a pot-to-piss-in until the Civil Rights movement and Affirmative Action came along?
“Up until the late 1950’s, the labor force participation rate of black teenagers and adults was equal to or greater than their white counterparts…In 1910, 71% of black males older than 9 were employed compared with 51% of the whites...[and] as early as 1890, the duration of unemployment among blacks was actually shorter than it was among whites, whereas today, unemployment is both higher and longer lasting among blacks than among whites.” Now, what might have possibly driven this is that blacks were engaged in lower paying jobs. When they lost their jobs they ran out of money faster than whites, so they had to find another job faster. This does point to the fruitlessness of 99-weeks of unemployment though--there are jobs out there and people will find work when you stop paying them not to!
Dr. Williams continues:
“Now, how am I going to explain yesteryear’s lower black unemployment and greater labor force participation? Now, the usual academic and civil rights or media discrimination explanation for black/white socio-economic differences just doesn’t hold-up under this. I can’t imagine even the most hair-brained professor, civil rights leader or media “expert” arguing that there was less discrimination a century ago and that explains why there was greater black labor market participation? Racial discrimination can explain lower wages but not unemployment.”
In the 1930’s there were a number of Federal government interventions that changed the black employment picture and all sponsored by “progressive” DEMOCRATS.
“The Davis-Bacon Act of 1931--which the unions still insist on--mandated minimum wages on Federally-financed or assisted construction projects. During the bill’s legislative debate, though, the racial objectives of Davis-Bacon became clear.”
“Representative John Cochran (D-MO) said he had “…received numerous complaints about southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics, getting work and bringing the employees from the South.”
“Representative Clayton Allgood (D-AL) said “…reference has been made about a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. That contractor has cheap, colored-la
#102 Posted by C. Franklin Miller, CJR on Thu 30 Aug 2012 at 04:59 PM
“Representative Clayton Allgood (D-AL) said “…reference has been made about a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. That contractor has cheap, colored-labor that he transports and he puts-em in cabins--and it’s labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout this country.”
“Representative William Upshaw (D-GA) spoke about the “super-abundance of large aggregations of negro labor…and AFL President William Greene said, “Colored labor is being sought to demoralize wage rates.”
“For decades after the enactment of Davis-Bacon, black workers on Federally-financed or assisted construction projects virtually disappeared. The advantage black workers had, was not unlike the advantage of Mexican workers today. They were willing to work hard, to work long, and they were willing to work for less.” They were competition for whites! The organizations that promoted this segregated labor force then designed the Davis-Bacon Act and essentially took away the reason to hire black labor.
Dr. Williams continues:
“…Davis-Bacon is still on the books, too…and tragically, today’s black Congressmen--doing the bidding of their labor union allies--vote against any effort to modify or even eliminate its restrictions…the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 broadened the number of workers covered by minimum wages--with negative consequences for black employment across a much wider range of industries…Good intentions motivate most Americans in their support for minimum wage laws , but compassion and public policy…one should examine before these laws take affect.”
Put yourself in an employer’s shoes and, then ask yourself this question: If I have to pay anyone $7.25 an hour—minimum, (and that doesn’t include my share of Social Security and Workers’ Compensation, so let’s say $11.00)--whose minimal skills produce only $4.00 worth of value an hour…what is my incentive to even keep the doors open? That person is an economic liability on-the-job or on welfare, but…If I could pay him $4.00 an hour, I would. The minimum wage law discriminates against the lowest skilled workers because it reduces job opportunities…he never gets a chance to climb the ladder because he never gets on it.
When I was a little kid and I’d ride with my dad to the gas station, there’d be this young fellow who’d pump the gas, check the oil, and clean the windshield--a great entry-level job. He learned to show-up on time, to work hard, and that by the end of the week he had a pocket full of money--cool, that’s more than my allowance! Well, where did that job go? That job doesn’t produce $11.00 worth of value, so it disappeared…along with an opportunity of future achievements.
You try living on the minimum wage? Only three percent (3%) of Americans actually live on minimum wage--the other 97% who earn the minimum wage live in households that earn $60,000 a year or more…primarily kids who live at home. The minimum wage keeps getting jacked-up because: a) it sounds compassionate to people who know nothing about economics; and, b) those union contracts are tied to the minimum wage; therefore, every time they raise it their union buddies get a raise, automatically, without any collective bargaining.
Dr. Williams continues:
“Being unemployed has significant, negative, social-consequences, one of them…as noted in the 1960’s by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan--who raised the alarm about link between joblessness and the decline of the black family, pointing out that ‘men without work become less attractive as marriage partners; therefore, they don’t marry.’ Between the 1890 and 1940 a slightly greater percentage of black adults married than did white adults. Today, 72% of all children born to black adults are born fatherless--to single mothers.” What has changed? Not much…if you’re a Democrat. “Free your min
#103 Posted by C. Franklin Miller, CJR on Thu 30 Aug 2012 at 05:04 PM
“Free your mind and your ass will follow” goes an old Funkadelic tune.
As for Michelle Obama: In legislation on it’s way through the House--and bolstered by First Lady Michelle Obama’s Childhood Obesity Initiative-- soon to be on your doorstep:
Illinois-based food producer, Sara Lee, “…could soon face lower sales and higher costs and provide fewer jobs (lay-offs) if the [Obama] administration goes through with a particularly over-reaching food regulation that
would dramatically restrict their ability to advertise many food products--in the name of fighting childhood obesity. The proposed guideline would eliminate Sara Lee-owned Ball Park Hot Dogs from sponsorship of the Detroit Tigers, restrict athletes from appearing on General Mills’ Wheaties boxes, and restrict Sara Lee from advertising a lean turkey sandwich on whole wheat bread during the Super Bowl because people under 18 represent large audiences for these advertisements.” Are we the U.S.S.R. yet? Liberty and prosperity are greatly intertwined. Imagine telling a free, American athlete he can’t accept
an endorsement to appear on a cereal box because Michelle Obama doesn’t think it’s a good idea. This isn’t a representative republic anymore, it’s a regulatory dictatorship--and MussObamaLini means to kick-in your door!
CFM
#104 Posted by C. Franklin Miller, CJR on Thu 30 Aug 2012 at 05:07 PM
THE WORST: How Obama took so much credit for Seal team Six and their killing of Osama Bin Laden.
VETERANS ARE TIRED OF THE PHONY THAT BARACK OBAMA IS. WHEN DID THE NATIONAL MEDIA EVER COVER SPECIAL OPS INTEL? NEVER…UNTIL OBAMA…AND HERE’S THE COST.
I’d like to take this opportunity to remember SEAL TEAM 6. Seal Team 6 was created by Richard Marcinko after a failed rescue mission of Navy SEALS and Delta Force in Operation EAGLE CLAW. Previously known as Naval Special Warfare Development Group, they are a Tier-One counter-terrorism force which rescued--among so many others--Capt. Richard Phillips (USA) from Somali pirates in 2009.
The unit had carried out the raid in May that killed Osama bin Laden. They were being flown by a crew of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment. Despite official protocol which should have protected their identity during that mission, 30 American servicemen--25 of which were members of ST6--and their interpreter were attacked with rocket-propelled grenade launchers. The death toll would surpass the worst single-day loss of life for our country since the June 28, 1995 downing of a U.S. helicopter in eastern Kunar province. In that incident, 16 Navy SEALS and Army Special Ops troops were killed when their craft was shot down while on a mission to rescue 4 Navy SEALs under attack by the Taliban.
It was the highest one-day death toll for Navy Special Warfare personnel since World War II.
7 Afghans were killed.
And just ask the Secret Service what it thinks about Barack Husein and Michelle. Check out Sheriff Wild Bill at politicalarena.org and check out the Secret Service and the Obamas.
#105 Posted by C. Franklin Miller, CJR on Thu 30 Aug 2012 at 05:24 PM
It is very difficult to hold a meaningful debate over any issue with people who refuse to come to terms with actual facts of reality when they don't match up with their preconceived ideologies. They refuse to acknowledge that someone could legitimately disagree with them and when confronted with valid rebuttal they cannot refute, they resort to sarcasm, exaggeration, distortion, and outright falsity. In the weeks ahead there are two facts in evidence that all of us must keep in mind: Millions of Americans placed their hope and trust in Barack Obama to be President -- and he failed us. Miserably. And he has contiually lied to the American people and held us in contempt. Those are facts we must deal with straightforwardly.
#106 Posted by Chuck, CJR on Thu 30 Aug 2012 at 10:10 PM
The millions of people who hung their hopes and confidences on Obama got precisly what they voted for. What outrageous foolishness to vote for the school Janitor and expect him to run the University. A very emotional, frothing group of voters think their froth is all they need to display. There's adequate froth for the last president if he was a Republican. (If he was a Democrat he automatically gains Saint Hood regardless of the course of crime# I'm not sure there is any hope for a group of voters who remain absolutely ignorant about where money comes from ( the rich of course, stupid! ) and what happens when it is not spent wisely. The democrats hold all in great contempt that see the world and the problems differently......So blind they have become that they are willing to vote again for the same school janitor that has all but driven the University into bankrupcty. ...................
#107 Posted by BEV TRIGILIO, CJR on Sun 2 Sep 2012 at 10:37 PM
After reading your "rant" sounds like you are the mouth piece for the President and his administration, How about some unbiased journalism from you since that is what you are accusing Forbes of not doing?
#108 Posted by vahillbilly, CJR on Thu 13 Sep 2012 at 01:59 PM
While I respect journalism, the idea that any modern era "journalism" has any form of unbias is ridiculous. Columbia University has been the leader in training and developing liberal left thinking comrades in their pursuit of dominance in the media. Obviously, getting a degree in journalism at Columbia doesn't require a "liberal arts" degree that would benefit from additional economics and history courses in its curriculum. While the utopian socialists are yearning for another Obama term so he can finish "the job of fundamentally transforming America", there are some who recognize the patterns of his actions as detrimental to our society. Ask yourselves this questions? Why is it that the presidential debates always need to be hosted and lead by leftist journalists? Will the questions be to Obama, "What is your favorite soup?" "Is Michelle a good dancer?" "Do you enjoy traveling on Air Force One?". The questions for Romney will be, " Though you lack experience in foriegn policy, do you really think that you can do the job of commander-in-chief, being so out of touch with normal Americans?", or "How can you defend making so much money, that's probably invested in Swiss Bank accounts, while other s are suffering and Mr. Obama feels their pain?"
You egg heads are really disgusting.
#109 Posted by Harold Megargel, CJR on Thu 13 Sep 2012 at 02:36 PM