The New York Times/CBS/Karl Marx poll

October 27, 2011 § Leave a comment

The Marxist school of economic thought comes f...

Image via Wikipedia

A News article published by the New York Times, dated Oct. 26, is headlined; “Poll Finds Deep Distrust In Government”.

No one needed one more poll to tell us that people get it that the country is headed in the wrong direction. But it took the New York Times to somehow devise a poll that parrots Democrat talking points and puts all the blame on Republicans. Worse yet, the supposed results also suggest that everyone has decided to adopt Marxism, an ideology, it is alleged by some, to be embraced by Obama.  Speeches like one he gave in 2008 while at a campaign stop give rise to that thinking: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”, said Obama. Not a lot of ambiguity in that.

This outrageous Times summary included in their poll report leaps off the pages: “With nearly all Americans remaining fearful that the economy is stagnating or deteriorating even further, two-thirds of the public said wealth should be distributed more evenly. Seven in 10 Americans think the policies of Congressional Republicans favor the rich. Two-thirds object to tax cuts for corporations and a similar number prefer increasing income taxes on millionaires.”

Consider this appalling line; “two-thirds of the public said wealth should be distributed more evenly”. Wow! So your average American, brought up in our wonderful country with its huge opportunities that resulted from a free market economy, now feels we should embrace Marxism and redistribute wealth? Not a chance.

To illustrate how closely this specious poll connects to the president’s agenda, consider these excerpts from a recent speech by Obama “…for us to solve this problem, everybody, including the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations, have to pay their fair share.” And from elsewhere in the speech; “And that’s why this plan (jobs plan) eliminates tax loopholes that primarily go to the wealthiest taxpayers and biggest corporations –-

Obama then tells his audience of his run-in with Speaker Boehner. Obama says that he told Boehner; “… we can’t afford these special lower rates for the wealthy…it would also mean asking sacrifice of seniors and the middle class and the poor, while asking nothing of the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.

The credibility of the Times poll is zero. There are few people who would argue against the well-known fact that the Times has turned into a Democrat bullhorn. But to create a specious poll to support the Democrat agenda is breath-taking in its audacity.

A last note about the Times article is this odious sentence; “The poll findings underscore a dissatisfaction and restlessness heading into the election season that has been highlighted through competing voices from the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements…”

‘Competing voices’? Where does this nonsense come from? This is a pathetic attempt to drop the Tea Party down to the level of the dumb and dumber Occupy clods. The Occupy mob has no clue about what they are doing, why they are doing it or what they want to happen as a result. When questioned, some of these unemployed losers say they want ‘all money to be gotten rid of’ or ‘all spending on the military should stop’ or that everyone should be given a salary whether they work or not.

Tea Party protesters fill the National Mall on...

Image via Wikipedia

The Tea Party movement has a purpose: Reduce the size and influence of government and do so by getting rid of politicians who feel otherwise. To mention them in the same sentence with Occupy buffoons is insulting to the millions of Americans who belive in the Tea Party’s objectives.

It is sad that the once great New York Times is no longer a credible source of new. We’d like to see exactly what was in that poll. Show us the specific questions, the poll protocol and most importantly, the poll demographics and political affiliation of responders. 







New York Times, Poll, Obama, Obama poll numbers, Karl Marx, distribute wealth, Tea party, Wall Street Occupy, approval, approval rating


Obama’s Foreign Policy; where fools stumble in

October 24, 2011 § Leave a comment

President of Iran @ Columbia University.

Image via Wikipedia

Obama Touts Foreign Policy Successes Reads headlines Saturday, October 22, 2011

Obama, of course, is crowing about Gaddaffi’s overthrow, which is good, the Iraq troop withdrawal, which is a questionable decision, and the killing of some terrorists, which is very good. But let’s leave those to discuss later and begin by looking at some much wider issues that directly impact America’s interests and security.

How about Iran? Obama’s idea for a foreign policy strategy was to reach out to president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who has publicly and repeatedly said he would like nothing more than to destroy America, as well as Israel. So Obama reached out his hand, and Ahmadinejad slapped it – hard and repeatedly. Iran has actually sped up its nuclear weapons capability and laughed off Obama’s threats of more sanctions. So what is Obams’s policy now? More sanctions being sought. Duh? How’s that strike you as a foreign policy success?

Senator Obama campaigned on the sophomoric idea that he, being the one who could heal the world and lower the seas, could fix foreign policy issues by simply talking to tyrannical leaders in Iran or reasoning with potential rivals such as Russia and China, as well as with actual enemies who have vowed to kill Americans at every chance.

In the case of the former, Obama caved in badly to Vladimir Putin when he trashed agreements with the Czechs and Poles that would have provided them with missile defenses. Putin walked away with a new START Treaty – a treaty so one-sided in favor of Russia that it would have been an embarrassment to any other President. The Democrat dominated Senate ratified the treaty, of course. Obama got snookered, yet he arrogantly touts this treaty as an accomplishment. Is Putin’s slam-dunk a foreign policy success?

Last year the New York Times spun the START debacle in a news analysis as this: “(Obama) … came away with an arms control treaty that, while modest, sets the stage for better relations.” Well, our better relations are an almost continuous barrage of trash talking by the soon to be next Russian president, Vladimir Putin who now knows how weak Obama is.

Issues with China are no closer to resolution than they were when Obama took office. Currency manipulation by China is unchanged, human rights atrocities remain unchanged and they continue to rip off our intellectual property. Is this a foreign policy success?

In the Mideast, Obama’s bungling and mixed messages have somehow managed to promote disdain from both the Arabs in Palestine and the Jews in Israel. We are probably farther now from a peace accord than in the last sixty years. Is this a foreign policy success?

Over in North Korea, their little tin pot dictator is happily shooting missiles into the sea, blowing away a South Korean ship and spouting off about how they will destroy the U.S. And they keep developing nuclear weapons, while Obama sits on his hands. Is this a foreign policy success?

In Afghanistan, Karzai is making Obama look like a hapless fool. He has threatened to join forces with the Taliban and over the weekend, made the claim that he would back Pakistan if the U.S. went to war with that country. Afghanistan is a country you will recall, that the U.S. has spent billions on in aid and more treasure and human sacrifice in a war to help prop up and save Karzai’s government. How’s that for a foreign policy success?

There are numerous smaller embarrassments for our country as a result of Obama’s incompetence. The utter humiliation of an American president apologizing to France, in France, for American ‘arrogance’ (Obama should talk), his return of the Churchill bust that sat in the Oval office as a loan from Tony Blair following 9/11 which ruffled feathers in Great Britain, or how about giving Tony Blair CD’s as a present – that can’t be played in his country, or bowing to the Chinese Leader Hu and to Japan’s Emperor Akihito?

There are so many small, but significant flubs by this administration that America is laughed at by the rest of the world. Like Secretary Clinton giving Russian Foreign Minister Lavov a ‘reset’ button (which instead of saying ‘reset’ said ‘overloaded’ eliciting derision in Russia), or giving the Queen of England an iPod? Or how about the First Lady putting her hands on the queen of England. Classy, huh?

Yet, here we have Obama bragging about killing bin Laden. The president’s part in this? When presented with the option of going forward after the CIA had found the terrorist leader and developed a plan using Navy Seals to take him out, Obama said yes That is, after sitting on the decision for 12 hours. Ditto the killing of Al-awlaki. That is not foreign policy, that is simply deciding to allow our military and intelligence people to do their jobs.

What about Libya? After weeks of indecision, Obama decided to support the rebels but did so in a way that he could claim success if there was success and back away from it if there was failure. The so-called leading from behind is probably the most pathetic act of foreign intervention that any country’s leader has ever carried out. Bush would have gone in and gotten it over in about two weeks. Instead, the operation which Obama said would take ‘days or weeks not months’, took seven months and cost over a billion dollars.

It’s obvious that Obama is a terrible economic president. Despite his campaign bragging, he is also a dreadful foreign policy president.

obama, foreign policy, russia, iran, ahmadinejad, putin, karzai, afghanistan, china

NY Times: Perry’s campaign, might have, possibly, maybe did, something wrong

October 18, 2011 § 2 Comments

Perry Event 2/1/2010

Image via Wikipedia

Below is an article in the 10/18/11 New York Times online Digest. It is an example of how to attack a political opponent by innuendo, heresay and distortion. I have parsed it out.

Is this a leading headline or am I crazy? Who raised the questions, hmmmm??

In the first two weeks of Rick Perry’s presidential campaign, his aides turned to Brian D. Pardo, a Texas businessman under investigation by federal securities regulators, to use his business jet to fly to campaign events. Perry’s campaign ‘turned to a businessman ‘under investigation’. How did the campaign ‘turn to’ this man? Answer: they used his jet to make some campaign stops and then paid for those flights. That’s it.
The Perry campaign paid Pardo about $21,000 for two days of flights that, according to, totaled about nine hours in the air.
In an interview, Pardo said he told the campaign to reimburse him whatever federal law required. The Perry campaign “did it very properly,” Pardo said.
But had the campaign rented the same plane, it could have cost up to three times as much, other interviews suggest. That raises the question of whether Perry effectively received an unreported campaign contribution by underpaying for Pardo’s jet. “But had the campaign rented the same plane’ and ‘it could have cost’? What kind of journalism is this? Note ‘other interviews’. Who, and what is their credibility? Also, the comment that this ‘raises a question’ is not explained. Who is raising it? The NY Times person who wrote the story I have to assume.
Asked about the estimate that chartering the whole plane for those flights would have cost up to $60,000 — and not $21,000 — an aide to Perry said, “Maybe it would have cost that much to charter a plane, but for reimbursement, you pay by the seat.”
Campaign-finance experts (what campaign-finance experts?) say the law now generally requires presidential campaigns to pay the “normal and usual charter fare or rental charge” (generally? so what is the law in this situation?) that would have to be paid if the jet were leased from a charter company. NYT

So there you have it. Guilty of campaign fraud through the investigation, prosecution and conviction by a New York Times reporter.

The New York Times take on Solyndra scandal

October 17, 2011 § Leave a comment

House Examines Deal  With Solyndra
The Energy Department may have made a decision without precedent when it allowed Solyndra, the now bankrupt solar technology company, to restructure its loans so private investors — not the government — would have first call on its assets in case of liquidation, two Treasury Department officials acknowledged Friday before a House subcommittee. But the hearing did not shed light on whether the arrangement violated federal law, something the Energy Department denies.

This short and somewhat innocent bit of reporting appeared on the third page of the NY Times on-line Times Digest. From the sound of it, there is a question about the legality of the subordination of the federal government’s loan repayment to private investors. The last sentence suggests ambiguity.

There is no ambiguity. It is illegal.





solyndra, federal loan, energy department, house of representatives, issa

Where Am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for October, 2011 at Fixxions.