Tag Archives: President of the United States

Gaffe vs. “gaffe” and media bias

If you only consume the mainstream media then you are ignorant by choice.

I realize that pointing out liberal media bias is in the shooting-fish-in-a-barrel category, but this example is so timely and obvious that I wanted to highlight it.  Just like they had to destroy Sarah Palin (and sadly, it looks like this is an example of them succeeding), they are now going after Michele Bachmann.  Nothing sets the allegedly feminist liberals on edge like a pro-life, Christian woman.

Ignoring the fact that they have already researched her background more than they ever did Obama’s (again, the same as with Palin), we have this example of an alleged but insignificant gaffe by Bachmann (a slight misstatement about the birthplace of John Wayne) versus a real and more serious gaffe by Obama.  Guess which got the vast majority of media coverage?

Via Lessons in Media Bias for Jon Stewart | Verum Serum.

Now compare the treatment of Bachmann to the press’ handling of another gaffe just a few days earlier.

Four days before Bachmann’s gaffe the President of the United states told a group of soldiers that he’d given a Medal Honor award to one of their members while he was still alive. Only the man the President named got the Medal posthumously and the man who received it while still alive was not part of that division. Oops!

It’s a similar mistake to the one Bachmann supposedly made, i.e. confusing two people with similar heroism rather than similar names. So how many news outlets reported the Obama gaffe? Going again to Google News, we see the answer is eleven. Granted there are hundreds more articles listed in this search, but most of those came after Obama admitted the gaffe and apologized for it. The media was not at all eager to jump on this gaffe. And even if you include all of the stories, it’s still a 4:1 spread in favor of Bachmann (if by “in favor” you mean against her).

So when Bachmann makes a mistake about a long deceased actor’s birthplace, the media makes up a story about what they think she meant and runs with it even after she denies it. When Obama makes an undeniably embarrassing gaffe about someone he’s actually met in the past year, the media ignores it and only lightly touches on it after he’s had time to apologize.

Oh, and have you heard about how Obama misstated the age of his daughter?  I’d give him a pass on that (I accidentally called one of the dogs by my youngest daughter’s name once or twice!), but that isn’t the issue.  The issue is how the Leftist media treats these things.  If it were Bachmann or Palin you’d hear about it for years (i.e., Quayle’s “potatoe”).  But with Obama it is quickly forgotten.

Again, if you only consume the mainstream media then you are ignorant by choice.

Did he really say that?!

As if we needed more evidence that Liberals Liberals fail at basic economics, we have the President of the United States saying this:

There are some structural issues with our economy where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers. You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don’t go to a bank teller, or you go to the airport and you’re using a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.  Barack Obama

That is an epic FAIL on so many levels.  It isn’t a structural issue, it is a foundational and wonderful element of our capitalistic economy.  The unemployment rate didn’t nearly double because of ATMs (and despite wasting a trillion dollars trying and failing to keep it below 8%).  It is a pathetic attempt for him to avoid responsibility.

Why is a “progressive” like Obama so opposed to progress?  Does he think that his beloved teleprompters pre-dated agriculture?  No, they exist because people took risks, worked hard and were rewarded for creativity and automation.

He should be embarrassed, and the media should mock him until their throats (TV and radio) and fingertips (print) are raw.  Using his “logic,” we’d have higher employment if it weren’t for advancements like ATM machines.  Ignoring the jobs of those who make, install, maintain, and write software for these machines, does Obama think that other countries won’t continue to automate even if we stopped?  If businesses don’t automate then costs go up compared to other countries and we lose even more jobs.  You could require that all cars be made by hand, but would anyone ever buy a U.S. car over an inexpensive and higher quality foreign model?

I say without exaggeration that I’ve taught Junior Achievement classes to 7th graders who understand basic economic principles better than him.  There was an exercise asking if you should automate your bike factory to save money and improve quality, even though it would reduce jobs.  Many kids initially opposed this because they forgot about the other bike makers.  When I pointed out that without automation everyone would eventually lose their jobs, they realized the benefits of progress.

As Stacy McCain adds in Pointing Out the Obvious: They Don’t Teach Economics at Harvard Law School : The Other McCain:

The president is attempting here to offer a simplistic explanation of the difference between cyclical unemployment and structuralunemployment. As important as that distinction is, however, it fails to explain many obvious things about this recession.

Unemployment isn’t at 9% because of out-of-work bank clerks and airline ticket agents. Unemployment is most severe in construction trades and other housing-related sectors. Whatever else Obama’s policies have done, they have not led to a meaningful recovery of the housing market and, one might easily argue, have made things much worse. Why? Because for two years, the administration and Democrats in Congress did everything possible to impede the foreclosure process, to keep deadbeats in homes they can’t afford. This has slowed re-sales, prevented mortgage lenders from cutting their losses on bad loans and, in general, hindered the kind of price “re-set” necessary to making the housing market efficient again.

Something else: The recession is not equally bad everywhere. Why is unemployment nearly 12% in California but less than 6% in Oklahoma? Don’t people in Oklahoma use ATMs and automated airline ticket kiosks?

I could go on and on, but it is such a shooting-fish-in-a-barrel topic.  If only the Left could see how intellectually bankrupt and counterproductive Obama’s economics are.  The youth who voted for him are starting to see it (their vision seems to be better when standing in the unemployment line rather than at his “hope and change” speeches).


If you want to see something delusional, watch the head of the Democrat National Committee claim that Obama has turned the economy around.  Uh, yeah, sure, 9.1% unemployment, skyrocketing deficits and debt, gas over $4 a gallon (which was Bush’s fault when he was in office but apparently a good thing when Obama is in power, because it reduces global warming blah blah blah), etc.

Also see Obama Puts Unions Ahead of a Healthy Economy, Free Trade for an example of why it is hard to believe he even wants to reduce the unemployment rate.

Coveting apparently not a sin in the UCC

See UCC Action Alert: Stand up for the Common Good this Thanksgiving.

Apparently the fakes in the UCC like false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie ignore the the 10th Commandment just like they ignore so many others (worshiping other gods, condoning the killing of thousands of  innocent human beings per day via abortion, sex outside of one man / one woman marriages, etc.).  Chuck & Co. deeply desire to take money from neighbor A to give to neighbor B.  After all, God must not have distributed it properly in the first place so we need the UCC to straighten out his mistakes.

Because even though neighbor A provides jobs for people that Chuck claims to care about, they must be punished for their success!  Oh, and even with the Bush tax cuts those folks still paid the vast majority of all taxes.

And the UCC wants to consider their takeaway biblical generosity on their part!  How convenient: “Give away” other people’s money.  Release endorphins.  Check.

Hey, I wonder how much Chuck and the UCC Liberals give out of their own pockets?  People who don’t give generously should not even be listened to when it comes to taking money from others by force. Their foundational hypocrisy proves their untrustworthiness.

Consider our very rich President, Barack Obama (a proud member of the UCC, btw):

Barack Obama has a rather poor track record when it comes to charitable contributions. He consistently gave 1 percent of his income to charity. In his most charitable year, 2005, he earned $1.7 million (two and a half times what George W. Bush earned) but gave about the same dollar amount as the President.

Wow, a whole percent!  Hope and change, baby.  Maybe “Reverend” Wright preached on giving on all those Sundays where Barack was too busy to worship.

UCC = Unitarians Coveting (your) Cash

P.S. Remember that one of Chuck’s solutions to reducing poverty is to kill more people in the womb.  And the fact that the ratio of abortions for blacks is 3x that of whites doesn’t seem to bother him at all.  In fact, he supports taxpayer-funded abortions which will increase that ratio.  How ironic for a race-baiter like him . . .

False teachers and bad politicians cause poverty then pretend they can reduce it

False teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie‘s text made about as much sense as the blog title: The Rev. Chuck Currie: President’s Leadership Needed To Cut Poverty By 50% Over Ten Years #poverty @fpwf.

We are fortunate to have in the White House a president who once worked as a community organizer – a job that had him working in neighborhoods and churches to fight poverty at the local level.  Perhaps no president in modern times has such intimate knowledge or obvious commitment to this issue.  It is also clear that the White House staff shares the president’s deep concern about poverty.

Uh, you call that fortunate?  I think it is rather unfortunate that the President’s top job before becoming a Senator was being a community organizer.  What business did he ever run or even work in?  Does he know how real jobs are created or sustained?

Theological Liberals like Chuck can’t even get the basics of Christianity right or even run a successful Liberal church in a Liberal denomination in a Liberal town. And Liberals fail at economics.  But he thinks we should listen to his economic ideas?  Yeah, we’ll get right on that.

Pro-abort Obama pretends to care about the kids

See Vote: Biggest vomit line from pro-abort Obama’s speech to school kids today – Jill Stanek.

Some of the most revolting lines that pro-abortion President Obama delivered:

1. “Nobody gets to write your destiny but you. Your future is in your hands.”

2. “So, what I want to say to you today – what I want all of you to take away from my speech – is that life is precious….”

3. “This is a country that gives all its daughters and all its sons a fair chance. A chance to make the most of their lives. A chance to fulfill their God-given potential.”

False teachers like Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis and Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie are pro-abortion as well, supporting “partial birth” abortion — aka infanticide (at least in Chuck’s case) — and taxpayer-funded abortions.

Pro-aborts like Chuck, Jim and Barrack are either ignorant of science and/or moral deviants, because it is a scientific fact that the unborn are unique, living human beings from conception.

Oh, wait, Chuck and the other “Christians” claim that “God is still speaking;” and that Jesus is pro-legalized abortion, so I guess that settles it.  Nothing like blaspheming the Holy Spirit to rationalize the crushing and dismembering of innocent human beings.

Read all of the President’s quotes again and add this line: ” . . . unless you are still in your mother’s womb, in which case she can have you destroyed if she wants.”  It reads like this:

1. “Nobody gets to write your destiny but you, unless you are still in your mother’s womb, in which case she can have you destroyed if she wants.. Your future is in your hands, unless you are still in your mother’s womb, in which case she can have you destroyed if she wants.”

2. “So, what I want to say to you today – what I want all of you to take away from my speech – is that life is precious, unless you are still in your mother’s womb, in which case she can have you destroyed if she wants.”

3. “This is a country that gives all its daughters and all its sons a fair chance, unless you are still in your mother’s womb, in which case she can have you destroyed if she wants. A chance to make the most of their lives, unless you are still in your mother’s womb, in which case she can have you destroyed if she wants. A chance to fulfill their God-given potential, unless you are still in your mother’s womb, in which case she can have you destroyed if she wants.”