If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
HAS PULITZER-PRIZE WINNING JOURNALIST DONE A HACK JOB ON PATRIOTS, CONSTITUTIONALISTS, AND PRO-SOVEREIGNTY U.S. CITIZENS?
by John Charlton
(Feb. 16, 2010) — Yesterday, The Post & Email reported on the Saudi control and influence at FOX News and how FOX news, accordingly, had launched an attack against U.S. Citizens running for their State Governor’s office who question Obama’s eligibility.
That same day, The New York Times launched its own attack against U.S. Citizens who are members of the Tea-party Movement, criticizing them for supporting the U.S. Constitution, national sovereignty, economic liberty, and the Bill of Rights.
The New York Times is published by The New York Times Company, which also owns the Boston Globe, the International Business Tribune, Boston.com and About.com, 33 other websites, and a minority share in the Boston Red Sox baseball team. The company is controlled by the heirs of Adolph Ochs, a reformed Jew, who purchased it more than a century ago. The Ochs family originates in the same region of Germany as the notorious international banking family, the Rothschilds. Indeed, it is not surprising, then, that the NYT has promoted the Bilderberg agenda, which latter organization is controlled by the Rothschild family.
The point man for the NYT propaganda piece against the Tea-Party movement is David Barstow, who won the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Journalism. The selection of Barstow to do the report, therefore, is indicative of the firmness of the decision by the editorial board at The New York Times to declare open war against the patriot movement.
The five-page piece, authored by Barstow, entitled “Tea Party Movement Lights Fuse for Rebellion on Right,” is an example of precisely crafted propaganda from title on downward. First of all, Barstow, despite his Pulitzer, does not realize, or has not discovered, that many Tea-Party Movement members are from the political left, whether they are moderate Democrats, PUMAs, Libertarians or Green Party advocates. As it only takes a Google search to discover that, perhaps he should return his Pulitzer for investigative journalism.
But then again, Pulitzer Prizes are not known to be objective indications of truthfulness, awarded as they are by the notoriously liberal Columbia University, alleged alma-mater of Barack Hussein Obama a.k.a Barry Soetoro, and former haunt of Professors Cloward & Piven, who advocated the overthrow of Western Capitalist society.
Barstow got his Pulitzer Prize for uncovering Pentagon activity in promoting ex-Military personnel to comment publicly on talk shows in favor of the wars conducted by the United States against the Socialist regime of Saddam Hussein and the Islamic Fundamentalists of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
It is no surprise, then, that he should be eager to expose Christians and pro-Capitalist U.S. Citizens who are working to protect the U.S.A. against Socialists and Islamists.
Barstow’s remaining display of prestidigitation on the keyboard emphasizes that Tea-partyers are politically naive, are misled of Glenn Beck’s harangues, and are represented by fringe organizations like the John Birch Society, 9/12ers, and Oath-Keepers.
Barstow appears to have taken the cue from FOX news and Eric Erickson at Redstate.com and completely omits mention of members of the Eligibility Movement among the Tea-Partyers.
He closes his piece with a favorable report about Tony Stewart, a liberal resident of Idaho, who sees it as his duty to protect Idaho from the stain of a reputation for being a right-wing state. Barstow writes:
When the Tea Party uprising gathered force last spring, Mr. Stewart saw painfully familiar cultural and rhetorical overtones. Mr. Stewart viewed the questions about Mr. Obama’s birthplace as a proxy for racism, and he was bothered by the “common message of intolerance for the opposition.”
“It’s either you’re with us or you’re the enemy,” he said.
Mr. Stewart heard similar concerns from other civil rights activists around the country. They could not help but wonder why the explosion of conservative anger coincided with a series of violent acts by right wing extremists. In the Inland Northwest there had been a puzzling return of racist rhetoric and violence.
Mr. Stewart said it would be unfair to attribute any of these incidents to the Tea Party movement. “We don’t have any evidence they are connected,” he said.
Still, he sees troubling parallels. Branding Mr. Obama a tyrant, Mr. Stewart said, constructs a logic that could be used to rationalize violence. “When people start wearing guns to rallies, what’s the next thing that happens?” Mr. Stewart asked.
Stewart, like Barstow, shows advanced signs of liberal free-think, since for them, in war, it is a sign of mental instability to consider that there are two opposing sides.
But, why criticism them for that? Traitors have always spoken thus.