If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by John Charlton

The New York Times is 90% controlled by the heirs of a famous German-American Jew, Adolph S. Ochs.  Image:  Wikimedia Commons, public domain

(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.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. If you go to the Mario Apuzzo website and actually read the Initial Appeals Brief of Jan 19, 2010, you’re in for a real eye-opener (as are the DOJ attorneys “defending” Obama using our tax money).

    That’s doubly ironic since these attorneys – and their bosses – took an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign AND domestic but they are now in the position of actually attacking that very document rather than defending it and are trying to get an obviously ineligible man to remain in an office he has never shown himself to be eligible to hold.

    The wonderful Apuzzo Brief is a primer on both Constitutional law, the meaning of it, the Founders’ intent vis-a-vis Article II of the Constitution and a forceful put-down of the lies and misinformation put forth by the Obama Flying Monkeys such as “smrstrauss” and others.

    I’d urge everyone to read the Initial Appeals Brief from Attorney Apuzzo’s website along with the many essays by both Mario Apuzzo AND his Lead Plaintiff, Charles F. Kerchner. While there, it would really help to donate even a small amount to the publicity/education fund presently used only for full-page newspaper ads in the Washington Times National Weekly Edition.

    The Brief gives a very good overview of the original action AND it puts the lie to the many false arguments by the Obot Flying Monkeys about why BHO is either (their words) eligible to hold the office he now occupies OR that it (their words) doesn’t matter that he is not eligible. Your understanding of the relation of the U. S. Constitution to We The People will be forever enlightened.

  2. When Americans or media attempt to mock or ridicule in order to shut down questions or conversation regarding Mr. Obama’s citizenship, THAT action itself is a red flag.

    It’s not conspiracy when evidence exists to refute the question.

    It’s not un-American to question citizenship which is a fundamental foundation of our Constitution.

    Every American should be questioning why a birth record would be sealed for an individual holding the highest office in our nation and the most powerful position.

    We only seal records for 2 reasons, right? To hide something or protect someone – so which is it?

    Question with boldness, I recall the phrase.

    1. More:

      From Newsweek:

      By David A. Graham
      Feb 12, 2010

      “1. Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

      Kernel of Truth? It’s fully debunked. Forged Kenyan birth certificates have been exposed, and—despite protestations to the contrary—Obama’s birth certificate has been certified by the state of Hawaii, and images have been shown on national television. And that’s leaving aside plenty of circumstantial proof, like birth announcements in both major Hawaiian papers from August 1961.”


      1. Pay attention Gordo. It is more than about where Obama was born. Even if he was born in Hawaii, Obama would still not be a natural born citizen because his father was not a US citizen. To be a natural born citizen, you have to be born in the US to citizen parents (plural). The US Supreme Court affirmed this definition in the 1874 case of Minor v. Happersett and at least 3 other cases (recently reported by the Post & Email).

      2. To TexomaEd @ February 16, 2010 at 10:03 PM


        You misunderstand the point of my post.

        John Charlton @ February 16, 2010 at 1:38 PM:

        “There seems to be a tacit agreement between news agencies to repeat the same lie:”


        “More” meant another example of a news agency repeating the same lies.


        “Pay attention Gordo.”

        I’ve been paying attention and posting (and battling Obots) about NBC (parentS, not just birth place) since June 2008.

    2. About Orly:
      I haven’t heard all this gossip until now, but ….


      Mr. Charlton replies: I think that it is sufficient to say that the Judge in the case found insufficient evidence for wrong doing on the part of anyone. But it is best to let the rest of the matter be forgotten, as it is a side issue to the National Crisis of a Usurper in power.

      The left makes much of the foibles of their opposition, simply because they themselves have no valid reason for being supported, since they have no integrity themselves. But the issues should be judge on principles, not on those who don’t have them.

      The left will not let it go, however, because most of them are sexual perverts or addicts.

  3. You have oft heard it said ; that we are a nation of immigrants well…..
    The Founders/Framers had no intentions, what-so-ever, of permitting NON- U.S. immigrants to install their offspring as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces aka “The President”

  4. New York State — 3rd Dept.
    Mark S. Ochs, Chief Attorney
    Third Judicial Department
    Committee on Professional Standards
    Alfred E. Smith Office Bldg., 22nd Floor
    P.O. Box 7013
    Capitol Station Annex
    Albany, NY 12225-0013
    Phone: 518/474-8816 Fax: 518/474-0389