Michael Savage about Hillary Clinton, Susan Rise & Samantha Power
September 12, 2012
This entry was posted on уторак, 18. септембра 2012. at 1:34 pm and is filed under Аrticles on english. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Russians Say Anti-U.S. Attack in Libya Vindicates Their Position
By ELLEN BARRY
Published: September 12, 2012
MOSCOW — Upon learning of the violent death of the United States ambassador to Libya on Wednesday, many Russians responded with variations on “I told you so.”
Yevgeny Y. Satanovsky, president of the Institute of the Middle East in Moscow, said American leaders should not expect “one word of sympathy” from their Russian counterparts.
“It is a tragedy to the family of the poor ambassador, but his blood is on the hands of Hillary Clinton personally and Barack Obama personally,” Mr. Satanovsky said. He said Russian warnings against intervention in the Middle East came from the bitter experience of the Soviets in Afghanistan.
“You are the Soviet Union now, guys, and you pay the price,” he said. “You are trying to distribute democracy the way we tried to distribute socialism. You do it the Western way. They hate both.” He said dictators were preferable to the constellation of armed forces that emerges when they are unseated.
“They lynched Qaddafi — do you really think they will be thankful to you?” he said. “They use stupid white people from a big rich and stupid country which they really hate.”
Russia’s case against American involvement in the Middle East dates from the post-Sept. 11 campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it has been at the forefront of Russian discourse for at least a year, since Mr. Putin broke out of his role as prime minister and delivered a passionate criticism of the NATO bombing campaign in Libya, leaving the clear impression that he — unlike his predecessor — would have used Russia’s power in the United Nations to stop it.
Mr. Putin has dug his heels in on the issue of Syria, frustrating Western hopes that he could persuade Mr. Assad to leave his post voluntarily. Fyodor Lukyanov, a respected analyst and editor of Russia in Global Affairs, said violence like Tuesday’s had been at the heart of Russia’s warnings. He said Russia had formulated a “post-Communist position: If you try to impose anything on others, as the Soviet Union tried to do, the result will be the opposite, and disastrous.”
“This killing is just strengthening the views which are already quite widespread — that the Western approach to the Arab Spring is basically wrong,” Mr. Lukyanov said.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: September 17, 2012
The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy Is on Your Screen
By Jonathan Chait
Liberals like to believe that our strength derives solely from the natural concordance of the people, that we represent what most Americans believe, or would believe if not for the distorting rightward pull of Fox News and the Koch brothers and the rest. Conservatives surely do benefit from these outposts of power, and most would rather indulge their own populist fantasies than admit it. But they do have a point about one thing: We liberals owe not a small measure of our success to the propaganda campaign of a tiny, disproportionately influential cultural elite.
When Joe Biden endorsed gay marriage in May, he cited Will & Grace as the single-most important driving force in transforming public opinion on the subject. In so doing he actually confirmed the long-standing fear of conservatives—that a coterie of Hollywood elites had undertaken an invidious and utterly successfully propaganda campaign, and had transmuted the cultural majority into a minority.
In the forties, a faction of Hollywood conservatives formed the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals. Its purported role was to suppress the phantasmal threat that Communists would “pervert this powerful medium into an instrument for the dissemination of un-American ideas and beliefs.” In reality, the Alliance wanted to organize the moguls as a reactionary business organization. It distributed to studios a Screen Guide for Americans, instructing them, in minute detail, how to apply ideological filters to their movies. To write its guide, the Alliance hired a Russian-immigrant screenwriter with deep ties to the Hollywood right—Ayn Rand. Her youthful brush with communism had left Rand with, among other things, a formative belief in the power of culture as a medium of propaganda.
A 1990 survey by University of Texas professor David Prindle compared the political inclinations of “Hollywood opinion leaders” with Americans as a whole. Ninety-seven percent of the Hollywood sample believed “it’s all right for blacks and whites to date each other,” compared with 53 percent of Americans as a whole. Sixty-eight percent of the Hollywood contingent, but only 12 percent of the country at large, supported gay rights.
everal years ago, a trio of researchers working for the Inter-American Development Bank set out to help solve a sociological mystery. Brazil had, over the course of four decades, experienced one of the largest drops in average family size in the world, from 6.3 children per woman in 1960 to 2.3 children in 2000. What made the drop so curious is that, unlike the Draconian one-child policy in China, the Brazilian government had in place no policy to limit family size. (It was actually illegal at some point to advertise contraceptives in the overwhelmingly Catholic country.) What could explain such a steep drop? The researchers zeroed in on one factor: television.
Television spread through Brazil in the mid-sixties.
In a 2009 study, economists Robert Jensen and Emily Oster detected a similar pattern in India. A decade ago, cable television started to expand rapidly into the Indian countryside, where deeply patriarchal views had long prevailed. But not all villages got cable television at once, and its random spread created another natural experiment.
Television and movies in the United States could never have the same kind of revolutionary impact they wield in cloistered Third World villages. But the human brain is the human brain.
Airdate: September 12,2012
New Video Shows Obama-Backed Syrian Rebels Burning U.S. Flag
Why is the White House funding extremists who hate America?
Paul Joseph Watson
September 19, 2012
A second video has emerged which shows rebels in Syria, backed by the Obama administration to the tune of millions in taxpayer dollars, burning a U.S. flag as they chant anti-American slogans.
“America produced a derogatory film,” reads one of the banners as the crowd chants “Muhammad is our leader!”
The shot then pans to a group of men who set an American flag on fire as the crowd chants “Allahu Akbar”. An Israeli flag is also set on fire as well as a Russian flag.
The video again serves to illustrate the disconnect between the Obama administration’s decision to send millions in taxpayer money to help extremists who hate America in their bid to overthrow President Bashar Al-Assad.
[…] Michael Savage about Hillary Clinton, Susan Rise & Samantha Power […]
Попуните детаље испод или притисните на иконицу да бисте се пријавили:
Коментаришет користећи свој WordPress.com налог.
( Одјавите се /
Коментаришет користећи свој Google налог.
( Одјавите се /
Коментаришет користећи свој Twitter налог.
( Одјавите се /
Коментаришет користећи свој Facebook налог.
( Одјавите се /
Повезивање са %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Обавести ме о новим чланцима преко е-поште.
Блог на WordPress.com.