Archive for Independents

In Defense Of Hillary Clinton Women Who Hate Other Women: The Psychological Root of Snarky [Psychology Dot Com]

Posted in 2016 Presidency, Hillary Clinton, Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 15, 2015 by sheriffali

 

As a Man I think it is fair to say that not all but many Men are Misogynists and  Chauvinistic towards women, despite having Mothers, Daughters, Sisters, Aunts and Nieces. Of course this is very damning but what is even worse is when Women hate other Women because they are either intimidated by Women that are highly successful and a force to be reckoned with.

 

CLINTON CAMPAIGN - THE ONLY 2016 CHOICEBARACK - BUSH CHENY PLUS CRIMESIRAQ GEORGE W BUSH MESS

I am supporting Hillary Clinton as I did in 2008 to be America’s First Female President and in comments from my Blog, Facebook Page, Twitter and other Social Media, I am unequivocally surprised at the statements made by other women towards the Former First Lady, US Senator, Secretary of State and the most viable Candidate for President in the upcoming 2016 Presidential Race.

[Psychology Dot Com] “As I overheard a group of women this past week in line at a store verbally tear apart a couple of women within their social circle who happened to be absent, I was taken aback by the vitriol. As I reflected on how women talk about other women, I thought about what I’ve heard so many women say over the years: 

 

“Girls are so much crueler to each other than men.” Based on fifteen years of clinical work with women who represent virtually every possible demographic variable (Come on, I trained in New York City), I can assuredly report that the women I’ve worked with report more critical views of other women than the men do with their own male peers.

 

Most women will tell you that they have survived at least one mean girl in their past: a girl who dismissed, put down, or even socially tormented them. What does the research say? It probably goes without saying that the research is complex, particularly because it is challenging (or impossible?) to measure a critical, negative or hostile attitude given the self-serving bias that makes people want to see themselves as good and upstanding. Fortunately, recent years have seen an uptick in attention when it comes to the research. 

 

Research shows that women during the college years may have negative attitudes about particular types of other women. Vrangalova and colleagues (2013) found that female college students were less likely to want to be friends with another female who was seen as sexually promiscuous, when compared to the rate for male college students who wanted to be friends with a promiscuous male peer. The study showed that the women clearly noticed the promiscuous woman and also had negative beliefs about her as a result.

 

In terms of women’s approach to competition, research from Benenson and colleagues (2011) is particularly interesting. According to the study, women may be more sensitive than men to social exclusion, and when they feel threatened by the prospect of being left out, a woman’s first response may be to socially exclude a third party. Again, for any woman who’s been on the receiving end of a female bully, this will come as no surprise.

 

In addition, Nicki Crick is a true rock star of gender research. Crick has devoted many years to investigating relational aggression, the type of aggression females appear to engage in more regularly than males (who tend to engage in more physical aggression). Crick would most likely argue that women’s negative attitudes are actually a manifestation of relational agression. In a study examining the attitudes and aggressive behavior of fourth and fifth grade boys and girls, Crick and Bigbee (1998) found that girls were significantly more relationally victimized, while boys were significantly more overtly victimized.

 

In talking about the influence a mother has on her daughter, we also have to talk about social learning theory. Social learning theory reminds us that modeling has much to do with how children learn. The real but graphic truth is that there are many mothers out there in the world who aren’t so sweet to their daughters, and readily say and do things that would make many of us cringe. It’s critical to note that much of what is said and done by mothers that is ultimately hurtful was engaged under the veiled intention of having ‘her best interests in mind.’  I have found that women who are mean-spirited about other women were often raised by a mother who probably didn’t like herself and didn’t feel warmly toward women, in general, either.

 

The other factor that I see at work in my practice is anxiety. I find that the majority of female criticism actually stems from feeling inadequate in an area of life they value highly. For example, I have a female client who is extremely critical of other’s parenting styles, but it’s simultaneously worth noting that she has had great difficulty becoming pregnant and is currently in the midst of fertility treatments. With my client, she feels inadequate and defensive, and she defends herself by criticizing other women’s parenting styles. In other words, she’s not critical of other women because she thinks less of them; she is covetous of what they have instead.

 

The women I have seen clinically over the years also have reported far greater anxiety in the appearance department than men, and I see that the pressure women feel from men and the media to fit a certain physical type of thinness and beauty gets transformed to the point that they turn it on each other. Interestingly, one 2012 study from Snapp and colleagues found that young women with high family support and low levels of perceived socio-cultural pressure from family, friends and the media regarding the importance of achieving a ‘thin and beautiful’ ideal had a more positive body image. It makes perfect sense, too, so let’s all agree to watch the amount of pressure we inflict on young girls.

 

I know, I know: Things seem to look good for Hillary in 2016, and there are lots of other examples of the progress American culture has made in terms of gender equality. Yet women continue to earn less money today than men and occupy fewer positions in politics and at the heads of Fortune 500 companies. Independent of what the research shows, it’s understandable on a common-sense level if women feel that they must work hard to secure whatever social power they can, and this may sometimes take the form of exclusionary practices with other women. When it comes to our kids, I believe that there is much we can do and say to give our daughters the sense that their lives will be equally important to those of men, and I’ll teach my daughter that she’ll get there by supporting—and not criticizing—other girls. If I’m careful, one day she’ll be a woman who will speak positively about other women.”

 

 

Twitter @sheriffali

GOP - HYPOCRISY AUG 15 15 GOP - HYPOCRISY AUG 15 15 1

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-is-2020/201309/women-who-hate-other-women-the-psychological-root-snarky

References

Association for Psychological Science (2011, March 5). Mean girls and queen bees: Females threatened by social exclusion will reject others first. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 17, 2013, from <a href=”http://www.sciencedaily.com (link is external)¬ ” target=”_blank”>http://www.sciencedaily.com (link is external)¬ </a>/releases/2011/02/110224121907.ht.

American Psychological Association (1998, March 26). Boys And Girls Are Cruel To Each Other In Different Ways — But The Effects Are Equally Harmful. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 24, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com (link is external)­/releases/1998/03/980326075743.htm

Shannon Snapp, Laura Hensley-Choate, Ehri Ryu. A Body Image Resilience Model for First-Year College Women. Sex Roles, 2012; DOI: 10.1007/s11199-012-0163-1 (link is external)

Springer Science+Business Media (2012, May 9). Self-worth needs to go beyond appearance, experts say. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 17, 2013, from <a href=”http://www.sciencedaily.com (link is external)¬ ”

  1. Vrangalova, R. E. Bukberg, G. Rieger. Birds of a feather? Not when it comes to sexual permissiveness. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 2013; DOI: 10.1177/0265407513487638

Israelis scold Huckabee for saying Iran deal sends them to ‘door of the oven’

Posted in Politics with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 28, 2015 by sheriffali

The fallout over Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee’s controversial remarks on the Iran nuclear deal has now reached Israel.

 

Over the weekend, Huckabee derided the deal announced in Vienna between six world powers and Iran, saying it would “take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.” The comments, which invoked the Holocaust in criticizing the agreement — it restricts Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief — earned swift condemnation from the Anti-Defamation Leaguecomedian Jon Stewart and congressional Democrats, as well as President.

 

Huckabee, as my colleague Jose A. DelReal noted, made hay with the controversy, responding to Obama’s censure with a new attack on the president’s supposed blindness to the real threat that Iran poses.

 

Criticism now, though, has come from a constituency the former Arkansas governor would probably be less inclined to offend: Israel.

Yisrael Katz, the country’s transport minister and a close ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said on Facebook that although he appreciated Huckabee’s concern for Israel, the comments went a bit too far.

 

“Respected Mr. Huckabee: nobody marches the Jews to ovens anymore,” Katzsaid. “To this end we established the State of Israel and the [Israel Defense Forces]; and, if need be, we will know how to defend ourselves, by ourselves.”

 

Katz was not alone in raising an objection.

 

“These are not words that I would use or that I think are appropriate,”said Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, stressing that despite his opposition to the deal, he didn’t believe the White House was acting in bad faith.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

 

Open Washington Post Link For Full Article

http://wpo.st/YcKS0

GOP - MIKE HUCKABEE 3 GOP - MIKE HUCKABEE 5 GOP - MIKE HUCKABEE 4

The New York Times Got Caught Red Handed Over Their Sinister Article About Hillary Clinton Criminal Investigation Have Tried To Weasel Their Way Out of Their Egregiousness.

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 28, 2015 by sheriffali

A Clinton Story Fraught With Inaccuracies: How It Happened and What Next! New York Times For Which I am a Paid Subscriber, I Have Witnessed Over The Past Months, Seems Self Evident Has Become Fox News In Print!

 

 

The New York Times after indulging in nothing short of sinister motives, much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

 

 

[Public Editor’s Journal Margaret Sullivan] The story certainly seemed like a blockbuster: A criminal investigation of Hillary Rodham Clinton by the Justice Department was being sought by two federal inspectors general over her email practices while secretary of state.

 

It’s hard to imagine a much more significant political story at this moment, given that she is the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for president.

 

The story – a Times exclusive — appeared high on the home page and the mobile app late Thursday and on Friday and then was displayed with a three-column headline on the front page in Friday’s paper. The online headline read “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email,” very similar to the one in print.

 

But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

 

Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.

 

From Thursday night to Sunday morning – when a final correction appeared in print – the inaccuracies and changes in the story were handled as they came along, with little explanation to readers, other than routine corrections. The first change I mentioned above was written into the story for hours without a correction or any notice of the change, which was substantive.

 

And the evolving story, which began to include a new development, simply replaced the older version. That development was that several instances of classified information had been found in Mrs. Clinton’s personal email – although, in fairness, it’s doubtful whether the information was marked as classified when she sent or received those emails. Eventually, a number of corrections were appended to the online story, before appearing in print in the usual way – in small notices on Page A2.

 

But you can’t put stories like this back in the bottle – they ripple through the entire news system.

 

So it was, to put it mildly, a mess. As a result, I’ve been spending the last couple of days asking how this could happen and how something similar can be prevented in the future. I’ve spoken to the executive editor, Dean Baquet; to a top-ranking editor directly involved with the story, Matt Purdy; and to the two reporters, Matt Apuzzo and Michael S. Schmidt.

 

Meanwhile, I heard from readers, like Maria Cranor who wanted clarification and explanation on The Times’s “recent, and mystifying, coverage of the HRC emails. It appears that your reporters relied on leaks from the Gowdy committee to suggest that Clinton was involved in some kind of criminal malfeasance around the emails. The subsequent walk backs have not been effective, or encouraging. Please help us retain our wavering confidence in the Times’ political coverage!” (Her reference is to the Republican congressman, Trey Gowdy.)

 

Another reader, Paul Kingsley, demanded a refund for his Friday paper. “We all deserve one,” he wrote to me. And, complaining about the lack of transparency and the errors, he added:

 

1) Please repost the original reporting;


2) Provide an explanation as to how it made it to press and what was wrong.


3) What are you going to do to prevent such inaccurate bias in the future?


4) Are you going to minimize using unnamed sources?

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

 

 Open The Link Read The Full Article, You Would Be Amazed How Low Journalism Has Stooped!

 

http://nyti.ms/1JKJgk0

CLINTON CAMPAIGN - NEW YORK TIMES JULY 28 15 CLINTON CAMPAIGN - AMERICA'S NEXT POTUS CLINTON CAMPAIGN - THE ONLY 2016 CHOICE CLINTON CAMPAIGN - NEW YORK TIMES JULY 28 15

Republicans Buttresses Israel Continue Racist Assault On President Obama Despite Sucking 4.5 Billion Dollars Annually From The American Taxpayers!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 25, 2015 by sheriffali

41 Republican Senators Blocked A Bill To Help Veterans With PTSD But Increased America’s Handout To Israel From 3.2 Billion To 4.5 Billion Annually. Republican Warmongers Send America’s Sons And Daughters In The Middle Of Religious Conflict Where They Are Killed And Wounded And The Same Warmongers Call Returning Veterans Moochers.

 

WHEN IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GOING TO WAKE UP?

 

“Do u know what Obama Coffee is? Black and weak.”

— A June 21 tweet by Judy Mozes, wife of Israeli interior minister and vice prime minister Silvan Shalom.

[Washington Post] Judy Shalom Nir-Mozes, a well-known Israeli radio and television personality, deleted the tweet and later apologized after drawing criticism for what she called a “stupid joke.”

 

Those who regard the Iran nuclear deal as a grave threat to Israeli and U.S. interests have a moral duty to vigorously oppose it, just as those of us who view the deal as the best way to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon should work for its adoption. Vilifying the president of the United States with slurs and insults, however, is out of bounds. Except, perhaps, in some places and with some people.

U.S.-born Michael Oren, Israel’s former ambassador to the United States, has done his own anti-Obama number. Citing President Obama’s upbringing,Oren suggested in a series of recent articles in Foreign Policy that the president’s “abandonment” by his mother’s “two Muslim husbands” created in him a desire for “acceptance by their co-religionists” that has now influenced his foreign policy. Conspiracy theorists and birthers could hardly have said it better — Obama’s Christianity notwithstanding.

 

This is beneath the Michael Oren I thought I knew.

 

It has come to this: racially charged affronts to the president of the United States from, of all places, Israel.

 

According to the Book of Esther, Haman, a high official of the ancient kingdom of Persia, sought to annihilate the Jewish people. A few months ago, Shlomo Riskin, chief rabbi of Efrat, a West Bank settlement, likened Obama to a scourge on the Holy Land, telling an audience, “The president of the United States is lashing out at Israel just like Haman lashed out at the Jews.”

 

Riskin wasn’t the first rabbi to dub Obama a reincarnation of Haman.

 

In 2012, Dov Lior, then chief rabbi of another West Bank settlement, Kiryat Arba, also compared Obama to Haman, according to Israel’s Army Radio. But Lior stooped lower. He labeled Obama a “kushi” of the West, which, the Jerusalem Post reported, is a modern-day derogatory term used to describe people of African descent.

It’s not only the name-calling and insults hurled at Obama that grab the gut. Behavior sends signals, too.

 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress drew rave reviews from his Republican hosts and most — but not all — of Israel’s supporters. Many members of the 46-member Congressional Black Caucus were outraged that Netanyahu would go behind the back of the White House and arrange with Republicans to use the U.S. Capitol as the stage to challenge the president’s Iranian nuclear negotiations. Several chose to stay away.

 

U.S. representative and caucus member James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking House Democrat, said he regarded Netanyahu’s speech as an “affront to America’s first black president.”

 

In an interview with USA Today columnist DeWayne Wickham, Clyburncalled Netanyahu’s White House end run “a real in-your-face slap at the president, and black folks know it. ... [Netanyahu] wouldn’t have done it to any other president.” Pressed as to why Netanyahu would disrespect Obama, Clyburn responded, “You know why.”

 

Should it come to a search for 40 Democratic votes to join the House’s 247 Republicans in voting to override a possible Obama veto of legislation blocking an Iranian deal, don’t look for help from the Congressional Black Caucus. Hostility to the current Israeli leadership is real, and not just among caucus members. Many of their African American constituents are quietly seething, too.

 

Clyburn’s “and black folks know it” speaks volumes.

 

To no surprise, Republicans are trying to exploit the situation.

 

The National Republican Senatorial Committee sent out a petition urging people to sign and “[t]ell Obama it’s now time to stand with Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu.” Are the petitions being circulated in Zip codes where large numbers of blacks reside? It would be wasted effort.

 

There is a larger concern. While the jury is still out, the argument over the Iran deal could well stress the long-standing and largely fruitful political alliance between blacks and Jews in this country.

 

It would be a pity if the nuclear arms debate shapes up as a dispute between U.S. supporters of Netanyahu’s policies and Americans who respect and trust Obama’s judgment. And it would be a sorrow to those of us who still look with favor upon an alliance that has stood the test in the hardest of times.

 

That may explain why the “Obama Coffee” insult, the rabbinical slurs and the below-the-belt punches of Israeli officials are so sad, dispiriting and potentially disrupting in ways that once seemed unimaginable.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

http://wpo.st/YI0S0

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU - LARGE -1 GOP - 2 PIMPS FOR NETANYAHU 2 CLINTON CAMPAIGN - GOP FOOLS 

 

America Needs To Keep The White House Under Democratic Control. The Economy Is Bouncing Back Strong Once Again And Republicans Are Hoping To Win In Order To Wreck America Again. Please Look At The Three Images In This Blog As It Relates To Bernie Sanders And What The Hispanic Vote Says About Mr. Sander’s Chances.

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 10, 2015 by sheriffali

Even as Bernie Sanders moves up in the polls, many people are realizing that there’s a big hole in his coalition: black voters.

 

Barack Obama won a razor-thin victory over Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries seven years ago in large part because black voters supported Mr. Obama by a 5-to-1 margin. Without their support, he would have lost, and lost big — probably by more than 20 points in the national popular vote.

 

As a result, many have framed Mr. Sanders’s challenge in racial terms. But his challenge in getting the support of nonwhite voters is not simply a problem of race. It’s primarily a problem with moderate and less educated Democrats, regardless of race, which disproportionately affects his support among nonwhite voters. His challenge among black voters may be no greater than his challenge among ideologically and demographically similar white voters.

 

It’s not very fair to Mr. Sanders, or any liberal Democrat, to judge his support among black voters by comparing him with Mr. Obama. In 2008, there was a strong relationship between the proportion of a demographic group that self-identified as liberal and Mr. Obama’s strength against Mrs. Clinton. Mr. Obama lost all of the least liberal groups of the Democratic Party, except black voters.

 

Without Mr. Obama’s unusual strength among black voters, another challenge to Mrs. Clinton on her left would struggle to keep Mrs. Clinton from doing well enough on moderates to deny her the nomination. The easiest way to think about Mr. Sanders’s challenge is to remember Mr. Obama’s weakness among Hispanic voters in 2008. Over all, Mr. Obama lost Hispanic voters by 26 points against Mrs. Clinton — worse than his margin among white voters.

 

Mr. Obama’s weakness among Hispanic voters didn’t fit neatly into the conventional explanation of Mr. Obama’s challenges in 2008. Commentators often presumed that Mr. Obama was weak among less liberal and less educated white voters because of racism, so they undertook tortured efforts to fit Hispanic voters into the same frame, arguing that Hispanic voters wouldn’t vote for a black candidate, perhaps because of urban rivalries between blacks and Hispanics.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

Twitter @hrcwhitehouse

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/sheriff.g.ali

See “Hillary Clinton White House” page in my Facebook Account.

 

www.whitehousehillaryclinton.com

 

Open New York Times List For Full Story

http://nyti.ms/1JU5r9T

BERNIE SANDERS - HILLARY CLINTON 1972 1984 BERNIE SANDERS - 1984 ELECTION BERNIE SANDERS - 1972 ELECTION 2

Why Bernie Sanders’s Momentum Is Not Built to Last! Future POTUS – Hillary Clinton!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on July 9, 2015 by sheriffali

Advocating an extreme Left-Wing Agenda To Extreme Left Wingers and drawing crowds doesn’t win General Elections. Bernie Sanders is a good man but he cannot win against the Koch Brothers Republican Machine. There is only ONE DEMOCRAT that can keep the White House after President Obama and that is Hillary Clinton. Before the Naysayers attack me, read the entire article, gain some perspective and hopefully, you would see the rational.

For those that do research look at George McGovern in 1972 and Walter Mondale in 1984.

 

Love her or hate her, Hillary Clinton is going to be America’s Next and First Woman President!

[NYT] Bernie Sanders is surging. He trailed Hillary Rodham Clinton by as much as 50 points in the polls a few months ago, but he has pulled within 10 points in New Hampshire, according to some surveys. He has doubled his support in Iowa over the last month. The signs of his support are palpable: Last week, about 10,000 people attended an event in Madison, Wis., and he announced that he raised $15 million in the first three months of his campaign.

 

But the Sanders surge is about to hit a wall: the rank and file of the Democratic primary electorate.

 

Senator Sanders is now doing nearly as well as Barack Obama did among liberal voters in 2008. That makes him competitive in relatively liberal contests, like the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary.

 

But Mrs. Clinton still holds a huge lead among moderate and conservative Democrats — white and nonwhite alike. Whether Mr. Sanders can close the gap among these voters will determine the seriousness of his candidacy and whether he can pick up more delegates in other primaries. There aren’t many reasons to expect he will break through, and he certainly isn’t doing it yet.

 

If he doesn’t, he will lose by a wide margin.

 

Mr. Sanders surged as he consolidated the liberal voters who represent the natural opposition to Mrs. Clinton. A socialist senator from Vermont, he was always well positioned to be the vehicle of their skepticism of Mrs. Clinton’s policies on Wall Street and foreign intervention.

 

 

But he is unlikely to beat her by a wide margin among liberal voters. Even in 2008, Mr. Obama defeated Mrs. Clinton among liberal voters by just one percentage point nationwide. He lost liberals by one point in New Hampshire, and won them by 13 points in Iowa.

 

Mr. Sanders is nearing those tallies. On average, polls in Iowa and New Hampshire over the last month show Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders tied among self-identified liberals. Last week, a Quinnipiac poll in Iowa showed him leading Mrs. Clinton among “very liberal” voters, 47 to 43 percent.

 

Mr. Sanders could hope to do even better than Mr. Obama among liberals, but realistically there are limits. Mrs. Clinton is a liberal Democrat by any measure. Her favorability ratings among “very liberal” voters remain very good; the Quinnipiac poll, for instance, put them at 88 percent favorable and 8 percent unfavorable. Her advantage among women also helps. And this is leaving aside any of the other plausible reasons — electability, experience — for preferring Mrs. Clinton.

 

 

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 

Twitter @hrcwhitehouse

 

 

 

www.whitehousehillarylinton.com

 

Facebook Page

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Hillary-Clinton-White-House/1619275138313977?fref=ts

 

http://nyti.ms/1fmZsR2

BERNIE SANDERS - 1 CLINTON CAMPAIGN - AMERICA'S NEXT POTUS

Bush, Cheney And The GOP Congress Wrecked America; Obama Literally Saved America And Yet, Spineless Democrats, Republicans And The Corrupt Media, That Is Owned By Big Business, Blames Obama For All That Ails The Country!

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 5, 2014 by sheriffali

Obama is the only President in US History whose approval rating dropped a single digit over a ten-month stretch and it was described as having “plummeted.” President Obama’s all-time low of 39% is higher than the lowest of any President since John F Kennedy. That’s right. At Republican god Ronald Reagan’s lowest; he was at just 35%. George W. Bush once hit 19%.

 

Congress has an approval rating of 9%, yet somehow, it’s Obama’s approval ratings that more than quadrupled Congress, that makes headlines and makes Democratic Congressional Candidates turn tail and run.

 

“Do you still think the Media is in Obama’s Pocket?”

 

Just imagine, 4 Billion Dollars was spent on the November Mid-Term to elect Politicians with a 9% Approval Rating, the same Politicians that haven’t cared about 95% of the American People and it is the Majority of the 95%, that voted Republican that  gave them control of Both Houses of Congress.

I do not look at Fox News because I have no interest in trash, hatred and lies. However, CNN has become Tabloid News without a doubt. On their summary during Tuesday night’s election return, David Gergen, Gloria Borger, Wolf Blitzer and others kept on exclaiming that Obama’s approval ratings were responsible for Republicans taking the Senate and gaining seats in the House. These are not uneducated people and they live “Politics.” They are fully aware that their willful misleading trashing of President Obama about his approval ratings when no other President since John F Kennedy maintained Obama’s ratings wasn’t going to help President Obama or his Party.

 

All 1,500 Television Stations; 9,000 Radio Stations; 1,100 Magazines, 1,500 News Papers And 2,400 Publishers are owned by six [6] Corporations. We know factually, Big Business and the Republicans are indivisible, however, Middle-Class and Poor Republicans, Democrats and Independents, had better wake up to the reality of:

 

“Polls are not intended to measure reality; it is intended to shape it.”

 

The problem is in our today’s America we have more ignorant, uneducated, uninformed and brainwashed people that get very upset when “facts are presented to them.” The reason being is that if those facts are contrary to what the Media told them, they would die being fools rather than even have an open mind to seek out the truth.

 

America is on a very slippery slope solely due to the 2% and Big Business that have bought and paid for the Republican Party. And, since the Media is Owned by Big Business, we no longer have Journalists, what we do have are Opinion Makers for which said Opinions are directed by their Corporate Bosses.

 

Twitter @sheriffali

 BARACK OBAMA - 11-06-14