Showing posts with label TIME magazine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TIME magazine. Show all posts

Friday, November 08, 2013

Liberal TIME Magazine Uses Cover To Take a Cheap Shot at Chris Christie's Weight


Just like the shallow pricks they truly are, white liberals go after Chris Christie's weight without learning a single thing from loser, idiot liberals in the past who tried the same thing:
With its latest cover, a paywalled look at Chris Christie’s 2016 hopes, Time magazine opted to forgo the high road and run with a fat joke instead.

“The Elephant in the Room,” Time blares, making a thinly veiled reference to Christie’s girth, his being a Republican, and the fact that his landslide reelection victory has some Tea Party Republicans feeling uneasy about the GOP’s future.

The New Jersey governor, who recently underwent weight loss surgery, has long had a well-known struggle with his weight, but is said to be losing the pounds slowly but steadily.
RELATED:  TIME Editor Defends Christie ‘Elephant’ Cover: ‘He’s Obviously a Big Guy’

Monday, May 14, 2012

Politiks As Usual: 5/14/12


Social Conservatives Claim Obama's Gay Marriage Endorsement Could Unite Right

Across Country, Black Pastors Weigh in on Obama's Same-sex Marriage Support

Judge Suggests Chopping 10 Commandments Down To 6 

Mitt Romney Urges Liberty Grads To Honor Family Commitments

Brown Pushes Tax Hike As California's Money Woes Deepen

Disgraced Former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer Discusses Sanctity of Marriage on ABC's This Week
  
'Jersey Shore' JWoww Blasts 'ignorant' Bristol Palin
  
Hollywood: Driving the Homosexual Agenda for 40 Years
  
The Real Bully: Dan Savage by the Book
  
Time Magazine vs Mothers on Mother's Day
  
State Exam Asks N.J. 3rd Graders To Write Essay On Secret They Had Kept
  
How Much Will Obama’s Unlikeability Be A Factor In 2012

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Conservative Blogger Spots 13 Factual Errors in Time Editor's Attack on the U.S. Constitution


Newsbusters.org:
Last week my colleague Eric Ames addressed the bias and some misstatements of fact in Richard Stengel's recent attack on the Constitution/defense of ObamaCare here.


Today, Aaron Worthing over at Patterico's Pontification's ticked off 13 factual errors in the Time magazine editor's piece and systematically addressed each one.


It's an excellent piece. Here's an excerpt that I think addresses some of Stengel's biggest errors:


False Claim #1: The Constitution does not limit the Federal Government.


The relevant passage:


If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so. Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the longest article of the Constitution, is a drumroll of congressional power. And it ends with the “necessary and proper” clause, which delegates to Congress the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Limited government indeed.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Why Is The Liberal Media Ignoring Death Threats To Wisconsin Republicans?


From the scumbags over at TIME magazine to the blatant silence from every network not named FOX, need any proof of a definitive liberal bias in the media? To think, even some liberals are up in arms about it:
Three questions for you.


1. Do you think of Republicans and the Tea Party as dangerous, violent extremists?
2. Do you think the Wisconsin protests over GOP Governor Scott Walker's move to strip public sector employees of collective bargaining were peaceful?
3. Do you scoff at the right wing notion that mainstream media like the New York Times, the TV networks and NPR have a liberal media bias against the conservatives?


If you answered 'yes' to all three of those questions, then let me ask you one more...


Why isn't the mainstream media talking about the death threats against Republican politicians in Wisconsin?


Try to set aside whatever biases or preconceptions you might have for a moment and ask yourself why death threats against politicians aren't considered national news, especially in the wake of the all too fresh shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and other bystanders. And there hasn't just been one death threat, but a number of them.


Here's an example and it's real. According to Wisconsin State Department of Justice, authorities have found a suspect who admitted to sending the following email:


I want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and your republican dictators have to die. This is how it's going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records. We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, this isn't enough. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message. So we have built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent. This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't tell you all of them because that's just no fun. Since we know that you are not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it's necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families and themselves then We will "get rid of" (in which I mean kill) the 8 of you. Please understand that this does not include the heroic Senator that risked everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. The 8 includes the 7 senators and the dictator. We feel that it's worth our lives becasue we would be saving the lives of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. Goodbye ASSHOLE!!!!


After the Giffords shooting, authorities have to take this sort of threat seriously. The media should too, even if the disturbed person who sent that email was motivated by exactly the kind of rhetoric that's been used by many liberals against GOP officials over and over again during the Madison protests. And there are more threats floating around the internet, in varying degrees of scary and credible.

Monday, March 14, 2011

Politiks As Usual: In The News 3/14/11


Japan Tries To Prevent Multiple Reactor Meltdowns, 180,000 Flee

In Op-Ed, Obama Advocates For 'Common Sense' Gun Control

George Will: Michele Bachmnn Is Not A 'Serious Contender' For President

'Us vs. Them' Unions

Why Newt Gingrich Can't Win

20-to-1: Networks Go Crazy Over Sheen Story, Downplay Planned Parenthood Scandal

145,000 Public School Teachers Physically Attacked By Students

Sexual Abstinence -- Numbers Up, But Funding Down

TIME Magazine Headline: 'Wisconsin's Governor Wins But Is He Still Dead Man Walker?'

Bill Clinton Blasts Drilling And Permit Delays At Forum

Slavery Lesson Exposes Flaws In U.S. Education

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Sarah Palin Crushes Time Magazine Over Their 'Lies'


Proof once again that there is no such thing as a "liberal media", none whatsoever:
Sarah Palin's recent email to Time Magazine Congressional Correspondent Jay Newton-Small started off congenial enough. The mood soon shifted dramatically when Gov. Palin attacked the magazine over the "total lies" that had been published about her. Included in her email is not only a call for a retraction of the false stories, but a demand for an apology to Fox News' Sean Hannity and Christina Aguilera who were both included in the story Time ran. The text of the email follows:


"Subject: Great job, MSM!


Jay - pls tell your bosses there at Time Magazine thank you for the invitations to attend the upcoming functions. I'll sure put a lot of thought into those invitations.


Then, have your editors retract Time's most recent ridiculous lies about me supposedly giving Sean Hannity a radio interview wherein I supposedly talked about Christina Aguilera (that I slammed her for her Nat'l Anthem mistake, and called for her deportation, etc). You guys were fooled into running a fake story that even US Weekly pulled and apologized for their blunder. Total lies - and you guys (once again) even put quotation marks around things I have never uttered. Then, Time needs to run an apology to Christina along with the retraction. (Add Hannity in your apology, too...those good folks don't deserve to be in a caustic, untrue story about me.) Thanks much - keep up the great work, Time Magazine."

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Mutilated Afghan Girl Aisha (TIME Cover Story) Gets New Nose




Good for her. I still remember getting that issue in the mail and being taken aback by the cover. How could one not be?
The Afghan girl featured on a controversial Time magazine cover in the US has been given a new prosthetic nose. 
Aisha told Time her nose and ears had been cut off - with the approval of a Taliban commander - by her abusive husband as punishment for running away.

The front cover generated debate over the headline "What Happens if We Leave Afghanistan" and over the use of the photo itself. 

Her surgery was done in California.

'Blood debt' The Grossman Burn Foundation, which carried out the work, campaigns on the issue of violence against women, as well as doing free plastic surgery work.

Foundation surgeon Peter Grossman carried out the reconstruction surgery.

Aisha was widely photographed and filmed earlier this week receiving the Enduring Heart award at a benefit ceremony staged by the foundation.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Politiks As Usual: In The News 9/13/10


Democrats Return To Capitol Hill, Mount Final Push To Keep Control

Lady Gaga And The Death Of Sex

The Eternal Flame Of Muslim Outrage

Gangster Government Stifles Criticism Of Obamacare

Conservative Victory Now, No Guarantee Later

Santorum's Google Trouble A Warning To Conservatives In Internet Age 


First Medal Of Honor For A Living Afghan War Vet

PennDOT Bows To Transgendered Community

Jon Voight Slams TIME Magazine As Anti-Semitic

Glenn Beck And Sarah Palin Are (Mostly) A Big Hit In Alaska

Boehner Backs Tax Cuts Limited To Middle Class

Taylor Swift Absolves Kanye West In VMA Song

Saturday, September 04, 2010

New Leftist Spin: TIME Magazine Says Rising Unemployment Rate Is 'Good News'


They'll say anything to protect The One:
The following headline appeared at Time.com shortly after the release of Friday's jobs report:
What's Good About Rising Unemployment
What should jump out at the eagle-eyed reader is that headline didn't end with a question mark.

Time senior writer Stephen Gandel was actually making the case that the rising unemployment rate was good news.

Watch just how far a liberal media member is willing to go today to make economic data look favorable for the Party currently in power, and imagine the unlikelihood of such a thing happening if a Republican was in the White House:
The unemployment rate, probably the most famous of economic gauges, may actually be a very bad indicator of how healthy the economy is. [...]
The unemployment rate peaked in late 2009 at just above 10% and has been mostly falling ever since. But the hiring numbers, or less firing numbers, have only been improving recently. So what was going on? The unemployment rate tracks not just how many people have jobs, but how many people are looking for jobs. And, up until August, the number of people looking for jobs was dropping rapidly.

Tuesday, March 09, 2010

It's Official: Tom Hanks Is Another Idiot Hollyweird Liberal


BigHollywood.com:
Over the weekend, Time Magazine published a long, glowing profile of Tom Hanks to help promote his upcoming HBO miniseries “The Pacific.” And as with all things entertainment media, the subject is never challenged or even made to shift uncomfortably in his seat. The push to ascend Hanks to “national treasure” status is clearly on.

Hanks does seem to be a genuinely nice man and the work he’s done to bring American history to life on film is impressive, especially during a time when the singling out of America’s exceptionalism is more and more frowned upon in artistic and academic circles. ”From the Earth to the Moon,” “Band of Brothers,” and “John Adams” are not only artistic achievements, but in this MTV-addled culture, might be the best hope of teaching America’s youth about the unique history and greatness of this nation. And I suspect ”The Pacific,” the 10-part miniseries premiering this Sunday on HBO (which Big Hollywood’s Michael Broderick will cover extensively) will be a worthy addition to what came before.

But when it comes to leftist Hollywood, whenever Tinseltown and America meet, you have to brace yourself for it — and by “it” I mean the leftist sucker punch. Throughout, Hanks sounds perfectly reasonable, intelligent and even patriotic for a couple of thousand words. But of course that’s just the lure to get us on his side before we’re walloped with this left cross: [emphasis mine]

[Hanks] doesn’t see the series as simply eye-opening history. He hopes it offers Americans a chance to ponder the sacrifices of our current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. “From the outset, we wanted to make people wonder how our troops can re-enter society in the first place,” Hanks says. “How could they just pick up their lives and get on with the rest of us? Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as ‘yellow, slant-eyed dogs’ that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what’s going on today?”

There’s no such thing as a definitive history. But what was once a passing interest for Hanks has become an obsession. He’s a man on a mission to make our back pages come alive, to keep overhauling the history we know and, in the process, get us to understand not just the past but the choices we make today.

No matter how many times you read this passage the context is clear. By “different” Hanks is clearly referring to race, culture and religion, not ideology.

Listen, I'm no warmonger, far from it. But to totally ignore Pearl Harbor and reduce us bombing the Japanese to something about race is just beyond stupid.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

TIME "Person of the Year" Is Shockingly Not Obama


Reuters.com:
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was named Person of the Year by Time magazine on Wednesday, giving him a high-profile boost as he tries to fend off proposals that might weaken the Fed's independence.

The selection puts the mild-mannered Bernanke, a former professor, in the company of U.S. President Barack Obama, Pope John Paul II and Russian President Vladimir Putin, among other prominent world figures the magazine has picked in past years.

The Senate is considering Bernanke's nomination to a second term to head the Fed -- the U.S. central bank -- and while he is expected to win confirmation, criticism of the Fed among the public and members of Congress is at its highest in decades.

The Fed's role in bailouts of Wall Street has prompted criticism from both Republicans and Democrats. Some lawmakers are pushing proposals to curb the Fed's regulatory powers and open up its interest rate decision to congressional audits.

The Fed worries that congressional second-guessing of its policy decisions would compromise its fiercely-guarded independence.

One poll by Rasmussen Reports this month showed public support for Bernanke's nomination at a scant 21 percent, with 41 percent stating opposition, but he continues to enjoy support on Wall Street and among many lawmakers.

I still say Steve Jobs should've gotten it or even Glenn Beck. For some reason Nancy Pelosi finished 2nd.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Why Is Nancy Pelosi Being Considered For TIME's 'Person of the Year'?


NYMag.com:
This morning on the Today show, Time managing editor Richard Stengel revealed the short list for his magazine's "Person of the Year." The prestigious award has gone to Presidents (Obama, GWB (twice), Clinton), businessmen (Ted Turner, Jeff Bezos), and you (you). Unfortunately, you missed the cut this year, but these six people didn't: Nancy Pelosi, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Ben Bernanke, President Obama, Steve Jobs and Usain Bolt. Of course, it wouldn't be Time without a gimmick, and this year's is the shortlisting of "the Chinese worker." But we're still holding out hope that a last minute push will get you the award. Really, you've earned it.
Need more reason why you can't take TIME seriously? Here we have a House Speaker who enjoys low approval ratings in her own home state, while accomplishing little (sorry, but getting a leftist healthcare reform bill passed by a smidgen when your party holds a clear majority is not anything to gloat about) if anything in the process being picked as a finalist for 'Person of the Year'?!?. And why isn't Glenn Beck on the list (no, seriously, hate him or love him, has any media personality made a bigger impact this year?)? My vote would be for Usain Blot or Steve Jobs. Either way, I swear if they give it to Barry again, TIME's 'Person of the Year' goes in the same trash can of irrelevancy with the Noble Peace Prize.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Sarah Palin Photographer Breached Contract With Sale To Newsweek


DailyFinance.com:
What on earth was Sarah Palin thinking when she posed in a pair of teeny-tiny gym shorts for a photograph that ended up on the cover of Newsweek -- a cover she has called "sexist"? Perhaps she was thinking that her image would only appear in the magazine she was posing for, Runner's World, and nowhere else, at least not for months and months. If so, she had good reason -- since, as DailyFinance has learned, the photographer who shot the picture violated his contract by reselling them to Newsweek. That photographer, Brian Adams, could not immediately be reached, and his agent, Kelly Price, declined to comment, saying, "I keep all of my clients' business private."

But a spokeswoman for
Runner's World confirms that Adams's contract contained a clause stipulating that his photos of Palin would be under embargo for a period of one year following publication -- meaning until August 2010. "Runner's World did not provide Newsweek with its cover image," the spokeswoman said. "It was provided to Newsweek by the photographer's stock agency, without Runner's World's knowledge or permission." The spokeswoman declined to say whether Runner's World intends to respond to Adams's breach of contract with legal action.

But while
Newsweek's use of the photo violated the embargo, it's not clear to what extent Adams is at fault. A source with knowledge of the situation says multiple outlets, including Time, approached Runner's World after the photos first appeared on its website in July to inquire about obtaining the reuse rights. Those who inquired were forwarded to Adams. Editors at the magazine were aware of negotiations to resell the pictures, and were primarily concerned to see that Runner's World received prominent credit, says the source. In the event, Newsweek credited Runner's World right on its cover. Another source says there is some disagreement over whether the exclusivity clause in Adams's contract is meant to cover all magazines or only titles that compete with Runner's World. Meanwhile, a post on Adams's blog seems to suggest he didn't know about the resale to Newsweek until after Price concluded it.
Figures that a leftist rag like TIME would attempt to smear Palin by trying to purchase that photo too. I hope the photographer and Newsweek get their asses sued.

RELATED: Palin Angered By 'Sexist' Newsweek Cover

Sarah Palin Gives Oprah Highest Ratings In Two Years

Friday, July 31, 2009

TIME Magazine Has Obama On Cover For 7th Time Since Election


Obsessed much?
Time magazine's August 10 edition with President Barack Obama on the cover (“Paging Dr. Obama”) trying to heal the nation in a photo illustration as a physician, wearing a white smock with a stethoscope around his neck, brings to seven the number of issues the magazine's cover has featured Obama just since November's election -- make that eight for the First Family if you add in June 1's genuflecting “The Meaning of Michelle.” Amongst the seven of President Obama: “Person of the Year” and Obama as FDR.

The frequent cover appearances led even Jon Stewart, a Bush-hater who was thrilled by Obama's election, to quip Thursday night on his Comedy Central show: “Time magazine is like O magazine, like Obama has to be on the cover -- it is like Oprah magazine. I think he's been on like thirty times this year.”

Well, not thirty, at least not yet, though at about once per month Time will hit thirty Obama covers well before the 2012 vote. To illustrate Time's predilection, I did some graphics work of my own and created an image displaying the eight covers since the election.
The funniest part of this is that there are still people out who actually think that the media isn't biased towards this man.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

TIME Magazine Uses Bush & Cheney To Distract From Obama's Current Failings


Current President Barack Obama approval rating's are getting lower and lower in the polls, his health care reform package sees no light at the end of the tunnel and Barry's pissing off law enforcement all around the country by sticking his nose where it didn't belong regarding the recent Henry Louis Gates brouhaha. But TIME magazine's more worried about the waning days of former President Bush and his VP Dick Cheney, as it relates to the Scooter Libby non-pardon:
Hours before they were to leave office after eight troubled years, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney had one final and painful piece of business to conclude. For over a month Cheney had been pleading, cajoling, even pestering Bush to pardon the Vice President's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby. Libby had been convicted nearly two years earlier of obstructing an investigation into the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity by senior White House officials.

The Libby pardon, aides reported, had become something of a crusade for Cheney, who seemed prepared to push his nine-year-old relationship with Bush to the breaking point — and perhaps past it — over the fate of his former aide. "We don't want to leave anyone on the battlefield," Cheney argued.
Bush had already decided the week before that Libby was undeserving and told Cheney so, only to see the question raised again. A top adviser to Bush says he had never seen the Vice President focused so single-mindedly on anything over two terms. And so, on his last full day in office, Jan. 19, 2009, Bush would give Cheney his final decision.
Of course, TIME can't investigate any past dealings of Bush, Cheney without taking leftwing potshots at them ("Who, for example, should be held accountable in one of the darkest corners of the war on terrorism — the interrogators who may have tortured detainees?") and there's no mention of former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage--the man who was actually responsible for exposing CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity--in the article. But who cares about all of that when you can...yunno, DISTRACT much?

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

TIME magazine's Amy Sullivan Lies To Protect Gay Agenda


Another leftwing journalist scribe goes out of their way to protect and serve the liberal agenda, no matter what the law says:

Does having a MySpace page on which you don't hide the fact that you're a lesbian constitute "telling" the military about your sexual orientation? What about kissing your girlfriend in the checkout line in Wal-Mart? It does if you serve in the Kansas Army National Guard, which recently discharged an Iraq war vet for being a lesbian.

Since "don't ask, don't tell" went into effect in 1993, nearly 12,500 service members have been discharged for being gay, lesbian or bisexual. Three-quarters of Americans think gay members of the military should be able to serve openly. Tell us again why ending the policy has to wait?

Is this woman that dense? MySpace is one of the most popular online social network's in the world. By declaring her depravity for women on MySpace, Amy Brian was clearly putting her business out there for the world to see. Whether you agree or disagree with "Don't ask. Don't Tell" or not, it is still the law. Funny too that the alternative lifestyle supporters in the media never ask what our troops think about gays serving openly there, much less acknowledge the dangerous acts of sexual proclivity that white gays, in particular, engage in. Bottom line, the military should not be used for social engineering.

Saturday, December 20, 2008

TIME Magazine Calls Barack Obama A Bigot


John Cloud, writing for the TIME, makes it clear that Obama's selection of Rev. Rick Warren for his Inaugural invocation makes the
president-elect a "bigot":

Rick Warren may occasionally sound more open-minded than Jerry Falwell, another plump Evangelical who once played a prominent role in U.S. politics. But he's not. Gays and lesbians are angry that Barack Obama has honored Warren, but they shouldn't be surprised. Obama has proved himself repeatedly to be a very tolerant, very rational-sounding sort of bigot. He is far too careful and measured a man to say anything about body parts fitting together or marriage being reserved for the nonpedophilic, but all the same, he opposes equality for gay people when it comes to the basic recognition of their relationships. He did throughout his campaign, one that featured appearances by Donnie McClurkin, a Christian entertainer who preaches that homosexuals can become heterosexuals.

Obama reminds me a little bit of Richard Russell Jr., the longtime Senator from Georgia who — as historian Robert Caro has noted — cultivated a reputation as a thoughtful, tolerant politician even as he defended inequality and segregation for decades. Obama gave a wonderfully Russellian defense of Warren on Thursday at a press conference. Americans, he said, need to "come together" even when they disagree on social issues. "That dialogue is part of what my campaign is all about," he said. Russell would often use the same tactic to deflect criticism of his civil rights record. It was a distraction, Russell said, from the important business of the day uniting all Americans. Obama also said today that he is a "fierce advocate for equality" for gays, which is — given his opposition to equal marriage rights — simply a lie. It recalls the time Russell said, "I'm as interested in the Negro people of my state as anyone in the Senate. I love them."

Of course, the major irony with this smear piece is that Obama was, unsurprisingly, just named TIME's "Person of the Year". But the hypocritical wrath of the Left is what should be noted here: you just can't win with the loony wing, there's no room for compromise, either you're totally with them or against them. On the campaign trail Michelle Obama tirelessly championed "gay rights", Obama himself has gone on record supporting civil unions, wants to repeal "Don't ask, don't tell" and opposes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But now a gay, leftwing scribe calls Obama a "bigot" because he dares to invite a noted pastor to bless his presidency. Again, liberals are tolerant only if you agree with their point of view.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

TIME Magazine Compares Obama To Jesus Christ


Unbelievable:
Warning its readers to “be prepared to gag,” the “Scrapbook” page of this week's Weekly Standard magazine recited “some of the worst over-the-top reactions to The One's ascendance,” starting with Time's Nancy Gibbs who opened this week's cover story by comparing Obama with Jesus: “Some princes are born in palaces. Some are born in mangers. But a few are born in the imagination, out of scraps of history and hope...” In the November 17 issue, she heralded (citing his full name) the greater meaning of Obama's victory:
Barack Hussein Obama did not win because of the color of his skin. Nor did he win in spite of it. He won because at a very dangerous moment in the life of a still young country, more people than have ever spoken before came together to try to save it. And that was a victory all its own.

She gushed over how “an election in one of the world's oldest democracies looked like the kind they hold in brand-new ones, when citizens finally come out and dance, a purple-thumb day, a velvet revolution.”

It's just ironic to me how the white, liberal media keeps getting away with all this pressure they're putting on the back of Barack Obama. Here we are in the midst of an economical depression and the mediots want us to believe that Barack is just going to wave away all our financial problems like Jesus turned water into wine. Do they really think we're that stupid or do they just foolishly buy their own hype? Come January 20th, Barack Obama will be sworn in as the most inexperienced President since Kennedy and yet the same media that's hyped his never-before-seen, 4-year ascension to the big chair on Capitol Hill want us to believe that he's more than equipped to lead us out of this mess. Inspiration is one thing, making it happen, as Barack Obama will soon find out, is a total different pedigree. And this time he won't be able to just say "present!"

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

TIME Magazine Hits Jenna Bush With A Dose Of Liberal Terrorism


Newsbusters highlighted President Bush's daughter Jenna getting hit with the tired, liberal scheme of asking why she isn't serving in Iraq in a recent issue of TIME magazine. Too bad for TIME and the idiot lib who posed the question, Jenna came well-prepared for the attack:

If the war in Iraq is so noble, why aren't you and your sister serving our country there? —Donald Pence, San Francisco

I understand that point, but there are many ways to serve our country, and I think my skills are better suited for teaching and representing the U.S. in Latin America through UNICEF. I respect the men and women of our country who are over there fighting. It is an unbelievably selfless thing to do. But if people really thought about it, they would know it's not even a practical question.

Now if anyone out there can link me to an old TIME issue in which Amy Carter is asked why she never served in Afghanistan (since her dad invaded them during his presidency) or Chelsea Clinton being asked why she never served in Bosnia or Yugoslavia (both of which her father went to war with during his presidency), I'll switch up and sing nothing but liberal praises on this blog for a month.