Discussing issues that The United States face both foreign and domestic. A Non-partisan viewpoint where we believe in right and wrong not right and left, hopefully forming a more UNITED States of America.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

United States Monetizing Its Debt

This could possibly be the scariest news in United States history as The Federal Reserve announced it would be monetizing its debt. What this means is that we are now buying our own debt. How can we do that? Essentially the United States treasury prints the money (because we don't have money, were in debt, AND the currency isn't backed by anything such as gold) and the Federal Reserve buys the Government debt with "Monopoly" Money.

This Video helps explain the situation (go to 5:45):


It has never worked in the past, why will it work now? It won't, and hyperinflation is bound to come from this. All you need to do is look up the Weimar Republic as they did the exact same thing as the Federal Reserve announced.  Here is what PBS says about Weimar Republic's Hyperinflation:
Before World War I Germany was a prosperous country, with a gold-backed currency, expanding industry, and world leadership in optics, chemicals, and machinery. The German Mark, the British shilling, the French franc, and the Italian lira all had about equal value, and all were exchanged four or five to the dollar. That was in 1914. In 1923, at the most fevered moment of the German hyperinflation, the exchange rate between the dollar and the Mark was one trillion Marks to one dollar, and a wheelbarrow full of money would not even buy a newspaper. Most Germans were taken by surprise by the financial tornado.


"My father was a lawyer," says Walter Levy, an internationally known German-born oil consultant in New York, "and he had taken out an insurance policy in 1903, and every month he had made the payments faithfully. It was a 20-year policy, and when it came due, he cashed it in and bought a single loaf of bread." The Berlin publisher Leopold Ullstein wrote that an American visitor tipped their cook one dollar. The family convened, and it was decided that a trust fund should be set up in a Berlin bank with the cook as beneficiary, the bank to administer and invest the dollar.


In retrospect, you can trace the steps to hyperinflation, but some of the reasons remain cloudy. Germany abandoned the gold backing of its currency in 1914. The war was expected to be short, so it was financed by government borrowing, not by savings and taxation. In Germany prices doubled between 1914 and 1919.


After four disastrous years Germany had lost the war. Under the Treaty of Versailles it was forced to make a reparations payment in gold-backed Marks, and it was due to lose part of the production of the Ruhr and of the province of Upper Silesia. The Weimar Republic was politically fragile.


But the bourgeois habits were very strong. Ordinary citizens worked at their jobs, sent their children to school and worried about their grades, maneuvered for promotions and rejoiced when they got them, and generally expected things to get better. But the prices that had doubled from 1914 to 1919 doubled again during just five months in 1922. Milk went from 7 Marks per liter to 16; beer from 5.6 to 18. There were complaints about the high cost of living. Professors and civil servants complained of getting squeezed. Factory workers pressed for wage increases. An underground economy developed, aided by a desire to beat the tax collector.


On June 24, 1922, right-wing fanatics assassinated Walter Rathenau, the moderate, able foreign minister. Rathenau was a charismatic figure, and the idea that a popular, wealthy, and glamorous government minister could be shot in a law-abiding society shattered the faith of the Germans, who wanted to believe that things were going to be all right. Rathenau's state funeral was a national trauma. The nervous citizens of the Ruhr were already getting their money out of the currency and into real goods -- diamonds, works of art, safe real estate. Now ordinary Germans began to get out of Marks and into real goods.


Pianos, wrote the British historian Adam Fergusson, were bought even by unmusical families. Sellers held back because the Mark was worth less every day. As prices went up, the amounts of currency demanded were greater, and the German Central Bank responded to the demands. Yet the ruling authorities did not see anything wrong. A leading financial newspaper said that the amounts of money in circulation were not excessively high. Dr. Rudolf Havenstein, the president of the Reichsbank (equivalent to the Federal Reserve) told an economics professor that he needed a new suit but wasn't going to buy one until prices came down.


Why did the German government not act to halt the inflation? It was a shaky, fragile government, especially after the assassination. The vengeful French sent their army into the Ruhr to enforce their demands for reparations, and the Germans were powerless to resist. More than inflation, the Germans feared unemployment. In 1919 Communists had tried to take over, and severe unemployment might give the Communists another chance. The great German industrial combines -- Krupp, Thyssen, Farben, Stinnes -- condoned the inflation and survived it well. A cheaper Mark, they reasoned, would make German goods cheap and easy to export, and they needed the export earnings to buy raw materials abroad. Inflation kept everyone working.


So the printing presses ran, and once they began to run, they were hard to stop. The price increases began to be dizzying. Menus in cafes could not be revised quickly enough. A student at Freiburg University ordered a cup of coffee at a cafe. The price on the menu was 5,000 Marks. He had two cups. When the bill came, it was for 14,000 Marks. "If you want to save money," he was told, "and you want two cups of coffee, you should order them both at the same time."


The presses of the Reichsbank could not keep up though they ran through the night. Individual cities and states began to issue their own money. Dr. Havenstein, the president of the Reichsbank, did not get his new suit. A factory worker described payday, which was every day at 11:00 a.m.: "At 11:00 in the morning a siren sounded, and everybody gathered in the factory forecourt, where a five-ton lorry was drawn up loaded brimful with paper money. The chief cashier and his assistants climbed up on top. They read out names and just threw out bundles of notes. As soon as you had caught one you made a dash for the nearest shop and bought just anything that was going." Teachers, paid at 10:00 a.m., brought their money to the playground, where relatives took the bundles and hurried off with them. Banks closed at 11:00 a.m.; the harried clerks went on strike.


The flight from currency that had begun with the buying of diamonds, gold, country houses, and antiques now extended to minor and almost useless items -- bric-a-brac, soap, hairpins. The law-abiding country crumbled into petty thievery. Copper pipes and brass armatures weren't safe. Gasoline was siphoned from cars. People bought things they didn't need and used them to barter -- a pair of shoes for a shirt, some crockery for coffee. Berlin had a "witches' Sabbath" atmosphere. Prostitutes of both sexes roamed the streets. Cocaine was the fashionable drug. In the cabarets the newly rich and their foreign friends could dance and spend money. Other reports noted that not all the young people had a bad time. Their parents had taught them to work and save, and that was clearly wrong, so they could spend money, enjoy themselves, and flout the old.


The publisher Leopold Ullstein wrote: "People just didn't understand what was happening. All the economic theory they had been taught didn't provide for the phenomenon. There was a feeling of utter dependence on anonymous powers -- almost as a primitive people believed in magic -- that somebody must be in the know, and that this small group of 'somebodies' must be a conspiracy."


When the 1,000-billion Mark note came out, few bothered to collect the change when they spent it. By November 1923, with one dollar equal to one trillion Marks, the breakdown was complete. The currency had lost meaning.


What happened immediately afterward is as fascinating as the Great Inflation itself. The tornado of the Mark inflation was succeeded by the "miracle of the Rentenmark." A new president took over the Reichsbank, Horace Greeley Hjalmar Schacht, who came by his first two names because of his father's admiration for an editor of the New York Tribune.The Rentenmark was not Schacht's idea, but he executed it, and as the Reichsbank president, he got the credit for it. For decades afterward he was able to maintain a reputation for financial wizardry. He became the architect of the financial prosperity brought by the Nazi party.


Obviously, though the currency was worthless, Germany was still a rich country -- with mines, farms, factories, forests. The backing for the Rentenmark was mortgages on the land and bonds on the factories, but that backing was a fiction; the factories and land couldn't be turned into cash or used abroad. Nine zeros were struck from the currency; that is, one Rentenmark was equal to one billion old Marks. The Germans wanted desperately to believe in the Rentenmark, and so they did. "I remember," said one Frau Barten of East Prussia, "the feeling of having just one Rentenmark to spend. I bought a small tin bread bin. Just to buy something that had a price tag for one Mark was so exciting."


All money is a matter of belief. Credit derives from Latin, credere, "to believe." Belief was there, the factories functioned, the farmers delivered their produce. The Central Bank kept the belief alive when it would not let even the government borrow further.


But although the country functioned again, the savings were never restored, nor were the values of hard work and decency that had accompanied the savings. There was a different temper in the country, a temper that Hitler would later exploit with diabolical talent. Thomas Mann wrote: "The market woman who without batting an eyelash demanded 100 million for an egg lost the capacity for surprise. And nothing that has happened since has been insane or cruel enough to surprise her."


With the currency went many of the lifetime plans of average citizens. It was the custom for the bride to bring some money to a marriage; many marriages were called off. Widows dependent on insurance found themselves destitute. People who had worked a lifetime found that their pensions would not buy one cup of coffee.


Pearl Buck, the American writer who became famous for her novels of China, was in Germany in 1923. She wrote later: "The cities were still there, the houses not yet bombed and in ruins, but the victims were millions of people. They had lost their fortunes, their savings; they were dazed and inflation-shocked and did not understand how it had happened to them and who the foe was who had defeated them. Yet they had lost their self-assurance, their feeling that they themselves could be the masters of their own lives if only they worked hard enough; and lost, too, were the old values of morals, of ethics, of decency."


The fledgling Nazi party, whose attempted coup had failed in 1923, won 32 seats legally in the next election. The right-wing Nationalist party won 106 seats, having promised 100 percent compensation to the victims of inflation and vengeance on the conspirators who had brought it.
Copyright © 1981 by George J. W. Goodman. All rights reserved.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_germanhyperinflation.html

This is what also happened in Zimbabwe (which I have a $50 billion Zimbabwe tender, it will not even buy you a soda in Zimbabwe) and it could be coming to America very soon, unless The Federal Reserve can remove all the "monopoly money" it uses to buy the debt, but odds of that happening are very slim if not nil.

Sources: 

  1. http://www.swifteconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/printing-money.jpg
  2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FvqOg2M1L8&feature=player_embedded#!
  3. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_germanhyperinflation.html

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Why President Barack Obama hates England

Today, we have learned why President Barack Obama hates the best ally the United States has ever had. President Obama has done some very strange things that an ally would not do to a friend. It first all started with Obama returning a bust of Winston Churchill that was given as a gift to the United States after the attacks of 9/11. Many people were puzzled by this, and it did somewhat confuse our closest ally as well.

Then, when Gordon Brown came over to the United States (the first time during the Obama Administration) he refused to have a joint press conference with him, and would not display British Flags during the meeting. Again, these are actions you simply do not do to an ally especially when hosting them in our country.

When allies meet, it is known that they give a gift to each other to show their friendship and heritage. Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave Obama a pen holder made from the wood of the anti-slave ship HMS Gannet. Some of the wood of the sister ship of the Gannet, the HMS Resolute,  was made into a desk that is in the Oval Office, so Gordon Brown also gave a framed commission of the HMS Resolute. What does Prime Minister Gordon Brown get in return? A box of 25 DVD's that do not work in Europe, so essentially, they were useless. Michelle Obama also gave Marine One models for Brown's kids to have. Again, many people were puzzled by this.

Then, when President Obama travels across the pond to Great Britain, he gives the Queen of England, an iPod, which included his favorite songs, video clips of himself, and video clips of Queen Elizabeth II. People on both sides of the pond we saying this is a disgrace to the relationship of the each nation's closest ally.

Now, we finally know why this has ALL happened, just read this entire story from the Sunday Times written by Ben Macintyre and Paul Orengoh:

Barack Obama’s grandfather was imprisoned and brutally tortured by the British during the violent struggle for Kenyan independence, according to the Kenyan family of the US President-elect.
Hussein Onyango Obama, Mr Obama’s paternal grandfather, became involved in the Kenyan independence movement while working as a cook for a British army officer after the war. He was arrested in 1949 and jailed for two years in a high-security prison where, according to his family, he was subjected to horrific violence to extract information about the growing insurgency.
“The African warders were instructed by the white soldiers to whip him every morning and evening till he confessed,” said Sarah Onyango, Hussein Onyango’s third wife, the woman Mr Obama refers to as “Granny Sarah”.
Mrs Onyango, 87, described how “white soldiers” visited the prison every two or three days to carry out “disciplinary action” on the inmates suspected of subversive activities.
“He said they would sometimes squeeze his testicles with parallel metallic rods. They also pierced his nails and buttocks with a sharp pin, with his hands and legs tied together with his head facing down,” she said The alleged torture was said to have left Mr Onyango permanently scarred, and bitterly antiBritish. “That was the time we realised that the British were actually not friends but, instead, enemies,” Mrs Onyango said. “My husband had worked so diligently for them, only to be arrested and detained.”
Mr Obama refers briefly to his grandfather’s imprisonment in his best-selling memoir, Dreams from My Father, but states that his grandfather was “found innocent” and held only for “more than six months”.
Mr Onyango served with the British Army in Burma during the Second World War and, like many army veterans, he returned to Africa hoping to win greater freedoms from colonial rule. Although a member of the Luo tribe from western Kenya, he sympathised with the Kikuyu Central Association, the organisation leading an independence movement that would evolve into the bloody uprising known as the Mau Mau rebellion.
“He did not like the way British soldiers and colonialists were treating Africans, especially members of the Kikuyu Central Association, who at the time were believed to be secretly taking oaths which included promises to kill the white settlers and colonialists,” Mrs Onyango said.
In his book, Mr Obama implies that his grandfather was not directly involved in the anticolonial agitation, but his grandmother said that her husband had supplied information to the insurgents. “His job as cook to a British army officer made him a useful informer for the secret oathing movement which would later form the Mau Mau rebellion,” she said. The Mau Mau used oaths as part of their initiation ceremony.
Mr Onyango was probably tried in a magistrates’ court on charges of political sedition or membership of a banned organisation, but the records do not survive because all such documentation was routinely destroyed in British colonies after six years.
“To arrest a Luo ex-soldier, who must have been a senior figure in the community, is pretty serious. They must have had some damn good evidence,” said Professor David Anderson, director of the African Studies Centre at the University of Oxford and an authority on the Mau Mau rebellion.
The British responded to the Mau Mau uprising with draconian violence: at least 12,000 rebels were killed, most of them Kikuyu, but some historians believe that the overall death toll may have been more than 50,000. In total, just 32 European settlers were killed.
There is more provided in the link, but now this all makes sense. British Colonists in Kenya tortured Barack Obama's grandfather, which explains why he has acted weird, and disrespectful to Great Britain and its Government, and possibly even British Petroleum in recent months because of the Gulf Oil Spill and forcing them to give $20 Billion to claims. He has disdain for what England has done to his family and he wants them to pay for their crimes. I can't necessarily blame him, but this is something that should have been brought up before the election, a failure on the mainstream media, and even bloggers, including myself.

So what do you think of this information? Share your thoughts in the comments section.

-Christian N.


Sources:
  1. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article5276010.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2
  2. http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/britain/uk.gif
  3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1159627/To-special-friend-Gordon-25-DVDs-Obama-gives-Brown-set-classic-movies-Lets-hope-likes-Wizard-Oz.html
  4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html
  5. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/04/01/2009-04-01_president_obama_gives_queen_ipod_loaded_-1.html









Wednesday, May 19, 2010

India...The Next Superpower?

In a recent article by the Wall Street Journal, it mentions that India wants to increase its defense spending, especially technology from foreign companies. The article mentions that "on foreign direct investment in the defense sector, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recommends tripling India’s FDI cap to 74% (from 26%) if India wants to attract state of the art technology in defense." it also mentions that ". India is the 10th largest defense spender in the world, having spent $30 billion in 2008 but imports the majority of its arms because its three major defense equipment manufacturers – Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Bharat Electronics Ltd., and Mazagon Dock Ltd. – cannot match the country’s defense demands...and [India's current military states] only 15% of the equipment can be described as ’state-of-the-art’ and nearly 50% is suffering from obsolescence."


I believe India is making the right choice in looking for more foreign investment into its military. This could really help the United States too because India will probably be looking into our technology which will help American jobs. In order to be a superpower, you must be able to have a strong defense (my last article mentions how China is expanding its military).

There are some negatives for India in this as well. It is clear that India is making leaps and bounds, but, it appears their own defense companies cannot keep pace with the rest of improvements India is making in the economy. The United States, China, and even other countries such as Russia, are not dependent on foreign military technology for their own defense. In my opinion, this shows that as India looks for top military technology (instead of their own) they are becoming a powerful nation in the world, but, they are not quite a superpower yet because, they are dependent on other nations for a quality military instead of using their own technology. The United States would prefer a strong India. Although we do have to work with China, America is more comfortable when we work with democracies, so America would be more comfortable with India "spreading its sphere of influence" in Asia over China, and for India to be able to do that, they have to become a superpower.

Sources:


Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/05/18/will-defense-ministry-increase-the-fdi-limit/

Image: http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-IN476_idefen_D_20100518090707.jpg

Note: Article written for school project.

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

The Sleeping Giant is Waking Up

The May 8th edition of The Economist features two articles, one mostly on China’s system of government/economy and another on foreign policy but each article is connected to the other. In foreign policy, the article mentions the recent trip of North Korean leader, Kim Jong IL, where he visited China and “was expected to ask for more food and aid for his blighted, benighted country. China wants him in return to agree to re-enter negotiations with itself, America, South Korea, Japan and Russia about dismantling his nuclear programmes. (Economist).”

I believe it is good for the United States, and the Eastern Asia that China is urging them to return to the six-party talks if they want more aid. If North Korea is going to work with the rest of the world, it must come to the six-party talks and work out their nuclear ambitions although recent news from Israel suggests that North Korea is shipping WMDs to Syria.

The Economist article also mentions that “China dearly wishes Mr Kim would behave normally. If there is one country where it would like to promote a “China model” of development (see The Beijing Consensus is to Keep Quiet article), it is North Korea.” I personally think China views North Korea as an “annoying younger brother.” It may be a bit harsh, but China does like North Korea and they certainly want them to remain a communist country (as seen in the Korean War) but they do not want Kim Jong IL to be too powerful because they are afraid he could launch WMD’s at Japan and South Korea (possibly World War III) and China would be partially to blame for allowing Kim Jong IL to remain on power. They also, however, do not want the North Korean government to collapse because almost everyone from North Korea would seek refuge in China, which the Chinese do not want. China has to do a “balancing act” with North Korea where the Government is just strong enough to maintain order, but not too strong and take one of the more powerful militaries in the World and spark World War III.

Another interesting article I found was from The Australian; about how China’s rapid expansion of their navy will spread their naval “sphere” of influence to Australia. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, The US Navy has by far the most powerful navy, with the Pacific being a focus point because of our allies Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, etc. It appears our influence is being challenged as the article calls for Australia to improve its navy because “China is building up its fleet of nuclear submarines and has confirmed after more than a decade of planning that it will build aircraft carriers....The [report] warned that Australia needed to massively bolster its military capacity to deal with potential threats posed by both China's rise and the possible decline of American influence in the region.” The article also mentions “A senior US admiral has suggested that [Chinese Cargo Ships] are so crucial to China's economy that they could eventually be escorted to Australia by Beijing's submarines.”

I find it very interesting that as China enters the status of “superpower” it is slowly starting to show its muscle to the world by attempting the lure North Korea back into Six-Party-Talks and that they could be the Naval Superpower in the region all the way to Australia. I also believe it is interesting that the Australian believes that Australia can no longer depend as much on the United States, and that China will fill the “gap” we are leaving in the region, which is why I consider China to be the sleeping giant that is waking up.

Sources:


Economist: Asia. "Annals of weird diplomacy." The Economist 8 May 2010: 42. Print.
Artcile URL: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16064302

- - -. "The Beijing Consenus is to keep quiet." The Economist 8 May 2010: 41-42. Print.
Article URL: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16064302

Sainsbury, Michael. "Beijing bolsters navy with eye on Pacific." The Australian 27 Apr. 2010: n. pag. Web. 11 May 2010. .

Schrank, Peter. Dragon over New York city. "The Beijing consensus is to keep quiet." By Economist:
Asia. The Economist 8 May 2010: 41. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May 2010. .

Yahoo! News. "Israel says N.Korea shipping WMDs to Syria." Yahoo! N.p., 11 May 2010. Web. 11 May 2010. .

Note: Article written for school project


Saturday, May 1, 2010

National Enquire Claims Obama Sex Scandal-Update

National Enquire has revealed a developing story about President Obama and a sex scandal with Vera Baker in 2004. National Enquire has been known to be the first to report on stories such as the John Edwards and Tiger Woods sex scandals and many others. Here is their full story:

"PRESIDENT OBAMA has been caught in a shocking cheating scandal after being caught in a Washington, DC Hotel with a former campaign aide, sources say.

And now, a hush-hush security video that shows everything could topple both Obama's presidency and marriage to Michelle!

A confidential investigation has learned that Obama first became close to gorgeous 35 year-old VERA BAKER in 2004 when she worked tirelessly to get him elected to the US Senate, raising millions in campaign contributions.

While Baker has insisted in the past that "nothing happened" between them, the ENQUIRER has learned that top anti-Obama operatives are offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.

Among those being offered money is a limo driver who says that he took Vera to a secret hotel rendezvous where the President was staying.

On the condition of anonymity, the limo driver said he took Baker "from a friend's home in the DC area to the Hotel George where I learned later that Obama would be spending the night."

The driver recalled that he "waited in the lobby while she went to change her outfit.

"But to the best of my knowledge she did not have a room at the hotel and she was not staying there so I thought that it was a bit odd."

The driver said he then picked up Obama at the airport and drove both he and Baker to various locations while he was campaigning for funds. Vera accompanied him to each meeting.

"About 10:30 PM, I drove them to the hotel and they went in together!"

"My services for the evening were done - and there was no indication she was going to leave the hotel that night."

A top DC source told The ENQUIRER exclusively that the driver's account had been independently corroborated by investigators who believe the couple spent the night together at the hotel.

The ENQUIRER has also learned that on-site hotel surveillance video camera footage could provide indisputable evidence.

"Investigators are attempting to obtain a tape from the hotel (that) shows Vera and Barack together," the DC insider confided.

"If the tape surfaces, it will explode the scandal."

DEVELOPING STORY"
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/obama_cheating_scandal_vera_baker_video_/celebrity/68589

This could be very costly in November and to his Presidency.  The President is innocent until proven guilty, but would the National Enquirer  be putting their reputation on the line, if they thought this story was not true?

---UPDATE TO ORIGINAL STORY VIA MEDIAITE. SCANDAL APPEARS TO BE FAKE:
"The National Enquirer, which published a report this morning that “investigators are attempting to obtain a tape” that proved an illicit rendezvous between President Barack Obama and former US Senate campaign staffer Vera Baker, has updated their story this afternoon to retract the claim that there is video evidence of the affair with the alleged testimony of an anonymous chauffeur.
Looks like the National Enquirer Obama sex scandal is unraveling rather quickly. The latest from the paper is that “An Enquirer reporter has confirmed the limo driver’s account of the secret 2004 rendezvous.” The limo driver allegedly in the know about the affair is not a new piece of their puzzle– that claim was there last night– but in the absence of the video evidence of ambiguous age, which was the center of their report and would have been the one thing to lend them any credibility, the limo driver is the core of the story.
This clarifies that they are trying to uncover a 6-year-old maybe-affair with a testimony from the same time period, and that, rather than having footage, they just have one first-hand account of someone driving Baker to a hotel, where the President may or may not have been. The Enquirer has not made clear the changes other than adding the word “update” to the body of the report.
This also shifts the weight of the article from the story of the affair itself to the fact that, apparently, someone out there is “offering more than $1 million to witnesses to reveal what they know about the alleged hush-hush affair.” Why? If it indeed happened six years ago, and no one brought it up during Obama’s presidential campaign, what use is it now, halfway into his first term? The obvious go-to answer is that this could energize the far-right in time for the 2010 elections, but once it is revealed who perpetuated the rumors, true or not, about a story so aged, the tactic could easily backfire.
Truth or not, the story proved to be the first major test for the tabloid since it accurately reported theJohn Edwards affair, which restored public faith in the tabloid and resulted in the reaction to the story we saw last night. The major publicity that they elicited from that proved their one powerful foray into journalism was enough for the media to react with slightly more respect this time around given the subject at hand, and that was the reason the report surfaced here– not that the Enquirerpublished it, but that it had the journalistic capital, so to speak, for such a wild story to demand attention. As a news and media analyzer and curator, its our mission to report stories that are being reported. A story with this type of dubious, paper-thin accusation wouldn’t normally make the cut, but when a newly respected gossip forum reports it– and the story is reported solely because of the tabloid’s new reputation– it’s news in the media industry.
Unless they can pull out the kind of irrefutable evidence they found for the Edwards case, theEnquirer will return to their previous reputation as a salacious provider of specious rumor and innuendo, a stark difference from their recent placement alongside titles considered for a Pulitzer." 
http://www.mediaite.com/online/national-enquirer-obama-story-update-retracts-hotel-surveillance-claim/

CREN

Sources:


  1. National Enquirer Article: Link
  2. Splash News Online Photo: Link
  3. Mediaite: Link