Tag Archives: america

Singer Jackie Evancho 10

The little girl Singer Jackie, 10,who has blue eyes, blonde hair and comes from Pittsburgh, dazzled the audience and impressed the judges with a stunning version of “O Mio Babbino Caro.” Tuesday’s episode of America’s Got Talent showcased the most unique acts found on YouTube, including an accordion-playing dog and a pizza dough juggler. But the one that will have viewers talking for the rest of the season is opera singer Jackie Evancho, 10. Singer Jackie#39;s Youtube:http://www.youtube.com/use

Read more here:
Singer Jackie Evancho 10

NBC’s Todd Proclaims If GOP Wins in November It’s Still ‘A Bad Election Night For All of Washington’

On Thursday’s Today show, NBC’s chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd started building the narrative for the liberal media to spout in case the Republicans win majorities in the House and Senate in the upcoming midterms – that the voters are just cranky about everyone and everything. Todd even went on to absurdly state that if the GOP has a big win it will still be seen as a “A bad election night for all of Washington.” All of Washington? Even for the party that is victorious? Todd, on with Today co-anchor Ann Curry, came up with that conclusion after reciting results from a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that showed “Everybody is angry at all things Washington” as Todd noted “Democrats hit an all-new high in their negative rating. Republicans have even a higher negative rating. The Tea Party, which had enjoyed a positive rating for awhile, now they have a negative rating.” Todd, then, went on to prematurely throw cold water on any sort of GOP win as he claimed: “If the Republicans get the majorities, it’s because people have decided to go into the ballot box and hold their nose, they’re not happy with anybody.” The following is the full transcript of the segment as it was aired on the August 12 Today show: ANN CURRY: What do Americans think about the economy and about the politicians in charge during these tough times? We’re getting some answers this morning from a newly released NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. We’ve got NBC’s political director and chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd here in the studio this morning to fill us in. Hey Chuck, thanks for being here. CHUCK TODD: Good morning. [On screen headline: “Unhappy America, NBC News/WSJ Poll On Economy, Obama & Congress”] CURRY: So even though Jim Cramer sounds very positive, there’s a lot of pessimism, as we’ve seen in the markets, but also on Wall Street, but also on Main Street according to this new poll. TODD: Americans are feeling doom and gloom. He may not be seeing doom and gloom but look at those numbers about where people feel like we’re still in a recession. Sixty-four percent say we have yet to hit bottom. It’s an unbelievable number. Nine months ago in January, only 53 percent had that. So here we were the Obama administration told us that this was going to be recovery summer. We’ve had the administration arguing that the recovery is on their way. Jim Cramer was telling us that the financial numbers say that. The American people don’t feel it. CURRY: And they don’t feel like the country is heading in the right direction, which is even more and they’re, they’re really concerned about where it’s going. TODD: That’s right, that’s right. And they say 58 percent say we’re heading in the wrong direction. Of course this is taking a huge political toll on President Obama. Right now, his highest yet negative rating on handling the economy – 52 percent. Even people who approve of his job overall, are disapproving of the way he’s handling the economy. CURRY: And, and they’re disapproving him, I mean we’re getting into the nubbins- TODD: Sure. CURRY: -in terms of what specifically they’re disapproving him, about, in terms of what he’s done. TODD: That’s right. They don’t, they’re not, they don’t feel the recovery. And I think part of this may be a disconnect. He’s out there every day saying it’s coming. It’s getting better. And he goes to these places that are hiring 500 people here and 1,000 people there, and they’re trying to say, “Look, it’s gonna get better. It’s gonna get better.” People aren’t feeling it. And now they’re getting more pessimistic and you do wonder if they’ve stopped listening to Washington because they’re sitting there saying, “Hey, Washington’s saying it’s getting better. I’m not feeling like it’s getting better.” And then that leads to this crankiness, right now, that they feel about all politicians. CURRY: They’re feeling crankiness about both political parties. TODD: That’s right. CURRY: Republicans a bit more, but even the Tea Party gets a hit in this poll. TODD: It does. Everybody is angry at all things Washington. Democrats hit an all-new high in their negative rating. Republicans have even a higher negative rating. The Tea Party, which had enjoyed a positive rating for awhile, now they have a negative rating. Look, what this is leading to is in November, Democrats are still in big trouble. They could lose both of their majorities. But if the Republicans get the majorities, it’s because people have decided to go into the ballot box and hold their nose, they’re not happy with anybody. CURRY: So the bottom line is Americans are unhappy and this could, the midterm elections could be a- TODD: It’s going to be, it’s going to be a bad election night for all of Washington. Democrats are in big trouble. Even if they hold their majorities the public is saying, “You’re not doing your job right and we don’t like it.” CURRY: I was gonna try to bust you because what you said, privately, is that it’s gonna be a hold your nose election. Alright. TODD: It is! It’s a hold your nose election. They’re gonna walk into that ballot box and whoever they pick, they’re not happy about it. CURRY: Chuck Todd, not good news. But it tells us something. TODD: It does. CURRY: Thank you so much this morning. TODD: You got it, Ann.

Follow this link:
NBC’s Todd Proclaims If GOP Wins in November It’s Still ‘A Bad Election Night For All of Washington’

George Stephanopoulos Touts Obama’s Liberal Achievements: ‘What More Could the President Have Done?’

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Thursday interviewed liberal Congressman Dennis Kucinich and defended Barack Obama’s left-wing achievements. Stephanopoulos touted, ” Congressman, what more could the President have done? You’ve got this almost $800 million stimulus bill. You’ve got a financial reform package .” [MP3 audio here .] The GMA host was trying to make peace between Obama and those who had been derided by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs as the “professional left.” The former Democratic operative turned journalist trumpeted, “[Obama] did something that…no Democratic president in 50 years has been able to do, lay the groundwork for universal, national health care. That is quite a legislative record, isn’t it?” This isn’t the first time co-host has attempted to mediate a dispute between liberals. On March 13, 2010 , Stephanopoulos lobbied wavering Democrat Bart Stupak to support the health care bill. Using similar language, he cajoled, “What more do you need?” Stephanopoulos also pressed, “Did he say anything to change your mind that could move you from no to yes?” A transcript of the August 12 segment, which aired at 7:08am EDT, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: For more on this, let’s go down to Washington. Congressman Dennis Kucinich called out there by Robert Gibbs, joins us this morning. He, of course, ran for president the last two around, I believe. So, Congressman, how did you take Mr. Gibbs’ comments? An insult? REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: No. I think that Mr. Gibbs and the White House needs to realize that liberals support the President, but there’s still- the criticism is really a measure of the hopes that have not been realized. And I don’t think they ought to take it in the manner in which Gibbs, and apparently, the rest of the White House does take the criticism. STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman, what more could the President have done? You’ve got this almost $800 million stimulus bill. You’ve got a financial reform package. He did something that no president in- no Democratic president in 50 years has been able to do, lay the groundwork for universal, national health care. That is quite a legislative record, isn’t it? KUCINICH: Well, you can’t take away from the president his accomplishments, and I certainly don’t. But, there is this factor at the beginning of yours news show, you demonstrated, the economy is in a deep trough. We’re looking at a double dip recession. We have 9.5 percent of Americans out of work, over 15 million American has out of work. You have the trade deficit which is the largest it’s been in the last two years. We have to do something about the joblessness. It’s a key issue. And until the administration effectively addresses that, then those of us who call ourselves liberals are going to continue to insist, look, we should be talking about a full employment economy. We should be talking about getting America back to work. We shouldn’t be capitulating to the Fed or Wall Street with this false notion that a certain amount of unemployment is necessary for the proper functioning of the economy. We have to get America back to work. That is the key and central issue to all of this. And, in addition, if I might add, don’t forget about getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq, because that also inevitably has a drag on the economy. STEPHANOPOULOS: I know those are all big- The President has been pushing, though, very hard for more job creations programs. But the votes just aren’t there in the House and Senate, are they? KUCINICH: Well, you know what, though? The kind of tremendous hope that America felt in January of 2009 with the election of Barack Obama, an election which I supported after the- they’re still out there. People still want to believe that government has this transformational power. And it does. But we need the leadership that can make it happen. Franklin Roosevelt recognized in 1933 that America needed not just a New Deal, but we will to put America back to work. Rebuild the economy, rebuild America. We still have the capacity to do that now. And that’s what I say, the criticism is about hopes that have not been realized and the intention to make sure they get realized while we have a President we do want to support. STEPHANOPOULOS: Democratic governor Ed Rendell said the other day at that President is vulnerable to the primary challenge from the left. Are you considering on running again? KUCINICH: No. And I think it’s, you know, what we have to do is focus on coming together for the purpose of getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, the news is they want to slow down the movement out of Afghanistan. We have to focus on creating jobs. And, you know, it’s important who’s president, yes. But it’s also important that we as Democrats come together on mainstream economic ideas and try to paint as out of the mainstream, people who want a full-employment economy. People who want peace, people who want to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s the mistake that Mr. Gibbs made. He’s missing exactly what’s happening out there across America.

Here is the original post:
George Stephanopoulos Touts Obama’s Liberal Achievements: ‘What More Could the President Have Done?’

10 More Ways To Get Rid Of The Bed (Slideshow)

EDCM via Archdaily . Image by Gaston Bergeret A while back, TreeHugger looked at 7 Ways To Get Rid Of The Bed , which has turned into a favourite. While we probably spend more time in it than any other single place in our day, it also takes up more space than just about anything else in our homes. We’ve shown a lot of innovative ways to deal with the bed, from transformer furniture to loft beds to entire transforme… Read the full story on TreeHugger

See more here:
10 More Ways To Get Rid Of The Bed (Slideshow)

Olbermann Mocks Bozell, NewsBusters as ‘Worst Person in the World’

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann named MRC president Brent Bozell Wednesday’s “Worst Person in the World” for my NewsBusters post on Jon Stewart’s sneering attack on  conservatives as supposedly being opponents of religious freedom over the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. (Audio here .) Predictably, in choosing this dishonor, Olbermann was playing rip-and-read from certain Hillary Clinton-founded Fox-and-Rush watchdogs, as he routinely acts as the TV Xerox of the Bush-Hating Left-Wing Blogosphere. Olbermann also re-tweeted them yesterday . None of these analysts on the left evaluated their own tendency to see grave threats to freedom of religion and church-state separation from Christian evangelists, but nothing at all threatening to their swaggering secular coolness from Islamic advocates of “dialogue.” (See, for example, one take on the Ground Zero Imam Feisal Abdul-Rauf’s views on America’s “Shariah compliance.” Hello, Barry Lynn?) Here’s the transcript:   OLBERMANN: But our winner, Brent Bozell of the hilarious Media Research Center and NewsBusters — not happy that John Stewart criticized the anti-American frenzy by conservatives to stop the building of houses of worship for Muslims. “Stewart,” writes Tim Graham on NewsBusters, quote, “mocked conservatives for having no respect for freedom of religion. This from Comedy Central, the network that mocks Jesus and Christians relentlessly but censors whenever the radical Muslims threaten them? Yes, Stewart was arguing for the greatness of Islam that it should be accepted with great tolerance as a global religion.” Except, of course, when Comedy Central folded in front of Muslim protests over an episode of South Park , Stewart mocked Comedy Central. You know how I know that? Graham’s own Media Research Center and NewsBusters applauded Stewart for doing it. One Lachlan Markay wrote, “Jon Stewart noted the blatant censorship his employer Comedy Central exercised against its popular show South Park by banning it from showing and even uttering the word ‘Mohammed’ in this week’s episode after a threat came forward from an Islamic group. His extensive recap of all the religions the show has made fun of over the years was clearly a critique of Comedy Central’s decision.” Clearly, people at NewsBusters are not relying on their own Web site for information. Then again, with their kind of track record, who would? Brent Bozell of the somewhat self-destructive NewsBusters and Media Research Council [sic], today’s “Worst Person” – hey, beard – “in the World”! I wrote that Stewart and his network shouldn’t “cower” before Muslim critics as they trash Christians. But it’s clear that Lachlan reported that Stewart mocked radical Islam (sort of) over the Comedy Central censorship in April. He lightly made fun of the bosses, and then lightly mocked the Muslim death-threateners with Jewish-deli-and-Frisbee jokes: They “try to intimidate the creators of South Park all while enjoying our lovely theater district, our many diverse restaurants including really the best Jewish delis you’ll find and our new high line park. It’s a park made out of an elevated train line. It’s a super-thin park in the sky. Let’s play Frisbee.” Radical Muslims make death threats; Stewart makes Frisbee jokes and mocks gospel choirs with his “F-You” song. That hardly compares in tone and temper to another April bit, Stewart trashing the 21st-century Catholic Church for heinous massacres in the 13th  as well as everything from Galileo to the Spanish Inquisition: SAMANTHA BEE: The Cathars, the gnostic sect in 13th century France. STEWART: I still got nothing there. BEE: Tens of thousands of them were massacred under the direct authority of Pope Innocent III, persecuted out of existence by the Catholic Church. STEWART: Oh, I see. BEE: Well, that’s what you’re doing now. STEWART: Sam, see, if any other organization had done anything close to what the church is being accused of, they’d be done! The church is barely showing any contrition. Stewart also made fun of Christian “Islamophobes” and Fox News in early July when the bizarre story of NASA administrator Charles Bolden’s Islamic outreach broke. Clearly, the cable news stars on the Left plays the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend game. Just like they were anti-anti-Communist, now they’re anti-anti-Islamist. 

See more here:
Olbermann Mocks Bozell, NewsBusters as ‘Worst Person in the World’

New Study Documents Media’s Servitude to Government

A newly released study from students at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government provides the latest evidence of how thoroughly devoted the American establishment media is to amplifying and serving (rather than checking) government officials. This new study examines how waterboarding has been discussed by America’s four largest newspapers over the past 100 years, and finds that the technique, almost invariably, was unequivocally referred to as “torture” — until the U.S. Government began openly using it and insisting that it was not torture, at which time these newspapers obediently ceased describing it that way: Similarly, American newspapers are highly inclined to refer to waterboarding as “torture” when practiced by other nations, but will suddenly refuse to use the term when it’s the U.S. employing that technique: As always, the American establishment media is simply following in the path of the U.S. Government (which is why it’s the “establishment media”): the U.S. itself long condemned waterboarding as “torture” and even prosecuted it as such, only to suddenly turn around and declare it not to be so once it began using the tactic. That’s exactly when there occurred, as the study puts it, “a significant and sudden shift in how newspapers characterized waterboading.” As the U.S. Government goes, so goes our establishment media. ARTICLE CONTINUES… added by: Omnomynous

Ed Schultz, Clueless as Usual, Angered by Allegedly Unprecedented Criticism of First Lady

Is Ed Schultz determined to make his mark as the dumbest man in media? Hardly a day passes without the lib radio host and MSNBC action hero providing more fodder for the premise. On his radio show Monday, Schultz rushed to the defense of first lady Michelle Obama for criticism of her winging off to an opulent Spanish resort hotel during — as Schultz and other liberals oft remind us — the worst economy since the Great Depression. Here’s Schultz defending Mrs. Obama after first talking about a campaign ad that mocks House Minority Leader John Boehner as an out-of-touch elitist golfer ( click here for audio) — I think the Democrats, as far as setting the tone, I don’t know why the White House isn’t all over this. I think that the criticism that Michelle Obama is getting for being overseas is absolutely disgusting. She is the first lady of the United States, the assumed ambassador, someone who can do nothing but goodwill for America and its allies and its image in the world. And I think it’s important. I’ve never, ever seen a story like this where the first lady is criticized. This is a great chance for the White House to go on the offensive. It is true that Michelle Obama’s overseas and she’s not running for anything, but she’s not on the golf course 119 times the way John Boehner is. Then again, Boehner isn’t bringing 70 Secret Service agents in tow on the public dime when he hits the links (his office denies that Boehner has golfed anywhere near as often as alleged by Blue America). Schultz claims he’s “never, ever seen a story like this where the first lady is criticized.” The sentiment of a Democrat, no doubt, but surely not a democrat. I’ll attempt to jog Schultz’s memory with the first obvious example that comes to mind. Just out of curiosity, Ed, did Hillary Clinton undergo much criticism in the eight years she was first lady? (I remember it well, from back when I was a Democrat). Unless Schultz was also in a coma during the decade before that, surely he recalls that first lady Nancy Reagan withstood similar slings and arrows during her husband’s two terms in office. Nancy Reagan and her astrologer — ring a bell? How about Mrs. Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign against drug abuse, the one liberals raved about? Any of this strike a chord? If Schultz were an inquisitive sort, he might be familiar with what is arguably the closest parallel to Michelle Obama’s vacation in Spain and its cost in political capital to her husband — then-first lady Jacqueline Kennedy yachting in the Mediterranean with — wait for it — her future second husband, Aristotle Onassis. As described by Laurence Leamer in his 2001 book, “The Kennedy Men: 1901-1963” — The president clearly would have preferred not to have his wife sailing around the Mediterranean with Onassis, but there was no other luxury yacht in the world like the Christina, and he figured it was just the tonic that Jackie might need before facing the rigors of re-election. To keep up a pretense that the journey had some other purpose than amusement, and to watch over his wife, he asked Franklin Roosevelt Jr., his undersecretary of Commerce, and his wife, Suzanne, to go along. Kennedy was consumed enough by the idea of his wife going off with the Greek magnate that while staying at the Carlyle Hotel on September 20, he doodled on a notepad ‘Jackie-Onassis.’ … Jackie sailed off on October 5 from Athens, along with a crew of sixty, including two coiffeurs and a dance band. The ship had hardly left port when the previously sacrosanct Jackie became the subject of criticism. Was it ‘improper for the wife of the president … to accept [Onassis’s] lavish hospitality?’ asked Congressman Oliver Bolton, an Ohio Republican. With his re-election campaign less than a year away, Kennedy was attuned to even the most subdued criticism. He knew that the Republicans would attempt to create an image of the White House, in the words of the GOP national chairman, as a scene of ‘twisting in the historic East Ballroom … [and] all-night parties in foreign lands.’ ‘Well, why did you let Jackie go with Onassis?’ Kennedy was asked at a private party while the boat sailed the Aegean, bad publicity traveling in its wake. ‘Jackie has my blessing to go anywhere that will make her feel better,’ he replied, leaving the matter at that. … Jackie’s European sojourn had created headlines that might please a king, but not a democratic leader — ‘Mrs. Kennedy Aegean Island-Hopping,’ ‘Jackie Follows Script as Hollywood Wrote It,’ ‘Jackie Sails in Splendor.’ Betty Beal, a Washington social columnist, reported that Jackie’s European trip had caused ‘complaints … to pour in from all quarters and it may hurt politically.’ Marianne Means, a Hearst columnist and reporter, wrote: ‘During her three years in the White House, she had consistently refused all invitations to appear with the president at political functions and most public events, outside the realm of the arts. She did not once accompany him last fall as he campaigned for Democratic congressmen up for re-election. And she has never traveled with him on any of his trips around the country.’ Jackie had a radiant popularity all her own that would help create the almost frenetic excitement that would translate into votes next November. In 1960 Kennedy’s advisers had thought Jackie might be a liability; in 1964, in a close campaign, she might prove a crucial asset. Later that fall, Mrs. Kennedy decided to accompany her husband on a campaign swing for the first time since 1960, to Texas where JFK sought to broker peace between feuding Democrats.

More here:
Ed Schultz, Clueless as Usual, Angered by Allegedly Unprecedented Criticism of First Lady

Paul Narang Is America’s Most Eligible Man [Amazing Americans]

“This guy is handing his card out on the ‘L’ train in Chicago to women for dating purposes,” a tipster informed us today. The guy in question is Paul Narang : Businessman. Republican. And eligible male. Let’s meet him, shall we? More

Rick Sanchez: Investigate Vatican, Mormons’ Funding as Well as NYC Mosque?

CNN’s Rick Sanchez bizarrely wondered on Tuesday’s Rick List whether investigating the funding behind the planned mosque near Ground Zero would lead to investigations into Catholic and/or Mormon funding: ” If you start going into who is giving money …you’ve got to go to Rome and s tart asking where the money is going into Rome ….and you have to go the Mormons and ask … what are they doing with their money? Sanchez posed that vaguely morally relativistic question as he interviewed former New York Governor George Pataki during the prime-time edition of his program 14 minutes into the 8 pm Eastern hour. Before bringing on his guest, the CNN anchor inquired whether the opponents of the proposed Islamic center/mosque had become extreme: ” Are those against this Islamic center/mosque in New York City going too far these days? I want to you decide as you look at this new ad that’s going to be running on city buses in New York. On one side, as you look at this, you will see that there’s a picture of a mosque- on the other side, a shot of a plane that’s slamming into the Twin Towers, and it poses this question: why there? The ad is being sponsored by a group that’s called The American Freedom Defense Initiative.” After noting former New York City Mayor Ed Koch and current mayor Michael Bloomberg’s support for the mosque, Sanchez introduced Pataki and first asked him, “Why are they [Koch and Bloomberg] wrong and why are you right?” After the Republican explained his opposition, the anchor gave his first hint to his later Catholic/Mormon question: ” Once you start telling someone you can’t worship here because it affects the sensibilities or sensitivities of someone else, you’re starting to go down a slippery slope, and then a lot of people would ask- well, which religion is next? Who else are we going to not let worship where they want, how they want?” Pataki disputed Sanchez’s point and added that “the imam in charge, Imam Rauf…has refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization…We also know that he has said, after September 11th, that those attacks were in part a result of American policies.” The CNN anchor then pressed his point with his “asking where the money is going into Rome” question. The two spent the bulk of the rest of the segment arguing over the mosque funding question. Near the end of the interview, however, Sanchez seemed to endorse colleague Fareed Zakaria’s recent claim that Imam Rauf was actually an enemy of Islamism : “We see that Feisal Abdul Rauf has been called ‘al Qaeda’s worst nightmare’- in fact by Fareed Zakaria, just this weekend on his show, because, according to Fareed and according to documents that we have seen- this guy sounds to me like he truly believes in American democracy, and he’s on the record saying that he wants all Muslims to repudiate extremists.” Pataki replied, “He may be rejecting violence. I don’t know that’s the case, when he refuses to renounce Hamas as a terrorist organization. Why will he not do that?” The full transcript of Rick Sanchez’s interview of George Pataki on Tuesday’s Rick’s List: SANCHEZ Are those against this Islamic center/mosque in New York City going too far these days? I want to you decide as you look at this new ad that’s going to be running on city buses in New York. On one side, as you look at this, you will see that there’s a picture of a mosque- on the other side, a shot of a plane that’s slamming into the Twin Towers, and it poses this question: why there? The ad is being sponsored by a group that’s called The American Freedom Defense Initiative. It has set off controversy and lawsuits in New York, and has some pretty big names Tweeting in to ‘Rick’s List’ about this. As a matter of fact, let’s go to the Twitter board. These are tweets I got today. Look who watches ‘Rick’s List’ and decided to send us a Tweet. ‘It is wrong to use the government to stop construction of a mosque where a church or synagogue would be permissible.’ That’s Ed Koch, former mayor of New York. So, that’s what the ex-mayor says. Look, let’s ask the present mayor what he says as well. Take that, if you would. NEW YORK CITY MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property, based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. SANCHEZ: So those are two mayors, and now a former governor. George Pataki is good enough to joins us live. Mr. Governor, thanks so much for being with us, sir. We appreciate your time. FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI : Thank you, Rick- nice being with you. SANCHEZ: Why are they wrong and why are you right? PATAKI: Well, I don’t think it’s a question of religious freedom. You just had your chart where you showed that New York has over 230 mosques, the most in America, and we are certainly a very tolerant society. In this city alone, New York City, there are over 100 mosques. So, it’s not the question of building a mosque. The question is, what is this facility going to be? Who is behind it? How are they funding it? And I think that until those questions are answered, it’s absolutely wrong. And it’s not just a local community neighborhood mosque. This is a facility that’s going to rise 13 to 15 stories high, that’s going to cost $100 million, and we don’t know where that’s coming from. And in the- and what they claim is that it’s in the name of showing respect. Well, out of sensitivity to those of us who care so strongly about the memory of September 11th, why that site? And, Rick, there’s another development today. SANCHEZ: Okay. PATAKI: Governor Paterson just said he would look- if they were willing to look for another site, he would look to use the state to find a more appropriate site further from Ground Zero. It’s, in fact, what they want to do- SANCHEZ: But, Governor, if this is a constitutional issue, which most people would agree it is- I mean, you come to this country- PATAKI: I don’t- SANCHEZ: And one of the reasons we’re different from them is that we have the right to worship wherever it is we want. Once you start telling someone you can’t worship here because it affects the sensibilities or sensitivities of someone else, you’re starting to go down a slippery slope, and then a lot of people would ask- well, which religion is next? Who else are we going to not let worship where they want, how they want? PATAKI: Rick, I don’t think that’s the case at all. It’s not a question of not allowing people to worship. It’s a question of why this site- where is the funding coming from for this site? We have a right to know that. It will be a registered charity, and they’re required to disclose their funding. They haven’t done that. And in this particular case, the imam in charge, Imam Rauf- we don’t know much about him, but we know some things. One is that he has refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, although our government has done that. We also know that he has said, after September 11th, that those attacks were in part a result of American policies, which I reject completely- SANCHEZ Yeah, but let me tell you- but let me tell you- let me tell you, Governor- PATAKI: One of the reason we were attacked is because we do believe in freedom of speech. And- wait: if this is a legitimate house of worship, why aren’t they willing to work with officials, like the governor, and find a more appropriate site, as opposed to doing something that is deliberately, in my view, provocative to those of us who hold the memory of September 11 so reverently- SANCHEZ: You’ve raised some interesting questions and made some excellent points. But the question goes back to who this imam is. And also, if you start going into who is giving money to whom- I mean, then you have to go to my church. I mean, you’ve got to go to Rome and start asking where the money is going into Rome. PATAKI: Yeah (unintelligble)- SANCHEZ: And you have to go the Mormons and ask them-well, what are they doing with their money? I mean, that too becomes a problematic area to go, when it comes to the people’s right to worship constitutionally in this country, does it not? PATAKI: Rick, I disagree with you on that completely, as well. We have a right to know, with a charity, registered in the State of New York, where the funds are coming from, and if they are coming from Iran- if they are coming from Hamas- if they are coming from supporters of terrorism- obviously, this is something that we should be able to factor into whether or not the mosque should be there. SANCHEZ: But this is not- PATAKI: We don’t know the answer to these questions. SANCHEZ: But this is not a charity, Governor. This is a religion, and a religion is different than a charity. Constitutionally speaking, it’s got to be different (unintelligible), does it not? PATAKI: They are subject to the same disclosure laws. It’s not a question of the Constitution. No one is saying that we are looking to deny any Islam- any Muslim- freedom of speech- freedom of the ability to carry out their religion. What we’re saying is that this mega-facility, 13 to 15 stories high- we have a right- particularly, when they are looking to build this so close to Ground Zero- to know who are people behind it, what is the motivation behind it. Is this going to be an Islamist institution- SANCHEZ: All right. Well, let’s talk- PATAKI: That teaches intolerance and teaches violence against America? We don’t have to tolerate that, and we should not tolerate that. SANCHEZ: No, sir. Those are excellent questions, and they should be asked, and you’re absolutely right- PATAKI: And they should be answered. SANCHEZ: And I think everything [sic] in America would probably agree with you. But if you look at some of the facts on the ground right now- we see that Feisal Abdul Rauf has been called ‘al Qaeda’s worst nightmare’- in fact by Fareed Zakaria, just this weekend on his show, because, according to Fareed and according to documents that we have seen- this guy sounds to me like he truly believes in American democracy, and he’s on the record saying that he wants all Muslims to repudiate extremists. It sounds, just from that- I know there could be other sides to the story- but it sounds just from that like this is the type of Muslims that we Americans should embrace, doesn’t it? PATAKI: We should be embracing Muslims, but do you know if he’s an Islamist or not? He may be rejecting violence. I don’t know that’s the case, when he refuses to renounce Hamas as a terrorist organization. Why will he not do that? But is he an Islamist who believes that the Islamic community should work to impose Sharia law, not just on their members, but on the country with whom- wherein they live? We don’t know the answer to these questions, and until we do, I think we have every right to say that this might not simply be a neighborhood house of worship. This might be something aimed at a more political agenda, in which case, not only do we have the right, I think we have an obligation to protect the memory of those who died on September 11th. SANCHEZ: This has been an excellent interview, and I’m so glad that you had a chance to come on and share this perspective with us tonight. Former Governor George Pataki of New York- thank you, sir, for giving us a chance to hear this perspective. We appreciate it. PATAKI: Thank you, Rick- nice being on with you.

More here:
Rick Sanchez: Investigate Vatican, Mormons’ Funding as Well as NYC Mosque?

NYT Worries Rich Win Even If Bush Tax Cuts Expire Just For Them

In today’s “It Took You Long Enough To Figure It Out” segment, the New York Times is seriously worried that if the only Bush tax cuts that expire in January are those for the wealthiest Americans, the rich still win. Not surprisingly, Jackie Calmes’ piece on Wednesday also referred to extending existing law as “tax cuts,” a neat little trick the Left employ to give the appearance new cuts are being discussed when in fact the only thing on the table is whether what’s on the books will continue to be so. But facts aren’t important in this debate. Scaring folks into believing rich people are taking money away from them is: Given the progressive nature of the federal income tax system, in which tax rates increase with income, even the richest households would continue to pay the four lower rates on up to the first $250,000 of their income, under the approach being pushed by Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress. What Calmes was doing here was explaining to most of the likely ill-informed Times readers – after all, they probably only get their “news” from this propagandist source! – that marginal tax rates go up with income and that higher wage earners pay at those same lower rates on their initial earnings that qualify. As such, they pay ten percent on earnings up to a defined amount, then fifteen percent up to another, then 25 percent, etc. As the President is proposing extending all of the Bush tax cuts except the ones on the two top brackets, those in these upper brackets would still benefit by the lower rates applied to the lower brackets: Taxpayers with income of more than $1 million for 2011 would still receive on average a tax cut of about $6,300 compared with what they would have paid under rates in effect until 2001, according to the analysis, which was prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation at the request of the Democratic majority on the House Ways and Means Committee. That compares, however, with the roughly $100,000 average tax cut that households with more than $1 million in income would receive under current rates. Filers with taxable income of $500,000 to $1 million would still get on average a tax cut of $6,700 compared with pre-2001 rates, according to the data from the tax analysts. But that compares with roughly $17,500 if the top Bush tax rates were maintained. Of course, the other way of putting this is that if the President gets his way, those making over $1 million a year on average would see their taxes rise by $93,700; those making between $500,000 and $1 million on average would see their taxes increase by $10,800. Can’t you just hear all the cheering from the nicer neighborhoods in America? To give you an idea of how the far-left views this, the Huffington Post offered its readers the following headline and picture to get them to read Calmes’ piece: This is from a woman that believes income and taxes have nothing to do with a business owner’s decision to hire more employees. So, what do you expect?  On the other hand, if the “rich” benefit from cuts in those lower brackets, doesn’t that mean the Bush tax cuts weren’t just for the rich and that lower-income folks benefited from them, too? As always, this ironically inconvenient truth was lost on Calmes just as it is Obama, the Democrats, and a media that have been misrepresenting this from the day it was first proposed.  Think about it: if these cuts really were just for the rich when they were implemented in 2003, why bother keeping any of them now? If the poor and middle class are going to benefit from them being extended, doesn’t that mean they benefited when these cuts were first implemented, and that these weren’t just tax cuts for the rich? Of course, if the Times and its colleagues were honest about this in 2003, maybe Americans would have a far different view of the Bush tax cuts – but that would be too much like journalism for these shills. 

Continue reading here:
NYT Worries Rich Win Even If Bush Tax Cuts Expire Just For Them