Tag Archives: Barack Obama

Gossip Girl: You’ll Get Yours in the End [Video]

Oh my god this show is still on. Still on! After all those twists and turns and lover’s burns, it soldiers on. Despite everything, it believes it is still interesting at heart. More

Bush: ‘I’d Have Endorsed Obama If They’d Asked Me’ [Surprises]

During the 2008 campaign, President George W. Bush told a group of visiting Brits that he “probably” wouldn’t vote for McCain, according to Financial Times writer Alex Barker. That’s not all: He also said he would’ve endorsed Obama if asked. More

FBI Raids Peace Activists (and Boosts the Anti-War Movement)

If the FBI was hoping to silence the anti-war movement by raiding the homes of activists across the country, as critics claim, they don't appear to have succeeded. In fact, the bureau may just have given the movement — which indisputably waned with the election of Barack Obama — the spark activists say it needed. Last week, FBI agents raided a half-dozen homes and offices of activists in Minneapolis — all organizers of protests outside the 2008 Republican Convention — and the homes of two others in Chicago, part of what the bureau claims is an investigation into whether members of the anti-war movement provided “material support” to designated terrorist organizations, such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and Hezbollah. Around a dozen others were also reportedly issued subpoenas to testify before a grand jury next month. “It’s an attack on all of us,” says Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the group Code Pink, speaking to Change.org outside FBI headquarters in downtown Washington. Around 40 activists demonstrated outside the building on Tuesday in a show of solidarity with those raided. Benjamin says those targeted by the FBI were only supporting peace processes in the Middle East and Colombia, and that the bureau is really engaged in more of a fishing expedition than real terrorism investigation. Indeed, despite last week's raids and salacious allegations, not a single arrest was made. “These were search warrants only,” said FBI spokesman Steve Warfield. But if the goal was to divide and silence the anti-war community, Benjamin says they sure haven't succeeded. “They made a big mistake because they picked Minneapolis and Chicago,” she says, “two places where there are huge progressive communities, very tight communities, and areas of the country where people are very proud of their First Amendment rights and their independent spirits.” In a sign of the strength of activist communities there, hundreds of activists on Monday rallied outside federal buildings in both cities to protest the FBI's raids. Solidarity rallies were also held across the country this week, from Salt Lake City to Philadelphia. Yet despite the fact that all those targeted in the raids were members of explicitly anti-war organizations — and avowed proponents of non-violence — they could still face criminal prosecution thanks to the government's extremely broad definition of what it means to provide “material support” for terrorism, a definition that extends to counseling others to embrace peace. While the law is ostensibly aimed at actual terrorists and their supporters, former President Jimmy Carter said in a statement released by the ACLU this past that the government's interpretation of “material support” — upheld by the Supreme Court this past June — threatens the humanitarian work not only of his own Carter Center, but “the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence.” The “vague” wording of the law, he said, “leaves us wondering if we will be prosecuted for our work to promote peace and freedom.” But at Tuesday's rally in Washington, protesters — chanting “FBI, stop the raids, we won't back down, we're not afraid” — said the government's investigation into activists' alleged support for terrorism would only spur them to redouble their efforts to oppose U.S. militarism. One speaker, Rev. Graylan Hagler, a long-time progressive activist and senior minister at the Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ in northeast Washington, said the raids were a sign not of the government's strength, but of its fear of dissent. “I’ve got news for you: in the eyes of the FBI, each of you who are standing out here — you’re terrorists,” said Harlan. “Why? Because you bring terror to the status quo.” While the government promotes injustice at home and abroad, “we choose to stand on the side of justice. And we choose to be in solidarity with people who are oppressed. They will come after us, but I’m going to tell you, we will not be silent.” Code Pink's Medea Benjamin, meanwhile, says the terrible irony is that while the FBI raids peace activists, “the real terrorists are walking freely right here in Washington, DC, and around this country — the ones that took us into these disastrous wars. And it’s absolutely outrageous that those of us who believe that we shouldn’t be bombing other people around the world and we shouldn’t be supporting dictatorial regimes are the ones whose homes are raided.” But there may be a bright side, she says, as the FBI's raids have drawn attention to — and appear to have awoken — the previously moribund anti-war community. “I think it was a huge mistake and I think we can use it to our advantage to reenergize our movement.” added by: pinkpanther

EPA to Set Even Tougher Fuel Economy Standards for 2017-2025

Photo via Room for Debate But Just How Tough? There’s been much speculation about what the EPA’s post-2016 fuel economy standards will be when they’re announced this week. As of now, thanks to an executive order from the Obama administration, the national fuel economy standard will be 35.5 mpg by 2016 . After that — well that’s where the speculation comes in. Environmental groups ar… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Visit link:
EPA to Set Even Tougher Fuel Economy Standards for 2017-2025

EPA Revives Environmental Justice Working Group After Ten Year Hiatus

About 55% of waste from the Gulf oil spill has been disposed of in minority communities. Photo: Deepwater Horizon Response via flickr. With little fanfare other than press release a week ago (which I missed and Miller McCune didn’t) the Environmental Protection Agency has reconvened the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice … Read the full story on TreeHugger

See the article here:
EPA Revives Environmental Justice Working Group After Ten Year Hiatus

Thomas Friedman Bashes Tea Party, Wants Better More ‘Centrist’ Movement

New York Times correspondent Thomas Friedman is clearly unhappy about the Tea Party, so much so that he considers the movement “not that important.” Instead, he envisions another group, “which stretches from centrist Republicans to independents right through to centrist Democrats,” sitting silently out there in America waiting for the right leader to emerge. So wrote Friedman Wednesday in his ” The Tea Kettle Movement “: The Tea Party that has gotten all the attention, the amorphous, self-generated protest against the growth in government and the deficit, is what I’d actually call the “Tea Kettle movement” – because all it’s doing is letting off steam. That is not to say that the energy behind it is not authentic (it clearly is) or that it won’t be electorally impactful (it clearly might be). But affecting elections and affecting America’s future are two different things. Based on all I’ve heard from this movement, it feels to me like it’s all steam and no engine. It has no plan to restore America to greatness. The Tea Kettle movement can’t have a positive impact on the country because it has both misdiagnosed America’s main problem and hasn’t even offered a credible solution for the problem it has identified. How can you take a movement seriously that says it wants to cut government spending by billions of dollars but won’t identify the specific defense programs, Social Security, Medicare or other services it’s ready to cut – let alone explain how this will make us more competitive and grow the economy? Friedman like so many on the left seems ignorant of history, not just the American version but also the world’s. Important political movements on this planet since the dawn of time begin with protest. A small group decides it’s being treated unfairly and begins expressing such sentiments. As it grows, those in power become fearful and either implement changes to assuage the anger developing in their population or are eventually overthrown. If the latter occurs, those doing the conquering don’t initially have a clear platform to enact once they attain power. That comes later. Did our Founding Fathers know what form of government the United States would be when colonists first began protesting the edicts of the King of England? Of course not. That didn’t come until years later. That Friedman and so many media members complaining about the lack of specific ideas in the Tea Party don’t understand this is either the height of stupidity or dishonesty. But Friedman wasn’t done, for he next threw out the same tired line about this movement not being credible because it wasn’t complaining about out of control spending when George W. Bush was president. Once again, this is either ignorant or an intentional misrepresentation, as one of the reasons Democrats did so well at the polls in 2006 was because so many of today’s Tea Party members refused to vote for Republicans that year.  The anger on the Right was first manifested in an election boycott that continued in 2008 when many conservatives couldn’t bring themselves to vote for John McCain. As such, there was plenty of anger being expressed towards establishment Republicans prior to Barack Obama’s inauguration, but it was taking forms that weren’t apparent to liberal media elites like Friedman. That said, having discredited the movement that is currently having more impact on America than the two major parties are, Friedman spoke about another: The issues that upset the Tea Kettle movement – debt and bloated government – are actually symptoms of our real problem, not causes. They are symptoms of a country in a state of incremental decline and losing its competitive edge, because our politics has become just another form of sports entertainment, our Congress a forum for legalized bribery and our main lawmaking institutions divided by toxic partisanship to the point of paralysis. The important Tea Party movement, which stretches from centrist Republicans to independents right through to centrist Democrats, understands this at a gut level and is looking for a leader with three characteristics. Leadership today is about how the U.S. government attracts and educates more of that talent and then enacts the laws, regulations and budgets that empower that talent to take its products and services to scale, sell them around the world – and create good jobs here in the process. Without that, we can’t afford the health care or defense we need. Here’s what Friedman believes “the real Tea Party” wants: To implement it would require us to actually raise some taxes – on, say, gasoline – and cut others – like payroll taxes and corporate taxes. It would require us to overhaul our immigration laws so we can better control our borders, let in more knowledge workers and retain those skilled foreigners going to college here. And it would require us to reduce some services – like Social Security – while expanding others, like education and research for a 21st-century economy. I’m not kidding. Friedman actually thinks that despite the current economic malaise strangling this nation – 9.6 percent unemployment occurring at the same time the government has exploded in size – there is a groundswell of support for raising some taxes and expanding some services. Yes, history has certainly shown homo sapiens willing to die for higher taxes! Methinks Mr. Friedman needs to spend less time in Greenwich Village and Berkeley to test his liberal theory in what know-it-all elites like him call “Flyover Country.” Unfortunately, that will never happen for these folk only care about the opinions of those residing in a handful of places on the coasts. Maybe they’ll broaden their horizons on November 3.

See the rest here:
Thomas Friedman Bashes Tea Party, Wants Better More ‘Centrist’ Movement

President Obama Is a Nas and Lil Wayne Fan These Days [Music]

Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner has published an extremely long interview with Barack Obama , during which he was asked about Rolling Stone ‘s “specialty,” popular music. Turns out the president’s rap taste is expanding beyond your grandfather’s plain old Jay-Z. More

NBC Finds Most Americans Oppose Repeal of ObamaCare, But CBS Reports ‘Just 30%’ Favor ObamaCare

Sunday’s Today show on NBC and Sunday Morning on CBS presented seemingly contradictory polling results on how much ObamaCare is supported by the American public, although both seemed to be citing the same AP poll. As Meet the Press host David Gregory appeared on Today, anchor Lester Holt suggested that Republicans are going against the majority of Americans in promising to repeal ObamaCare as he vaguely referred to polling data and contended, “But new polling out suggests that most people not only do they not want to, don’t want it repealed, they want more added to it,” and added, “Do Republicans have to refine this message and take a better look at it?” According to the AP poll as reported at msnbc.com , “four in 10 adults think the new law did not go far enough to change the health care system.” By contrast, on Sunday Morning, CBS anchor Charles Osgood briefly recounted numbers from the AP poll which suggested that ObamaCare is unpopular. Osgood: “A poll commissioned by the Associated Press finds just 30 percent of Americans in favor of the new health care law, 30 percent are neutral, and 40 percent oppose it. Four out of 10 respondents say the new law doesn’t do enough to change the health care system.” Returning to NBC, Gregory did not comment directly on whether he believed the poll’s accuracy, as he argued that the Republican message may indeed be successful, and went on to raise the theory from the left that ObamaCare will become more popular as people benefit from it: If the message is government’s out of control, they passed this huge entitlement, it’s going to cost a lot of money and have you felt the effects of it yet, I think that has the shot to be a winning political message. But the more people start to feel health care reform, so the argument goes, it will become more popular. But that has not exactly been the case across the board yet with health care reform, and that’s why the President has to keep hammering away at it. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Sunday, September 26, Sunday Morning on CBS, followed by the same day’s Today show on NBC: #From the September 26 Sunday Morning on CBS: CHARLES OSGOOD: A poll commissioned by the Associated Press finds just 30 percent of Americans in favor of the new health care law, 30 percent are neutral, and 40 percent oppose it. Four out of 10 respondents say the new law doesn’t do enough to change the health care system. #From the September 26 Today show on NBC: LESTER HOLT: The President in his weekly radio address, he talked about the Pledge for America, it’s the Republican pledge that they have released. One of the things they talked about was going after the health care, repealing the health care bill. But new polling out suggests that most people not only do they not want to, don’t want it repealed they want more added to it. Do Republicans have to refine this message and take a better look at it? DAVID GREGORY: Well, I think that, from a political point of view, if the message is government’s out of control, they passed this huge entitlement, it’s going to cost a lot of money and have you felt the effects of it yet, I think that has the shot to be a winning political message. But the more people start to feel health care reform, so the argument goes, it will become more popular. But that has not exactly been the case across the board yet with health care reform, and that’s why the President has to keep hammering away at it. HOLT: This Pledge for America, of course, many compare it to the contract from 1994. How does it differ? GREGORY: Well, I mean, it is, it’s very similar. It lacks some specifics that the ’94 contract had. But one thing that’s similar is that what’s more important than the Pledge to America, what’s more important than the Contract with America is the political climate in which they’re operating. The truth is it’s the unpopularity of President Obama and his policies right now that’s hurting democrats more than faith in the Republicans which, by the way, is an argument that the Presidents trying to exploit and say, look, the alternative is not the way to go here.

Read more here:
NBC Finds Most Americans Oppose Repeal of ObamaCare, But CBS Reports ‘Just 30%’ Favor ObamaCare

Susan Estrich Suddenly ‘Concerned’ Over Paladino Qualifications to Become NY Governor

Remember when liberals brushed aside any criticism of candidate Barack Obama being unqualified to become president because of his lack of executive experience? Well, that was then and this is now because Susan Estrich has suddenly developed “concern” over the qualifications of the Tea Party backed Republican gubernatorial candidate in New York, Carl Paladino. A skeptic might rightly believe this recent Estrich infatuation with qualifications could be inspired by the fact that Paladino is closing the gap in the polls with the Democrat candidate, Andrew Cuomo. Here is Estrich with her newly developed qualifications concern : The Republican nominee for governor of New York doesn’t spend a lot of time talking about himself, which is both good and bad. It’s good because, in truth, his surprise victory over the “establishment” favorite (and Conservative Party candidate) Rick Lazio had very little to do with his qualifications and agenda, and everything to do with his tea party-infused attacks on Albany, government and the powers that are. It’s bad, of course, for precisely the same reason. Is Carl Paladino actually qualified to be governor of New York? The question left unasked by Estrich is whether Andrew Cuomo is actually qualified to be governor of New York. Based on Cuomo’s disastrous tenure as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the answer would have to be no: Andrew Cuomo promised to “transform the lives of millions of families across our country” when as HUD secretary he announced his historic plan to increase home ownership. Eleven years later, many experts think that much-heralded transformation played a role in the devastating subprime mortgage meltdown and the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Estrich doesn’t hide the fact that fear of Democrats losing is the real reason behind her recent concern over qualifications: Christine O’Donnell could win. Cuomo could lose. California could elect a Republican to replace stalwart Democrat Barbara Boxer. I’m not predicting a Democratic demise — yet — but if the most popular politician in New York (and that is Cuomo) is in trouble in a race against a guy who is all but unheard of, whose stump speech consists of off-the-cuff remarks without a hint of an agenda for governing, then it’s about time for some honest-to-goodness high-test fear to match the real anger on the other side. And thank you, Susan, for being honest over what really motivates your concern over candidate qualifications. “High-test fear” over Democrats losing big this year.

Read the original:
Susan Estrich Suddenly ‘Concerned’ Over Paladino Qualifications to Become NY Governor

Peter Schiff — Purveyor of Libertarian Principles … When Convenient

For the past several years, we’ve heard the doom-and-gloom prognostications coming from perma-bear Peter Schiff: The Federal Reserve is the root of all evil. Inflation will be the United States’ undoing. Invest in gold and overseas because the American stock market is toast. Perhaps that’s a legitimate view, but Schiff argues a more libertarian approach to prevent these supposed calamities. He argues for a different way of handling monetary policy , less spending by the federal government and a rethinking of how regulation is handled . Yet, when a political campaign is waged in the halls of Congress by a partisan member against one of his competitors , he turns a blind-eye to the abuses of government power. “You know, I have my own gold company and it bothers me what they’re going to do,” Schiff said to CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report” fill-in host Michelle Caruso-Cabrera on the Sept. 24 broadcast. “I think that companies like, you know, like Goldline, you know that are basically marking up their gold coins 67 percent or whatever – it’s outrageous. I mean, most companies mark-up 2 or 3 percent, which is what I do. These type of companies give the whole industry a bad name. What I’m afraid of is we’re going to have a lot of regulation.” Caruso-Cabrera asked Schiff in these circumstances if it was a case of buyer beware. However, Schiff suggested it was fraudulent for coin companies to charge these prices for what by any measure of the law would be a legal transaction if a consumer chose to purchase coins from such a company. “If there’s fraud, it’s not buyer beware,” he continued. “But what I’m afraid of is I don’t want government regulating the coin industry so that people like me have to raise our prices to cover all the extra cost of regulation.” But assuming Schiff’s assumption were correct, wouldn’t he has a competitor be able to move in on the market and offer the same product for a lower price? Isn’t that how the free market operates? Schiff conceded that point, but complained he was getting beat because he couldn’t afford the advertising. “I mean, I think the free market should ferret out these companies that are grossly overcharging people who don’t know any better. You know, that’s the problem. People haven’t bought gold in so long and see how well it’s doing and get conned by these commercials that are all over television. But most gold companies like mine, we can’t afford to run commercials because we’re not charging that much.” Schiff makes regular appearances on all the cable news networks, with his firm’s logo Euro Pacific Capital on the backdrop and raised more than $3 million for his failed effort to win the Connecticut Republican U.S. Senate nomination. So is it fair to complain about his firm’s inability to market its products, if indeed they’re at lower prices than the competition’s products.

See the original post here:
Peter Schiff — Purveyor of Libertarian Principles … When Convenient