Tag Archives: Breaking News

How about Did Washington Post Actually Think David Weigel Was Libertarian?

Read more here:
How about Did Washington Post Actually Think David Weigel Was Libertarian?

CNN’s Acosta and Costello Parrot Obama Talking Points on Offshore Drilling Moratorium

CNN’s Carol Costello and Jim Acosta revealed their disdain for a federal judge’s decision to overturn the Obama administration’s 6-month moratorium on offshore drilling when the expert they interviewed on the June 25 “American Morning” made a convincing case against the moratorium. Tom Bower, an author who has written extensively on the oil industry, tried to explain the devastating economic impact the moratorium would inflict on an already beleaguered industry, but Costello and Acosta were blinded by ideology: “But isn’t safety more important than money?” queried Costello. “Because, I mean, these oil companies make massive amounts of money each day.” Bower, author of “Oil, Money, Politics and Power in the 21st Century,” drew the ire of Costello and Acosta for calling the Gulf oil spill an “aberration” and noting the oil industry’s “phenomenal” overall safety record.      “But that’s what they say, it is just an aberration, but the BP disaster happened,” argued Costello. “Nobody thought that could happen either. So, it’s just not logical, is it, that argument?” “What do you mean they’re doing a very good job on the whole down there?” demanded Acosta. “I don’t know what that means. In what sense? You know, I mean, this entire body of water is at risk right now. It has been poisoned. And I’m just curious, what do you mean by doing a good job?” Taking aim at Republicans and moderate Democrats like Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.) who continue to support offshore drilling, Acosta asked Bower: “I’m just curious, you know, is there a little bit of a having your cake and eat it too, when it comes to some of these Gulf Coast politicians saying we want the jobs and the protection from any environmental impact at the same time?” Loaded questions designed to advance the White House’s narrative reflect Acosta’s underlying liberal tendencies. Costello also parroted the Obama administration’s narrative: Well, let’s talk about this moratorium because, and I’m just going to play devil’s advocate here. Let’s say — I mean, what’s wrong with these oil companies to stop drilling in the deepwater, these 33 wells, for four more months? Because that’s all we’re talking about when you take the moratorium in its entirety. What’s wrong with that? Bower’s response, unlike Costello’s sputtering rant, was succinct and nonpartisan: Well, the cost. We see each oil platform, each rig costs at least half a million dollars a day, and often more, and they just can’t afford that sort of equipment lying idle and the contractors will find other places around the world who want the rigs, and they’ll just take them there, so there’s just no choice. After dismissing the expert, Acosta, turning to Costello to offer his informed opinion, lamented that “it just doesn’t feel right, you know, to say that as a whole, the industry’s just doing a great job down there.” The transcript of the segment can be found below: CNN American Morning 6/25/10 6:41 a.m. CAROL COSTELLO, co-host: The Obama administration loses another effort to put a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf. But does lifting that ban serve our nation’s best interests? You know, Bonnie is talking about this storm coming in. JIM ACOSTA, co-host: Yeah.                      COSTELLO: Wouldn’t it be a good idea if they continue to stop drilling on those 33 rigs — you know that are affected by this? ACOSTA: It’s another potential complication for this whole thing. COSTELLO: Yes. We’re going to get really into that with author Tom Bower, who has written a lot on BP and the oil industry. It’s 41 minutes past the hour. ACOSTA: Welcome back to the “Most News in the Morning.” You know, a showdown looms this morning over offshore drilling. A federal judge denied the administration’s request to postpone an order that would end a six-month moratorium. COSTELLO: That means if anyone wants to start up the deep water drills, they certainly can, but the White House says it will introduce a new ban in a few days. We wanted to know what a moratorium really means for safety though. Is it really necessary? Joining us from London this morning: Tom Bower, who is the author of “Oil, Money, Politics and Power in the 21st Century.” Good morning, sir. TOM BOWER, author of “Oil, Money, Politics and Power in the 21st Century”: Good morning. COSTELLO: Well, let’s talk about this moratorium because, and I’m just going to play devil’s advocate here. Let’s say — I mean, what’s wrong with these oil companies to stop drilling in the deepwater, these 33 wells, for four more months? Because that’s all we’re talking about when you take the moratorium in its entirety. What’s wrong with that? BOWER: Well, the cost. We see each oil platform, each rig costs at least half a million dollars a day, and often more, and they just can’t afford that sort of equipment lying idle and the contractors will find other places around the world who want the rigs, and they’ll just take them there, so there’s just no choice. COSTELLO: But isn’t safety more important than money? Because, I mean, these oil companies make massive amounts of money each day. BOWER: Well of course, safety is critical. As we’ve now seen, the catastrophe follows if these are not safe. But on the whole, all the oil corporations are working safely. This is just an aberration. COSTELLO: But that’s what they say, it is just an aberration, but the BP disaster happened. Nobody thought that could happen either. So, it’s just not logical, is it, that argument? BOWER: We don’t stop driving on the road because of a car crash. People carry on driving and people walk up staircases and fall down them, but we still walk up stairs. So in the end — ACOSTA: Totally different when you’re talking about an entire body of water as important as the Gulf of Mexico. I mean, the question that I have is we’ve heard the governor of Louisiana, and I’m sure you watch him closely as well, Bobby Jindal, you know, talk about why this moratorium should be lifted for the sake of jobs and so forth. But at the same time, the governor is saying we need to built berms, we need to do all these other things to protect our coastline, and I’m just curious, you know, is there a little bit of a having your cake and eat it, too, when it comes to some of these Gulf Coast politicians saying we want the jobs and the protection from any environmental impact at the same time? BOWER: Look, I’m not an apologist for the oil industry, but I must tell you that on the whole, their record is very good. And America needs the oil, it needs the gas, and the product in the Gulf has been superb, and they’re doing very good job down there on the whole. So, you know, just like we don’t stop fly when a plane crashes, you just got to improve the regulation — ACOSTA: What do you mean they’re doing a very good job on the whole down there? I don’t know what that means. In what sense? You know, I mean, this entire body of water is at risk right now. It has been poisoned. And I’m just curious, what do you mean by doing a good job? Because the other day, there were CEOs from the entire oil industry testifying on Capitol Hill saying that if they were to also engage in deepwater oil drilling, they essentially have the same plan of action in place if there is a major catastrophe, which is, well, we just have to, you know, see if we can plug the hole. BOWER: Look, again, I can only say I’m not an apologist for the industry, but they are extracting amazing amounts of oil from the most difficult conditions. You got to ask why they’re in the Gulf and not getting it from Mexico, Venezuela or Russia. That’s one of the great issues. ACOSTA: Are you saying that we basically put ourselves in this position? I mean, is that your point? BOWER: I think the countries have gotten the oil to put America in that position. But on the whole, they have done a very good job in the Gulf and the executives who testified on the Hill like (INAUDIBLE) have not had these sort of catastrophes that BP is just having. So, I got to repeat on the whole, they’ve done an amazing job to find oil and gas there, and they are bringing it out safely. The point is that the administration discovered that the regulators, the MMS have done a very poor job so the government has got some of the blame here. They’ve let the oil corporations get away with murder for too long. They’ve now learned a lesson. They’ll clearly have much better regulations down in the Gulf and elsewhere as well, because, believe me, they’re going to have to start digging for oil and drilling for oil off other coastlines around the U.S. again in the near future because America needs the oil. COSTELLO: Funny you mentioned that because BP is doing that, you know, off the shores of Alaska and it’s doing this maneuver where they’re drilling it’s three miles offshore, they drilling down very deeply, and then they’re going to make a horizontal line, something that’s never been done before. So, BP, itself, is being allowed to go ahead with this process when we know that BP doesn’t have it together when it comes to extreme disasters and how to fix things. BOWER: You’re absolutely right. The horizontal drilling is really quite well established now. There’s nothing new on that. That is a very effective way of getting huge amounts of oil out which previously would have got lost. But I think BP has learned a lesson. I don’t think they’re going to make that sort of error again. They’re going to be more careful than ever. They can’t afford another catastrophe nor can any other oil corporation. I mean, you just got to set the seed that of course oil is a very risky business as I show in the book. What they’ve done down in the Gulf is quite phenomenal. This is a catastrophe which never should have happened. Everyone is learning lessons. They’re going to do their best to prevent it from happening again, but the government has got as much responsibility now as the oil corporations to make sure that the regulations are there and enforced. COSTELLO: Tom Bower, many thanks to you this morning. We appreciate it. BOWER: Pleasure. ACOSTA: I’m not sure I agree that they’re doing a bang-up job down there, but that’s just my take on it. COSTELLO: You mean BP or the oil industry as a whole? Because I think he was separating them out. ACOSTA: I think he was trying to separate it, but it just doesn’t feel right, you know, to say that as a whole, the industry’s just doing a great job down there. COSTELLO: It’s sort of like you have to trust them that catastrophes similar to what’s happening with BP doesn’t happen again. And the oil companies are saying, “well, we have a great safety record.” But BP said that, too. ACOSTA: Yes. We can’t go on like this. We’ll move on. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow you on Twitter.

Read more:
CNN’s Acosta and Costello Parrot Obama Talking Points on Offshore Drilling Moratorium

NPR Twice Promoted David Weigel as Chronicler of Conservative Extremism

The idea that Washington Post writer David Weigel was supposed to be a conservative — and not merely someone reporting on the conservative movement — was clearly not based on a review of Weigel’s output. Weigel didn’t just deconstruct conservatives for the Post, but was also presented twice recently by National Public Radio as a wise man assessing the fringiness of conservatives. Last October , they wanted to know how strange Fox News was, and whether they could be blamed for Tea Party protests. Weigel called their influence “massive.” Weigel typically suggested Fox and Glenn Beck were not “realistic” in painting President Obama as connected to ACORN and the SEIU. On NPR’s Fresh Air on February 23 , before he joined the Post, Weigel reported on CPAC and the Tea Party and embraced host Terry Gross’s idea that conservatives shouldn’t be big fans of government-enhancing Dick Cheney:  GROSS: So if the conservative movement is glad that Bush isn’t around anymore, and if they think that he embraced big government, why was Dick Cheney such a rock star at CPAC? I mean, if anything, Cheney is the person most responsible for the expansion of the powers of the executive branch. WEIGEL: Well… GROSS: And Cheney was the person who – was the architect in a – one of the architects of the war in Iraq, which was certainly government getting us into a very long war, a war that many people think was not only fought on false premises but many people believe has been very destructive both to America and Iraq. So why did he get such the rousing welcome that he did, if in many ways he represented the expansion of government’s power? WEIGEL: That’s an excellent point, it’s just that he represents a specific kind of government expansion, the expansion of the national security state and the expansion of America’s role in spreading democracy around the world with military action. Those are very popular with conservatives, and that’s a dispute. CPAC was pretty convivial this year, but the dispute that existed there was between more Ron Paul-type activists who think America should pull back from engagement in the world and wiretapping and all these debates that are hot right now, and the more traditional conservatives, who think anything that the president needs to kill terrorists is justifiable . So that’s why he was cheered. Cheney was a surprise guest who was introduced by his daughter, Liz Cheney, who has become a pretty successful pundit, basically making that argument, arguing sometimes against reality that everything Barack Obama does is aiding terrorists and making America less safe. That got huge cheers. Weigel also talked about how CPAC organizers were downplaying a presidential straw poll that Ron Paul won, and the idea that Weigel’s libertarian doesn’t come through in this segment: WEIGEL: But conservatives were united in trying to diminish this result, because they don’t want their image to the American people to be a septuagenarian politician who bangs on about the need to pull – you know, to close down American bases and speaks at meetings of the John Birch Society. I mean, it was accidentally very revealing of how far right the party has gotten. GROSS: Do you mean that Paul’s victory is representative of how far right the party has gotten? WEIGEL: Oh, yeah, this is an unscientific straw poll that was conducted, but they’ve all been unscientific straw polls, and they usually don’t end with this very libertarian – and libertarian is a term that gets tossed around a lot. Paul specifically is one of these guys who thinks we just really need to roll back the federal government to at least what it was like before 1912, before the progressive movement. Actually, I correct myself: before Teddy Roosevelt. Weigel also suggested the Tea Party movement weren’t Dick Armey’s puppets, but they didn’t know which bills to oppose until Armey told them:  GROSS: The Tea Party movement wants to be something new and different and have some impact on the Republican Party. But one of the chief funders of parts of the Tea Party movement is Dick Armey, through his organization Freedom Works. And Dick Armey is really, you know, a voice of the past. I mean he was one of the – he was a Republican leader during the Clinton administration and goes back before that. Like, when was he in Congress? WEIGEL: He was elected in 1984 and he left on his own volition in 2002. I mean he was in no danger of being defeated. He just retired to become, like a lot of former congressmen, a lobbyist with some political interests. GROSS: Okay. So what are his interests in funding the Tea Party movement? WEIGEL: One thing Armey would say is that he doesnt fund the Tea Party movement. He loves to contrast what they see as union thugs and ACORN putting Democratic rallies together with Tea Party people gassing up their cars and driving to Washington for his rallies. There’s some dishonesty there. (Laughter) I mean Freedom Works is always on the scene. It helps set these things up. It’s got full-time activists who help get permits. And I mean I’ve been to a couple of events at Freedom Works’ office where theyll have huge, you know, nice buffet spreads and things like that for Tea Party activists and conservative bloggers to meet and strategize. But it’s not a ton of money they’re spending. He has figured out that the very libertarian beliefs he’s had for a long time, which he always thought had some sort of, you know, if not a majority support, some huge support in the country he just couldnt locate, well, that support’s been located. So he is happily steering these guys and giving them candidates they can support and giving them policies they can support. I mean Tea Party activists are not – do not come to these rallies with a set of political goals. They generally believe the things I’ve been talking about – about the Constitution, about how Obama’s trying to wreck it. But for them to come out against a bill or believe that that bill contains a provision that’s going to kill their grandmothers, something like that, that is coming from people like Armey, who have these interests – have lobbying interests in some respects, who want that message to get out there. And that’s what you see. I mean I dont – I really don’t think that conservative activists at the top like Armey have been puppeteering this movement. I mean they’re right, it was – it did spring out of some part of the American map in reaction to Obama’s policies. But they are telling it what it should stand for as much as Fox News is informing them what Obama is doing that they should be opposing.

See more here:
NPR Twice Promoted David Weigel as Chronicler of Conservative Extremism

Klara Webster

Klara Webster is a supermodel in Swedish. she is se*xy and beautiful…

See the article here:
Klara Webster

FNC’s O’Reilly Cites NewsBusters Video of Media Praising Obama’s ‘Brilliance’

At the top of Thursday’s O’Reilly Factor on FNC, host Bill O’Reilly cited a NewsBusters video montage of various media figures touting President Obama’s “brilliant” handling of the General McChrystal controversy: “[Obama] has a very powerful ally, the American media. After the President fired General McChrystal yesterday, NewsBusters.org put together this montage of press reaction.” O’Reilly played the video as part of his Talking Points Memo opening the show. After it finished, he joked: “So I guess the firing of McChrystal was a brilliant move.” He then noted how “…we could have played that montage with another 30 seconds with different reporters echoing the same theme.” Minutes later, O’Reilly asked radio host Laura Ingraham about the media all singing from the same hymnal: “When you hear the mainstream media, brilliant, it was brilliant, it was brilliant, it was brilliant.” Ingraham interjected: “It was hilarious.” O’Reilly replied: “Isn’t it? I mean, how far down in the tank does the American people – the American media have to go, before the people just say enough.” Ingraham concluded: “Well, it shows you Bill, how totally out of touch all these media figures – and that montage, I was screaming in the studio here, it was so funny to hear – but it’s so out of touch with the way regular people think.” Ingraham continued: “Most people are saying, okay, what they’re doing on the economy isn’t working. What they’re doing in Afghanistan, we’re losing confidence. We love our troops, we want them to win. But we’re not getting why this is working. And they’re losing confidence across the board in the way this administration is operating. And meanwhile, putting in Petraeus, who obviously is a hero, is ‘Oh, well, that’s brilliant. That’s decisive.’ Later, O’Reilly spoke with liberal Columbia University Professor Marc Lamont Hill about the same topic and declared: “He [Obama] had to do it. But it wasn’t brilliant. It was like he had to do it. And these clowns are going ‘it was a brilliant move.’ What do you think?” Even Hill admitted: “Brilliant was pushing it.” O’Reilly grilled Hill on the left-wing media slant: “…you watch these guys in the mainstream media supposed, you know, objective reporters. You know it’s a farce.” Hill again admitted: “I’ll agree the response last night was clearly a left-leaning analysis.” O’Reilly later observed: “But traditionally, the media in this country are cynical and they’re distrustful of people in power, and they’re looking to get you, and then you go on and ‘he so brilliant.'” On Wednesday night, radio host Mark Levin also cited the NewsBusters item on his show and similarly mocked the media reaction. Here is a full transcript of O’Reilly’s June 24 Talking Points Memo: 8:00AM TEASE BILL O’REILLY: The O’Reilly Factor is on. Tonight: CHIP REID: It sounds like a pretty brilliant decision. WOLF BLITZER: A very brilliant move. CHUCK TODD: It’s going to be seen as a brilliant choice by the President. O’REILLY: The mainstream media senses President Obama may be going down so they are propping him up. We will have opinions on that from Laura Ingraham and Marc Lamont Hill. 8:01AM SEGMENT O’REILLY: Hi, I’m Bill O’Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight. President Obama on the descent. That is the subject of this evening’s Talking Points Memo. As we reported last night, this week is the low point for the Obama administration. And today, a new Wall Street Journal poll confirms what we said yesterday. For the first time in that poll, more Americans think President Obama is doing a bad job than a good job. 48% Disprove, 45% say he’s doing okay. But the really bad news for the President is that 62% of Americans now feel the country’s heading in the wrong direction. That is the highest number since before the presidential election of 2008. Talking Points believes it is the chaos factor that is damaging the Obama administration, once again. The economy, shaky. The oil spill, chaos. The Afghan war, not going well. And the border situation is so bad the state of Arizona is now defying the federal government. Add it all up and you are in the chaos zone. No president can survive there. Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon were all done in by the perception they could not control the country. That is where the President is right now. But he has a very powerful ally, the American media. After the President fired General McChrystal yesterday, NewsBusters.org put together this montage of press reaction: CHIP REID: Sounds like a pretty brilliant decision, really. JIM MIKLASZEWSKI: This is nothing less than a stunning development, Brian. And quite frankly, at a quick glance, almost brilliant. CHUCK TODD: Politically, in this town, it’s going to be seen as a brilliant choice by the President. WOLF BLITZER: A very brilliant move to tap General Petraeus. DAVID GREGORY: I think he took swift and decisive action. I think that’s how it’s going to be read. O’REILLY: So I guess the firing of McChrystal was a brilliant move. By the way, we could have played that montage with another 30 seconds with different reporters echoing the same theme. Like life, politics is not fair. President Obama didn’t cause the oil spill, he did not encourage General McChrystal to make indiscreet comments, he inherited a very bad economy, but has not been able to turn it around. For a guy like the President, who is ultra confident, this must be a frustrating time. His policies simply aren’t working. And if the war in Afghanistan and the economy get any worse, he will go the way of Jimmy Carter. Fair-minded Americans bear no malice towards Mr. Obama. Just as President Bush was treated unfairly at times, so has the President been. But the truth is, America is now in the chaos zone. And November is coming up fast. And that’s the memo.

Read the original here:
FNC’s O’Reilly Cites NewsBusters Video of Media Praising Obama’s ‘Brilliance’

Stossel Argues Gun Control Increases Crime, ‘I Was Once as Clueless as Senator Schumer’

On Thursday’s Stossel show on FBN, host John Stossel devoted the program to making the case that gun control can increase crime rates and that higher rates of gun ownership tend to decrease crime. Stossel admitted that, even as a libertarian, it took time for him to come around to this truth as he and most in the mainstream media live in the New York City liberal bubble, not cognizant of all the states that have passed concealed carry laws and seen crime decrease. During a segment with Dennis Hannigan of the Brady Campaign, the FBN host observed: “Over the years, more and more states changed their laws to allow concealed carry. The mainstream media and my neighbors are so isolated here in New York City and in Washington, D.C., most of us had no clue that carrying a concealed weapon is already legal in the rest of the country. More places all the time, legal guns, and yet crime does keep dropping.” Stossel concluded the show by recounting Britain’s failed experiment with gun bans, and revealed that Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, known for advocating gun control, had declined an invitation to appear on the show to argue his case as the FBN host took a self-deprecating jab at the New York Senator: I was once as clueless as Senator Schumer. Now I admit I was wrong about guns laws. Fewer guns don’t necessarily mean less crime. The opposite may be true. About 10 years ago, a mass shooting in the United Kingdom led Britain to pass one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. … This did not decrease crime. In fact, gun-related crime merely doubled after the ban passed. Crime increased in Britain while it decreased in America. … Britain just took guns away from the good guys, the people who obey the law. Doing that makes crime easier for the bad guys. The truth is gun control is not crime control. During a segment with University of Chicago Professor John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime – a segment which also included the Brady Campaign’s Hannigan – Stossel recounted: “We have this chart from your book that shows violent crime rates after concealed carry laws passed. Here it is for murder. It’s impressive. After the law passed, crime went down.” Another segment explored the issue of concealed carry on college campuses, and included advocates on both sides of the issue. David Burnett of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus notably contended: “I would point you to two colleges in Colorado. One of them banned guns in 2003. The other one decided they would allow guns. On the campus that allowed guns, the crime dropped like a rock. And on the campus that banned guns, the crime went up.” Stossel then hosted a segment which included Suzanna Hupp, who has lobbied against gun control in response to losing her parents in a mass shooting at a time when it was illegal to carry guns into restaurants in Texas. Also included was Nikki Goeser, whose husband was shot to death in front of her in a Tennessee bar where she was not legally allowed to bring her own gun for self-defense. And Mark Walters of Armed America Radio recounted the time he defended himself from being carjacked by brandishing a weapon to scare off his attacker. The FBN host then moved to a segment focusing on the effort to overturn Chicago’s handgun ban, featuring Chicago resident and plaintiff Otis McDonald. Stossel recounted the case of D.C.’s gun ban that was overturned by the Supreme Court two years ago, and how changes in the law affected crime in the city: “Murder and other gun violence have dropped in D.C. since the Supreme Court overturned the handgun ban. And let’s now go back 35 years to when Washington passed its gun ban. In the years that followed, crime went up compared to other big cities and compared to the rest of America. Fewer guns, more crime.” Stossel concluded the show by recounting Britain’s failed experiment with gun bans, and noted revealed that Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, known for advocating gun control, had declined an invitation to appear on the show to argue his case as the FBN host took a self-deprecating jab at the New York Senator: As he concluded the show, Stossel showed a clip of Senator Schumer arguing in favor of gun locks, comparing the concept to put child safety locks on medicine bottles, as the FBN host pointed out the flaw in Schumer’s logic: “Well, Senator Schumer, you don’t suddenly need to open an aspirin bottle for self-defense.” Stossel recounted his show’s unsuccessful offer to allow Schumer to appear on the show, and informed viewers of the effects of strict gun laws in Britain. Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Thursday, June 24, Stossel show on FBN: JOHN STOSSEL: Concealed carry terrifies a lot of people, and many people would be shocked to how many states already allow it. And here, I think, is a really cool map that shows which states already have it. States that have concealed carry laws are colored yellow. This is the law in 1986 – that’s 25 years ago. Over the years, more and more states changed their laws to allow concealed carry. The mainstream media and my neighbors are so isolated here in New York City and in Washington, D.C., most of us had no clue that carrying a concealed weapon is already legal in the rest of the country. More places all the time, legal guns, and yet crime does keep dropping. … STOSSEL: We have this chart from your book that shows violent crime rates after concealed carry laws passed. Here it is for murder. It’s impressive. After the law passed, crime went down. … DAVID BURNETT, STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS: I would point you to two colleges in Colorado. One of them banned guns in 2003. The other one decided they would allow guns. On the campus that allowed guns, the crime dropped like a rock. And on the campus that banned guns, the crime went up. … The college in Colorado, there’s not very many colleges that allow them. The college at Colorado, the sheriff there is a big fan of it, and he went to the college, and he said, “No, do not ban this. This works. Nobody is irresponsible. Everything is good.” … STOSSEL: If you’re an adult in America, do you have the right to own a gun? Thirty-five years ago Washington, D.C. said no. They passed a law that banned handguns. That law was challenged in court, and, two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled the ban was unconstitutional. The mayor was upset. MAYOR ADRIAN FENTY (D-WASHINGTON, D.C.): More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence. STOSSEL: But that didn’t happen. In fact, murder and other gun violence have dropped in D.C. since the Supreme Court overturned the handgun ban. And let’s now go back 35 years to when Washington passed its gun ban. In the years that followed, crime went up compared to other big cities and compared to the rest of America. Fewer guns, more crime. It’s counterintuitive, but it does seem to be true. Gun rights’ supporters were excited when the Supreme Court overturned the Washington law, but that case was not the big one because it just applies to D.C., the federal property. The big case that’s being debated now by the Supreme Court, and next week or maybe even tomorrow the court is expected to announce its decision. The case is called McDonald versus Chicago. If the court sides with McDonald, it would apply the right to bear arms to people in all cities. The lead plaintiff in that lawsuit is Otis McDonald. Here’s an interview done with him by Fox’s Chicago affiliate. UNIDENTIFIED MALE REPORTER: In the 38 years that you’ve lived here, how many times have you been burglarized? OTIS MCDONALD, CHICAGO RESIDENT: The house three times, the garage twice. STOSSEL: McDonald lives in a Chicago neighborhood that he says has been taken over by gangs and drug dealers. REPORTER: He says he’d feel safer if he had a handgun by his bed, but then he’d be breaking Chicago’s 28-year-old handgun ban. Why is owning a gun important? MCDONALD: When my life is threatened, I’d like to be able to at least feel that I can protect myself. STOSSEL: Chicago’s lawyer who opposes giving McDonald a gun wouldn’t come on to defend the ban, so, Dennis Hannigan from the Brady Campaign is back to give Chicago’s side. Also with us is the lawyer who argued McDonald’s case before the Supreme Court. But before we go to the lawyers, let’s go to the plaintiffs, 76-year-old Otis McDonald. So, Mr. McDonald, you own a shotgun. Isn’t that enough? You want a handgun, too? MCDONALD: Yes. I own a shotgun for hunting game. STOSSEL: Isn’t that enough? MCDONALD: No. STOSSEL: Why? MCDONALD: I don’t think it would be efficient enough for me to handle in close quarters with a would-be killer or something like that. … STOSSEL: I once wrote a book about myths with the subtitle, “Everything You Know is Wrong.” And that applied to me. It turned out so much of what I and my colleagues in the liberal media thought was true was just wrong. But, of course, I live here in New York City. We have all kinds of silly beliefs. We also have silly politicians who say things like this: SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Let me ask a simple question: If an aspirin bottle can have a safety lock, why not a gun? STOSSEL: Well, Senator Schumer, you don’t suddenly need to open an aspirin bottle for self-defense. There is a difference. We asked the Senator to join us on this program. His office said they’d call us back, but they didn’t. I was once as clueless as Senator Schumer. Now I admit I was wrong about guns laws. Fewer guns don’t necessarily mean less crime. The opposite may be true. About 10 years ago, a mass shooting in the United Kingdom led Britain to pass one of the toughest gun control laws in the world. When the law passed, Britain seemed to get safer by the minute if you watched as officials made sure cameras were there as 160,000 newly illegal firearms were forked over by law-abiding citizens and sent to be melted down in an incinerator. But the real result? This did not decrease crime. In fact, gun-related crime merely doubled after the ban passed. Crime increased in Britain while it decreased in America. This shouldn’t come as a surprise if you consider just two things. Criminals usually don’t obey laws. That’s why we call them criminals. And gun laws never totally get rid of guns. England’s ban didn’t magically eliminate all British handguns. Officials estimate a quarter million illegal weapons are still in circulation. Britain just took guns away from the good guys, the people who obey the law. Doing that makes crime easier for the bad guys. The truth is gun control is not crime control.

More:
Stossel Argues Gun Control Increases Crime, ‘I Was Once as Clueless as Senator Schumer’

Garofalo: Bible a ‘Work of Fiction’ for ‘Child-Like Audience’

Sometime-comedian Janeane Garofalo never passes up an opportunity to slam conservatives or, apparently, Christianity. The Huffington Post gave her an opportunity June 24 to kill two birds with one stone. In an  interview  promoting her upcoming special on a network called EPIX, Garofalo compared the most widely-read book of all time, the Bible, to a Bill O’Reilly autobiography and a children’s book authored by former President Bush. When asked by a Huffington Post reader which of those three publications she’d rather read, Garofalo said, “Actually that’s like six and one half, that is six and one half right there.” Presumably, she meant to use the popular idiom, “six of one, half a dozen of the other.” “That’s just three works of fiction targeted to a child-like audience so any, all, any one, none,” Garofalo said. “I don’t know how to read either, so that’s kind of a drag.” During the interview, Garofalo also expressed disappointment in President Obama. “It’s a drag that he’s such a conservative,” she lamented. Garofalo’s made her disdain for religion clear in the past. During a June 16 appearance on “The Joy Behar Show” on Headline News, she called prayer “anti-intellectual.” Behar later defended Garofalo on ABC’s “The View,” saying the comedian should have said prayer was “un-intellectual.” Garofalo has also built a long resume of attacking conservatives. She has compared the GOP to neo-Nazis  and called Tea Party protestors ” functionally retarded ,” and ” racist backward motherf***ers .” She has called the stable of Fox News anchors and hosts, as well as conservative talk radio hosts,  liars .

Go here to read the rest:
Garofalo: Bible a ‘Work of Fiction’ for ‘Child-Like Audience’

Call girl in Chandigarh Jack 09780117717 Delhi Jaipur ShimlaCall girl in Chandigarh Jack 09780117717 Delhi Jaipur Shimla

Chandigarh,esCorTs CALL.girls mobile number *JacK*{+91-9780117717} Delhi,Jaipur,Shimla Chandigarh,esCorTs CALL.services girls mobile number *JacK*{+91-9780117717} Delhi,Jaipur,Shimla Chandigarh,CAlL.girl,escort mobile number*JacK*{+91-9780117717} Delhi,Jaipur,Shimla Chandigarh,esCorTs CALL.services in girls *JacK*{+91-9780117717} Delhi,Jaipur,Shimla $$??CaLL GiRl SeRvIcE provider In ChAnDiGarh,{*jack* 09780117717}Delhi,Jaipur,Shimla $$??EsCoRts SeRvIcEs In ChAnDiGarh,{*jack* +91-9780117717}Delhi

Read more here:
Call girl in Chandigarh Jack 09780117717 Delhi Jaipur ShimlaCall girl in Chandigarh Jack 09780117717 Delhi Jaipur Shimla

Jake Pavelka and Vienna Girardi update

“One of the keys to acting is you have to get out of your head,” Jake Pavelka, 32, tells us. “This [show] didn#39;t hire me to be Jake, they hired me to play Toby Davlin. I can#39;t be Jake and sell this character.” Breaking up is hard to do – especially from 2,100 miles away. Still, The Bachelor#39;s Jake Pavelka, says he had no choice but to end things long-distance with fiancée Vienna Girardi. The reason? He was struggling to get into character for his role on Lifetime#39;s Drop Dead Diva,,

Read more from the original source:
Jake Pavelka and Vienna Girardi update

Caroline Manzo weight loss

Move over Bethenny Frankel, there’s a new “Skinny Girl” in town. Caroline Manzo spends about 45 minutes to an hour working out at least three times a week. “I try to do it every day. And as the day progresses, I eat lighter and lighter,” she says of her routine. “And I stopped drinking soda and juice … [I drink] just one coffee a day and buckets and buckets and buckets of water.” Caroline Manzo showed up to the premiere of Grown Ups at New York’s Ziegfeld Theatre on Wednesday wearing a pair o

Read more from the original source:
Caroline Manzo weight loss