Tag Archives: congress

AP Video ‘Expert’: Being Here ‘Without Documentation’ Isn’t a Crime

Posted on July 12, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

One reason to hope that the Big 3 networks continue to muddle through their awful evening news ratings and somehow hang around is that there’s an alternative out there that would be much worse. If any of the networks ever considered outsourcing their nightly newscasts to the Associated Press, the likely result could be bad enough to make some long for the (relatively) good old days of Brian, Diane, and Katie. An object example of the AP’s pathetically one-sided, biased and completely not-transparent video reporting came last Tuesday when it covered the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Arizona’s illegal immigration enforcement measure. The 1070 law tells police to verify citizenship status in “contact” situations (e.g., traffic stops and other routine matters) if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person or persons involved aren’t here legally. AP’s go-to “expert” acts as if it’s a given that the United States government has decided that being here illegally (“without documentation”) isn’t a crime. Seriously. During the 104-second report ( first go here , then type “Arizona immigration” in the search bar near the bottom, and select “Fed. Suing to Block Ariz. Immigration Law”), AP reporter Brian Thomas interviewed no one who defended the law’s constitutionality. Here’s the transcript: Brian Thomas, AP Reporter: The Obama administration is suing the state of Arizona over what the President has called “a misguided law.” Federal officials say the state’s new immigration policy tries to override the government’s authority under the Constitution. The measure requires police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws, like traffic stops. Steven Vladeck, American Univ. Law Professor: The federal government has long since decided that it’s not a crime to be in the United States without documentation. You can be removed from the United States, you can be deported, but you cannot be put in jail. And so the question is, “Do individual states, Arizona today, Maryland tomorrow, have the authority to decide for themselves to have a harsher regime?” Thomas: The Justice Department argues the state plan will lead to the harassment of American citizens and others who are authorized to be here. Tony Bustamante, Attorney in Arizona : Federal priority enforcement of immigration laws is to go after the criminals, the bad people who are causing havoc on society, not the gardeners and the landscapers and the cooks who make the economy go ’round and ’round. Thomas: Those who support the pending law have said the stringent rules are necessary to fight drug trafficking, murders and other crimes plaguing the border state. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Maybe the federal government ought to ask for the help of local and state law enforcement to stop this illegal immigration situation. Thomas: The federal government is hoping its lawsuit will stop other states looking to follow Arizona’s lead. Vladeck: If the federal government can show the Arizona laws are inconsistent with federal policies, the federal government can, should, and will win. And I think it’s likely that they will do so. Thomas : The next step is for the case to be assigned to a judge who will decided temporarily whether to block the law from taking effect at the end of this month. A two-word, law-based response to Vladeck’s claim that “The federal government has long since decided that it’s not a crime to be in the United States without documentation” — Horse manure : Search 8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code – Section 1325: Improper entry by alien (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of – (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection. Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed. The “without documentation” portion of Vladeck’s statement is at best useless misdirection. If you aren’t here legally, you’re subject to the sanctions just noted. If you’re here legally and happen to be “without documentation” at any given moment, that’s a totally different situation, and I believe he knows it. The federal government (i.e., the executive branch) doesn’t get to “decide” what is and what is not a crime. To make illegal entry not a crime, the law has to be changed by the legislative branch. That hasn’t happened. Vladeck’s claim that “you cannot be put in jail” for being here illegally is objectively false, as bolded above in the excerpt from the law. Also note the use of the word “shall” (i.e., there is normally not supposed to be any discretion) as opposed to “may.” Arizona’s law is on target with the intent of federal law. Vladeck’s next bolded claim in the transcript above is tantamount to saying, “Policy becomes the law, no matter what the law says.” No sir. Of course there will always be prosecutorial discretion that will dictate the best and most appropriate use of an attorney general’s or county prosecutor’s resources, but that’s not what’s at play here. What Vladeck is saying it that because immigration enforcement officials have a policy of trying to avoid going after “non-criminals” (an illogical word, because you’re a criminal in this country the minute you cross the border illegally), that policy has in effect become the law, no matter what the law really is. Brian Thomas could have found dozens of people to make mince meat of Vladeck’s arguments, and chose not to. I wonder why? This is lazy, statist liberalism at its best: We don’t like a law, so we won’t enforce it, until that tradition of non-enforcement becomes the law. It’s the same bubble-headed logic that underlies the entire liberal mind-set towards the constitution: We don’t like it, so we’re going to decide that it means something other than what it clearly says, instead of going through the constitutionally mandated and deliberately difficult-by-design process of passing a constitutional amendment to change it to its desired meaning. Say what you will about whether or not the prohibition movement was misguided, but you have to acknowledge that they respected the constitution and the country enough to get their work done the right way. Contrast that with what the Clinton administration (and to an extent, the several administrations that preceded it) did to tobacco companies. From the “This was so predictable” Dept. — Vladeck’s views towards the executive branch powers are selection and arguably partisan, as you will see from the opening paragraph of his American University bio : Stephen I. Vladeck is a Professor of Law at American University Washington College of Law, where his teaching and research focus on federal jurisdiction, national security law, constitutional law (especially the separation of powers), and international criminal law. A nationally recognized expert on the role of the federal courts in the war on terrorism, he was part of the legal team that successfully challenged the Bush Administration’s use of military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Here’s another “This was so predictable” item, this time about “Attorney in Arizona” Tony (Antonio) Bustamante, from the far-left Phoenix New Times : For our (40th) anniversary, we gathered many — not all — of those who’ve been targets of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former County Attorney Andrew Thomas. Some, like politicos Phil Gordon, Mary Rose Wilcox, and Don Stapley, are converts to the struggle. Others, activists, stood up to protect the most vulnerable amongst us: Mexicans seeking to be part of the American Dream; prisoners looking to survive. … 17) Antonio Bustamante: Phoenix attorney and activist who advises those who monitor Arpaio’s anti-immigrant sweeps and defends demonstrators arrested for protesting the sheriff. Brian Thomas didn’t think viewers needed to know anything about Vladeck’s or Bustamante’s background. How typically pathetic. Oh, I almost forgot: The picture at the top right of the Mexican flag appearing to fly about the Arizona flag is what viewers of the AP video get to see during the report’s final seconds. It looks like a childish “in your face” move to me. And I didn’t get to the matter of what other states, including Rhode Island , are doing that is at least as “harsh” as what Arizona is set to do. As stated earlier, we could do worse than the evening news shows NBC, ABC, and CBS are currently feeding us. If AP’s video reports really are the go-to alternative, we should hope that Brian, Diane, and Katie remain mired in mediocrity instead of disappearing entirely. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read the original post:
AP Video ‘Expert’: Being Here ‘Without Documentation’ Isn’t a Crime

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Establishment Press Misses Rhode Island Parallel to Ariz. Immigration Law for Nearly Three Months

Posted on July 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Preconceived notions are dangerous things in journalism. They cause one to assume facts that aren’t in evidence, leading to false or incomplete results. A classic example has played out in the nearly three months since Arizona passed its “1070 law.” Among other things, it mandates that law enforcement officials verify citizenship status in situations involving police contact if they have a reasonable suspicion that someone is not in the country legally. It seems that virtually everyone covering the story has been assuming that Arizona’s law is the first of its kind. Well, maybe as a “law” it is. But in Rhode Island, of all places, Boston Globe reporter Maria Sacchetti finally noticed on July 6 (HT Hot Air ) that police have been doing what Arizona will start doing on July 29 since 2008 as a result of a gubernatorial executive order: R.I. troopers embrace firm immigration role In contrast to Mass., they report all who are present illegally From Woonsocket to Westerly, the troopers patrolling the nation’s smallest state are reporting all illegal immigrants they encounter, even on routine stops such as speeding, to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE. “There are police chiefs throughout New England who hide from the issue . . . and I’m not hiding from it,’’ said Colonel Brendan P. Doherty, the towering commander of the Rhode Island State Police. “I would feel that I’m derelict in my duties to look the other way.’’ Rhode Island’s collaboration with federal immigration authorities is controversial; critics say the practice increases racial profiling and makes immigrants afraid to help police solve crimes. But it is a practice that Governor Deval Patrick’s opponents in the governor’s race are urging Massachusetts to revive. The Patrick administration has staunchly opposed having state troopers enforce immigration laws, and shortly after he took office in 2007, the governor rescinded a pact by his predecessor, Mitt Romney, to assign 30 troopers to the so-called federal 287(g) program, which trains local police to enforce federal immigration law. … In 2008, Governor Donald L. Carcieri, a Republican, issued an executive order mandating immigration checks on all new state workers and ordering State Police to assist federal immigration officials. Sitting in his office in an old farmhouse off a country highway, Doherty said the State Police had collaborated with federal immigration officials before, but the relationship has become more formal in recent years. In 2007, he said, he trained all state troopers in how to deal with noncitizens because of widespread confusion and because Congress did not resolve the issue of illegal immigration. Troopers learned to notify consulates when noncitizens are arrested, how to recognize different forms of identification, and how to deal with different cultures. One can’t help but wonder how well Ms. Sacchetti or whoever came up with the idea of looking into Rhode Island’s posture is being treated in the Globe’s newsroom these days. Her bosses and the rest of the establishment press should be really be asking themselves why they didn’t bother to look into what other states are doing when the Arizona law passed. Or, worse if true, they should be justifying why parallels they did find (how could they have missed California, as noted by the NewsBusters staff on Friday ?) were somehow not worthy of coverage. Did they decide to not look at Rhode Island because “everybody knows” that such a liberal state couldn’t possibly be strictly enforcing immigration laws — when in fact it is? Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read more:
Establishment Press Misses Rhode Island Parallel to Ariz. Immigration Law for Nearly Three Months

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Maddow: Extending Unemployment Benefits ‘Most Stimulative Thing You Can Do’

Posted on July 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Channeling her inner Nancy Pelosi, Rachel Maddow on Sunday actually said extending unemployment benefits is “the most stimulative thing you can do” to help the ailing economy. Appearing on the panel discussion of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Maddow boldly presented a liberal view of economics that only the current House Speaker would be proud of. “I think that most Americans also, though, understand the basic arithmetic that when you’re talking about pushing tax cuts that do mostly benefit the wealthy and you’re simultaneously talking about getting tough on the deficit, you’re talking about a world in which math doesn’t work the way most people think it works.” Indeed, for moments before she falsely stated that Obama inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. But Maddow’s best remark Sunday had to be, “If you really want a stimulus, do what we — what’s proven to work in stimulus, which is things like extending unemployment benefits…It’s the most stimulative thing you can do” (video follows with transcript and commentary): RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC HOST: Well, you end, you end up with the situation which again you’re back to choice vs. referendum because Republicans, like great strategists like Mr. Gillespie, can argue about how it’s all about spending, it’s all about debt. But it’s not just talking about the past to say, “When Republicans have had the reins, this is what they’ve done: two wars not paid for, prescription drug benefit not paid for, two tax cuts that mostly benefited the rich not paid for.” They put all that stuff on the deficit, $1.3 trillion sitting there as–in a deficit when Obama took over, after the previous Democratic president had handed him a surplus. If you talk about–if Republicans want to run as this fiscally responsible party, it’s neat, but it’s novel. It’s not how they’ve actually governed. DAVID GREGORY, HOST: And, David, you know, more on that argument, though. I spoke to senior Republicans this week in the party who said, “Look, sometimes we are afraid that we do take the majority back because are we, as Republicans, in a position to offer a policy for how to grow the economy, to offer real policies to create jobs?” There’s a lot of fear out there that, in fact, they don’t have great alternatives at the moment to be able to do that. DAVID BROOKS, NEW YORK TIMES: Yeah, I, I actually agree with that. I’m a little scared myself. You know, you look at what happened in Britain, the Conservative party took over after a long period out of power. They, they have a real austerity program. They’re really cutting spending, putting the country, which was much worse debt shape than us, on a long-term path to some sort of fiscal sanity. I’m not sure the Republicans are ready there, so I’m a little nervous about that. But the question people are going to ask us is, “What did President Obama offer, and are we satisfied with that?” And they’re not getting there. And to me the big picture is that if Harry Hopkins, the great liberal from FDR’s administration, came back and said, “I’m going to create a perfect liberal moment. We’re going to have a big financial crisis caused by Wall Street, sort of; we’re going to have the biggest natural disaster in American history caused by an oil company; we’re going to have a very talented Democratic president; we’re going to give him some money to spend to create a lot of programs.” And after all that, it’s still not a liberal moment, it’s a conservative moment, that makes me think liberalism isn’t quite going to sell in this country at any moment. If it’s not selling now, it’ll never sell. And I think… MR. GREGORY: But doesn’t that assume that this is a conservative moment? Do you assume that? ED GILLESPIE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Oh, I think, I think there’s a great opportunity for conservative policies, and I think the public is open to hearing from us on that. And I just disagree with David. Look, in New Jersey and Virginia, we have two Republican governors just been elected, one in a purple state, Virginia, one in a deep blue state, or at least royal blue, New Jersey, who are acting on what they said they would do, they’re governing as they campaigned. In New Jersey, Governor Christie is trying to change the tailspin, turn things around in New Jersey, taking on the government employee unions there. In Virginia, Bob McDonnell as governor eliminated a $4.2 billion deficit, the largest in the history of the Commonwealth of Virginia. We will govern as we said we would. And I think, you know, Harold just pointed to these rising capital gains taxes and dividend taxes. You can call them tax increases on the, on the wealthy. I think most will say it’s tax increases on investment at a time when we need to be creating jobs. They’re going to kick in January 1, 2011. The first thing Republicans will do is say, “No. We’re going to keep them in place for a while until we can get the economy growing again.” And I think most Americans reject the notion that spending equals jobs. They think spending equals temporary government jobs. MS. MADDOW: I think that, I think that most Americans also, though, understand the basic arithmetic that when you’re talking about pushing tax cuts that do mostly benefit the wealthy and you’re simultaneously talking about getting tough on the deficit, you’re talking about a world in which math doesn’t work the way most people think it works. If you’re going to talk about tax cuts–I mean, Harold, you, as a Democrat, proposed some very significant tax cuts when you were thinking about running for Senate in, in New York, a huge corporate tax cut, a big payroll tax holiday, and then said simultaneously, “And we got to get serious about the deficit.” HAROLD FORD, FORMER DEMOCRAT REPRESENTATIVE FROM TENNESSEE: Well, Rachel, in all fairness, the payroll tax… MS. MADDOW: Tax cuts hurt the deficit. REP. FORD: Right. But the payroll tax cut–in order to, in order to pay down the debt, you got to do two things. You got to get your spending in order and you got to grow. When Bill Clinton was in office, the real advantage we had was that the economy grew. They made–they took–they made some tough choices around spending. I was in Congress for a good part of that. But at the same time, we had this IT explosion and growth in the country, which created millions of jobs. My only point is, if you cut the payroll tax for small businesses, you keep money in those communities. If you really want a stimulus, cut the payroll tax at a hardware store, cut the payroll tax at a sundry, cut the payroll tax at a… MS. MADDOW: If you really want, if you really want a stimulus, do what we–what’s proven to work in stimulus, which is things like extending unemployment benefits, which is something that Republicans are completely blocking. REP. FORD: Which I… MR. GREGORY: But let me, let me… MS. MADDOW: It’s the most stimulative thing you can do. Yep. She really reiterated one of the most inane statements ever uttered by a House Speaker in American history: Does Maddow actually BELIEVE that unemployment benefits stimulate the economy, or was she just mimicking Pelosi and repeating Democrat talking points? Before you answer, consider the absurdity in her other comment concerning Obama inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit.  After all, on March 14, 2008, then Sen. Obama voted in favor of the 2009 budget which authorized $3.1 trillion in federal outlays along with a projected $400 billion deficit. The 51-44 vote that morning was strongly along party lines with only two Republicans saying “Yes.” When the final conference report was presented to the House on June 5, not one Republican voted for it. This means the 2009 budget was almost exclusively approved by Democrats, with “Yeas” coming from current President then Sen. Obama, his current Vice President then Sen. Joe Biden, his current Chief of Staff then Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and his current Secretary of State then Sen. Hillary Clinton. As such, when Maddow says, “They put all that stuff on the deficit, $1.3 trillion sitting there as — in a deficit when Obama took over,” the “They” were Democrats INCLUDING Obama.   How is this possibly something he inherited when his Party ramrodded the original budget through Congress with virtually no Republican approval — save Bush’s signature, of course — and the highest members of the current Administration — including the president himself!!! — supported it when they were either in the Senate or the House? Sadly, Maddow’s math doesn’t incorporate this inconvenient truth. But that’s just the beginning, for on October 1, 2008, Obama, Biden, and Clinton voted in favor of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program designed to prevent teetering financial institutions from completely destroying the economy. Couldn’t Obama only disavow responsibility for this if he had voted no along with the other 25 Senators disapproving the measure? And what about the $787 billion stimulus bill that passed in February 2009 with just three Republican votes? Wouldn’t Obama only be blameless if he vetoed it and was later overridden? Of course, he didn’t, and, instead signed it into law on February 17. Nor did he veto the $410 billion of additional spending Congress sent to his desk three weeks later. Add it all up, and Obama approved every penny spent in fiscal 2009 either via his votes in the Senate or his signature as President. That Maddow has the gall on national television to blame this on Republicans is the height of hypocrisy. But what are you going to expect from a woman that believes unemployment benefits stimulate the economy? 

Continue reading here:
Maddow: Extending Unemployment Benefits ‘Most Stimulative Thing You Can Do’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

In This Article, I Show How Easy It Is For Peaceful People to Violate the Patriot Act and Face 15 Years in Prison

Posted on July 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

The court handed down its decision in a case brought by the Humanitarian Law Project, an NGO that sought to advise the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) — which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization — on filing human rights complaints with the United Nations and conducting peace negotiations with the Turkish government. In its 6-3 decision, the supremes ruled that the statute didn’t trample the organization’s members’ rights to free speech and free assembly as long as they had no direct contact with the PKK. Ironically, in theory that means members of the Humanitarian Law Project can publicly urge the PKK to carry out deadly acts of terrorism without running afoul of the law, but they can’t work with the group in an effort to stop the violence. The decision casts the court’s rightward balance in sharp relief. Just months ago, the same court ruled in the Citizens United case that the government doesn’t have a sufficiently compelling interest in limiting political campaign dollars to infringe on the free speech rights of corporations — “artificial persons.” But the court, dismissing the admonition that those who would give up essential liberties for some temporary security deserve neither, was quick to accept the Justice Department’s claim that fighting terrorism trumps the rights of the Humanitarian Law Project. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts cited the Federalist Papers, which held that “security against foreign danger” is an “avowed and essential object” of the U.S. government. Opening the Door for (More) Political Prosecutions Arguably, the most fundamental flaw in the statute is that there is no apolitical and universally accepted definition of “terrorism.” The United Nations has wrangled with the issue for years, and the major obstacle is simple to understand: everyone wants to define it as political violence in furtherance of a goal with which they disagree. By criminalizing even a tenuous association with groups the U.S. government lists as terrorist organizations, the statute opens the door to prosecuting people for taking unpopular sides in remote conflicts. Sometimes, however, history proves those people were on the “right” side. Perhaps the most obvious example is the African National Congress (ANC), which the United States designated as a terrorist organization during the 1980s. If the Patriot Act had been in effect at the time, any U.S. citizen who communicated with the ANC while organizing opposition to South Africa’s racist system would have been eligible for a lengthy prison term. Now, it's the ruling party in today’s post-apartheid South Africa. The ANC isn’t the only example. In the early 1990s, Robert Gelbard, Bill Clinton's special envoy to the Balkans, described the Kosovo Liberation Army as, “without any questions, a terrorist group.” As journalist Michael Moran noted, by the end of the decade, “the United States had embraced the KLA's cause,” and, “after the war, the KLA was transformed into the Kosovo Protection Corps, which now works alongside NATO forces patrolling the province.” An American may have sided with the Serbs or with the KLA, but if the Patriot Act had been in effect, engaging the latter would have constituted a serious crime. Other groups once designated as terrorist organizations that have either laid down their arms or joined the political process include the Irish Republican Army and the Palestine Liberation Organization. At the same time, some organizations that commit terrible crimes against civilians never make the list because their goals dovetail with our own. Sometimes we even support them. During the 1980s, the Nicaraguan contras were known to torture, rape and kill innocent civilians sympathetic to the Sandinistas, but Ronald Reagan praised the group as heroic “freedom fighters.” In Iran, the Mujahedin-e Kalq (MEK) is universally condemned as a terrorist organization, and the United States government has listed it as one. But that didn’t stop former Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo from saying, “We should be aiding them, instead of restricting their activities. We can use the MEK; they are in fact warriors. Where we need to use that kind of force, we can use them.” It’s worth noting that Islamic groups lead the list of designated terrorist organizations, followed by communists and nationalists. Groups like the Gush Emunim Underground — a radical Israeli settler group that was responsible for a series of attacks against Palestinian civilians — don’t make the cut. It’s a clear signal that the State Department’s list is highly politicized. added by: Omnomynous

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , ,

WaPo Writer Attempts to Kickstart New ‘Grassroots’ Coffee Party Via Another Name

Posted on July 10, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Psst!

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Oops: Lib Columnist Bemoans Non-existent ‘All-white’ Senate

Posted on July 9, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On Thursday, National Newspaper Publishers Association columnist Julianne Malveaux wrote that Marco Rubio, along with two Asian-American Senators, one Hispanic Senator, and two black Senate candidates are all in fact white men. Malveaux, also the president of Bennett College, decried the travails of Kendrick Meek, the black Democrat vying for his party’s nomination for US Senate in Florida. “If Meek can’t pull this one off,” Malveaux wrote, “the United States Senate will become, again, a segregated body.” She also used the terms “lily-white” and “all-white” to describe the racial makeup of a Meek-less Senate. Readers must be forgiven for their confusion, given that another candidate for Senate in Florida, Marco Rubio, is not white, but Hispanic. In fact, excluding Roland Burriss, Illinois’s lame duck Senator, the Senate has three non-white members: Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka of Hawaii are both of Asian descent, and Robert Menendez is of Hispanic descent. There are also black Senate candidates beyond Meek: Alvin Greene in South Carolina, and the less-known but infinitely more qualified Georgia Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond. How to explain Malveaux’s bizarre contention? Your guess is as good as ours.

Read more from the original source:
Oops: Lib Columnist Bemoans Non-existent ‘All-white’ Senate

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Gibbs Evades Question of Whether Obama Agrees With His Medicare Director That Health-Care System Must Redistribute Wealth

Posted on July 9, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has evaded answering the question of whether President Barack Obama agrees with Dr. Donald Berwick, his newly appointed administrator of Medicare and Medicaid, who has insisted that health-care systems must redistribute wealth. “Excellent health care is by definition redistributional,” Berwick said in a speech delivered on July 1, 2008. When asked directly at the July 7 White House press briefing whether Obama agreed with this, Gibbs would not answer the question. Instead, he parried it with jocular statements about the provenance of the quote.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CBO Notes YTD Deficit Tops $1 Trillion; Reality Is Much Worse

Posted on July 9, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On Wednesday, the Congressional Budget Office released its Monthly Budget Review for June . It estimated that June’s deficit was “only” $69 billion, down from $94 billion last year, and that the deficit through nine months of the current fiscal year is $1.005 trillion, down from last year’s $1.087 trillion. June’s single-month improvement — or more properly stated, its less disastrous result — is probably legitimate, because collections have picked up a bit. But, as I noted in April (at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ), the reported year-over-year deficit reduction, such as it is, has nothing to do with anything resembling control of government spending. What follows was my explanation at the time, which still holds, and which you will more than likely not see in any media coverage of the government’s financial situation when the Treasury Department releases its official monthly statement next week (also see the chart below the jump which shows what the deficit really is after adjustment): Most of the general public believes that the government is reporting its results on a cash basis, i.e., that “receipts” means “money that came in” and that “outlays” means “disbursements.” Until early last year, with one very small exception, that was the case. But that’s so pre-Obama. Since Treasury converted TARP and other bailout programs (with the exceptions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) to Net Present Value accounting last year, this is how things roll: When the government “lends or invests” in banks and auto companies, the monies disbursed are treated as “investments,” and are included in “outlays.” Assuming no impairment in value or collectability, there are no receipts when the original amounts “invested” are repaid. Interest or dividends received are treated as “receipts” (euphemistically called “transfers from the Federal Reserve” by our oh-so-transparent Treasury). But if it looks like some of the “invested” funds won’t be repaid, the government will write down the value of those investments to what it thinks will be repaid. If it overestimates the impairment, it revalues its investments upward, and reduces reported “outlays.” This is what happened in March, to the tune of $115 billion. In essence, what happened is that the administration pushed as much “bad news” (asset writedowns) as it could into last year’s financial reporting, since last year was going to be a disaster no matter what. But since they overdid it with the writedowns last year (“Gosh, how did that happen?”), they can make this year look better than it really has been. With that explanation as background, here is a comparison of what CBO presented with what things really look like when the $115 billion above is put in its proper place, i.e., last year (changed line items are in red boxes): Real spending is over 6% higher than last year’s already ridiculous total. The adjusted deficit after putting the accounting estimate described above where it belongs, has increased by over 15%. This will be important to remember, because if the Obama administration continues to suffer from its “Recovery Summer” delusion, you can expect to hear the President and his apparatchiks claim that they are already starting to reduct the deficit, and their statist-compliant establishment media buds to relay the “news” without skepticism. The truth is that they’re reducing nothing — except, the longer their fiscal mismanagement goes on, our capacity to respond to their continually building disaster. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read the original:
CBO Notes YTD Deficit Tops $1 Trillion; Reality Is Much Worse

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Evening Newscasts Downplay or Ignore Obama Appointee Berwick’s Pro-Socialized Medicine Views, Implications for Elderly Patients

Posted on July 9, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

President Obama’s recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick – a controversial advocate of socialized medicine and of the rationing of health care, particularly for the elderly – as head of the Medicare program – (a decision criticized even by some Democrats) – has so far received no attention on ABC’s World News or the CBS Evening News, while the NBC Nightly News devoted only 38 seconds to the President’s controversial move on Thursday’s show, barely touching on the nature of Berwick’s beliefs and their possible implications for the elderly. CNN’s The Situation Room devoted a full story to the appointment on Wednesday, but did little better in informing viewers of Berwick’s beliefs. By contrast, FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier on Wednesday relayed to viewers that Berwick has not only advocated the type of socialized medicine that currently limits access to health care in Britain – favoring a non-free market system based on wealth redistribution – but he has also spoken in favor of further limiting access to some health care procedures for the elderly. FNC correspondent Jim Angle quoted Berwick as contending that “Any health care funding plan that is just equitable, civilized and humane, must, must redistribute wealth.” The FNC correspondent further filled in viewers: And then there are the end-of-life issues of particular interest for Medicare recipients. Berwick laments the amount of money spent on people in their final week of life and said that at some point additional treatments are “so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds. We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” Angle also touched on Berwick’s admiration for Britain’s infamous national health care system: JIM ANGLE: Berwick also praises one of the world’s most famous examples of socialized medicine. SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): He said he’s in love with the British health care system, which is known for rationing health care. On the NBC Nightly News Thursday anchor Brian Williams devoted 38 seconds to the topic and noted that “One top Democrat called the recess appointment ‘troubling,’” but barely touched on Berwick’s beliefs as Williams briefly relayed that “Berwick has spoken about the need to ration medical care to control costs.” On Wednesday’s The Situation Room on CNN, anchor Wolf Blitzer introduced his show’s report noting that “Republicans and even a few Democrats are upset about this.” Like NBC’s Williams, CNN correspondent Dan only barely touched on Berwick’s support for “rationing” wihtout delving into its implications for the availability of health care, especially for the elderly: “Some Republicans pointing to him saying that the reason that they don’t like him is because of comments that he has made in the past that they believe suggest that he’s an advocate for rationed health care.” Below are transcripts of the relevant portions of the Wednesday, July 7, Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC, the same day’s The Situation Room on CNN, and the Thursday, July 8, NBC Nightly News : #From the July 7 Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC: SHANNON BREAM: Good evening. I’m Shannon Bream in tonight for Bret Baier. There is outrage in some quarters tonight because of President Obama’s use of a recess appointment to install his controversial pick to run Medicare and Medicaid. Chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle tells us why the reaction to Dr. Donald Berwick is so emotional. JIM ANGLE: Donald Berwick will run the largest insurance program in the country because Medicare and Medicaid cover 100 million Americans and spend some $800 billion. But Berwick has said some things that are definitely not part of the administration’s pitch on health care . “Any health care funding plan that is just equitable, civilized and humane,” he said, “must, must redistribute wealth.” Republicans suspect President Obama didn’t want a confirmation hearing where such statements were bound to come up and think that’s why the President waited 17 months to nominate anyone. SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): He didn’t want somebody to have to answer questions of members of Congress during the whole debate on health care this year. DAVID WINSTON, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: And his entire testimony is going to reinforce all the negative aspects of the bill. And that’s why they didn’t want him up there. They just pulled the plug on the hearings. ANGLE: And then there are the end-of-life issues of particular interest for Medicare recipients. Berwick laments the amount of money spent on people in their final week of life and said that at some point additional treatments are “so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds. We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” Some elderly do prepare advanced directives should they become incapacitated, but critics say Berwick seemed to be saying something else. WINSTON: He made it kind of sound like those decisions would be made by government bureaucrats and not the individuals. ANGLE: And any talk of rationing care has enormous political implications. WINSTON: What American people hear is this. Those people who have health care give up some of it to those people who don’t. And so the quality of their health care is going to get worse. ANGLE: Berwick also praises one of the world’s most famous examples of socialized medicine. BARRASSO: He said he’s in love with the British health care system, which is known for rationing health care. ANGLE: The White House argues Berwick is just one of 189 nominees waiting for confirmation. ROBERT GIBBS: The President is going to install people that need to be installed for this government to run effective and efficiently. ANGLE: And Gibbs notes that two Republicans who once held the same post have more positive views. GIBBS: The last two people who have run CMS for the Bush administration both strongly supported Dr. Berwick’s appointment. ANGLE: Recess appointments have been used with frequency by presidents of both parties. President Clinton made 139. President George W. Bush 171. President Obama has made 18 so far. Dr. Berwick will now hold his position until the end of 2011, but if he wants to stay, he’ll still have to face Senate confirmation. #From the July 7 The Situation Room on CNN: WOLF BLITZER: The White House is defending the President’s decision to sidestep Congress to install his choice to oversee the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Republicans and even a few Democrats are upset about this. Republicans, I should say, are fuming. Even the top Democrat, though, says he is troubled by the move. Let’s bring in our White House correspondent Dan Lothian. Dan, why did the White House go ahead with what’s called this recess appointment? DAN LOTHIAN: Well, Wolf, the President really thought it was important to move forward on this position because this is the person who plays a key role in implementing the new health care law. Now, all presidents obviously have the right to make these recess appointments, but they’re always quite controversial. And Republicans, as you pointed out, are criticizing the President, saying that he’s circumventing the American people, it’s an insult to the American people. Some Republicans pointing to him saying that the reason that they don’t like him is because of comments that he has made in the past that they believe suggest that he’s an advocate for rationed health care . Robert Gibbs’ White House spokesman saying that he doesn’t believe that’s the case. But what’s also interesting about this controversy, as you pointed out, that also some top Democrats are criticizing the President . Senator Max Baucus – chairman of the Senate Finance Committee – saying he is troubled that rather than going through the standard nomination process the President has decided to go down this route. The bottom line for the White House here is that they decided to move forward because they believe that Congress has been throwing up a lot of road blocks. ROBERT GIBBS: I think it’s the type of politics that demonstrates just how badly broken the appointments process is, and the President is going to install people that need to be installed for this government to run effective and efficiently. In this case, because the appointments process is clearly broken, he did so through a recess appointment. LOTHIAN: Republicans also saying here that the White House simply did not want to have a confirmation hearing because they did not want to have some tough questions asked. By the way, this appointment lasts until the end of 2011, Wolf. BLITZER: If there had been a confirmation hearing, a formal confirmation hearing and testimony and all of that, does the White House believe he would have been confirmed? LOTHIAN: Very good question, and Robert Gibbs was asked that today at the briefing. He says, yes, they believe that he would have been confirmed, but I’ll tell you there are some key Republicans who had been looking to put up some road blocks during that hearing, so it’s unclear hether or not there would have been enough votes there to get him through the Senate. BLITZER: Very sensitive and controversial issue. Thanks very much, Dan Lothian, for that. #From the July 8 NBC Nightly News: BRIAN WILLIAMS: In this country, a new political skirmish in Washington over health care. It’s about an appointment President Obama made while Congress was out for the July Fourth break – a so-called recess appointment – naming Harvard professor Dr. Donald Berwick to manage Medicare and Medicaid, skipping the usual Senate confirmation process. Republicans are angry, claiming it’s antagonistic. One top Democrat called the recess appointment “troubling,” but the administration fired back, saying this was one of many appointments being blocked by the Senate. Berwick has spoken about the need to ration medical care to control costs.

Visit link:
Evening Newscasts Downplay or Ignore Obama Appointee Berwick’s Pro-Socialized Medicine Views, Implications for Elderly Patients

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Left-wing Media Regulation Group Sees ‘Astroturf’ Everywhere Except in Mirror

Posted on July 8, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Advocacy groups have increasingly labelled their opposition as “astroturf,” or corporate-funded fake grassroots, groups in order to demean them and lessen the fact that both sides enjoy some measure of public support. Many of the organizations throwing around accusations of astroturfing, such as the Marxist net neutrality advocacy group Free Press and the liberal ThinkProgress not only engage in astroturf strategies, but are financially supported in ways they decry as astroturf. The media, unsurprisngly, has often chosen to ignore leftist astroturfing and focus on accusations of rightist astroturfing. The Daily Caller reported Wednesday on a pro-neutrality letter circulated around Capitol Hill by Free Press which was a product of the same astroturfing tactics Free Press has decried. The “signatories” of the letter had no recollection of the letter and had no idea they had signed it. One of the signatories, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation wrote to the Federal Communications Comission, The Hill reported , asking to be removed from the list of signatories. Tellingly, a Free Press spokeswoman suggested that they were pressured to do so. Presumably by the Satan-worshipping board of directors of some telecommunications company. Mike Riggs, of The Daily Caller, wrote: “Interestingly, groups like Free Press and NTEN like to publicly denounce letters with questionable signatories. In 2009, Ars Technica pointed to a letter that was supposedly authored by a group of senior citizens who supposedly had written Congress to oppose net neutrality. The group ‘forgot to strip out the “XYZ organization” and replace the text with its own name,’ reports Ars Technica, which caught wind of the letter from Free Press. ‘It’s unclear who was behind the letter, but it certainly looks like evidence of anti-neutrality forces rounding up an odd collection of allies on this issue,’ wrote Ars’ Matthew Lasar.” Free Press has shown a similar indifference to ethics in the past, with campaign director Timothy Karr quick to accuse anyone and everyone who opposes net neutrality of being a corporate tool, much of the time sans any sort of evidence, whatsoever. Michael Turk of Digital Society offered Karr $1,000 for proof that he was an astroturfer. One June 30, The Daily Caller reported that Free Press had outright lied regarding the FCC preventing them from attending closed-door meetings on net neutrality when they had, in fact attended. Similarly, they said they had been invited to attend a Congressional meeting on the issue and then told reporters they had been denied access. The same Daily Caller story pointed out that Free Press is a member of the Open Internet Coalition , a pro-net neutrality group. Amazon, Google, eBay, PayPal, Twitter, Earthlink are members, as are several marketing firms. Not only that, but Free Press’s own lobbying efforts are coordinated by a firm called the Glover Park Group, of which anti-net neutrality company Verizon is also a client. Many of the accusations of astroturfing by telecommunications companies in other blogs and publications ultimately come from Free Press. When PBS’ Media Shift experienced a large number of anti-net neutrality comments, Free Press campaign director Timothy Karr was quick to offer his expertise in throwing around astroturfing accusations for them. Wrote Mark Glaser: “While I have seen a lot of evidence pointing toward certain individuals who post time and again against Net neutrality, I haven’t found a ‘smoking gun’ that proves without a doubt that this campaign is paid for by telecom companies.” So Free Press denounces certain tactics as astroturfing, but when they engage in them, it’s grassroots advocacy. That’s a sharp contrast to the Tea Parties, which were heavily accused of being astroturf last year, by several media outlets. Wrote Julia A. Seymour of the Business & Media Institute: “ABC’s Dan Harris repeated criticism from the left that the tea parties were ‘a product’ of Fox News and lobbyist organizations.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been one of the more visible figures reitterating the charge. Well, as long as Free Press provides the media with “information” and the corporate-funded liberal activists continue to be “grassroots,” there won’t need to be a smoking gun because any center-right organization will be astroturf.

Read more:
Left-wing Media Regulation Group Sees ‘Astroturf’ Everywhere Except in Mirror

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,