Tag Archives: country

Tavis Smiley: Just Because Gulf Residents Depend on Oil Drilling as Part of Their Economy ‘Doesn’t Make It Right’

Apparently, Tavis Smiley of PBS knows what’s best for Gulf residents, even if it would mean widespread unemployment. Smiley hosted a Wednesday night interview with Rep. Henry Waxman (D) on his show, where the liberal Californian admitted that while alternative energy sources need to be explored and developed, America still needs to drill for oil, albeit safely. But Smiley wondered aloud how American can move beyond politics and transcend its oil-dependent energy policy. He thought Obama’s Oval Office speech was one that “most people, left and right, seem not to like.” “How do you move beyond the politics to make that happen?” Smiley then asked Waxman, even though, as he himself claimed, most of the country was not enamored with Obama’s words. Smiley also brought up the Gulf residents’ clamors to keep oil drilling alive there. “I say this respectfully, because I understand how their economy works down there,” he said, before asking why Gulf residents are hesitant to “move beyond oil drilling.” “This oil’s in Florida now, as you know, this oil’s in Texas now, it’s all over the place in the Gulf. And yet the people in that region don’t want to stop oil drilling,” the PBS host pointed out to allege hypocrisy on the part of Gulf residents who also attack BP. “Well, they’re dependent on oil as part of their economy,” Waxman explained. “But dependence doesn’t make it right, though,” Smiley preached from his Los Angeles soapbox. “Well it makes it understandable,” Waxman offered. At the end of the discussion, Waxman slammed the Republicans for blaming Obama for the federal response to the Gulf disaster. Smiley added in his two cents. “I think it’s laughable, beyond laughable, that many persons on the right demonize government all day long until they want government to do what they want government to do.” The transcript of the segment, which aired on July 8 at 12:38 a.m. EDT, is as follows: REP. HENRY WAXMAN: But we need to move away from oil. And that’s why I strongly support the idea of broader legislative solution that will have us use alternatives to oil, to reduce the carbon emissions from other sources, especially coal and some of the utilities, to hasten the development of automobiles that are either electric or hybrid, so that’s not strictly using oil. Those are the things we need to do, it’s not going to happen overnight. But we’re not getting started, because of a lot of opposition, primarily because of the oil companies. TAVIS SMILEY: Respectfully, though, screw the oil companies. If this disaster with BP doesn’t allow the American people to see this is what can happen, this is what happens, this is happening because of our dependence on oil, screw the oil companies. I don’t want to hear that. I’m asking, respectfully, when it is and how it is that the American people and that our leaders in government circumvent the oil companies and say this is what we’re going to do for the sake of the American people? REP. WAXMAN: Well the President has been very clear. For the sake of the American people, our economy, our national security, to create more jobs, we need a comprehensive energy climate change bill that will move us away from these contributors of carbon emissions, and oil and coal are the major sources of these carbon emissions. You asked, though, the question directly – should we all feel blameworthy for what happened? And I don’t quite accept that. We are dependent on this transportation source for our motor vehicles. That’s – I can’t blame people for vehicles that use oil. I blame government and leaders for not moving us away from that and developing a different strategy. Now that we have leadership from President Obama, it is so difficult. Now the House passed a bill. We’re waiting for the Senate. And maybe they will get their act together and pass legislation. But if we don’t do it, as years go by, things don’t change overnight. It’s going to take a period of transition. And we need to drill for oil. I think it’s a mistake to say that there’s something wrong with drilling for oil. We’ve got to drill for oil. But if we’re going to have drilling for oil, we’ve got to make sure it’s done safely to protect the environment as best we can from this drilling itself. TAVIS SMILEY: How do you explain to the American people how it is that the folks in the Gulf – now I say this respectfully, because I understand how their economy works down there – but how do you, to your point now that you think we do need to drill for oil, just to do it safely, how do we explain to the American people who are watching this disaster in the Gulf who don’t understand how something this devastating could be impacting – this oil’s in Florida now, as you know, this oil’s in Texas now, it’s all over the place in the Gulf. And yet, the people in that region don’t want to stop oil drilling. I mean, it’s like on the one hand they’re demonizing – I shouldn’t say demonizing – they’re going after BP, I want to underscore again, as they should. They’re going after BP. But at the same time, I don’t hear voices, a chorus of voices saying we’ve got to move beyond oil drilling. REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Well, they’re dependent on oil as part of their economy. TAVIS SMILEY: But dependence doesn’t make it right, though. REP. WAXMAN: Well, it makes it understandable. SMILEY: Okay. REP. WAXMAN: And they’re not against oil drilling. And I’m not against oil drilling per se, although I think the moratorium makes a lot of sense until we can make sure it’s done safely. We have oil drilled, and we’re not going to stop drilling for oil, this is an important resource that we need to use, and we need to move away from. But we need it now. And I’d rather develop more American oil, than have to be importing more, although we’re never going to be self-sufficient. The statistics, which I think are pretty dramatic – we have three percent of the world’s oil resources in this country, and we consume 25 percent. Well there’s no way in the world we’re going to be independent of importing oil, unless we get away from using oil. SMILEY: So how do you move beyond then, finally here, how do you move beyond the politics, to your point earlier, President Obama is trying to do that, in the speech that most people, left and right, seem not to like, at least in that speech – he tried to raise the issue of different energy sources, a different direction for our energy program in this country, and the minute that he did that, as you well know being on the Hill, he got accused of playing politics and trying to insert a political agenda into a controversy. So how do you move beyond the politics to make that happen? REP. WAXMAN: I just want to point out something that is obvious, I think that most people that have – there’s nothing he can do that he’s not criticized about. You would think in a disaster like this, the country would be united and try to help do whatever we need to do to clean it up and to respond to it. Rather than BP, blame BP, we have Republicans say “Oh, it’s Obama’s fault!” Well what did he do? Now the government has a lot of responsibility, because we have a government agency that’s supposed to supervise the safety of this drilling. And that agency has failed miserably, and in fact there were even scandals associated with the Mineral Resources Development Agency. And the President is trying to change that, and restructure it, and make sure he’s got better people in there. But they blame President – even the governor of Louisiana who is a very active Republican, congressman, very active Republican, says “Oh, they’ve got to build a certain, certain rock pile of some sort,” and the scientists tell us that’s a mistake. But he’s saying the federal government is not doing what we need to do. Well, I think so much of that has become politicized, and it shouldn’t be. Everything is not political, and it’s – everything’s not partisan, but if you listen to the complaints, every time President Obama makes a move, somebody wants to blame something on him, even though he had nothing to do with it. SMILEY: Well, we do agree on that point. I think it’s laughable, beyond laughable, that many persons on the right demonize government all day long until they want government to do what they want government to do. But I digress.

Originally posted here:
Tavis Smiley: Just Because Gulf Residents Depend on Oil Drilling as Part of Their Economy ‘Doesn’t Make It Right’

Repeal The Drinking Age

Somehow, and no one seems to even imagine how, this country managed to survive and thrive before 1984 without a national minimum drinking age. Before that, the drinking question was left to the states. In the 19th century, and looking back even before — prepare yourself to imagine horrific anarchistic nightmares — there were no drinking laws anywhere, so far as anyone can tell. The regulation of drinking and age was left to society, which is to say families, churches, and communities with varying sensibilities who regulated such things with varying degrees of intensity. Probably some kids drank themselves silly — and we all know that this doesn't happen now (wink, wink) — but many others learned to drink responsibly from an early age, even drinking bourbon for breakfast. Really, it is only because we are somehow used to it that we accept the complete absurdity of a national law that prohibits the sale of beer, wine, and liquor to anyone under the age of 21. This is a restriction unknown in the developed world. Most countries set 18 as the limit, and countries like Germany and Austria allow 16-year-olds to buy wine and beer. In the home of the brave, the police are busting up teen parties, shutting down bars, hectoring restaurants, fining convenience stores, and otherwise bullying people into clean living. We read….. http://mises.org/daily/4559 added by: shanklinmike

Why People Aren’t Going to Concerts Anymore [Music]

Ticket sales for all the concerts in the country combined has dropped to a new low, and many big-name acts are under-performing. How could this happen? Maybe because all the bands are old and no one wants to see them. More

MRC-TV: Bozell Discusses Media’s Inattention to New Black Panther/Justice Dept. Story with Sean Hannity

The Obama/Holder Department of Justice closed down an investigation into voter intimidation on Election Day 2008 by the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia. Yet the broadcast news media have been virtually silent on the matter, making it the first item in last night’s “Media Mash” segment on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity.” Noted NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell: Here you had a whistleblower from the Department of Justice saying how Eric Holder, the Attorney General, and his office stepped in and stopped the prosecution of these Black Panther people. He claimed it was the easiest prosecution in his career. He said everything was on video, everything was on tape…. It was a slam dunk…. Look, the media are refusing to cover just how radical this attorney general is… “You have people in paramilitary uniforms, you know, spewing racial epithets at voters as they go into the polling place… obviously a case of voter intimidation. Still no coverage on ABC, CBS, NBC, several major newspapers in this country,” host Sean Hannity observed. In addition to this incident, Hannity and Bozell discussed the media blackout of NASA administrator Charles Bolden’s interview with al-Jazeera in which he stated his “foremost” objective assigned by the president was helping Muslim nations “feel good” about their “historic contribution” to “science, math and engineering.” For the full “Media Mash” segment, click here for MP3 audio or here for WMV video , or watch the video embedded above at right.

Read this article:
MRC-TV: Bozell Discusses Media’s Inattention to New Black Panther/Justice Dept. Story with Sean Hannity

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

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

Illegals rob elderly citizen, citizen fires gun, prosecutors charge the citizen–and not the illegals

This is a CLASSIC example of how, in cities like Denver where the politicians have promoted sanctuary city policies, illegal aliens are given more rights than citizens. There is a local news video on the page below: http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-elderly-man-shoots-thieves-txt,0,1105363.story *** Elderly man facing serious charges for shooting at thieves Julie Hayden Investigative Reporter 7:22 PM MDT, July 7, 2010 WHEAT RIDGE, Colo. – Legal analyst Dan Recht said he believes the Jefferson County District Attorney is “seriously overcharging” a Wheat Ridge homeowner, accused of attempted first degree murder for shooting at two thieves. 82-year-old Robert Wallace said he fired two shots at two men when they tried to run him over while stealing his flatbed trailer. Wallace now faces twelve felony counts, including four counts of attempted first degree murder, for what he described as an act of defending his property and his life. If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life in prison. One of the thieves, Damacio Torres later admitted to the theft. He and his partner in crime, Alvara Cardano both have prior arrest records and are believed to be in the country illegally. But they are not facing any charges. Recht said, in his experience, prosecutors overcharge cases to force a person to plea bargain. He argued that it's just not right to put a person through that kind of mental and financial stress. Jefferson County DA, Scott Storey, indicated he'll take a closer look at his office's decision to throw the book at the homeowner and hinted the charges could be reduced. He said the investigation continues into the confessed thieves. *** There are additional details you need to know: 1) the two illegal aliens had many prior arrests for theft. At one point recently they stole a $60,000 piece of farm equipment on a trailer in a very similar theft. 2) investigators said they believe the two criminals are part of a car theft ring, and wanted the trailer for additional thefts. 3) the driver of the truck was hit by a bullet and is now paralized, and wants to sue the elderly man “for everything he has” 4) First Degree Murder is a capital punishment offense, so this 82 year old gentleman could go to jail for the rest of his life or even receive the death penalty for defending his life and property. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070817192825AAdnJoq 5) In interviews on Denver radio programs, local defense lawyers, former prosecutors and former Congressmen in colorado have stated that had the “victims” been anything other than illegal immigrants, Mr Wallace would not be charged at all. 6) the prosecuting attorneys have pressed NO CHARGES against the illegal immigrant theives. NONE. . added by: curtisreed

Leftist AOL Contributor Attacks Pope, Equates Him With Hezbollah Leader

AOL News contributor Paul Wachter launched an inflammatory attack on Pope Benedict XVI in a Thursday post where he also defended recently-fired CNN editor Octavia Nasr for her eulogy of Hezbollah’s spiritual leader. After hinting that the network “overreacted,” Wachter suggested that CNN should also fire “anyone who speaks highly of the pope, who…has contributed to the deaths of millions from AIDS.” Wachter began his commentary, ” Octavia Nasr Firing: Should CNN Also Ax Anyone Who Praises the Pope? ,” by recounting the former Middle Eastern affairs editor’s Tweet where she expressed how she was “sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah.. One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot.” He then echoed Nasr’s own synopsis of the Hezbollah spiritual leader: “Fadlallah left a complex legacy. He was staunchly anti-Zionist, a defender of suicide bombings and approved of the suicide attacks on American barracks in Beirut during the United States’ ill-fated intervention in Lebanon during the country’s civil war. But he also championed women’s rights under Islam and spoke out against honor killings.” The writer, who also contributes to left-leaning publication such as New York Time Magazine, The Atlantic, and The Nation, then launched his attack on the Pope, and lumped in Jerry Fallwell for good measure at the end: An argument can be made that CNN has overreacted here , but if Nasr must go, is it too much to ask that the network at least be consistent going forward? Should it, for instance, also fire anyone who speaks highly of the pope, who covered up the clerical rape of young boys and whose anti-contraception proselytization has contributed to the deaths of millions from AIDS? Or anyone at the network who had a kind word for Jerry Fallwell, who said the United States was getting its just deserts with the 9/11 attacks and that the anti-Christ was among us, disguised as a Jewish man? So Wachter believes it’s a matter of established fact that the pontiff “covered up the clerical rape of young boys”? That’s not surprising, given the secular anti-Catholic company he keeps. As for the wild accusation that Benedict contributed to the deaths of millions from AIDS, it was CNN itself that came out on Wachter’s side last year after the Pope stated that condoms “increases the problem” of AIDS during his first trip to Africa. Correspondent Zain Verjee couldn’t seem to find any health “experts” who agreed with the Catholic leader during a March 17, 2009 report . CNN commentator Jack Cafferty condemned the pontiff’s remarks a day later , concluding that “it is past time for the Catholic Church to enter the 21st century, or at least try to drag itself out of the 13th century.” All of this came despite the fact that Dr. Edward Green of Harvard’s AIDS Prevention Research Project cited how the ” the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments .” In any case, there’s little risk of Wachter’s hypothetical situation of a CNN employee praising the Pope happening any time soon, given the network’s slanted coverage of the priest sex abuse scandal so far during 2010 .

Read more here:
Leftist AOL Contributor Attacks Pope, Equates Him With Hezbollah Leader

Quotes of the Day: On the Evils of Air Conditioning

Cover, Henry Miller’s Air Conditioned Nightmare Air conditioning is not only an environmental problem, it is also a social problem. In the post Air Conditioning and Urbanism, I wrote: We should consider also the insidious effect of central air- how it enables the development of parts of the country previously uninhabitable and which would still be but for the constant cooling, and how it is destroying the street culture of areas already established. H… Read the full story on TreeHugger

See more here:
Quotes of the Day: On the Evils of Air Conditioning

Keith Olbermann Calls for Justice Clarence Thomas to Resign

Keith Olbermann on Wednesday called for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign. His complaint? Thomas’s wife Virginia runs a political organization called Liberty Central which at this point has not revealed who its donors are.  “She is a living, breathing, appearance of a conflict of interest,” whined Olbermann during Wednesday’s “Countdown.” “Either she must reveal the names of her donors and everyone employed by, affiliated with or donating to or donated to by Liberty Central, or Justice Thomas must resign from the Supreme Court” (video follows with transcript and commentary): Then there is Washington, D.C. Tea Partier Virginia “Ginny” Thomas. She has the usual stuff, a blind hatred of the president, paranoid use of the word tyranny, endorsing knee jerk candidates, her own little group of Neanderthals called Liberty Central. It’s more financially successful than most. “Politico” now reports she has only two donors, one for 50 grand and one for a whopping 500 grand. But otherwise, Mrs. Thomas’ story is the usual reactionary tripe. It is her right to be wrong and we must protect it. Virginia “Ginny” Thomas is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. This probably is really, really obvious. The wife of a Supreme Court justice is soliciting donations to a political organization. The donors are anonymous and one paid her half a million bucks. Even if she tried not to, she cannot help but stand out from a crowd of yelping Tea Partiers because of her husband‘s name and position. She is a living, breathing, appearance of a conflict of interest. The remedies are just as obvious. Either she must reveal the names of her donors and everyone employed by, affiliated with or donating to or donated to by Liberty Central, or Justice Thomas must resign from the Supreme Court. Otherwise, every verdict he renders will have to be assumed to be the result of influence peddling, and whatever effectiveness he has on the court will be reduced to a pathetic joke.   Before we get to the heart of the matter, isn’t it marvelous how a cable news anchor shows such disrespect to the wife of a Supreme Court justice?  “She has the usual stuff, a blind hatred of the president, paranoid use of the word tyranny, endorsing knee jerk candidates, her own little group of Neanderthals called Liberty Central…But otherwise, Mrs. Thomas’ story is the usual reactionary tripe.” Is this REALLY what the wife of a Supreme Court justice deserves just because she has different political beliefs than a television personality?  As to the substance of Olbermann’s complaint, every verdict Thomas renders will have to be assumed to be the result of influence peddling? Not just the ones that might actually involve donors to his wife’s organization? That seems absurdly sweeping even for the typically absurdly sweeping “Countdown” host. Sadly, if he and his staff had done the slightest bit of research, they would have uncovered what the Los Angeles Times reported  concerning this matter on March 14: “I think the American public expects the justices to be out of politics,” said University of Texas law school professor Lucas A. “Scot” Powe, a court historian. He said the expectations for spouses are far less clear. “I really don’t know because we’ve never seen it,” Powe said. Under judicial rules, judges must curb political activity, but a spouse is free to engage. As in her appearance at the panel discussion, the website does not mention Clarence Thomas. The judicial code of conduct does require judges to separate themselves from their spouses’ political activity. As a result, Marjorie Rendell, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has stayed away from political events, campaign rallies and debates in Pennsylvania. Her husband discussed such issues in his first campaign for governor. Since then, Judge Rendell has sought the opinion of the judiciary’s Committee on Codes of Conduct when a case presents a possible conflict of interest involving her husband’s political office, she said. And what about this specific situation? Law professor Gillers said that Justice Thomas, too, should be on alert for possible conflicts, particularly those involving donors to his wife’s nonprofit. “There is opportunity for mischief if a company with a case before the court, or which it wants the court to accept, makes a substantial contribution to Liberty Central in the interim,” he said. Justice Thomas would be required to be aware of such contributions, Gillers said, adding that he believes Thomas should then disclose those facts and allow parties in the case to argue for recusal. But it would be up to Justice Thomas to decide whether to recuse himself. As such, despite Olbermann’s blathering, the only potential conflict here would be if the Supreme Court heard a case involving a donor to Liberty Central. At that point, there are procedures in place to deal with it. After all, in the many centuries we’ve had a Supreme Court, this isn’t the first time a justice’s spouse was involved in politics. If Olbermann and his staff had actually read the entire piece  he referred to in this report, he may have been far better informed on this subject: Neither a Liberty Central official, nor a Supreme Court spokeswoman would say whether the group would disclose the names of its donors to the Supreme Court legal office or to Thomas’s husband so he can avoid ruling on cases in which a major Liberty Central donor is a party. “Liberty Central has been run past the Supreme Court ethics office and they found that the organization meets all ethics standards,” [policy director and general counsel Sarah] Field said. “As she has throughout her 30-year history in the policy community, Ginni will address any potential conflicts on a case-by-case basis.” As Ginni Thomas has begun to emerge as a high-profile political player in her own right, friends and allies say has bristled at the focus on her husband, and questions about whether her involvement with Liberty Central could compromise his impartiality. The Thomases last faced conflict questions in 2000 when Ginni Thomas, then working for the conservative Heritage Foundation, solicited resumes for potential transition team members for George W. Bush, while Justice Thomas was part of the court majority that sided with Bush over Democratic rival Al Gore in the historic case of Bush v. Gore. In fact, this is certainly not the first time Thomas has been politically active: “In my experience working with her, people usually didn’t know (she was married to Clarence Thomas), because she doesn’t wear it on her sleeve,” said Kibbe, who worked with Thomas at the right-leaning U.S. Chamber of Commerce while her husband was a federal appeals court judge rumored to be on then-President George H.W. Bush’s shortlist for the Supreme Court. After the Chamber, Ginni Thomas, who has a law degree, went on to work for the Labor Department under the Bush administration and later for then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a Texas Republican who now chairs Kibbe’s group, as well as the Heritage Foundation, a pillar of the Washington conservative establishment. That was followed by the job as a Washington coordinator for Hillsdale College. Thomas, who declined to be interviewed for this story and has mostly limited her media interaction to conservative outlets, explained to the Washington Examiner last month that she decided to start Liberty Central because she “realized I needed to get closer to the front lines, that there was a more short-term crisis – and that unless we have a big impact in November and again in 2012, we wouldn’t recognize the country we’re living in.” She also explained to the Examiner, “My favorite times are when people who have worked for me for over 10 years come to understand only later that I am the wife of Justice Thomas.” Taking this a step further: Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg told POLITICO that “Mrs. Thomas had reviewed her involvement (in Liberty Central) with the Supreme Court legal office.” But Arberg would not say whether Clarence Thomas had participated in the discussion, nor whether Liberty Central had agreed to reveal its donors to him or the court’s legal office. As such, the Court’s legal office is quite aware of the situation making Olbermann’s call for Thomas to step down if Virginia doesn’t disclose her donors quite absurd. Alas, that’s par for the course for MSNBC’s prime time clown who predictably makes hyperbolic fulminations without facts to support them. His hero Edward R. Murrow must be so proud. 

The rest is here:
Keith Olbermann Calls for Justice Clarence Thomas to Resign

CBS’s Couric to Netanyahu: ‘Should You Be More Strongly Advocating’ on Obama’s Behalf?

In an interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric noted President Obama’s unpopularity in Israel and pressed Netanyahu to remedy that fact: “To change public opinion in your country, should you be more strongly advocating on his behalf?” Couric preceded that question by citing a recent poll of Israelis, which she seemed perplexed by: “Can you explain this to me, then? In a poll conducted a month ago – just a month ago – 71 percent of the Jews in Israel surveyed said they dislike President Obama; 47 percent expressed a strong dislike.” Earlier in the interview, Couric tried to gauge Netanyahu’s feelings toward Obama: “Do you trust Barack Obama?…surely there have been disappointments with the Obama administration. Can you just be candid with me and tell me how the administration has disappointed you?” While Couric asked about Israeli “disappointments” with Obama, she never cited any specific Obama administration policies or actions as the cause of those disappointments. On Wednesday’s Good Morning America on ABC, co-host George Stephanopoulos repeatedly badgered Netanyahu on ways to improve the U.S.-Israel relationship, placing no responsibility on President Obama to repair the alliance: “One analyst said, this is a false calm. Suggesting that you can’t or won’t deliver what President Obama is calling for in the peace process. So, what concrete steps are you prepared to take?” Here is a transcript of the first part of Couric’s July 7 interview with Netanyahu: 6:39PM ET KATIE COURIC: In other news, it appeared yesterday that President Obama had accepted an invitation from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to visit Israel. But today the White House said the trip, is, quote, ‘not on the books for this year.’ So have the two leaders really patched up their differences? That was part of the conversation when I interviewed the Prime Minister this afternoon here in New York. Do you trust Barack Obama? NETANYAHU: I trust Barack Obama, the President of the United States, to carry out with me the policies that have joined Israel and the United States in what Barack Obama has called the ‘unbreakable bond.’ We have common goals, common interests, and we now have a job to do to get on with our common goal of achieving peace with security. I trust we’ll be able to do that together. COURIC: While you want to accentuate the positive, clearly – that’s part of your mission here in the United States – surely there have been disappointments with the Obama administration. Can you just be candid with me and tell me how the administration has disappointed you? NETANYAHU: You know, you remind me of the Israeli press. They say ‘how come you had a good meeting with President Obama?’ Well, because I did. Because we actually see eye to eye on some central issues. The quest for peace, the danger of Iran, the need to bolster security for Israel and the region. That’s the truth. We do see it. Have we had differences? Of course we had. But I think some differences- COURIC: Some awkward moments? NETANYAHU: Yes, of course we had. So what? Even they are magnified and distorted. I think the President has a fine mind, and I can relate to it. COURIC: Can you explain this to me, then? In a poll conducted a month ago – just a month ago – 71 percent of the Jews in Israel surveyed said they dislike President Obama; 47 percent expressed a strong dislike. NETANYAHU: Well, maybe they don’t have the opportunity to have the kind of conversations that I had. And maybe they’re not aware, also, of the ongoing cooperation between Israel and the United States in the fields of security, intelligence. The fact that the Iron Dome program to protect against missiles is something that has been bolstered by this administration and by this president. We have a common goal to achieve a secure peace. I’m looking forward to working with him to achieve it. COURIC: Well, to change public opinion in your country, should you be more strongly advocating on his behalf? NETANYAHU: You know, I invited the President to Israel. I hope that he finds an appropriate time to come. I think that when people get to know him, and first lady Michelle Obama was very kind to my wife, they gave us a very warm reception. I hope I’ll be able to – we’ll be able to reciprocate in Israel.      COURIC: And later in this broadcast, what Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks the U.S. and Israel can do to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The rest is here:
CBS’s Couric to Netanyahu: ‘Should You Be More Strongly Advocating’ on Obama’s Behalf?