Tag Archives: country

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

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

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

London’s Embassies Show Sustainable Projects

Images by B. Alter: Norway As part of the London Festival of Architecture , twenty eight embassies are celebrating the best of their country’s architecture. Strange creations like Italy’s photo-reactive skin on its front door and Helsinki in a container are popping up in unexpected places. But we loved these moss-filled rooms created by PUSHAK, a Norwegian architecture firm consisting of 4 women. Called Moss Your City , the walls and … Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read more:
London’s Embassies Show Sustainable Projects

Hopeydopeyontheropey: Confidence Waning in Obama

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that American voters sure are looking for change – from Obama: Sixty-two percent of adults in the survey feel the country is on the wrong track, the highest level since before the 2008 election. Just one-third think the economy will get better over the next year, a 7-point drop from a month ago and the low point of Mr. Obama's tenure. Amid anxiety over the nation's course, support for Mr. Obama and other incumbents is eroding. For the first time, more people disapprove of Mr. Obama's job performance than approve. And 57% of voters would prefer to elect a new person to Congress than re-elect their local representatives, the highest share in 18 years. …Some 30% in the poll said they ‘do not really relate’ to Mr. Obama. Only 8% said that at the beginning of his presidency. Fewer than half give him positive marks when asked if he is ‘honest and straightforward.'’ And 49% rate him positively when asked if he has ‘strong leadership qualities,'’ down from 70% when Mr. Obama took office and a drop of 8 points since January. Just 40% rate him positively on his ‘ability to handle a crisis,’ an 11-point drop since January. Half disapprove of Mr. Obama's handling of the oil spill, including one in four Democrats. …'The results show ‘a really ugly mood and an unhappy electorate,’ said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with GOP pollster Bill McInturff. 'The voters, I think, are just looking for change, and that means bad news for incumbents and in particular for the Democrats.' Yup, it’s that hopeychangey thingy, I guess. http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6102139/hopeydopeyontheropey.thtml added by: crystalman

Israeli Airforce land at Saudi base ahead of possible Iran strike

Islam Times says Israeli jets unloaded military equipment in Islamic country ahead of possible Iran strike. Israeli Air force aircraft landed during the past weekend at a military base in Saudi Arabia and unloaded large quantities of military gear, according to a report published Wednesday by Islamic website Islam Times. The report, which has questionable credibility, claimed the equipment was unloaded at a base in the city of Tabuk, in the north western part of the country, ahead of a possible strike on Iran. London Times reports Saudis carry out defense missile tests aimed at allowing Israeli warplanes to pass through airspace on way to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran. 'We will let them through and see nothing,' says source The controversial report was also published by the Iranian news agency Fars, under the title “Suspicious military activity of the Zionist regime in Saudi Arabia.” According to the report, the IDF built a military base approximately 9 km (5.5 miles) from Tabuk, and while Israeli planes landed there on June 18 and 19, all civilian flights were cancelled at the local airport. One of the passengers in Tabuk noted that civilians at the airport were not given an explanation for the flight cancellations, but were compensated by the Saudi authorities and accommodated in nearby hotels. The report further claimed that “the secret relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia became the main topic of conversation among the city's residents.” Another report published two weeks ago claimed Saudi Arabia tested its defense missile systems In order to allow IAF airplanes to pass through its airspace en route to bombarding nuclear facilities in Iran. Security elements in the Persian Gulf told the London-based Times magazine that Riyadh gave Israel the green light to fly through a narrow airspace in the north of the country, in order to shorten the flight time to the Islamic Republic. According to the Times, in order to ensure that IAF aircraft are not intercepted by Saudi defense missiles, Riyadh conducted tests to make sure the system does not activate if Israeli planes are detected. After the aircraft clear the area, the system will resume to normal activity. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_kwz4BqmMfpo/TCIma2cznQI/AAAAAAAABjo/sN5MFhHYPPQ/s1600/… added by: crystalman

CNBC’s Santelli Warns U.S. ‘Could End Up Worse than Japan’ Facing a Lost Decade

Fresh off his Tea Party cover story   in the June 24 Weekly Standard , CNBC’s Rick Santelli foresees what could be classified as an economic black hole for the United States of America. On the network’s June 24 broadcast of “Strategy Session,” the CME Group reporter explained how the country could be headed down the same path and face the economic calamity the Japanese faced in what is known as   the “lost decade.”   That period, from 1991-2000, was one which the Asian nation failed to grow economically despite countless efforts by the government to intervene. But as Santelli explained – the U.S. version of Japanese economic policies could result in Greek-style austerity measures. “The notion that we are turning into Japan has been something talked about on this floor for probably a year and a half,” Santelli said. “What changes though, is that it is now a toss up between Japan and Greece and trust me the eventual solutions or recommendations for avoiding the pitfalls of either are completely different strategies. A lot of Japanese say, ‘More Keynesian, more stimulus, spend, spend, spend, spend, spend.’ And the other side of the equation says, ‘Well then, you are going turn into Greece.’ Where does the truth lie? One thing I can tell you is, is that demographics are a big issue in this story as well. The Japanese have a demographic time bomb similar to the U.S. in terms of underfunded pensions and liabilities.” But according to “Strategy Session” anchor David Faber, the United States doesn’t face the same demographic obstacles as Japan, which has an aging population. “They also have a much older population,” Faber said. “I mean the fact is with our immigration patterns, with our birth patterns – we’re at a much better demographic point than they are, Rick – to be fair. You know, I hate to even use this but it’s true – they sell more adult diapers in that country than they do baby diapers. We don’t have that problem, thankfully.” However, as far monetary policy is concerned, the United States is positioned much differently than Japan because the world uses the dollar as a reserve currency. And that makes financing government debt much easier – but it also puts the United States in a potentially much more untenable position as well. “We could end up worse than Japan and I’ll tell you why,” Santelli said. “When Japan had their horrible decade and they were doing the sterilization and trying to print Yen, they were also issuing a pretty significant amount of debt but who was buying the Japanese debt? The Japanese. Now we have a reserve currency, so who’s buying our debt? Well, pretty much the rest of the world. People might say, ‘Well that’s a great thing, we could monetize it.’ And that’s where the trouble lies. Go to what Steve said – our government is a free-for-all of dumb ideas. And the fact is, if you have interest rates this low and a reserve currency, in a world that keeps wanting to eat in what turns out to be a cruddy cake – where does that leave us when we finally figure it out?

Go here to see the original:
CNBC’s Santelli Warns U.S. ‘Could End Up Worse than Japan’ Facing a Lost Decade

CNN’s Carol Costello Hypes Up Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and Liberal Environmental Agenda

On the June 24 “American Morning,” CNN’s Carol Costello trumpeted a “revitalized” environmental movement that is hoping the Gulf oil spill will “change the way we feel about oil” and is aggressively lobbying Congress to pass radical climate change legislation. Previewing the “Gut Check” segment, Costello gleefully teased, “Coming up next, environmentalists are revitalized and it’s over the Gulf oil spill. Could this disaster be what we need in this country to change the way we feel about oil?” In lockstep with the Left’s environmental agenda, the fill-in anchor pondered whether the Gulf oil spill would crystallize support for a climate bill or would “it be back to business as usual?” Costello articulated the same phrase environmental groups frequently employ to manufacture a false sense of urgency around their liberal initiatives. Interviewing David Rauschkolb, founder of Hands Across the Sand, a liberal group opposed to offshore drilling, Costello praised the forerunner to Rauschkolb’s new group – Earth Day – for “strengthening the Clean Air Act and helping President Nixon create the Environmental Protection Agency.” Costello did not reach out to conservative critics who argue that draconian environmental regulations stymie economic growth and breed unemployment. Costello also claimed that the Sierra Club, a juggernaut in the environmental movement, capitalized on conservative criticism to generate public support for liberal causes. “When Rush Limbaugh blamed environmentalists for forcing onshore drilling offshore, the Sierra Club used Limbaugh’s comments to raise $120,000 and 110,000 signatures for climate legislation,” contended Costello, who failed to address the substance of the conservative talk show host’s argument. Further hyping the fringe environmental movement and its toxic agenda, Costello noted Clean Energy Works’s robust lobbying campaign for “clean energy legislation” and GreenPeace’s contest to design a new BP logo, without labeling either of these liberal organizations appropriately. Back in the studio, co-host John Roberts sensibly stated that America “can’t stop drilling because we’re not going to stop driving cars.” Channeling her inner liberal, Costello would not let her colleague’s simple logic deprive her of her wide-eyed optimism: “That’s true but will it drive something like climate change legislation? We just don’t know yet. That’s what environmentalists are hoping.” A full transcript of the segment can be found below: CNN American Morning 6/24/10 8:37 a.m. CAROL COSTELLO, co-host: Coming up next, environmentalists are revitalized and it’s over the Gulf oil spill. Could this disaster be what we need in this country to change the way we feel about oil? We’ll try to answer that question in a “Gut Check” coming up next. It’s 37 minutes past the hour. JOHN ROBERTS, co-host: 41 minutes after the hour. A growing number of environmentalists are hoping that the oil crisis in the Gulf will change how Americans treat the environment. We’ve seen that kind of quick reaction after disasters in the past. COSTELLO: I know, you know, Earth Day was born out of an oil disaster. So we wondered: will people really care? Will it change the way we feel about oil or will it be back to business as usual? A “Gut Check” for you this morning.              It’s called Hands Across the Sand. Back in February it drew 10,000 Floridians in protest of offshore drilling. This weekend, Hands says it goes international: 599 American cities will take part, as will 20 countries. DAVID RAUSCHKOLB, Hands Across the Sand: I believe this is a huge opportunity for us and it’s time we take control of our energy future. COSTELLO: David Rauschkolb hopes Hands will be the catalyst Earth Day was back in 1970. It was born after an oil spill in California and is credited for strengthening the Clean Air Act and helping President Nixon create the Environmental Protection Agency. The Clean Energy Works Campaign has hopes too – its launched an ad campaign pushing for clean energy legislation. GreenPeace is actively using the spill as a catalyst too, its members so intent to do something a contest to design a new BP logo has attracted half a million visitors to its Web site. The Sierra Club site is hot too. When Rush Limbaugh blamed environmentalists for forcing onshore drilling offshore… RUSH LIMBAUGH, conservative radio host: When do we ask the Sierra Club to pick up the tab for this leak? COSTELLO:…the Sierra Club used Limbaugh’s comments to raise $120,000 and 110,000 signatures for climate legislation. MICHAEL BRUNE, Sierra Club: This is our chance to actually move beyond oil and the outstanding question – the question that remains – is whether or not President Obama will seize this opportunity and get us off oil once and for all. COSTELLO: While all the passion sounds good for who critics would call “tree huggers,” is it real? Psychologist Jeff Gardere says while oiled birds, dirtied beaches, and black tides will raise awareness, it may not last. After all, there are government regulators already in place who are supposed to prevent disasters like this and didn’t. So why bother? Environmentalists get that but say this disaster will cut through the cynicism.                  BRUNE: We’ve set the ocean on fire, we’ve put thousands of fishermen and women out of work. The coastal tourism economy is collapsing and all of this is happening in slow motion. COSTELLO: It may be happening in slow motion, but Americans have a complicated relationship with oil, and nowhere is that better demonstrated than in Louisiana – they’re angry at BP but they sure don’t want the oil industry to go away. ROBERTS: You’re right, there’s so many people down there – one side of the family is in the fishing industry or the  tourism industry and the other side of the family is in the oil industry. They know that they have to co-exist. I mean, anything that raises awareness of the environment is a good thing, but you know, you’ve got to have – you can’t stop drilling because we’re not going to stop driving cars. COSTELLO: That’s true but will it drive something like climate change legislation? We just don’t know yet. That’s what environmentalists are hoping. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Excerpt from:
CNN’s Carol Costello Hypes Up Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and Liberal Environmental Agenda

NBC: Obama’s ‘Commander-in-Chief’ Moment with McChrystal a Hidden Blessing

On Wednesday’s Today show, NBC’s Chuck Todd touted President Obama’s “swiftness” in dealing with the controversy surrounding General Stanley McChrystal comments in Rolling Stone magazine as a ” commander-in-chief moment ,” and hinted that it was a blessing in disguise, given the executive’s tanking approval ratings. Todd led the 7 am Eastern hour with his report on the President appointing General David Petraeus to replace General McChrystal, who was relieved of command following the Rolling Stone interview. The NBC White House correspondent remarked that with the Petraeus appointment, “the President signaled to his team, no more firestorms like this one will be tolerated.” After playing a clip of Mr. Obama stating that he “won’t tolerate division,” he continued that “the President’s aides don’t expect there will be much division in the Senate, either, where some are predicting Petraeus will have the fastest confirmation in history, and the praise is bipartisan.” Later in the report, Todd used his “swiftness” term as he emphasized the apparent good timing of the controversy and detailed the public’s decreasing confidence in the President, according to NBC’s own poll: TODD: Still, the swiftness of the President’s action is a commander-in-chief moment, at a time when the public is having doubts about his ability . According to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, just 45 percent approve of the job he’s doing as president. Forty-four percent believe he’s firm and decisive in his decision making. That’s down from 63 percent 18 months ago. And just under half the country, 49 percent, believe he has strong leadership qualities. That’s down a whopping 21 points from the month he took office. And as the list of domestic problems, like unemployment and the oil spill, pile up on the President’s desk, some say it was vitally important the President buy time on Afghanistan. An on-screen graphic further described that President Obama’s disapproval rating was at 48%, though the correspondent didn’t specifically mention this statistic. Almost a day earlier, Todd lauded the chief executive just as the Petraeus appointment was being made: “Politically, in this town, it’s going to be seen as a brilliant choice by the President.” The full transcript of Chuck Todd’s report from Thursday’s Today show: MEREDITH VIEIRA: Let us begin with the change in command in Afghanistan. Chuck Todd is NBC’s chief White House correspondent. Good morning, Chuck. CHUCK TODD: Good morning, Meredith. Well, after a rare swift set of personnel moves by this White House, the President is now back focused on trying to make his complicated Afghanistan strategy work, rather than fixated on who’s going to implement it. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: This is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy. TODD (voice-over): With General Petraeus by his side, and General McChrystal headed out a side door, the President signaled to his team, no more firestorms like this one will be tolerated. OBAMA: I’ve just told my national security team that now is the time for all of us to come together. I welcome debate among my team, but I won’t tolerate division. TODD: The President’s aides don’t expect there will be much division in the Senate, either, where some are predicting Petraeus will have the fastest confirmation in history, and the praise is bipartisan. SENATOR CARL LEVIN: I admire him and others that respond to that kind of a call from the President. I don’t think he even had a chance to talk to his wife. SENATOR LINDSAY GRAHAM: Dave Petraeus is our best hope. If things don’t change, nobody can pull it out in Afghanistan. TODD: But the hearings are expected to re-ignite the very divisive debate among the two parties about the question of a timetable for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, scheduled to begin next July. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Whether that is, quote- etched in stone, as the President’s spokesperson, Mr. Gibbs, stated, or whether it will be conditions-based. TODD: Still, the swiftness of the President’s action is a commander-in-chief moment, at a time when the public is having doubts about his ability. According to a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, just 45% approve of the job he’s doing as president. Forty-four percent believe he’s firm and decisive in his decision making. That’s down from 63% 18 months ago. And just under half the country, 49%, believe he has strong leadership qualities. That’s down a whopping 21 points from the month he took office. And as the list of domestic problems, like unemployment and the oil spill, pile up on the President’s desk, some say it was vitally important the President buy time on Afghanistan. RETIRED GENERAL BARRY MCCAFFREY: It does give the President cover and a strategy, and it does buy him time. He’s putting a leader out there that will not be questioned. TODD (live) Today, the focus stays on foreign affairs, as the President meets with the president of another country who’s familiar with a quagmire-like situation in Afghanistan. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visits the White House today. The two will hold a joint press conference, and Afghanistan is likely to come up, Matt. MATT LAUER: All right. Chuck Todd at the White House this morning. Chuck, thank you very much.

Read more here:
NBC: Obama’s ‘Commander-in-Chief’ Moment with McChrystal a Hidden Blessing

Did Ed Schultz’s Construction Company Get Stimulus Money?

While defending the Obama administration as a champion for small business owners, MSNBC host Ed Schultz revealed that his construction company more than doubled its number of employees in the past year – thanks to the stimulus bill. “We’ve gone from eight employees to twenty employees in the past year, because of the stimulus package,” he said of his construction company. “We’ve put some people back to work. There is some growth.” Schultz made that revelation as a guest on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” Wednesday morning. In a segment of the show where he was discussing corporations shipping jobs overseas and skimping on benefits to regular workers and labor union members, Schultz stepped up and defended President Obama. “This President, and this administration, has done more for small business than any other President has in the last thirty years,” he claimed. “There’s more tax incentives on the table right now, there’s more incentives for small businesses to go out and do things, to hire – we never saw this under any other President.” Schultz whined that tax incentives for big corporations hurt the American middle class by providing opportunities for them to send jobs overseas. He credited President Obama with providing opportunities for small businesses to thrive in the United States. However, Schultz also lamented that certain Obama administration policies, such as increasing taxes on foreign earnings, ending secret ballots in union elections, EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses and restrictions on oil are “pro-corporate and anti-worker.” With corporations attacking labor, cutting wages, and going after pensions, Schultz claimed that age discrimination is taking place in the business world, and that “we’ve now developed this culture that it’s not good to pay anybody.”         The transcript of the segment, which aired on June 23 at 9:30 a.m. EDT, is as follows: ED SCHULTZ: Now we’re at a crossroads in this country. We have to make a determination if we believe that having 10 percent unemployment for a long period of time is the direction that we want to go. Do we understand that the social pressure and the economic pressure that that’s going to put on the country? I don’t think that’s where Americans want to go. And I think that we’re going to see a real surge of buy American, a loyalty to American products, because I think the middle class folks in this country have seen exactly what has happened, this attack on labor that has taken place, that all of a sudden it’s okay to reduce wages, or attack people’s pensions. And we’re also seeing in this country right now age discrimination. Because there’s a race to the bottom line. We’ve now developed this culture that it’s not good to pay anybody. And we have to have somewhat of a push for economic patriotism, in reinvestment in people. We have to understand that people make the difference. And if we don’t value that at every level, we’re not going to be the country that we can be. We’re not going to be the country that we were at one time. We still can achieve greatness, but we gotta get the big money out of politics, we’ve gotta get what is destroying the middle class in this country, and reinvigorate this country with breaks for the middle class, and a real focus on job creation. And I think the President’s trying to do that, but — of course the way the Congress is right now, all the bickering that’s going on, and there’s really no bipartisanship to speak of that addresses any of this — I think we’re in for a long struggle here, a real long struggle. (…) HOST: Mr. Schultz, the Wall Street Journal echoes that caller’s sentiment. They have a headline that echoes the caller’s sentiment that business groups say the Obama administration is hostile toward jobs. And they have a list of grievances: Increased taxes on foreign earnings, stalled free trade agreements, shareholder rights to nominate directors, end to secret ballots in union elections, expanded damages for pay discrimination, EPA regulation of greenhouse gasses, and restrictions on oil. ED SCHULTZ: Those were all pro-corporate, and anti-worker. This President, and this administration, has done more for small business than any other President has in the last thirty years. There’s more tax incentives on the table right now, there’s more incentives for small businesses to go out and do things, to hire – we never saw this under any other President. He’s doing anything he possibly can. But the money is tight. The money is very tight. And until we loosen up the lending practices in this country, we’re not going to have – and until small businesses have access to capital, we’re not going to see this turn around. The President is doing everything he possibly can. In fact, the Republicans aren’t even matching him on any of this stuff. They think it’s all about the corporations and all about the top two percent. In the book, I document – and I want this lady to read this book, and come back and tell me if I’m wrong. The number of foreign countries that are operating in this country that don’t pay tax – does she think that’s a good thing? Is it a good thing for corporations not to pay their fair share? Now I’m not here to say that all corporations are bad. They do hire people. But they’ve also shipped a lot of jobs overseas, because we have set the table for them to do that with tax incentives that have come back to hurt the great American middle class which built this country. So when does the little guy get a break? Now I’m a small businessman. I have my own broadcast company, and I also have a construction company. I can tell you about all the things that you have to put together to make a construction company work. We’ve gone from eight employees to twenty employees in the past year, because of the stimulus package. We’ve put some people back to work. There is some growth. There’s incentives on the table for my employees. And so, you know, I don’t have to do this. I could just go fishing at the lake. But we’ve got to have some type of leadership at every level of the economy, and those who have lived the good life, and those who have had the fortune of making a few dollars to put it back into the kids, to put it back into the youth of the country, to care about the infrastructure again. And I don’t see corporations doing that. I see them caring about the foreign countries and getting cheap labor. Well you know what cheap labor’s going to do? Cheap labor’s going to take this country down. And the disposable income is starting to rot away for Americans.   

Read the original here:
Did Ed Schultz’s Construction Company Get Stimulus Money?

War on drugs worse than drugs

I'M CONFUSED. When I walk around busy midtown Manhattan, I often smell marijuana. Despite the crowds, some people smoke weed in public. Usually the police leave them alone, and yet other times they act like a military force engaged in urban combat. This February, cops stormed a Columbia, Mo., home, killed the family dog and terrorized a 7-year-old boy — for what? A tiny quantity of marijuana. Two years ago, in Prince George's County, Md., cops raided Cheye Calvo's home — all because a box of marijuana was randomly shipped to his wife as part of a smuggling operation. Only later did the police learn that Calvo was innocent — and the mayor of that town. “When this first happened, I assumed it was just a terrible, terrible mistake,” Calvo said. “But the more I looked into it, the more I realized (it was) business as usual that brought the police through our front door. This is just what they do. We just don't hear about it. The only reason people heard about my story is that I happened to be a clean-cut white mayor.” Radley Balko of Reason magazine says more than a hundred police SWAT raids are conducted every day. Does the use of illicit drugs really justify the militarization of the police, the violent disregard for our civil liberties and the overpopulation of our prisons? It seems hard to believe. I understand that people on drugs can do terrible harm — wreck lives and hurt people. But that's true for alcohol, too. But alcohol prohibition didn't work. It created Al Capone and organized crime. Now drug prohibition funds nasty Mexican gangs and the Taliban. Is it worth it? I don't think so. Everything can be abused, but that doesn't mean government can stop it, or should try to stop it. Government goes astray when it tries to protect us from ourselves. Many people fear that if drugs were legal, there would be much more use and abuse. That's possible, but there is little evidence to support that assumption. In the Netherlands, marijuana has been legal for years. Yet the Dutch are actually less likely to smoke than Americans. Thirty-eight percent of American adolescents have smoked pot, while only 20 percent of Dutch teens have. One Dutch official told me that “we've succeeded in making pot boring.” By contrast, what good has the drug war done? It's been 40 years since Richard Nixon declared war on drugs. Since then, government has spent billions and officials keep announcing their “successes.” They are always holding press conferences showing off big drug busts. So it's not like authorities aren't trying. We've locked up 2.3 million people, a higher percentage than any other country. That allows China to criticize America's human-rights record because our prisons are “packed with inmates.” Yet drugs are still everywhere. The war on drugs wrecks far more lives than drugs do! Need more proof? Fox News runs stories about Mexican cocaine cartels and marijuana gangs that smuggle drugs into Arizona. Few stop to think that legalization would end the violence. There are no Corona beer smugglers. Beer sellers don't smuggle. They simply ship their product. Drug laws cause drug crime. The drug trade moved to Mexico partly because our government funded narcotics police in Colombia and sprayed the growing fields with herbicides. We announced it was a success! We cut way back on the Colombian drug trade. But so what? All we did was squeeze the balloon. The drug trade moved across the border to Peru, and now it's moved to Mexico. So the new president of Mexico is squeezing the balloon. Now the trade and the violence are spilling over the border into the United States. That's what I call progress. It is the kind of progress we don't need. Economist Ludwig von Mises wrote: “(O)nce the principle is admitted that it is the duty of the government to protect the individual against his own foolishness “

NBC’s Williams Blames Obama’s Plummeting Approval on Getting Dragged Into Gulf Oil Leak

Unlike Katie Couric on Monday night , on Wednesday evening NBC’s Brian Williams didn’t hide the bad news for President Obama in the network’s latest poll, but Williams and Savannah Guthrie sure seemed to lament the public mood’s swing against Obama as Williams attributed it to how Obama “had to touch” the gulf oil leak, “he had to own it and now he’s getting tagged with how he’s reacting to it.” As if Obama had nothing to do with it, Guthrie agreed he’s “had a barrage of bad headlines on some of these very issues of leadership, handling a crisis…” “If you’re the White House looking at these numbers we’re about to debut tonight, there isn’t much here that’s encouraging right now,” Williams warned of the NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey findings. Guthrie agreed: “There’s not a lot of good news in this poll for the White House. Gushing oil, persistent unemployment the real problem.” Online, MSNBC.com’s headline also ascribed Obama’s troubles to the gulf: “ Spill drags the President’s rating down .” The subhead, over the posting by NBC News Deputy Political director Mark Murray, emphasized a bright spot in areas Guthrie noted declines : “A silver lining for Obama is that his personal scores are still strong.” Guthrie recounted how “for the first time ever in our poll, more disapprove of the President than approve” and how “we saw big drops in issues like likability, compassion, leadership, relatability, handling of a crisis. Why?” She explained: “The oil spill. 50 percent said they disapprove of how the President has been handling this oil spill. 42 percent say they approve.” That prompted Williams to rue: What’s so interesting here, the advice to the President for weeks was “if you touch it, you own it” – meaning the oil spill crisis. But the public anger was such that he had to touch it, he had to own it and now he’s getting tagged with how he’s reacting to it. (Monday night: “ CBS Poll Finds Tough Numbers for Obama on Oil Leak, But Couric Hides Them ”) From the Wednesday, June 23 NBC Nightly News: BRIAN WILLIAMS: We’re back, as promised, with our new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. It says a lot about the mood of this country right now, how Americans are feeling these days about their President and even the upcoming November elections. Now, if you’re the White House looking at these numbers we’re about to debut tonight, there isn’t much here that’s encouraging right now. Our White House correspondent Savannah Guthrie has paid us a visit here in New York tonight with the numbers. Savannah, welcome, good evening. SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Good evening, Brian. As you said, there’s not a lot of good news in this poll for the White House. Gushing oil, persistent unemployment the real problem. Let’s look at the top line number: the approval rating for President Obama. It has never been this low, 45 percent. For the first time ever in our poll, more disapprove [48%] of the President than approve. Is the country headed in the right direction? This is the question that pollsters and White House advisers watch closely. This is the highest number of the presidency: 62 percent say this country is on the wrong track, 29 percent say it is going in the right direction. You know, Brian, even advisers have gone through these policy changes, things that the public expressed doubt about. Likability of the President, those leadership qualities he’s always rated high. This is the first time really our poll has shown a drop in those, plummeted in some cases. You see, this is his worst personal rating — 47 percent positive, 40 percent negative. We saw big drops in issues like likability, compassion, leadership, relatability, handling of a crisis. Why? The next number, Brian, might tell the story. The oil spill. 50 percent said they disapprove of how the President has been handling this oil spill. 42 percent say they approve — by the way, we did this poll after the Oval Office address last week, after the President secured $20 billion from BP. And then finally, some good news for Republicans. They edged out Democrats when we asked, “Who would you like to control Congess?” 45 percent said Republicans, 43 percent said Democrats. This is a number that is always tight, but the Republicans edged out the Democrats in this one. BRIAN WILLIAMS: What’s so interesting here, the advice to the President for weeks was “if you touch it, you own it” – meaning the oil spill crisis. But the public anger was such that he had to touch it, he had to own it and now he’s getting tagged with how he’s reacting to it. GUTHRIE: No question about it and let’s face it, he had a barrage of bad headlines on some of these very issues of leadership, handling a crisis, compassion. So, perhaps not surprising that he’s taken a hit there.

See the rest here:
NBC’s Williams Blames Obama’s Plummeting Approval on Getting Dragged Into Gulf Oil Leak