Tag Archives: democrats

Chris Matthews Attacks Michele Bachmann as ‘Zombie-Like’ and ‘Moonie-Like’ for Defending Free Enterprise on BBC

MSNBC host Chris Matthews cannot understand how conservatives could think that free enterprise is somehow American, and that being anti-free enterprise seems anti-American. On Tuesday night's Hardball, Matthews boosted a new effort by Democrats like David Brock and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend to organize their own independent-expenditure campaign to beat Republicans. Matthews brought on Townsend, who couldn't even win a race for governor of a blue state (Maryland) to explain how she would make the Democrats victorious. Matthews aired BBC video of Rep. Michele Bachmann (clearly borrowed from the Think Progress blog , since you can see the “Pro” of their logo), and attacked her as like a zombie, a Moonie, and a Manchurian Candidate: MATTHEWS: Look at her eye contact. I asked her when we had her on election night if she's under hypnosis . She doesn't answer the question. She looks straight ahead in that kind of zombie-like manner, like she's waiting for somebody to flash a card, like in “Manchurian Candidate.” I mean, I don't know what her state is. She apparently just got blown away running for leadership, so the members of the House on the Republican side — read more

More here:
Chris Matthews Attacks Michele Bachmann as ‘Zombie-Like’ and ‘Moonie-Like’ for Defending Free Enterprise on BBC

Oregon Senator Wyden effectively kills Internet censorship bill

By Stephen C. Webster Friday, November 19th, 2010 — 4:27 pm It's too early to say for sure, but Oregon Senator Ron Wyden could very well go down in the history books as the man who saved the Internet. A bill that critics say would have given the government power to censor the Internet will not pass this year thanks to the Oregon Democrat, who announced his opposition during a recent committee hearing. Individual Senators can place holds on pending legislation, in this case meaning proponents of the bill will be forced to reintroduce the measure and will not be able to proceed until the next Congress convenes. Even then, its passage is not certain. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) would have permitted a blanket takedown of any domain alleged to be assisting activities that violate copyright law, based upon the judgment of state attorneys general. “Deploying this statute to combat online copyright infringement seems almost like using a bunker-busting cluster bomb, when what you need is a precision-guided missile,” Wyden said. The act was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. “Few things are more important to the future of the American economy and job creation than protecting our intellectual property,” said Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont who co-sponsored the bill. “That is why the legislation is supported by both labor and industry, and Democrats and Republicans are standing together.” Opponents of the bill insist that many sites which contain allegedly infringing materials also traffic in legitimate data that's constitutionally protected. There's also a fear that whatever action the US takes, other countries will seek to emulate, and some to a much more zealous degree. Activist group DemandProgress, which is running a petition against the bill, argued the powers in the bill could be used for political purposes. If the whistleblower Web site WikiLeaks is found to be hosting copyrighted material, for instance, access to WikiLeaks could be blocked for all US Internet users, they suggested. A group of academics, led by Temple University law professor David Post, have signed a petition opposing COICA. “The Act, if enacted into law, would fundamentally alter U.S. policy towards Internet speech, and would set a dangerous precedent with potentially serious consequences for free expression and global Internet freedom,” Post wrote in the petition letter (PDF). “Blacklisting entire sites out of the domain name system,” explained the Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF), a privacy and digital rights advocate group, is a “reckless scheme that will undermine global Internet infrastructure and censor legitimate online speech.” The EFF has published a list of Web sites it believes are at highest risk of being shut down under the proposed law. Included in the list are file-hosting services such as Rapidshare and Mediafire, music mash-up sites like SoundCloud and MashupTown, as well as “sites that discuss and advocate for P2P technology or for piracy,” such as pirate-party.us and P2PNet. The Internet's creator, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, has called such Internet disconnection laws a “blight” on the net, citing French policies to deal with online copyright infringement. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/oregon-senator-vows-block-internet-censorship… added by: treewolf39

AP’s Elliott Looks for Post-Delaware Primary ‘Expert’ Commentary From Lincoln Chafee

This goes back eleven days, but the entertainment value is too good to let it slide by without notice. On the Thursday after Christine O’Donnell defeated Mike Castle in the GOP primary for Delaware’s open U.S. Senate seat, the Associated Press’s Philip Elliott apparently felt the need to seek out an one-time Republican (or at least that’s what he said) — one of only a very few Republicans whose positions were or have been to the left of Castle’s. That would of course be former Rhode Island senator Lincoln Chafee (pictured at top right). To pick just one example to demonstrate Chafee’s liberalism, during 2006 and 2005, his final two years as a Senator, his grades from the Club for Growth came in at 27% and 26% , respectively. Castle’s grades in the House during those same two years were 48% and 43% . Gosh, Phil, was there any doubt over how Chafee would feel about Castle’s defeat and O’Donnell’s win? Is this news? Here are a few paragraphs from Elliott’s brief report , including a Chafee prediction that may be disproven in 5-1/2 weeks: Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a one-time Republican, says GOP Rep. Mike Castle should have seen the tea party challenge to his Senate bid coming. Chafee, running for Rhode Island governor as an independent, said his former party’s leaders have been forced to the right and have scared moderates out of the GOP. He pointed to Castle’s loss Tuesday as the latest example of a competent lawmaker losing his seat in an unrealistic purity test. “These primaries, they’re destructive beasts,” Chafee said in an interview with The Associated Press at his campaign headquarters. “If those people are going to control the Republican Party, good luck. You’ll have a tough time getting into the majority. Ever.” It’s still early of course, but Real Clear Politics is showing the House races at 206-191 in favor of the GOP, with 38 races undecided. If the “sure” count holds, Republicans would have to win less than a third of the still-undecided races to gain a majority (a shaky one to be sure, but Chafee was talking about any majority — “Ever”). RCP’s take on the Senate is that it is at 50-46 in favor of Democrats, but that counts New York’s Kirsten Gillebrand and California’s Barbara Boxer as “Leans Dem,” which given recent polls is open to some dispute. It would appear that Chafee’s predictive abilities might be about as reliable as his vote for sensible conservative bills and initiatives while he served in the U.S. Senate. Surely Philip Elliott could have found a more informed interview subject somewhere else. But does anyone believe that his was really his goal? Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Originally posted here:
AP’s Elliott Looks for Post-Delaware Primary ‘Expert’ Commentary From Lincoln Chafee

Open Thread: Colbert Disgraces Congress

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Stephen Colbert disgraces the Halls of Congress! Was this a sad moment in American history, or a good way to publicize the immigration issue? How does this make Democrats look moving into the midterm elections? Any other thoughts? 

Follow this link:
Open Thread: Colbert Disgraces Congress

Behar Claims Tea Partiers ‘Don’t Believe in Any Govt At All, Zero,’ Taxes Not Increasing in January

On the September 15 The View on ABC, co-host Joy Behar insisted that co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck was wrong to assert that taxes are set to increase in January as the two sparred over the issue. Behar: “It’s not an increase, Elisabeth. It is not an increase.” She soon added, “They are not, stop saying it’s an increase because it’s not.” After Hasselbeck shot back, “Okay, we’ll talk in January,” Behar continued, “The Democrats want to eliminate the tax cuts for the rich. That’s all. Stop doing that.” Behar also exaggerated the anti-big government views of the Tea Party movement, claiming that members “don’t believe in any government at all, zero,” and mocked activists for supposedly not realizing that Medicare and Social Security are run by the federal government. Behar: “They just don’t believe in any government at all, zero. At the same time, it’s fascinating about them, at the same time that they don’t believe in any government, a lot of them are like, ‘Don’t touch my Medicare.’ Well, what do you think that is? That’s the schism within the Tea Party. Don’t touch my Social Security. Get the government out of my house, you know, come on.” Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Wednesday, September 15, The View on ABC: ELISABETH HASSELBECK: The Tea Party is more like a generator behind certain candidates. So they’ll get behind certain candidates and raise money for them, whereas they maybe wouldn’t get it someplace else. They’re more like a renegade group that’s kind of pushing candidates forward. They have power, obviously. We just saw this happen. I mean, but to say that she won’t win, don’t discount. We saw what happened with Scott Brown in Massachusetts. SHERRI SHEPHERD: Are they like a rebel branch from the Republican, the Tea Parties? BEHAR: Kind of. HASSELBECK: They don’t take on social issues, which is interesting. They’re purely fiscal. BEHAR: They just don’t believe in any government at all, zero. At the same time, it’s fascinating about them, at the same time that they don’t believe in any government, a lot of them are like, “Don’t touch my Medicare.” Well, what do you think that is? That’s the schism within the Tea Party. Don’t touch my Social Security. Get the government out of my house, you know, come on. HASSELBECK: It’s a different issue because what’s going to happen now with the tax increase is it is actually going to affect senior citizens more than anybody else right now. BEHAR: It’s not an increase, Elisabeth. It is not an increase. HASSELBECK: Let me tell you something, it is going to be an increase, and they are changing the terms- BEHAR: They are not, stop saying it’s an increase because it’s not. HASSELBECK: Okay, we’ll talk in January. BEHAR: The Democrats want to eliminate the tax cuts for the rich. That’s all. Stop doing that. HASSELBECK: They’re changing the lingo, so guess what? All seniors citizens are going to end up paying the price on this tax, and it’s a crime in this country. BEHAR: If you don’t make over $250,000, you’re not going to have tax raising. HASSELBECK: It’s actually going to come from the stocks they hold in dividends, so when you look at it, you’re going to see what’s going to happen. They’re changing all terminology. BEHAR: It’s a very small percentage of people. HASSELBECK: It’s not, because they own the most in dividends of anyone else in this country.

Read the rest here:
Behar Claims Tea Partiers ‘Don’t Believe in Any Govt At All, Zero,’ Taxes Not Increasing in January

For Democracy to Work…

For democracy to work, complete transparency must be obtained. There must be no hiding behind patriotism, national security, and fear. These catch phrases are a vault for the secrets a government does not want the public to know of. Also due to these phrases, Americans society, while often preaching freedom of speech, in reality practices resentment, hatred, and peer pressure against those who step outside the norm (of what is politically correct). I would thus say no government needs to prohibit the freedom of speech, but only let the people prohibit (more so regulate) speech for them. It has happened so many times in our country’s past, we cannot afford to let this keep happening. For democracy to work, diplomacy must be the first and preferably the only course of action in settling disputes. Democracy cannot be offensive in nature—only defensive. Due to reasons prior, freedoms and liberties (primarily those stemming from privacy) cannot waver in the shadow of fear, and thus democracy is at a severe disadvantage when it comes to warfare—either democracy (liberty) fails, or military security fails. Just as the integrity of a family is tested through hardships, the integrity of our government is tested through decisions made during or related to warfare and economic downtimes. A democratic government thus cannot suddenly revoke civil liberties or rights in lieu of the often vague, “Clear and Present Danger.” And thus, for democracy to work, preemptive strikes cannot occur. A democratic society must lead by example, not retaliation, revenge, or fear. For democracy to work, the freedom of the press must be entirely free of regulation and censorship. The live footage of firefights during the Vietnam War had an immense impact on the outlook of war for those on the home front. The press is vastly more censored (both from corporate, and government), today. We cannot afford to have a censored press, as it holds all the power in shifting the majority of Americans’ view of any issue or event. People (straw man, I know) are gullible, and do not realize the power that manipulation has on their decisions and views. For democracy to work, capitalism must maintain complete separation and segregation from the democratic system. As soon as private funding enters the picture, our potential candidates are primarily only determined by officials promising the majority (the currently diminishing middle class) of Americans false promises, while truly only representing those providing the most money (synonymous with votes) to their campaign. Votes don't get politicians elected, advertising & funding does. So who will get prioritized? For democracy to work, lobbying must be made illegal, or vastly more restricted and regulated. For democracy to work, a form of free election must be in order. An equal amount of taxpayer money must be distributed to the two presidential candidates. Since funding is the primary means of obtaining a position, we limit ourselves on the selection of candidates. Money cannot be a prerequisite in order to obtain or maintain a political position–yet it is. Set up two temporary television channels and websites for these candidates. Debates should be daily, and written correspondence between the two candidates should be a must—the topic voted upon by the public. I say written responses because some people are better at composing their thoughts on paper rather than in speech with millions watching, that is more or less just a game of who is quicker on their feet, not who is more reasonable or knowledgeable. Nominees for the general elections should only obtain their money through local donation from the citizens of their future jurisdiction, or by some other means which would allow absolutely ANY American citizen to run and potentially win—not based on their funding and advertising flash, but by their intelligence, charisma, knowledge, ethos, and promises. In sociology, “random” is defined as everyone having an equal chance and possibility to participate (in an experiment); not every American citizen has an equal chance of running for office. I don't have a perfect answer, but it's apparent something needs changed. For democracy to work, bliss cannot be derived from ignorance. The importance of pursuing the truth and finding information for ones’ self must be emphasized. Everyone is entitled to vote, but not everyone understands for who their vote entitles. For democracy to work, accountability must be exacted out. False campaign promises are a form of false advertisement. Politicians must be held to the same justice system as we, the people, are. Anything else to add? (News seemed to be the only appropriate place to put this; my apologies if not). http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Bald_eagle_landing.jpg added by: Jake_Leonard

Libertarians say Republicans owe apology, not pledge, to America

In response to the recent Republican “Pledge to America,” Libertarian Party executive director Wes Benedict released the following statement: Instead of a “Pledge to America,” the Republicans should have written an “Apology to America.” It should have gone something like this: “We're sorry, America. Sorry we grew the federal government budget from $1.7 trillion to over $3 trillion. Sorry we added $5 trillion to the federal debt. Sorry we doubled the size of the Department of Education. Sorry we started two incredibly costly foreign wars. Sorry we supported the absurd and costly TARP bailouts. Sorry we created a huge and costly new Medicare entitlement. Sorry we did nothing to end the costly and destructive War on Drugs. Sorry we did nothing to reform the federal government's near-prohibition on immigration. But hey, at least we helped you by shifting a lot of your tax burden onto your children and grandchildren.” There are so many lies, distortions, hypocrisies, and idiocy in this document that it's hard to know where to start. It is deeply insulting to see the Republicans refer to “America's founding values” on their cover. The Republican Party has no understanding whatsoever of America's founding values. They have proven and re-proven that for decades. The document talks a lot about “tax cuts.” Unfortunately, the Republican “tax cut” proposals would really do nothing to cut taxes. All their proposals achieve is to defer taxes, pushing the burden onto our children and grandchildren. The only real way to cut taxes is to cut government spending, and the Republican document does almost nothing in that regard. The Republicans say they want to “roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels.” In other words, to re-create the situation near the end of the Bush administration, after Republicans had massively increased federal spending on almost everything. Republicans must love it when Democrats expand government, because it gives them the opportunity to propose small “cuts,” while still ending up with huge government. One shocking aspect of the document is that it actually includes subtle Republican proposals to increase government spending. The Republicans offer no plan whatsoever to reduce military spending, America's foreign wars and nation building, or our military defense of rich foriegn nations. On the contrary, the Republicans apparently want to increase military spending, promising to “provide the resources, authority, and support our deployed military requires, fully fund missile defense, and enforce sanctions against Iran.” The Republicans also appear to want to increase government spending on border control. They say “We will ensure that the Border Patrol has the tools and authorities to establish operational control at the border,” a costly proposition. Furthermore, as expected, the document complains about “massive Medicare cuts,” implying that Republicans want to make sure Medicare is kept gigantic. The bulk of federal spending is in three places: Social Security, Medicare, and the military. The Republicans propose absolutely nothing to reduce spending on these three things, or even to slow down their growth. There must be a typo in the document where it says “Undeterred by dismal results, Washington Democrats continue to double-down on their job-killing policies.” That probably should read “Washington Democrats continue to double-down on *Republican* job-killing policies.” The best way to restore American prosperity would be to implement the straightforward 28 planks of the Libertarian Party platform, or even just follow the Constitution. I mean the actual Constitution, not the Republican re-write that allows for every federal government program imaginable. I suppose the one positive aspect of the document is that it finally dispels any illusion that Republicans want to shrink government in any meaningful way. Apparently the Republicans are hoping they can “fool some of the people all of the time.” The Libertarian Party is ready to point out Republican lies and hypocrisy to American voters, and we hope that Americans who actually want small and constitutional government, not just hypocrisy and worthless rhetoric, will vote Libertarian this November. The Libertarian Party has 21 candidates for U.S. Senate and 170 candidates for U.S. House in the upcoming November 2010 elections. For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222. The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website. http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-say-republicans-owe-apology-n… added by: shanklinmike

ABC’s Bianna Golodryga Goes Undercover to ‘Expose’ Secret Muslim Bias in America, Doesn’t Find Much

ABC on Friday did its best to find secret discrimination against Muslims, sending Good Morning America’s Bianna Golodryga undercover in a hijab (Islamic head covering). Yet, despite the misleading graphic, ” Life Under the Veil: TV Experiment Exposes Bias ,” the morning show didn’t find much bigotry. Late in the segment, Golodryga admitted, “Overt discrimination is the exception.” When an ABC producer tried the experiment in New York, the correspondent acknowledged, “Everywhere, people went out of their way to be friendly.” [MP3 audio here .] Yet, Golodryga kept trying. Going to the red state of Texas, she explained, “But it was different in my hometown of Houston. At the airport, I could feel all the eyes on me.” Wearing a burka, she narrated, “In a nearby mall, I wanted to see what would happen if I wear wore a more striking version of Islamic dress, which covers everything but the eyes and is less common here in the states. The stares increased.” If something is uncommon, wouldn’t it be likely that stares increase? After a man walked by and offered a muffled comment, Golodryga deciphered, “It sounds like he said, ‘Islamic queen.’ I couldn’t tell if he meant it in a friendly way or not.” To build the case for rampant anti-Muslim sentiment in America, Golodryga asserted, “According to the FBI, hate crime incidences against Muslims soared from 28 in 2000, to 481 in 2001. And still remain well above pre-9/11 levels.” However, as Michael Doyle of the Sacramento Bee reported on August 28, 2010, hate crimes against Muslims are rare and occur less often than violence against Jews and gays: Jews, lesbians, gay men and Caucasians, among others, are all more frequently the target of hate crimes, FBI records show. Reported anti-Muslim crimes have declined over recent years, though they still exceed what occurred prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks. In 2008, 105 hate crime incidents against Muslims were reported nationwide. There were 10 times as many incidents that were recorded as anti-Jewish during the same year, the most recent for which figures are available. (For more, see a NewsBusters post.) But, Good Morning America has yet to do a segment featuring someone wearing a yarmulke or Kippah to see if they suffer anti-Semitic bias. Golodryga concluded by marveling of her undercover experience on the subway: “People didn’t even pay attention to me as I walked around like a normal American. My religion didn’t matter.” One might wonder, then, what was the point of this segment on bigotry and “bias”? A transcript of the segment, which aired at 8:18am EDT, follows: ABC GRAPHIC: Life Under the Veil: TV Experiment Exposes Bias GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: In the final part of our special series, “Islam in America,” we look at what it’s like to be Muslim in America today. Bianna Golodryga went undercover to find out how people respond to women wearing the traditional Muslim head scarf. And she joins us now. And this was definitely a first for you. BIANNA GOLODRYGA: Yeah. It was quite an eye-opening experience, George. Good morning. The Council of American-Islamic Relations has noted a spike in hostility toward Muslims, including bomb threats at mosques, physical threats on Muslims. Even an advertising campaign telling Muslims to change their religion. So, I wanted to find out what it felt like to be a Muslim in America. And I talked to American women who are doing just that. I donned the hijab myself. AYESHA BUTT: I think the hijab, is one thing that makes it a little different. Makes a Muslim woman different from a non-Muslim woman. GOLODRYGA: A hijab is a head scarf that women wear in public, a symbol of their faith visible to all. Do you notice people looking at you? RUGIATU CONTEN: I’m randomly checked. At a specific airport, I just stand aside because I know I’m going to get randomly checked. And then when I go in the room, I see five other Muslim women, I say As-Salamu Alaykum and do the, you regular, you know, procedures. BUTT: Definitely, things changed a lot after 9/11. Before 9/11, you weren’t called a terrorist. It was after 9/11 that people stop to let you know that you were a terrorist. Or they called you, like, Osama’s wife or something like that. And then, recently, things I would say have been very similarly hostile. GOLODRYGA: According to the FBI, hate crime incidences against Muslims soared from 28 in 2000, to 481 in 2001. And still remain well above pre-9/11 levels. The most recent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission figures showed complaints of workplace discrimination against Muslims are up 20 percent. So, what would happen if your daughter came home and said she wanted to wear a hijab? RUBINA AHMAD: As a mother, as long as she stayed in big cities and cosmopolitan- where people are more tolerant, people are more knowledgeable of different cultures, religions, I would be fine. But, I would be concerned about her safety. GOLODRYGA: I decided to see what it would be like to wear a hijab in lower Manhattan, not too far from the proposed community center and mosque. Our hidden cameras followed me into a swanky restaurant. And a department store. And on to the subway, where New Yorkers took the hijab in stride. [Video footage of Golodryga walking around.] But it was different in my hometown of Houston. At the airport, I could feel all the eyes on me. And our cameraman overheard one man tell his companion that he hoped I wasn’t on his flight. In a nearby mall, I wanted to see what would happen if I wear wore a more striking version of Islamic dress, which covers everything but the eyes and is less common here in the states. The stares increased. And so did the comments. [Muffled comment from passerby.] It sounds like he said, “Islamic queen.” I couldn’t tell if he meant it in a friendly way or not. Finally, we went to Orleans County in western New York, where five teens were arrested after allegedly harassing Muslims outside this mosque. Our producer went to a gas station, supermarket and hardware store. Everywhere, people went out of their way to be friendly. WOMAN #1: You’re welcome. You have a great day. WOMAN #2: Did you find everything okay? GOLODRYGA: Our three-day experiment reflects what these women report. Overt discrimination is the exception. BUTT: There are a few that will be hostile. You know, whether you’re in the grocery store or driving on the highway, someone’s going to cut you off and say something about being a terrorist. There are those rare, few people out there. But I don’t think the majority is like that. GOLODRYGA: Today, many young Muslim-American women embrace the hijab, rejecting the notion that traditional dress is somehow repressive. AHMAD: It’s part of their Muslim identity. They are true American-Muslims. And they exercise their right as an American-Muslim and they decide to wear it. CONTEN: Now, I’m wearing the hijab. And I realize that people see me for who I am, more than what my hair looks like or what I’m wearing or how pretty I am. Definitely, that’s the plus-side. And also, the sisterhood, like Aysha to talk about. BUTT: Nobody forced me to do it. I we were the cool people. Like- GOLODRYGA: So, it’s cool to wear a hijab? BUTT: Oh, it’s awesome! Like, you know, You had the matching hoodies. You had the matching hijab. Like, you can see my little toy here. [Points to her hijab.] You can play around with it. GOLODRYGA: Accessorize it up. BUTT: Like, you can have a lot of fun with it. CONTEN: Hijabs, they are very wild. But people just don’t see it. At our parties- BUTT: Yeah, it’s kind of special. CONTEN: Yeah. GOLODRYGA: Some believe this generation is paving the way forward for all Americans. AHMAD: They are really helping, not only Muslim girls. But they’re also helping Americans to learn about Islam. And making other people see them the way they are. You know, as part of maturity of a nation. They have educated the masses of the nation. GOLODRYGA: Quite an impressive group of women. Many Americans see the hijab as something that restricts women, hiding their individuality. What these women told me is that when they wear the hijab, they feel liberated. It frees them from some of the pressures they feel. And, actually one of the girls, Ayesha, that you saw talking about stylizing her hijab, she said she conducted an experiment when I told them about what we did. And she went out without the hijab, in American, western clothes. And she wore that for a week. And she felt more liberated as a woman wearing the hijab. Because people talk to her as a woman and they didn’t- in a sexual sort of- STEPHANOPOULOS: Oh, that’s interesting. Just fascinating stuff. And I guess it confirms something that I’ve believed. Americans tend to show greater respect for anyone who seems to be taking their faith seriously. GOLODRYGA: Yeah. Especially here in New York. You saw that on the subway, right? People didn’t even pay attention to me as I walked around like a normal American. My religion didn’t matter. STEPHANOPOULOS: Not at all.

Read this article:
ABC’s Bianna Golodryga Goes Undercover to ‘Expose’ Secret Muslim Bias in America, Doesn’t Find Much

Stephen Colbert, Dems’ Trained Clown, Trotted Out to Distract From Obama DOJ Scandal

Personally, I completely  agree with Glenn Reynolds  that  having this idiot Colbert testify was nothing more than a Democrat stunt to take the media’s eye off the very real and important testimony also taking place today regarding the  Justice Department’s racism scandals . So the more cringe-worthy and embarrassing Colbert’s appearance is, the better. Naturally, the MSM will be all too willing to play along. They fully understand how damaging the DOJ Black Panther case is to the Obama Administration and have no desire to come anywhere near covering it. And of course, there’s Stephen Colbert, just as willing to play along – a narcissistic attention whore with no respect for the political process who thinks his schtick combined with a ten hour day he spent in the vegetable fields somehow makes him a compelling and important witness. The one good thing that came out of this is Colbert’s reaction to Conyers’ request that he leave. It’s not very often you see a smug, superior Hollywoodist caught off guard. Byron York has more coverage  here . He thinks the Democrats damaged themselves with this stunt:  Colbert stayed in place as the other witnesses made opening statements. When Colbert’s turn came, Conyers briefly interrupted to say that he was withdrawing his request for Colbert to leave. Then Colbert began his testimony, which was an in-character schtick based on a one-day visit to an upstate New York farm. “This is America,” Colbert said. “I don’t want a tomato picked by a Mexican.”  As the hearing went on, Colbert said things like, “I was a cornpacker…cornpacker is a derogatory term for a gay Iowan.” At the end, Lofgren proclaimed the hearing “helpful.” She thanked the witnesses, who she called “volunteers to help make a better country.” But the presence of her star witness, Colbert, had cause a number of strange and awkward moments, ones that could come back to some of the Democrats on the panel in the campaign ahead. I disagree with York. As I write this, Colbert is all over cable news and the  “bombshell” testimony regarding the DOJ is nowhere to be seen. But it’s hard to beat the trifecta of political corruption: Democrats, the media, and Hollywood. Mission accomplished. Crossposted at Big Hollywood  

Read the original:
Stephen Colbert, Dems’ Trained Clown, Trotted Out to Distract From Obama DOJ Scandal

New York Times Reporter Kevin Sack Issues White House Press Releases for Obama-Care

The first wave of Obama-care goes into effect today, and New York Times health-care reporter Kevin Sack celebrated with a series of propaganda-style articles for the front of the National section, topped by ” For Many Families, Health Care Relief Begins Today .” (As did higher costs and denied coverage, but the Times didn’t get into that.) The Times’s headline reads more like an Obama administration press release than an actual instance of journalism, and Sack’s reference (in a news story) to the “Darwinian insurance system” doesn’t inspire confidence in his objectivity. Sometimes lost in the partisan clamor about the new health care law is the profound relief it is expected to bring to hundreds of thousands of Americans who have been stricken first by disease and then by a Darwinian insurance system. On Thursday, the six-month anniversary of the signing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a number of its most central consumer protections take effect, just in time for the midterm elections. Starting now, insurance companies will no longer be permitted to exclude children because of pre-existing health conditions, which the White House said could enable 72,000 uninsured to gain coverage. Insurers also will be prohibited from imposing lifetime limits on benefits. The law will now forbid insurers to drop sick and costly customers after discovering technical mistakes on applications. It requires that they offer coverage to children under 26 on their parents’ policies. After Sack allowed a single middle paragraph for dissent from House Republicans, and a brief mention that Democrats had managed to defer “the pain of tax increases and penalties until after the election,” he indulged in more leftist boosting of the program’s alleged popularity, or at least “many of the provisions.” Sack conveniently bypasses the findings of recent New York Times/CBS News polls that find most respondents disapprove of the plan. Polls have found that many of the provisions taking effect Thursday are popular, tugging at a national sense of fairness and feeding off distrust of health insurers . They bear particular appeal for the 14 million people who must buy policies on the individual market rather than through employers and are thus at the mercy of the industry. And they land on the heels of a government report showing that the recession drove the number of uninsured Americans to 50.7 million in 2009, up 10 percent in a year. Three other brief profiles on the same page were headlined as if the Obama administration were free-lancing as copy editors. “Chronically Ill, and Covered,” “Cap Lifts, and So Do Spirits,” and “24, and Back in the Fold.” (Insurers must offer coverage to “children” (?) under their parents’ plan until they turn 26.) The Washington Examiner has an alternative view in an editorial: ” Obamacare is even worse than critics thought .” A couple of the editorial’s bullet points: Obamacare won’t decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare’s actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care. Obamacare will increase insurance premiums — in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients’ children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare’s mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama’s only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.

Read the original:
New York Times Reporter Kevin Sack Issues White House Press Releases for Obama-Care