Tag Archives: elections

$7 Million Homeland Security Plane Used To Find Marijuana

McNeely said the use of a Homeland Security plane for a local investigation of marijuana businesses shocked her. “I think it’s a misuse of resources,” she said. “It’s ridiculous to bring a Border Patrol Plane to Colorado Sorings for marijuana. They should be securing our borders.” http://www.gazette.com/articles/marijuana-105263-plane-april.html added by: JackHerer

Big Alcohol’s decision to squash cannabis law reform to protect its bottom line

Alcohol Lobby Now Openly Spending Against CA's Legal Pot Initiative in Alliance with Police Industrial Complex It is said that politics makes strange bedfellows, but there are arguably few stranger than the emerging alliance between two of California's most powerful political players: the police-industrial complex and Big Alcohol. Campaign finance reports from the Golden State disclose that the California Beer and Beverage Distributors — a trade organization that represents over 100 beer distributors statewide — is one of the primary backers of the lobby group Public Safety First, sponsors of the No on Prop. 19 campaign. According to the California Secretary of State's office, the beer lobby donated $10,000 to Public Safety First on September 7, 2010. The donation came just days before PSF issued an online mailing alleging that the passage of Prop. 19 — which would legalize the private adult use and cultivation of limited amounts of cannabis, and allow local governments the option of regulating its commercial production and retail distribution — would inevitably lead to stoned school bus drivers and crossing guards, and will cause California public schools to “lose as much as $9.4 billion in federal funding.” (Needless to say, passage of the measure would do none of these things.) While it's hardly astonishing that the corporate beer lobby would oppose efforts to legalize marijuana, a non-toxic, ostensibly safer alternative to alcohol, it is surprising to see how quickly the law enforcement lobby — to date the largest supporters of PSF — is willing to get into bed with big booze. So far, the Cal Beer and Beverage Distributors $10,000 appropriation is one of the largest monetary donations received by Public Safety First, third only to the $30,000 donated by the California Police Chief's Association and the $20,500 donated by the California Narcotics Officers Association. (Overall, PSF has had a notoriously difficult time raising money for its effort. Last month, the East Bay Express reported that total financial contributions to the Prop. 19 campaign were well ahead of those reported for Public Safety First, which at that time had only raised $61,000, with just one citizen donor.) There's no doubt that police officers know firsthand the social toll caused by alcohol. Federal government estimates indicate that alcohol consumption costs the nation some $200 billion annually in hospitalizations, criminal expenditures and lost productivity. (Ironically, the nation's top drug cop, Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske, has specifically highlighted the staggering social costs of alcohol abuse in his rhetoric against Prop. 19.) Government figures further indicate that alcohol is a contributing factor in at least 25 to 30 percent of all violent crime in America, including between 30 to 60 percent of homicides and perhaps as many as half of all sexual assaults. continued at link …… http://www.alternet.org/drugs/148213/alcohol_lobby_now_openly_spending_against_c… 's_legal_pot_initiative_in_alliance_with_police_industrial_complex/ added by: Conniepae

Chavez Loses Supermajority in Venezuelan Parliamentary Elections, Opposition Gains 52% of Popular Vote

Results from the voting centers finally came out early in the morning of September 27 starting at around 2:00 am after the parliamentary elections on Sunday went deep into the night. The results that have been announced by National Election Center (CNE) revealed that Chavez's PSUV has suffered a reversal to the opposition and lost the two-thirds supermajority that allowed his party to pass legislation without opposition. The Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV) or United Socialist Party of Venezuela and its allies controlled a total of 139 of 167 seats in the National Assembly before the elections. The current election results now show that the opposition controls a total of 62 seats to the 94 by the PSUV, a huge pickup of seats for Chavez' opponents. The loss of the super majority now means that the opposition in Venezuela will effectively be able to oppose Chavez' agenda, which up until now, had been essentially unopposed. The opposition also won the popular vote with 52% of the vote. However, gerrymandering on the part of Chavez' government has given more power to rural areas while dividing the opposition into different regions, preventing them from gaining an overall victory in delegates. _____________________________________________________________________________ What does this mean for Chavez' Bolivarian Revolution? Feel free to leave comments. added by: UrbanGypsy

Lib Economist: Second Great Depression a Fiction Created by Wall Street for Bailout Funds

One of the Left’s most esteemed economists, the liberal Center for Economic Policy’s Dean Baker, claimed Monday the “Second Great Depression,” the term given to what many believed the country was heading for if drastic government action wasn’t taken in the fall of 2008, was all a fiction created by Wall Street to get bailed out. In Baker’s view published at the unashamedly liberal Huffington Post, the Federal Reserve could have solved all the problems that ailed us at the time, and had some of America’s largest banks been allowed to fail, their financial loss would have been “our” gain as their money was magically redistributed to Main Street. Potentially most hysterical is that Baker never once mentioned how this all occurred weeks before Election Day, and never once mentioned Barack Obama who not only hyped the collapse to seal his ascendancy to the White House, but also continually reminds Americans to this day that his efforts averted the “Second Great Depression”: Two years ago, the top honchos at the Fed, Treasury and the Wall Street banks were running around like Chicken Little warning that the world was about to end. This fear mongering, together with a big assist from the elite media (i.e. NPR, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, etc.), earned the banks their $700 billion TARP blank check bailout. This money, along with even more valuable loans and loan guarantees from the Fed and FDIC, enabled them to survive the crisis they had created. As a result, the big banks are bigger and more profitable than ever. Notice the total absence of any political figures in this accusation? Much as Obama, the Democrats, and their media minions have been doing for approaching two years, it’s all Wall Street’s fault. Never mind that before Lehman’s collapse and the panic it set off, John McCain and Sarah Palin had just concluded a fabulous convention in Minneapolois-St. Paul and were actually leading in the polls. This crisis was tailor-made for the Left and the press to scare Americans into thinking the world was coming to an end, it was all George W. Bush and the Republicans’ fault, and the solution was a huge transfer of power to Obama and the Democrats. Yet Baker never mentioned the junior senator from Illinois, the elections, or the political fear-mongering going on at the time: This was when the Wall Street boys made their mad rush for the public trough. They enlisted everyone that mattered in the effort, including Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, and Timothy Geithner, then the head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The line was that the economy would collapse if Congress did not immediately rescue the banks. They were prepared to make up anything to save the banks in their hour of need. Bernanke was probably caught in the biggest fabrication when he told Congress that the commercial paper market was shutting down. Readers should notice that Baker failed to inform his readers that some of the bigger banks, most notably Wells Fargo, didn’t want the government’s assistance, and were actually forced to sign on to the TARP plan. This continued for the next several months as banks across the country were ordered to accept money they neither asked for nor needed. But this was an inconvenient truth Baker ignored: In reality, the Fed almost certainly had the ability to keep the economy going by sustaining the system of payments even if the chain of bank collapses was allowed to run its course. In the 80s Latin American debt crisis, the Fed had an emergency plan to seize the money center banks, and keep them operating, if a default by a major Latin American country pushed them into insolvency. By the time of the Lehman crisis the financial markets had been severely stressed for over a year. The first major bank collapse had occurred more than 6 months earlier. It would have required a degree of unbelievable incompetence and/or irresponsibility for the Fed not to have devised a similar emergency plan to keep the systems of payments operating in a worst case scenario. Furthermore, even if the Fed had been as incompetent as many claim, it would not have taken long for it to improvise a system whereby certain payments would be prioritized and the system of payments would again be up and running. The notion that we would be sitting in a 21st century economy and reduced to barter payments was an invention of the bank lobby to get the taxpayers’ money. To a large extent I agree with much of what Baker wrote in those paragraphs except for the culprits.  The Left in this nation were blind-sided by the injection of excitement the announcement of Palin as Vice Presidential candidate gave the McCain campaign. Suddenly, this was a horse race, and that’s not what Democrats and their media surrogates wanted. When Lehman declared bankruptcy on Monday September 15, and the financial markets around the world imploded, the Obama campaign and its friends in the press were quick to begin painting a picture straight out of a 1950s horror film. We were all destined to walk the streets forever as penniless zombies if the government didn’t rescue the banks and brokerage firms facing imminent collapse, and the nation bought into the fear hook, line and sinker. Now that the world didn’t come to an end as all of these folks forecast, it’s become good politics for the Left and their media to blame Wall Street for taking bailout money: There was absolutely nothing that we could have done back in September-October of 2008 that would have required that we experience a decade of double-digit unemployment. The specter of a “second great depression” is a fairy tale invented by the bank lobby to make the rest of feel good about having given them our money. Had it not been for the bailout, most of the major center banks would have been wiped out. This would have destroyed the fortunes of their shareholders, many of their creditors, and their top executives. This would have been a massive redistribution to the rest of society — their loss is our gain. It is important to remember that the economy would be no less productive following the demise of these Wall Street giants. The only economic fact that would have been different is that the Wall Street crew would have lost claims to hundreds of billions of dollars of the economy’s output each year and trillions of dollars of wealth. That money would instead be available for the rest of society. The fact that they have lost the claim to wealth from their stock and bond holdings makes all the rest of us richer once the economy is again operating near normal levels of output. Maybe this is all true, but it’s certainly not what Democrats and the press were telling Americans in the fall of 2008. To be fair, McCain and most Republicans were also sounding the alarms.  However, the Left and their media knew full-well that depicting this situation in the most dire terms would be bad for McCain and Republicans because it was Bush and his Party getting the blame. To this day Democrats and the press still accuse the 43rd President of causing the entire collapse despite the most pivotal pieces of deregulation occurring on Bill Clinton’s watch. Notice how Clinton’s name is also conspicuously absent from this piece as are the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Baker certainly wouldn’t want to bring either of those bills up for then he might actually have to address some of the causes of the collapse which would divert attention away from his premise that it was all Wall Street’s fault. In the end, it may take years nay decades to determine just how close to the abyss we were that fall, and exactly what actions were warranted or just enacted out of a mixture of hysteria and political expedience. Maybe things were not even close to as dire as advertised, and proper monetary manipulations by the Fed would have solved all or most of the financial system’s problems. But one thing’s for certain: the Left and the media were aggressively fanning the panic flames, and you’d have to be a fool not to connect their behavior to the election just weeks away. Although Baker in his opening paragraph gave a “big assist to the elite media,” he chose to ignore what their clear goal was. After all, it’s not like the press are in love with Wall Street. They bash banks, brokerage firms, and the associated CEOs whenever possible. No, the goal the media were after was Obama in the White House, and whatever fear they could help the Democrats instill in the population that furthered this end was exactly what the doctor ordered. Yet, the story doesn’t end there for this revisionist history has a future goal. The Left at this point incorrectly believes much of the anger in the electorate – especially the Tea Party – stems from TARP. The publisher of Baker’s piece, Arianna Huffington, made this pathetic claim on ABC’s “This Week” back on September 12 of this year. With this in mind, despite the absurdity of her view, it’s become necessary to distance Obama and the Democrats from TARP. Who better than a liberal economist from a liberal think tank writing at a liberal online publication? Makes you almost need a shower to wash away the slime, doesn’t it? 

Read this article:
Lib Economist: Second Great Depression a Fiction Created by Wall Street for Bailout Funds

Ed Schultz: Obama’s School Speech Should Be Mandatory For All Students

At certain schools across the country, parents possessed the authority to pull their children from class Tuesday so as not to witness President Obama’s address to students nationwide – and Ed Schultz believes that constitutes an “opt-out for Right-wing whackos.” Schultz seemed to be not in favor of academic freedom – in this case. Decrying opposition to the speech as “perverse conservative hatred” for Obama and “motivated by race,” Schultz was apparently doubly-mad about this, as he hit the issue hard for two nights in a row on his MSNBC show. “I think the President’s speech should be mandatory for all students,” he insisted. Some public schools notified parents if their children would be watching the speech, while others left the decision to the teachers whether or not to show it. “If you’re a superintendent, and it wasn’t shown in your school, or in every one of your classrooms, you ought to be ashamed,” Schultz raged. “It’s amazing you’re on the payroll in this country.” “Educators are trying to keep your kids away from President Obama,” he warned, sounding somewhat like a fear-mongering political TV ad. “The conservative movement in this country wants to brand the thinking of young people like cattle.” And why should students be forced to listen to the speech? “This is the President talking to kids about bettering themselves,” Schultz claimed. However, he argued that parents should not even have a say in whether their child listens to the speech. Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter agreed with him, appearing on Schultz’s Monday evening show. Alter asked if the same teachers provided an opt-out clause for parents when President Bush and President Reagan were in the White House. If not, they should be “ashamed,” he admonished. “That’s the subtext of this, that he’s not really the President,” Alter said of conservatives’ opposition to Obama’s speech. “He’s the ‘Other.’ He’s an alien. He’s not our President. That’s not the way things are supposed to work in America. Elections are supposed to have consequences. People should support the results of the election.” “Conservatives, well – they hate public education,” Schultz snarled on his Tuesday show. He added that their opposition is “motivated by race,” and that “there are still millions of people who just don’t want to see their kids have any association with anyone who’s black.” A partial transcript of the two segments, which aired on September 13 and 14, at 6:48 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. EDT respectively, is as follows: THE ED SHOW 9/13/10 6:48 p.m. EDT ED SCHULTZ: Educators are trying to keep your kids away from President Obama. (…) SCHULTZ: And I’m sorry to say folks across America are still suffering from the effects of Righty fear-mongering after the President – and so concerned about the President indoctrinating students. Now in flyover country, let’s take for instance in West Fargo, ND – parents have to be notified if their kids will be watching the speech. And they have to have the option to remove their child from class during the address. Down in Texas, students – well they’ve got to get their parents to sign permission slips to watch the President of the United States. This is absolutely outrageous and ridiculous. Last year we saw the same kind of garbage that was thrown out there by the Righties that infiltrated into the public schools. But all the President did was urge students back then to stay in school and work hard. There was no agenda, no socialist indoctrination. The President of the United States is a prime example of how far you can go if you’re willing to work hard. Treating it as a controversial event with an opt-out for Right-wing whackos I think is appalling. I think the President’s speech should be mandatory for all students.   (…) SCHULTZ: Jonathan, is this a product of a lot of fear-mongering that has taken place surrounding the Obama presidency? What do you think? JONATHAN ALTER, Senior Editor, Newsweek: Oh absolutely. Look, you could barely understand it last year, I mean, even though it was outrageous then, too, because you could argue, okay, maybe some of the far-Right believed some of the right-wing propaganda that he would use the occasion to indoctrinate. But then, as you said, he gave the speech, “Stay in school, work hard, follow your dreams.” So they know what the message is, so for them to ban kids from – prevent kids from seeing it this year is triply ridiculous. Because we know what he’s going to say. SCHULTZ: We have gutless administrators, in my opinion, that don’t have the guts to stand up. In some school districts across the country, they say “Oh well we’ll leave it up to the teachers, meaning the teachers will make a decision in the classroom whether the President’s going to be seen or not. The administration gives them no cover whatsoever, no leadership whatsoever. This is the President talking to kids about bettering themselves, and it’s being, you know – ALTER: And a question for every one of those teachers and administrators – did you do the same when George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan gave their speeches, if you’ve been in the schools long enough? Did you do the same? If not, if not, if you didn’t give parents the chance to opt out you should be completely ashamed of yourself if you didn’t do it in this case. It’s basically saying that this President isn’t legitimate. That’s the subtext of this, that he’s not really the President. He’s the “Other.” He’s an alien. He’s not our President. That’s not the way things are supposed to work in America. Elections are supposed to have consequences. People should support the results of the election.   THE ED SHOW 9/14/10 6:00 p.m. EDT ED SCHULTZ: I’m on fire that conservatives have taken their warped hatred of President Obama into public schools in this country. Parents are shielding kids from watching the President’s “Back to School” message. Can you believe it? What a low-point for this country. (…) SCHULTZ: The perverse conservative hatred for President Obama has infiltrated public schools all across this country. It’s a debate that’s being held in every school district. … For the second straight year, the President of the United States took time to give an uplifting, positive, forward-thinking message to American school kids for the second straight year. Conservatives, what are they doing? Well they’re trying to protect young, impressionable ears and minds from his message. Here’s the deal. In Aiken County, SC, parents were given the choice to opt their children out of the President’s education speech today. In Fargo, ND, parents were given the option to show or not show the speech. And a school near Austin, TX required parents to fill out a permission slip so their kids could watch the President of the United States give their kids this message. (…) SCHULTZ: If you’re a superintendent, and it wasn’t shown in your school, or in every one of your classrooms, you ought to be ashamed. It’s amazing you’re on the payroll in this country, and that’s what’s wrong with education in this country. We don’t have people who can make positive decisions. This is crazy. Now I’ve talked with parents from all over America on my talk show about this for the last two days. A woman in Colorado told me a principal at her kid’s school said that the President was too controversial! This is a low moment in America. The level of acceptance for keeping kids away from the President is disgusting. All of this is fueled by the nutjobs on the Right, Beck saying that the President has a deep-seated hatred for white people, Newt out there trying to make Americans believe that the President is from Kenya. The list goes on and on, and you know who the culprits are. The conservative movement in this country wants to brand the thinking of young people like cattle. It’s outrageous this kind of thinking is commonplace in American public schools. He is the President of the United States of America elected by American citizens! But, you see, conservatives, well – they hate public education. They’re afraid to ask “Where is the leadership?” I’ll ask it tonight. This is all part of villifying public education on the part of the conservatives. Superintendents who shied away from this are just walking in lock step with those who are scared. Superintendents should make the correct call, and not put the burden on the teachers. A speech like this should have been mandatory, it should have been not even considered whether it’s an issue or not. This, you know, if it was Ronald Reagan, or if it was George W. Bush, Hannity, Limbaugh – their heads would explode. They’d be screaming about the liberal schoolteachers dishonoring the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. But nobody seems to care about dishonoring the black President. I think a lot of this is motivated by race. There are still millions of people who just don’t want to see their kids have any association with anyone who’s black. That’s right. What’s wrong with our country? What’s wrong with this picture? I mean, I can’t believe that liberals sit back and take this garbage. Where’s the conversation about this at the leadership level in politics? This is a kitchen table issue that I think the Democratic leadership team should speak to across this country. The story speaks to the decay of our country, the lack of respect for the Oval Office, the lack of respect for our elections, the lack of acceptance that Barack Obama is, in fact, the President of the United States. Now if you’re a superintendent, I should probably point out to you that the irony is that this President is probably one of the most academically-accomplished Presidents we’ve ever had. And his critic across the street loves to tell people that he’s a college dropout. So you make the choice. You mean to tell me that we have school administrators in this country that are so afraid of the local school board, and so concerned about their job and their security that they’re afraid to put the President of the United States, with a positive message about education, in their school? Hell, you’re no better than the politicians that take money in Washington. You’re all about your job. You’re afraid to stand up. And this is one of the problems we have in public education in this country – we don’t have enough leaders. We don’t have enough people that stand up and say “Look, this is the correct thing to do because he’s the President of the United States.” Conversely, what do you think the kind of problem that would be created if President Obama were to take this opportunity and really give a strong speech about universal health care? Or really give a strong speech about taxes and say, “Well, you know your dad makes over $250,000 a year, I think that, heck, he ought to be paying more.” You think the President would do something like that? Well, in the twisted thinking of these Righties, they think he’ll do anything. In fact, one broadcaster on Fox is now saying that President Obama is going to lead liberals to violence if the election doesn’t go their way. I guess this is why we have a segment on this show called “Psycho Talk.” It is a sad day for America, because there are other countries around the world that watch our model of entrepreneurship in developing young minds to be aggressive in the capitalistic system in this country. And what message are we sending? “Hell, they don’t even let Obama speak to their kids in public schools. America’s on the decline. We can kick their ass. Let’s see if we can get more of their jobs.” Yes, there is a ripple effect throughout the whole thing.

Visit link:
Ed Schultz: Obama’s School Speech Should Be Mandatory For All Students

Middle School Segregates Class Elections by Race [Mississippi]

Thinking about running for eighth grade class president at Nettleton Middle School in Nettleton, Mississippi? Well… are you white? Because only white kids are allowed to run for president. Black kids can be vice-president, though! But only black kids. More

How Convenient: CBS Asks Pro-Stimulus Economist to Rate the Stimulus

As the Obama administration’s “Recovery Summer” crumbles, CBS’s Early Show on Thursday noted how the poor economic data has made many Americans deeply pessimistic about the future, with 37% saying that the economy “is in permanent decline.” So does that mean Obama’s $862 billion stimulus is a failure? Not according to economist Mark Zandi, who was interviewed by co-host Erica Hill. Zandi asserted that “the recession ended about a year ago, in large part because of the stimulus efforts,” and the current sluggishness was because “the stimulus is now fading,” and thus “the benefit to growth is winding down.” Of course, Zandi has been a consistent enthusiast for the stimulus, as far back as early 2009, a fact which was not disclosed today. “We need stimulus,” Zandi championed on the January 28, 2009 Early Show. “It’s about preserving jobs.” After President Obama signed the behemoth spending bill, Zandi was back on the February 18, 2009 Early Show: “It`s a reasonably good plan….The fact that policymakers are working really hard here, I think, is a reason for some optimism.” Viewers might have benefitted if CBS had paired Zandi with an economist who sees the data differently (for example, the Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl put out a good report last week on why rampant federal spending risks destroying the economy). On the flip side, Zandi did argue against the Obama administration’s scheme to raise taxes in January, saying that while it would be “reasonable” to do so in later years, the economic recovery is now too “fragile” to withstand such an action. Here’s more of how the August 26 Early Show covered the economy: # Report from correspondent Rebecca Jarvis, headline: “Economic Woes” REBECCA JARVIS: From housing to jobs to the health of the U.S. consumer, the latest economic data has slowed significantly, and it’s having an impact on how Americans feel about the recovery. According to the most recent CBS News poll, over one-third of Americans, or 37%, think the decline is here to stay. # Interview with Mark Zandi ERICA HILL: There’s so much focus on the Obama administration, on what was done on the stimulus package. How much of what we’re seeing in the economy right now is a direct result of the administration’s policies and of the stimulus? MARK ZANDI: Well, it is related. I think it’s fair to say the recession ended about a year ago, in large part because of the stimulus efforts. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the recession ended as the stimulus provided its maximum benefit to the economy. But, the stimulus is now fading — the housing tax credits being part of that stimulus, as an example — and so the impetus to growth, the benefit to growth is winding down, and that’s one of the reasons why the economy is slowing. HILL: So, would that be a case then, as you see the economy slowing, to extend those Bush tax cuts which we’re hearing so much about, and which has really become important as we move forward to the elections in November? ZANDI: Yeah, good point. I mean, I don’t think it would be wise to raise taxes for anyone in 2011 when the economic recovery is so fragile. Now, the President has proposed raising tax rates back to where they were [in the Clinton years] for people who make over $250,000 a year on a joint basis — that’s a very wealthy group, about three percent of the population. I think that’s reasonable, but only in 2012, 13, 14 — when the economy’s off and running. I wouldn’t do it in 2011 when the recovery is so weak.

Read the original here:
How Convenient: CBS Asks Pro-Stimulus Economist to Rate the Stimulus

WaPo Highlights Dem Outrage at Fox Donations to GOP, Downplays Reality of 50-50 Contributions

The Washington Post hyped the news on the front of Wednesday’s Style section that Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has donated $1 million to the Republican Governors Association , “triggering swift criticism from Democrats that a contribution of that magnitude casts a shadow on his media properties, particularly Fox News.” In paragraph 13, on page C-10, this apparent outrage of Republican favoritism gets ruined by reality: Until now, the News Corp./Fox political action committee had given 54 percent of its donations to Democrats and 46 percent to Republicans , according to the Center for Responsive Politics — including $8,000 to Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid’s campaign committee and $5,000 to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s organization. News Corp. also gave $45,000 each to GOP and Democratic campaign committees on Capitol Hill. So the real story here is that Democrats are having a fit over the RGA donation, even if the overall donation levels are about even. Reporter Howard Kurtz failed to inform readers that Murdoch held a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in 2006 (and the New York Post endorsed her Senate re-election bid). Kurtz only mentioned he’d “sought accomodations” with her: An outspoken conservative, the Australian-born Murdoch has nonetheless sought accommodations over the years with political rivals, including Tony Blair when he was British prime minister and Hillary Rodham Clinton when she was a senator from New York. Kurtz suggested the RGA donation spurred a new anti-Fox News political campaign by the Democratic Party:   The White House refused for months to make top officials available for interviews and assailed Fox as an arm of the Republican Party — an attack that was revived Tuesday. “Any pretense that may have existed about the ties between Fox News and the Republican Party has been ripped violently away,” said Hari Sevugan, spokesman for the Democratic National Committee. “Any Republican that appears on Fox should now have a disclaimer that they are financially supported by the network and any coverage of the elections this fall on Fox should be reported with disclaimer for what it is — partisan propaganda.” But if “disclaimers” were being handed out, wouldn’t every report on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have to note they were funded by the parent company of Fox News? And wouldn’t that tend to ruin the DNC spin? If Sevugan thinks the on-air FNC product is ridiculously unfair and imbalanced, if anything, the roughly 50-50 donations levels must be more balanced than the TV coverage.  It’s quite clear that the Democrats are used to a media environment where every network, every newspaper, and every “news” magazine caters to Barack Obama and find it scandalous and outrageous that anyone wouldn’t march to their drumbeat. Being a “real” news network and not a “partisan propaganda” outlet by their definition actually requires being a partisan propaganda outlet for Obama. 

View post:
WaPo Highlights Dem Outrage at Fox Donations to GOP, Downplays Reality of 50-50 Contributions

The Expendables Trailer, Extra Cast Edition

It's not enough to have Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Dolph Lundgren, Mickey Rourke, Jet Li and Steve Austin all in one movie. The Rotten Tomatoes Show unearths another trailer for The Expendables with the extended cast. The Rotten Tomatoes Show is a movie review show that airs on Thursday nights at 10:30 e/p on Current TV. From reviews of the newest releases to commentary on cult favorites and movie trends, each episode of The Rotten Tomatoes Show is a fast-paced, comedic journey through the week in cinema. For more from the Rotten Tomatoes Show: http://rottentomatoesshow.com . added by: Brett_Erlich

Republicans Demand Two-Month, Taxpayer-Funded Recess After Election

House Republicans are going forward with plans to introduce a resolution on Tuesday to prohibit the House of Representatives from assembling during the two-month period following the November elections. A GOP leadership aide confirmed to the Huffington Post that the resolution, authored by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) for the purposes of preventing Democrats from passing legislative items during the lame-duck session, would be introduced before the House passes additional Medicaid and teacher funding. The aide argued that comments on Sunday by Carol Browner, the White House's top energy and environmental adviser, suggesting that energy legislation could be considered during the so-called lame duck period, proved that the resolution was pertinent. And yet, Price's resolution appears likely to produce nothing more than Kabuki theater — which that Democrats aren't necessarily averse to enjoying. For starters, the procedural process by which the issue will play out appears pre-ordained. Because he is introducing a privileged resolution, Democrats can't table Price's gambit from the get-go. Rather, the chair is going to rule that it is “out of order.” Price will appeal the ruling, after which members will vote on the chair's ruling (not the resolution itself). The issue, at that point, will be resolved. The majority will side with the chair. The political drama around the lame-duck session will, undoubtedly, remain. But even then it's not entirely clear what Price's resolution accomplishes. Certainly, it's a procedural maneuver that will please the conservative base. Freedom Works, the moneyed organization behind the Tea Party movement, has been pushing Price's resolution on its website. And former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been touting the need to shut Congress down after the elections. But the notion that the House should take a two-month, taxpayer-paid break invites obvious political ridicule. One aide deemed it the “Republican Winter Vacation Act.” “Washington Republicans wrecked the economy and haven't lifted a finger to help us fix it,” said Doug Thornell a top aide to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). “Now, the GOP wants to vote for a two-month long taxpayer-funded vacation because they believe the challenges middle class families face today should be ignored. This is the type of work ethic and arrogance that got us into this mess in the first place.” While Browner hinted that a vote on energy legislation may take place between the election and the seating of the new Congress, even that “option” is complicated by a host of factors that don'tjustify the GOP's fear of a lame-duck Congress. For starters, Democrats couldn't get 60 votes in the Senate for a comprehensive bill even when they had that many members caucusing. It's hard to imagine the votes would suddenly materialize after the election. added by: TimALoftis