Tag Archives: financial

Sarah Palin Drops The H-Bomb: ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ (VIDEO)

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin made headlines for suggesting in a TV interview she'd run for president in 2012 “if nobody else were to step up,” but little noticed in that segment was the one-time vice presidential nominee dropping President Obama's middle name. Palin (R) managed to suggest Obama has a shady past and use his middle name — as his critics often did during the 2008 campaign — all in one quick hit with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren. “Funny, Greta, we are learning more about Christine O'Donnell and her college years and her teenage years and her financial dealings than anybody ever even bothered to ask about Barack Hussein Obama as a candidate and now as our president,” Palin said. Palin added later that it is “fair to dig in somebody's past.” She said that if the “lamestream media” did do that digging voters would “find out their associates and beliefs and what formed their beliefs.” It's certainly not the first time Palin has cracked about Obama's past, but we couldn't find any references to her using his middle name. Who can forget that Palin was the candidate to insist that Obama doesn't see America in the same way as she and Sen. John McCain. added by: TimALoftis

CBS: Americans ‘Angry’ Over Bad Economy, ‘Taking It Out On’ Obama

At the top of Tuesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith proclaimed: “Angry Americans. A new report declares the recession officially over. But many of us are not feeling it. Even taking on the President himself.” Later, he seemed to portray the President as a victim: “…a lot of Americans are still suffering its [the recession’s] effects, and are taking it out on President Obama.” In a report that followed, correspondent Bill Plante noted how “numbers may be going in the right direction” but touted “frustrated” Obama supporters speaking out at a Monday CNBC town hall. In between clips of those voters, Plante sympathetically remarked: “On the defensive, the President responded by outlining some of his administration’s accomplishments, but admitted that things aren’t where they need to be.” He concluded the report: “So the reality is that improving statistics aren’t very convincing to voters who are worried about jobs, and that is the reality the President and his party face going into the November elections.” Introducing a brief report on the stock market reaction, co-host Maggie Rodriguez looked for a silver lining: “The average American may be skeptical about an economic recovery, but the reaction on Wall Street to the end of the recession shows that investors are optimistic.” Business and economics correspondent Rebecca Jarvis declared: “…yesterday, stocks responded positively to the news that it is now behind us. The Dow ended higher by 145 points, putting it on track for the best September in 71 years.” Smith later interviewed Obama economic advisor and new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, Elizabeth Warren. He lobbed softballs to her, starting with: “…you’ve spent a good time of your professional career studying the middle class, and quite frankly, worrying about the middle class. As we get this kind of news that we got yesterday that the recession was over, so many people in the middle class are saying, ‘it doesn’t feel like it at my house.’ When do you think it might feel like it at our house?” A headline on screen read: “Anger Over the Economy; Despite Recession’s End, Americans Frustrated.” Smith fretted over Warren not being able to enforce enough new regulations on business: “Can these industries really be regulated? But regulated in a way that – I mean, there will be so much pressure from them for you to do as little as possible. This will be a giant tug-of-war in the days going forward, to see who really does get control.” Warren replied that her job was “to start pushing back,” adding “I intend to do it as hard as I can.” Only at the end of the interview did Smith touch on Warren’s controversial nomination process: “By charging you with creating this agency, is this the best compromise possible? Because a lot of people wanted you to head the agency, and they said, ‘well, you’re not confirmable.'” Smith did not challenge Warren on whether her backdoor appointment broke the administration’s promises of transparency. Here is a full transcript of the September 21 segment: 7:00AM ET TEASE: HARRY SMITH: Angry Americans. A new report declares the recession officially over. But many of us are not feeling it. Even taking on the President himself. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I’m one of your middle-class Americans, and quite frankly, I’m exhausted. I’m exhausted of defending you, defending your administration. SMITH: We’ll talk live with one of President Obama’s closest economic advisers. 7:02AM ET SEGMENT: SMITH: Now to the economy. A new report says the ‘great recession’ is over. According to a nonprofit research group, the recession began in December of 2007, and ended in June of 2009. But a lot of Americans are still suffering its effects, and are taking it out on President Obama. Senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has more. Good morning, Bill. BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Harry. The numbers may be going in the right direction, but if there was any doubt that most of America doesn’t yet feel things improving, listen to what a frustrated voter had to say to President Obama at a CNBC town hall meeting. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Fed Up; Voters Confront Obama On Struggling Economy] UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I’m one of your middle-class Americans, and quite frankly, I’m exhausted. I’m exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for, and deeply disappointed with where we are right now. I have been told that I voted for a man who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I’m one of those people, and I’m waiting, sir. I’m waiting. I don’t feel it yet. PLANTE: On the defensive, the President responded by outlining some of his administration’s accomplishments, but admitted that things aren’t where they need to be. BARACK OBAMA: As I said before, times are tough for everybody right now. So, I understand your frustration. But what I am saying is, is that we’re moving in the right direction. PLANTE: But the President knows that the only real answer is providing jobs. And that saying the recovery takes time doesn’t play well with voters. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: And what I’m really hoping to hear from you is several concrete steps that you’re going to take, moving forward, that will be able to re-ignite my generation. Re-ignite the youth who are beset by student loans. And I really want to know, is the American dream dead for me? OBAMA: Absolutely not. PLANTE: But that disillusionment is echoed on main street, on both sides of the aisle. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN B: I’ve been disappointed. Unbelievably disappointed. UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Yeah, in what? WOMAN B: From both sides. I feel like nothing changes. And so there’s no point, really. Everything will stay the same. No matter what I do, I could for or against and it’ll stay exactly the same. PLANTE: So the reality is that improving statistics aren’t very convincing to voters who are worried about jobs, and that is the reality the President and his party face going into the November elections. Harry. MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: I’ll take it here. Bill Plante, thank you very much. SMITH: Alright, Maggie. RODRIGUEZ: Thanks, Harry. The average American may be skeptical about an economic recovery, but the reaction on Wall Street to the end of the recession shows that investors are optimistic. Let’s go to CBS News business and economics correspondent Rebecca Jarvis, she’s at the New York Stock Exchange this morning. Good morning, Rebecca. REBECCA JARVIS: Good morning, Maggie. And we all know how much the ‘great recession’ battered down stocks. Well, yesterday, stocks responded positively to the news that it is now behind us. The Dow ended higher by 145 points, putting it on track for the best September in 71 years. But still, as we all know, the struggles on main street, they do persist, and we’re seeing that in the issues that the ‘great recession’ raised for all of us. It wiped out 7.3 million American jobs. 21% Of our net worth was wiped out between December of 2007, and June of 2009, the official end of the recession. And economists believe it will take significant amounts of time just to regain the pre-recession levels on the employment front. In fact, some economists believe it will take as long as 2013 just to get back to normal employment levels in this country. Another key in all of this is housing prices, and Wall Street will be watching a bunch of data this week on that. Maggie. RODRIGUEZ: Alright, Rebecca Jarvis at the stock exchange. Thank you, Rebecca. Back over to Harry. SMITH: Alright, Maggie. Joining us from Washington with more on how the White House plans to turn the economy around is the new head of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Agency, Elizabeth Warren. Good morning. ELIZABETH WARREN: Good morning. SMITH: Let me ask you, before we get to the particulars of your job and the creation of this agency, I just want to ask you a philosophical question. Because you’ve spent a good time of your professional career studying the middle class, and quite frankly, worrying about the middle class. As we get this kind of news that we got yesterday that the recession was over, so many people in the middle class are saying, ‘it doesn’t feel like it at my house.’ When do you think it might feel like it at our house? [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Anger Over the Economy; Despite Recession’s End, Americans Frustrated] WARREN: Well, we have to remember that we have a problem in the middle class that didn’t just start in the fall of 2008. We have a problem that’s been under way for 30 years, of squeezing, chipping, hitting on the middle class. Flat wages, rising core expenses, families reached a point where they really couldn’t save, they turned to credit, and the credit industry has drained billions of dollars out of their pockets. So, it’s a – it’s going to take time to rebuild the middle class. I mean that – that really is part of the problem here. We’re starting now with this new credit, Consumer Credit Bureau, and that’s going to be one piece of it. I hope it’s going to patch a big hole in the bottom of the economic boat. But there’s still work to be done in a lot of areas. On wages, on housing, on student loans, on retirement security. It’s not just one thing that went wrong, and it’s not just one thing that’s going to fix it. SMITH: Can these industries really be regulated? But regulated in a way that – I mean, there will be so much pressure from them for you to do as little as possible. This will be a giant tug-of-war in the days going forward, to see who really does get control. WARREN: You know, I’m not a Washington person. I never really wanted a job here. I had this idea for this agency, and thought, that’s it, you know, other people will take care of it. The President asked me to come here, and to start to work immediately. Not to worry about titles, not to go through all that business, but to start to work to set up this agency, to start pushing back. And that’s exactly what I intend to do. And I intend to do it as hard as I can. SMITH: By charging you with creating this agency, is this the best compromise possible? Because a lot of people wanted you to head the agency, and they said, ‘well, you’re not confirmable.’ WARREN: You know, I don’t know the politics. But I don’t see this as a compromise at all. There was one option, and that was to go the confirmation route, and I’m told that would take about a year, during which I couldn’t do any work on the agency. And this is the part that amazes me, I wouldn’t be allowed to talk about it. Or, I could not have that title, and I could get to work right now. And so, I said to the President, I want to go to work right now. I don’t care what you call me. Let me go to work and let me try to help. And when I’m no longer any help, I’ll leave. SMITH: Elizabeth Warren, thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us this morning. WARREN: Thank you. SMITH: Do appreciate it. RODRIGUEZ: So important to point out that the organization that deemed the recession officially over also was very careful to say, it may be over, but the economy is not recovering. That was a ‘by the way’ that’s important, as Americans are realizing. SMITH: A slow recovery. Yeah, right. RODRIGUEZ: A slow recovery and we could still dip into another recession. Which we all hope won’t happen.

Read the original here:
CBS: Americans ‘Angry’ Over Bad Economy, ‘Taking It Out On’ Obama

Mel B’s ‘Peep Show’ Exposes Her to Lawsuit

Filed under: Mel B , Stephen Belafonte , Celebrity Justice Mel B ‘s booty shaking — on the Las Vegas strip and in exercise videos — just got her sued by a company looking for a share of her financial pie. BMEDIA filed the lawsuit today against Mel, her husband Stephen Belafonte , and their business partners… Read more

See the original post here:
Mel B’s ‘Peep Show’ Exposes Her to Lawsuit

NYT’s Herbert: Obama and Dems Created Mess But GOP Would Be Worse

You can’t swing a dead cat these days without hitting some pathetically liberal media member claiming that despite how bad things are now they’d get worse if Republicans won in November. Exhibit A: New York Times columnist Bob Herbert’s article Saturday. In it, he somewhat honestly told his readers about the misshaps of the President he personally helped get elected. Fair enough, but the conclusion – almost like a talking points memo from the very Party he unashamedly supports! – was that things would get a lot worse if Republicans took back Congress: People feel that the country is going to hell, that the system itself has broken down, and President Obama and the Democrats have been unable to assuage that awful feeling. The Democrats are in deep, deep trouble because they have not effectively addressed the overwhelming concern of working men and women: an economy that is too weak to provide the jobs they need to support themselves and their families. With the nation losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month in early-2009, the president and his allies in Congress could have rallied the citizenry to participate in the difficult work of nation-building here at home. He could have called on everyone to share in the sacrifices that needed to be made, and he could have demanded much more from the financial and corporate elites who were being bailed out with the people’s money. Makes sense, right? Just wait: The Democrats are facing an election debacle because they did not respond adequately to their constituents’ most dire needs. The thing that is really weird is that a strengthened G.O.P. will undoubtedly make matters so much worse. Really? The unemployment rate was 4.6 percent when the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. It’s now 9.6 percent. Over 7 million Americans have lost their jobs since the Democrats took over Congress. 7 million! And shills like Herbert have the gall to claim conditions would worsen if Republicans were back in power. Hey Mr. Herbert: how about proving your point with actual data rather than inflammatory rhetoric? I know, I know – that would be too much like journalism for a shill like this.

Read the original:
NYT’s Herbert: Obama and Dems Created Mess But GOP Would Be Worse

ABC Nightline Hit Piece Smears Alex Jones As King of “Paranoia Porn”

An ABC Nightline hit piece on Alex Jones which aired last night attempts to smear the radio talk show host as a dangerous purveyor of “paranoia porn” who is inciting followers to violence, an unfortunate angle to take in light of the fact that just a day earlier, James Jay Lee was inspired not by Alex Jones, but by top-down establishment propaganda about environmentalism, when he decided to take hostages at gunpoint during the Discovery Channel building siege. The headline of the piece, “Angry in America: Inside Alex Jones’ World,” instantly implies that Jones lives within his own paranoid fantasy bubble and that “Alex Jones’ world” bears no relation to the real world. The agenda from the outset is to portray Jones as a kind of freak show leader for mentally disturbed conspiracy theorists. Interviewer Dan Harris constantly asks Jones if he believes in what he says, an ceaseless ploy to undermine the authenticity of the subjects about which Jones warns his listeners. Jones is depicted not as a journalist, but as an entertainer and a purveyor of “paranoia porn,” as if his entire career is just one big sideshow, something to be scoffed at by real intellectuals who watch ABC News. The problem with this smear is the fact that ABC News, along with almost every other establishment media network, is hemorrhaging viewers because their credibility is shot. In the Nightline piece, Harris fumbled in his effort to characterize Jones as a conspiracy nut after Jones pointed out the obvious — the global elite are establishing world government. ABC and the corporate media have reported on this fact numerous times. Jones showed Harris and ABC documentation of this fact, but it ended up on the cutting room floor because the point of the Nightline segment is not to present objective facts, but portray Jones as a dangerous conspiracy kook. Is the usually staid Wall Street Journal a coven of conspiracy nuts? In November of 2009, the newspaper reported that the Copenhagen Agreement engineered plans for “a transnational ‘government’ on a scale the world has never before seen” under the aegis of the United Nations. The Financial Times published an article in late 2008 on the agenda to establish “global governance,” shorthand for world government. Gideon Rachman, FT’s chief foreign affairs commentator, wrote that while he does not believe in black helicopters, “for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.” Earlier this year, European Council president Herman Van Rompuy went on the record in a very visible way and demanded world government in response to the bankster engineered financial crisis, itself a ploy to force world government on Europe and the rest of the developed world. Van Rompuy’s call was covered by the Independent, another staid establishment newspaper. Nobody called the editors deranged conspiracy theory mental cases. Indeed, when Jones provided Harris and ABC News with articles and clips of Van Rompuy and a multitude of other top globalists calling for a new world order and a one world government, Harris simply claimed that they were talking about a different kind of world government, whatever that is supposed to mean. Presumably, the conspiracy for world government only exists if it is characterized as a happy-clappy utopia for everyone. As soon as you dare criticize it and point out that its very nature is fundamentally undemocratic, you instantly become a dangerous lunatic and the whole thing doesn’t exist. ABC is well aware of the world government agenda, but they count on the ignorance of their audience — or the perceived ignorance, since millions of people are now awake to the reality of a one-world authoritarian government. ABC’s assigned task is to convince people Jones is a dangerous nut, not present the facts in an objective manner. It is irrelevant that Jones backs up his claims with plenty of research. Harris repeated the corporate media canard that the water is safe to drink and only paranoid right-wing nut cases talk about fluoride and drugs in our drinking water. And yet the corporate media routinely reports on the dangers of water fluoridation and numerous cities and municipalities around the country are calling for the substance to be removed. In 2008, paranoid and dangerous radicals at none other than USA Today reported that pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones — have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans. The New York Times attempted to mollify the herd by claiming the presence of this cocktail of poison is not necessarily a bad thing. “Little study has been devoted to the long-term effects of low-concentration exposure on humans,” the Gray Lady reported, never mind numerous studies revealing the presence of drugs has feminized male fish, earthworms and zooplankton. ABC wasn’t going to allow Jones the time to present a shred of evidence because this wasn’t a balanced investigation, it was a hit piece. John P. Holdren, the current White House science czar, wrote a textbook in which he called for a “planetary regime” to carry out forced abortions and mandatory sterilization procedures, as well as drugging the water supply in an effort to cull the human surplus. Harris wasn’t about to give that issue a moment’s attention because the whole process was about shooting down the messenger, not seriously evaluating any of the evidence of Alex Jones’ claims. It should come as no surprise Dan Harris and ABC did not include documentation Alex Jones provided to make his point, documentation easy enough to find if one searches the corporate media’s own stories posted on the internet. ABC and other corporate media dinosaurs are not interested in reporting the truth. A million people listening and watching Alex Jones six days a week is the issue, not world government or the soft kill agenda of the global elite. Indeed, ABC itself reported on the secret meeting between billionaires such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and David Rockefeller, a gathering to discuss ways of curbing overpopulation, and yet Harris cites a CNN article about encouraging women not to have children and dismisses it as nothing more than sarcasm. ABC’s hit piece — while mostly polite with well-placed zingers designed to convince people to stay away from Jones and the patriot and truth movement — is mostly a flailing and doomed effort. Far too many people are awake and many of them understand what ABC’s Nightline segment on Alex Jones represents — a desperate and feeble attempt to shut down the opposition. Casting Jones as a dangerous hatemonger is absurd and will not demonize the man or his message. In fact, it will likely do the opposite of what ABC and the establishment media intend. added by: im1mjrpain

Newsweek Hates Fox News: Cover Story Blames Them for New Era of ‘Big Lie Politics’ About Obama

Newsweek has once again gone over the top in their support of Barack Obama, but at least the cover reflects that Obama’s popularity is collapsing. It’s called the “The Making of a Terrorist-Coddling, Warmongering, Wall Street-Loving, Socialistic, Godless, Muslim President.” There’s an asterisk that leads to the note “who isn’t actually any of these things.” Perhaps to be true to their fanboy image, they should just leave that Obama photo on their logo every week. Liberals hate the cover already. Take Michael Shaw on The Huffington Post: “So, the question is, how much more is this desperate-to-stay-in-business “news” publication going to pander to the haters and the far-right crazies as we hurtle through the mid-term sprint?” The cover story by Jonathan Alter comes with the whining subhead “Obama’s enemies have painted him as an alien threat. Can he fight the flight from facts ?” His enemies—and even some of his ostensible allies—have been busy for three years painting Obama as some kind of alien threat. His name, race, exotic upbringing, and determination to reach out to moderate Muslims have given those who would delegitimize him a fresh palette of dark colors. The caricatures are almost comical, as the president himself recognizes. “Some folks say, ‘Well, you know, he’s not as cool as he was,’?” Obama said at a May fundraiser in California. “?‘When they had all the posters around and everything.’ Now I’ve got a Hitler mustache on the posters. That’s quite a change.” Our maddening times demand that the truth be forthrightly stated at the outset, and not just that the president has nothing in common with the führer beyond the possession of a dog. The outlandish stories about Barack Hussein Obama are simply false: he wasn’t born outside the United States (the tabloid “proof” has been debunked as a crude forgery); he has never been a Muslim (he was raised by an atheist and became a practicing Christian in his 20s); his policies are not “socialist” (he explicitly rejected advice to nationalize the banks and wants the government out of General Motors and Chrysler as quickly as possible); he is not a “warmonger” (he promised in 2008 to withdraw from Iraq and escalate in Afghanistan and has done so); he is neither a coddler of terrorists (he has already ordered the killing of more “high value” Qaeda targets in 18 months than his predecessor did in eight years), nor a coddler of Wall Street (his financial-reform package, while watered down, was the most vigorous since the New Deal), nor an enemy of American business (he and the Chamber of Commerce favor tax credits for small business that were stymied by the GOP to deprive him of a victory). And that’s just the short list of lies.  Please remember the last president, George W. Bush, when the topic is dictator and Muslim-radical analogies, and remember what Alter and his Newsweek-lings wrote and said:  “We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War….If the Democrats regain control of Congress, there may even be articles of impeachment introduced. Similar abuse of power was part of the impeachment charge brought against Richard Nixon in 1974.” — Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter in a “Web-exclusive commentary” posted on December 19, 2005 on the Newsweek website.  “In the words of one of his [Ayatollah Sistani’s] aides, ‘the representation of our Sunni brethren in the coming government must be effective, regardless of the results of the elections.’ As an Iraqi politician said to me, ‘There are currently two Grand Ayatollahs running Iraq: Sistani and Bush. Most of us feel that Sistani is the more rational.’” — Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria in a column published in the magazine’s January 24, 2005 edition. “[Russia’s Vladimir Putin is] the only one of those leaders who goes in there [the G8 summit] with a commanding popularity among his own people, because he is perceived to be an effective dictator. What we have in this country is a dictator who’s ineffective.” — Newsweek contributing editor Eleanor Clift on The McLaughlin Group, July 15, 2006. Earlier this year , it was Alter who said on the Keith Olbermann show that the Republicans were terrorist-enablers for suggesting President Obama was weak. I wish they would look into their souls a little bit, is that if they convey over and over again that the president of the United States is weak, what does that do? It emboldens the terrorists. And I don`t say that lightly. But think of — think of terrorists overseas and — or at home, who might be plotting an attack. If they think that the president is weak, which he is not. He`s manifestly not. He’s killed twice as many of them [as Bush]. Guess who Newsweek blamed most for Big Lie Politics? Fox News, of course, which has taken the hate into the mainstream: The blame for this extends from Fox News and the Republican leadership, to the peculiar psychology of resentment in public opinion, to the ham-handed political response of the Obama White House. Whatever the cause, if smash-mouth tactics are validated by huge GOP gains in the midterm elections, then Big Lie politics may be with us for good. In some ways, it has always been with us, going back to the 18th-century calumny of James Callender against John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton. More recently, the Rev. Jerry Falwell sponsored a film that falsely accused President Clinton of ordering murders and dealing drugs. What’s changed about politics as a contact sport is the reach of the lies. With the exception of Father Charles Coughlin, the anti-Semitic “radio priest” of the 1930s, reactionaries haven’t generally had big audiences. But now the cranks who once could do little more than write ranting letters to the editor on the red ribbons of their typewriters (loaded with exclamation points and in all caps, of course) can spread their venom virally, with the help of right-wing billionaires underwriting their organizations . And while the cable network they watch, Fox News, might not actively promote the idea that the president is a foreign-born Muslim, it does little to knock it down . Fox often covers Obama’s place of birth and religion more as matters of opinion than of fact. Translation: Fox News may not spread lies all the time, but they’re clearly not doing enough to please the White House by sounding exactly like Newsweek. Again, this is a terrible standard for Alter to claim for Newsweek. It’s quite easy to recall how Newsweek would do anything to smear a Republican. In 1991, Alter and Clift endorsed a Kitty Kelley standard of truth for Republican presidents: if a mere fraction of anonymously sourced nastiness about the Reagans was true, the Reagans were a historical nightmare:   “If privacy ends where hypocrisy begins, Kitty Kelley’s steamy expose of Nancy Reagan is a contribution to contemporary history.” — Newsweek Washington reporter Eleanor Clift, April 15. “If even a small fraction of the material amassed and borrowed here turns out to be true, Ronald Reagan and his wife had to be among the most hypocritical people ever to live in the White House. Anyone who vaguely followed the events of his administration already knew that. But millions of others still don’t. While Kitty Kelley’s sensationalism may undermine their ability to find and believe the truth, her popularity may encourage them to explore more of the real history of that era without her.” — Newsweek media reporter Jonathan Alter, April 22 issue. In short, the idea that Newsweek has any ground at all to stand on in the “flight from facts” narrative, or “smearing a president” narrative, is ludicrous. Look at the facts. Newsweek’s take on the facts is transparently partisan. Any objective media watcher would say it’s at least as partisan as Alter thinks Fox News is.

See the article here:
Newsweek Hates Fox News: Cover Story Blames Them for New Era of ‘Big Lie Politics’ About Obama

Newsweek Insults Barack Obama As an ‘Anchor Baby’

In a list of famous Americans with a parent (or both) born in another country, the un-bylined last page “Back Story” of this week’s Newsweek listed “BARACK OBAMA (Kenyan Father)” on the page headlined: “What’s So Scary About an ‘Anchor Baby’?” The brief text below the headline, and on top of the diaper, made clear the magazine’s attempt to undermine those suggesting citizenship should no longer be automatically conferred on anyone born within the United States: There’s a movement afoot to alter the 14th amendment, the one that guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Combine this with anti-immigrant policies like Arizona’s and you begin to question the idea of America as a melting pot — as a nation of mothers and fathers welcomed here to seek better lives. But the country has benefited richly from their sons and daughters (right). An “anchor baby” is a child born to parents in the U.S. illegally, so is the magazine suggesting that Obama’s father, as well as parents of the 32 others in their list, were all illegal aliens at the time of the births of their famous offspring? Talk about flinging scurrilous allegations and encouraging the “birther” crowd. Larger jpg image of the page (50 Kb), full size jpg image (1 Mb). I scanned the page and the blotches/darkness within the white areas are from bleed through from the other side of the very thin paper Newsweek uses. Imagine the reaction of the left and Newsweek if a conservative figure had called Obama an “anchor baby.” They certainly would consider it one more insult to add to the right’s “lies” about Obama. The “anchor baby” list with Obama appeared in the very same Newsweek, the September 6 issue, featuring a cover story by Jonathan Alter on the “lies” told about Obama: The outlandish stories about Barack Hussein Obama are simply false: he wasn’t born outside the United States (the tabloid “proof” has been debunked as a crude forgery); he has never been a Muslim (he was raised by an atheist and became a practicing Christian in his 20s); his policies are not “socialist” (he explicitly rejected advice to nationalize the banks and wants the government out of General Motors and Chrysler as quickly as possible); he is not a “warmonger” (he promised in 2008 to withdraw from Iraq and escalate in Afghanistan and has done so); he is neither a coddler of terrorists (he has already ordered the killing of more “high value” Qaeda targets in 18 months than his predecessor did in eight years), nor a coddler of Wall Street (his financial-reform package, while watered down, was the most vigorous since the New Deal), nor an enemy of American business (he and the Chamber of Commerce favor tax credits for small business that were stymied by the GOP to deprive him of a victory). And that’s just the short list of lies. The 32 on the list (not online) in addition to Obama: Henry Ford, Walt Disney, Alex Rodriguez, Frank Sinatra, Joan River, Fred Astaire, Dean Martin, Vera Wang, Bobby Jindal, Colin Powell, Olympia Snowe, Frank Zappa, Henry Mancini, Eugene O’Neill, Henry Heinz, Groucho Marx, George Gershwin, Leonard Nimoy, Nikki Haley, Rene Zellweger, John Cassavetes, Ray Bradbury, Michelle Kwan, Spiro Agnew, Joan Baez, Oscar Hijuelos, Ralph Nader, Norah Jones, Larry King, Eric Holder, Benny Goodman and Narcisco Rodriguez. Spiro Agnew (“Greek Father”)? Not a name you’d think Newsweek would tout. Earlier, my post on Newsweek’s previous edition: “ Newsweek Ranks U.S. the 11th ‘Best Country’ – Bush’s Fault, But Obama Can Stem the Slide ”

See the original post:
Newsweek Insults Barack Obama As an ‘Anchor Baby’

Is Bloomberg Supporting Ground Zero Mosque for Business Reasons?

In recent days, New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg has become a beloved press figure as a result of his unshaking support for the Ground Zero mosque. Isn’t it fascinating how in this environment where rich people are being demonized at every turn all you need to do is a support a popular liberal cause and your financial sins are instantly forgiven? With this in mind, the good folks at Big Journalism have uncovered some rather startling financial connections between this media mogul and the Arab world that haven’t raised any eyebrows from journalists that love to follow the money when there’s a conservative at the other end of the smoking wallet. Consider the uproar last week surrounding News Corporation’s contribution to the Republican Governors Association. As you read Mondo Frazier’s marvelous piece  “Follow the Money: Could Mayor Bloomberg’s Media Business Interests in the Middle East Have Anything to Do with His Support of the Ground Zero Mosque?” ask yourself why the seemingly always curious press have ignored any examination of this billionaire’s motives: On October 2, 2009, The Dubai Chronicle reported Chairman and President of Bloomberg LP Peter T. Grauer met with UAE Vice President, Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum at Maktoum’s Emirate office. According to the Dubai Chronicle, Grauer gave a presentation of Bloomberg future expansion plans in the ‘area of business information’ in the United Emirates, North Africa, and India. Grauer stated the UAE was a great place to expand, the UAE’s “logistic facilities” the ‘biggest incentive for investors and companies to expand their businesses in the country and the region beyond’. “Particularly since the meltdown of the western capitalist system, there has been an increasingly large focus on the virtues of Islamic finance. Today, there is no one single provider of information that caters to the Islamic finance market. So by Bloomberg being here, we are in the process  of building out an Islamic finance product. We are very confident that we can build a product that meets the needs of the market right now.” -Max Linnington, Regional Head of Bloomberg Middle East and South Asia on the company’s plan to build a Bloomberg hub in Dubai at the Dubai International Financial Centre(DIFC), October 29, 2009 But there’s more: On March 10, 2010, the Khaleej Times reported Bloomberg Set for Dubai expansion in bid to double revenues by 2014 . “Bloomberg, a leading global provider for financial data and news services, plans to “significantly boost regional operations from its Dubai hub as it is bullish about growth prospects of the emirate as a global financial center, a top executive said.” The coincidences continue: the Mayor’s company is banking on “doubling revenues by 2014″ in a region that just happens to be largely populated by Muslims. As I said at the top, this is the kind of smoking gun the press would normally attack like a pack of hungry wolves. Couldn’t all the international publicity Bloomberg is now getting for being America’s foremost supporter of this mosque be doing wonders for his position in the Arab world? Mightn’t that dramatically help his media company’s push into this region? Why hasn’t this gotten the kind of coverage News Corp’s contribution to the RGA got last week? After all, the point made by folks on the Left was that News Corp’s reporting can’t possibly be taken seriously if it’s making such a large donation to one political Party. Shouldn’t the same be true for Bloomberg? If his media company has recently invested time and money in the Muslim world, and could benefit tremendously from the favorable publicity he’s getting concerning his advocacy of this mosque, shouldn’t his veracity be similarly questioned? This seems especially the case given further revelations about News Corp’s connections to Saudi billionaire Al-Waleed bin Talal. For those that missed it, former Bush administration official Dan Senor was on Fox & Friends Monday, and he made a comment about Al-Waleed’s financing of the Ground Zero mosque. This led liberal media members – including Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart – to point out that Al-Waleed is the biggest shareholder in News Corp. Missing in this newest Fox News gotcha was that it actually demonstrated FNC’s ability to separate the interests of its largest investor from its reporting. Think about it: if Fox was doing Al-Waleed’s bidding, its hosts and contributors wouldn’t be attacking a mosque their largest investor was funding. That would quite literally be biting the hand that feeds them. Quite the contrary, as the news outlet that has been the most outspoken against the location of this Islamic center, Fox has taken a position that can’t be at all popular with its largest shareholder. Maybe someone should inform Stewart and all the other Fox haters in the media of this delicious dichotomy. Which brings us back to New York’s mayor: if the press think FNC is incapable of separating its reporting from its political contributions, shouldn’t they have similar concerns that Bloomberg can’t separate his business interests from his mayoral decisions? Or do such conflicts of interest only arise for conservatives?

Link:
Is Bloomberg Supporting Ground Zero Mosque for Business Reasons?

Updated US Federal Trade Commission Guideline May Nullify 100’s of Existing Green Labels, Product Claims

Way too many green labels . Image credit: Google image search excerpt. The US FTC is close to updating its original “green guides” which have been the sole legal basis for examining and challenging the validity of various green marketing claims or product “green marks” There is an obvious need for this update, as more green product claims and labels have popped up every year since TreeHugger.com was founded (see links below the fold), many of which are of questionable … Read the full story on TreeHugger

See original here:
Updated US Federal Trade Commission Guideline May Nullify 100’s of Existing Green Labels, Product Claims

Collecting Electricity from Thin Air Might One Day Become Reality

Lightning shows us just how much electricity can accumulate in the atmosphere. Photo: Wikipedia , CC. Ride the Lightning It’s still just a dream, but scientists are slowly getting us closer to the day when we might be able to collect electricity from thin air – or rather, humid air – in the atmosphere. They’re not thinking of harnessing the power of lightning like in Back to the Future (where would you store such a massive influx of electricity?), but rather of collecting electricity from water vapor and dust particles. How would that work?… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read more:
Collecting Electricity from Thin Air Might One Day Become Reality