Tag Archives: military

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Spins for Obama: ‘Set Aside’ Last Two Terror Attacks

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Monday lobbied that if one were to “set aside” the Fort Hood terror attack and the botched Christmas bombing, there haven’t been successful attacks on America in the last few years. Stephanopoulos was talking to William Arkin, the co-author of a new Washington Post  investigation into the top secret agencies created in the wake of 9/11. The GMA host began by asserting, “I spoke with an administration official early this morning.” Putting a positive spin on Obama’s first 18 months, he trumpeted, ” And that if you set aside the Fort Hood bombing in Texas and the failed Christmas bomber, there has not been a major attack that’s been anything close to successful on American soil. ” Arkin dryly responded that it’s “always good to set aside the things that are most significant” in order to focus on good news. After the Washington Post journalist mentioned the problems that led up to the Fort Hood slaughter, Stephanopoulos again defended Obama: “That’s been conceded by the administration. But, the President came out, ordered a review and they’ve now have addressed those problems, haven’t they?” The ABC anchor did challenge Arkin on whether or not it’s right for the Post to reveal such secret information. However, Stephanopoulos seemed more interested in defending the Obama administration’s handling of terrorist incidents. As for the reference to his “administration official,” NewsBusters readers will remember the 2009 revelation that the journalist has daily chats with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. A transcript of the July 19 segment, which aired at 7:12am EDT, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We’re going to turn now to a revealing new national security investigation into the government’s efforts to prevent another major terror attack o American soil. The Washington Post begins a three-part investigation today into the national security system set up in response to the 9/11 attacks. And what they discovered it startling. The series is called Top Secret America and its co-author William Arkin joins us now. And, Bill, thanks for joining us this morning. What I was most struck by in reading your piece in the Washington Post is how vast this apparatus has become, more than 850,000 people working across 1200 government agencies. 1,900 private companies in 10,000 locations. You know, that’s a lot for people at home to absorb. So, for everyone trying to get a handling on this, what the single most important thing they need to know about this top secret America? WILLIAM ARKIN (Washington Post): Well, George, thank you for having me on. I think that the reality for Americans is we’ve done exactly what America does best. But, now, ten years after 9/11, we ask to ask ourselves whether or not this gigantic system that we’ve created for counter-terrorism provides us both value in terms of money and also makes us safer. And one of the things we’ve learned in the two-year investigation is that the evidence shows that no one is really in a position of confidence to say that we are safer today than we were ten years ago. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you say that. Yet, I spoke with an administration official early this morning who pointed out that, number one, at least half of al Qaeda’s top 20 have been taken out since 9/11. And that if you set aside the Fort Hood bombing in Texas and the failed Christmas bomber there has not been a major attack that’s been anything close to successful on American soil. ARKIN: Well, I think it’s always good to set aside the things that are most significant in terms of countering what is that the government would like to put out as the good news. The evidence shows that, in fact, in the case of Major Hasan in Fort Hood last year, that the vast apparatus of counterintelligence and force protection on the part of the military completely and you utterly failed to detect someone who was right inside the ranks of the U.S. Army. And I think that’s a massive failure. So I’m not comforted at all by that. STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s been conceded by the administration. But, the President came out, ordered a review and they’ve now have addressed those problems, haven’t they? ARKIN: Well, I’m not sure I could say they’ve addressed those problems. One of the things that we’ve learned in this investigation, George, in getting on the record interviews with Secretary Gates, the Secretary of Defense, with Panetta, the head of the CIA, with the top two intelligence officials of the U.S. government. On the record they’ve all basically conceded this is a system which has grown so fast that no one really has a full handle on it, no one really is fully charge of it. And they basically agreed with our conclusions that they themselves, even within their agencies are not able to determine all of the redundant work that’s being done and whether or not it can be done in better ways. STEPHANOPOULOS: Although Dennis Blair, who’s head of intelligence, was head of intelligence, said that this is not redundancy, it’s actually tailored intelligence. But, I want to get to a separate point. You also reveal the existence of several secret sites in places like shopping malls. And one other problem the administration has with your report is that they say the very existence of this database that you’ve created is troubling, that it’s a road map, could be a road map, to our adversaries that could be very easily altered as well. ARKIN: Well, George, we’ve been working on this project for two years. We’ve been through months now of negotiations with the government. I don’t think that there’s anything in here that would do harm to U.S. national security. And, frankly, I’m an American as well. And I don’t want to do any harm to American national security. The reality is, that for people to really have an understanding of the system that’s been created since 9/11, they need to have the facts. And one of the things that we were able to do in this investigation is both write stories that explain to people this incredibly complex system. But, also, at the same time, show them so they can somehow be vested in the decision about either going to war or continuing the war or what their government is doing.

Read the rest here:
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Spins for Obama: ‘Set Aside’ Last Two Terror Attacks

MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Lobbies U.S. Politicians to ‘Stand Up’ for Gay Rights

MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer on Monday appeared baffled as to why more U.S. politicians weren’t ‘standing up’ to demand the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” touting it as “a civil rights issue.” In the span of two hours, the cable network featured a gay member of the military and a conservative to discuss the issue. It was hardly a case of hearing two sides, however. Both guests favored allowing gays to serve openly. Talking to Richard Grenell , a former spokesman for Ambassador John Bolton, Brewer editorialized, ” It is a civil rights issue…Is it time for our American leaders to stand up for what’s right and no matter what public opinion polls say to have the leadership and the courage to take a stand on it? ” Earlier, Brewer cited a survey sent out to service members asking them questions such as whether they’d be comfortable showering with an openly gay individual. The cable host dismissed, “Now, substitute in the word black or Jewish and would that question to service members ever be okay?…Why aren’t more American leaders itching for a fight on gay rights?” At the end of the segment, Brewer read viewer e-mail on the issue. Two such messages favored repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. These she recited without comment. When she read a letter disagreeing with gay rights, Brewer could hardly disguise her opinion: “Carolyn Bramblett says, “Homosexuality is a sin issue, not a civil rights issue.’ Well, you know what Jesus said: ‘Let he who is without sin.'” In the 11am hour, MSNBC featured openly gay veteran Daniel Choi to dismiss the survey. Grenell is also gay. So, the network hardly sought out a variety of voices on the subject. A transcript of the segment, which aired at 12:43pm EDT, follows: 12:20 tease CONTESSA BREWER: Another traditionally safe [makes quotes marks] constituency for Democrats also angry, this time over a survey about the potential repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, many say has incendiary and homophobic language. The President said he wants Congress to repeal the law and Pentagon is in the process of studying the issue. But, a new survey sent out to service members asks questions that many find offensive. So, here’s the problem: Critics say the survey assumes a position of homophobia. For instance, here’s one of the questions: “If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are assigned to bathroom facilities with open bay showers with a gay or lesbian service member, would you take no action or use a shower at a different time?” Now, substitute in the word black or Jewish and would that question to service members ever be okay? This is a pivotal civil rights issue. My big question today: Why aren’t more American leaders itching for a fight on gay rights? You can share your thoughts on Twitter, Facebook. You can get me on e-mail. Contessa@MSNBC.com We’re going to have a lively discussion about this in the next half hour. 12:43 BREWER: A new Pentagon survey is stirring up the controversy because it asks very pointed questions about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Some groups even suggest the survey uses homophobic language. 400,000 members of the armed forces got the question via e-mail asking questions about living with gays and using the same showers and same-sex couples in military housing.  The Pentagon is defending the questions. Rick Grenell is a conservative columnist, former spokesman to John Bolton and three other U.S. ambassadors and believes Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. We knew that the survey would happen. Claire McCaskill, actually, Rick, brought up her concerns about how the questions would be framed. When public policy pollsters conduct surveys to gain credibility and validity they have to formulate truly open ended questions. Do you have a problem with these questions? RICHARD GRENELL: Well, I think the key to this is having questions at all for a civil rights issue. What’s most surprising is President Obama and Nancy Pelosi that they are actually trying to say that this isn’t a civil rights issue, because clearly by having a questionnaire, they’re not so sure themselves. And I think the troubling thing for me and for a lot of conservatives is that they campaigned on this issue, that it was a civil rights issue and they were elected, they would end this. You know, when Barack Obama was a senator, he spent a lot of time telling people that it should just be taken care of with an executive order. Now that he’s president, the executive order excuse goes away and he’s blaming Congress. So, I think it’s really a difficult issue for the Democrats and they campaigned like it was an easy issue. BREWER: So, to drive this point home and it’s the argument that I made further, that if you put in instead of same-sex or homosexual and used, say, black, here would be the way the sample question would read. “If a wartime situation made it necessary for you to share a room, birth or field tent with someone you believed to be- insert here black- service-member which are you most likely to do?” And goes on to how you take action. You’re right. That question to service members would never be considered. And, in fact, when they integrated the military, my understanding is there was no general survey taken to see how service members would feel about it. It was done because it was the right thing to do. That being said, after I asked my big question today, Rick, I got a bunch of E-mail responses in. And you have people, viewers here who are writing and arguing that it’s not a civil rights issue because being born black is not a choice but being born gay is. GRENELL: Well, look, what I would say there is I’m a conservative. I think it’s outrageous that we are spending so much money, $4.5 million alone on this survey to investigate someone’s personal life. Whether you believe this is a choice, whether you believe that someone is born gay, I think it goes to the question of why are we wasting so much money to go after someone’s personal life, to investigate? It’s a national security issue when you’re encouraging people to actually lie. I’ve held a top secret security clearance. They want to know everything about you. They want to know that you’re truthful. BREWER: Right. GRENELL: At the end of the day people have to remember that individuals in the military are already showering with gay military folk. BREWER: And, again, regardless of what you think about homosexuality as an issue, that is like arguing you get to choose what region you are as an adult and you still can’t discriminate on the basis of that. I agree with you fully. It is a civil rights issue. Let’s talk about the leadership here. Is it time for our American leaders to stand up for what’s right and no matter what public opinion polls say to have the leadership and the courage to take a stand on it? GRENELL: Well, I agree. I think, yes, the answer is a definitive yes. However, it’s outrageous to me that this has been dragged through the political sphere. The Democrats are raising money off this issue. They want it to be a political issue. They are making this a political issue. They are choosing to make this a non-civil rights issue. They want this issue to go into the fall. They want to raise money and they want to make sure that Americans are constantly talking about this issue. And I think that that’s outrageous. BREWER: Rick, thank you so much for joining us. I appreciate your time. I appreciate you weighing in. A lot of folks have been weighing in online about why our nation’s leaders aren’t embracing gay rights as is civil rights issue. Clinton Hancock responds, “The politicians are too fearful of their constituents. Sometimes you have to teach your constituents, not just listen to them. Carolyn Bramblett says, “Homosexuality is a sin issue, not a civil rights issue.” Well, you know what Jesus said: Let he who is without sin. Paul Heimsath writes, “It’s 2010, people. This should not even be an issue.” You can reach out to me. Let me know your thoughts.

More here:
MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Lobbies U.S. Politicians to ‘Stand Up’ for Gay Rights

Experimental Airplane Goes Mach 6!

The X-51A WaveRider is an unmanned U.S. Air Force experimental aircraft capable of reaching hypersonic speeds (specifically, six times the speed of sound, or 4000 miles per hour) using new scramjet engine technology. Test flights began in December 2009 and continue today. – Design – The end of the Cold War and the transition from manned spyplanes like the U-2 and the SR-71 Blackbird to satellite surveillance and unmanned, remote-operated spyplanes somewhat reduced the military's long-lived desire to develop a hypersonic high-altitude aircraft. Nevertheless, the air force did begin to fund the studies that led to the X-51 in the 1990s, taking advantage of NASA's own hypersonic research on previous prototypes like the X-43. To reach its extremely high velocities, the X-51 takes advantage of a new jet propulsion technology known as the scramjet. Previous high-speed aircraft, like the SR-71 Blackbird, used ramjets, which were once the speed kings of the jet world. However, within a ramjet engine, the air actually slows down to subsonic speeds, is then combusted with jet fuel and accelerated back to supersonic speeds, and finally used to propel the aircraft forward. A scramjet design allows the engine to burn fuel without slowing down the air as it enters the engine. Ramjet-powered aircraft never exceeded a few times the speed of sound, but this innovation means that future scramjet aircraft will travel several times as fast, perhaps even Mach 20 or more. added by: Armageddon_Now

General who said it was ‘fun to shoot people’ takes over US Central Command

A senior US general once criticised for saying it was “fun to shoot some people” has been picked to take over US Central Command, leading the military command running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. General James Mattis, the current head of the US Joint Forces Command and who previously led troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, had widely been tipped as the next head of Central Command. President Barack Obama must formalise the nomination, which then goes to Congress for approval. Centcom, as it is known, oversees operations in a volatile swathe of the world that covers 20 countries and stretches from Egypt across the Middle East and into south and central Asia. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, praised the four-star general as “one of the military's most innovative and iconoclastic thinkers.” Mr Gates also dismissed concerns about his 2005 comments, saying Mattis had learned his lesson http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7880617/General-who-s… added by: CarlosBobthe3rd

Flights Diverted, Delayed due to UFO

An unidentified flying object (UFO) disrupted air traffic over Zhejiang's provincial capital Hangzhou late on Wednesday, the municipal government said on Thursday. Xiaoshan Airport was closed after the UFO was detected at around 9 pm, and some flights were rerouted to airports in the cities of Ningbo and Wuxi , said an airport spokesman, who declined to be named. The airport had resumed operations, and more details will be released after an investigation, he said. A source with knowledge of the matter, however, told China Daily on Thursday that authorities had learned what the UFO was after an investigation. But it was not the proper time to publicly disclose the information because there was a military connection, he said, adding that an official explanation is expected to be given on Friday. more at link… Its not the aliens I fear, its the military with alien technology. added by: rodstradamus

Bozell Column: Kagan’s Comedy Is News?

The shallow and promotional TV coverage of Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings illustrated once again how the shamelessly ABC, CBS, and NBC shape the political Play-Doh they offer to the American people as “news.” First, there was the amount of coverage.Let’s put it this way: “coverage” is the wrong word. Entire days of hearings, filled with tough exchanges with Republicans on issues like the military, “gay marriage,” and abortion were swept under the rug. Instead, the one talking point every viewer was supposed to remember was this: Kagan is funny! She is really, really funny! At one point in the hearings, they discussed the Obama administration’s very unfunny failure to stop the Christmas Day bomber from almost blowing up a plane as it landed in Detroit. That somehow turned into a joke about Kagan’s Jewishness. Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has seemed desperate to ingratiate himself with Obama’s nominees, set Kagan up to joke that she probably spent Christmas at a Chinese restaurant. If Kagan were trying out for the TV show “Last Comic Standing,” that would seem like a very stale old joke. But the networks were looking for anything in these hearings that (a) wouldn’t bore their dumbest viewer and (b) made Kagan look good. So The Joke was the top story. The fawning was out of control.The networks audaciously boasted that Kagan was so funny that “Saturday Night Live” could not do her justice. On ABC’s “Good Morning America” on June 30, news anchor Juju Chang hailed Kagan’s “lively sense of humor” and then asked co-hosts George Stephanopoulos and Elizabeth Vargas “Who is going to play her in the SNL skit?” Vargas replied: “I don’t think they could be as funny as Elena Kagan was!” On July 2, CBS’s “The Early Show” was still touting the comedy gold. Co-host Harry Smith noted “She was downright funny.” Ana Marie Cox, a former Air America radio host and writer for GQ magazine, called it “a Saturday Night Live skit made live,” whatever that means. She thought it was made more perfect that former SNL writer and Sen. Al Franken is on the Judiciary Committee. Liberal radio host Jane Pratt completed the support circle: “Her joke was good, the Chinese food joke was good.” But, they had no interest in substance that might underline just how radical Kagan’s positions might be. The networks almost completely ignored Kagan’s key role in the Clinton White House efforts to promote the monstrous act of partial-birth abortion. CNSNews.com reported that in 1996, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) sent the Clinton White House a proposed draft statement on partial-birth abortion that declared a panel they convened “could identify no circumstances” under which this skull-puncturing and skull-vacuuming procedure would be “the only option” to save a woman’s life or preserve her health.” On December 13, 1996, Kagan wrote this language would be a “disaster” if released publicly, since it clearly contradicted what President Clinton had claimed. Kagan wrote to ACOG’s associate director of government relations with suggested prose the medical group could use. Partial-birth abortion, she claimed “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” Weeks later, ACOG’s public statement carried those exact words from the White House. Three years later, Justice Stephen Breyer repeated those same words in declaring Nebraska’s partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional. Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee said that armed with these documents, “it appears that Kagan was perhaps the key strategist in blocking enactment of the partial-birth abortion ban act.” He believes that Kagan had “her hands on this from the beginning to the end.”A scandal?  A controversy? A story ?Only CBS legal reporter Jan Crawford came anywhere close on the “CBS Evening News.” She played a snippet of Sen. Orrin Hatch pressing Kagan to admit the notes to ACOG were in her handwriting, but the CBS viewer saw just seconds of this exchange with zero context what these two people were discussing — other than the generic topic of abortion. The grisly specifics were omitted. This example only underlines how anyone who wants to follow weighty issues of public policy, including Supreme Court jurisprudence, should never rely on network television. These networks gave much more time and loving care to England’s Prince Harry falling off a horse on a visit to New York. That is the intellectual depth the public should expect from the airheaded TV “news” elite — at least when Democrats are the ones changing the Supreme Court for the next two or three decades.

See original here:
Bozell Column: Kagan’s Comedy Is News?

Invasion! Cane Toads Unstoppable in Australian Heat

Image credit: Sam Fraser-Smith /Flickr Since it was introduced to Australia as a means of beetle control in 1935, the cane toad as spread out of control , devouring native species and becoming the most infamous invasive species in the world. Everything from cat food to culls, beer bounties to gassing, has been tried in the effort to control, if not eradicate, the toads. Some prev… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read the original:
Invasion! Cane Toads Unstoppable in Australian Heat

Quote of the Day: Why America Needs to Free Itself From Oil

Veteran Jonathan Powers writes in CNN about how the U.S. thirst for oil threatens its economic and national security. This year, as Americans across the nation celebrate July Fourth with barbecues and fireworks, those most responsible for defending our independence, the military, will continue to fight two wars. And it is a shame that we will let yet another July Fourth pass us by without making substantial progress toward ending our unnecessary dependence on oil, a dependence that is funding the bullets that our enemies fire at our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. … Read the full story on TreeHugger

See the original post here:
Quote of the Day: Why America Needs to Free Itself From Oil

Ron Paul – “Obama Is Not A Socialist; He’s a Corporatist! Republicans Are Too!”

Ron Paul points out the corporatism in the two party (one party) system, including but not limited to the military industrial complex and the medical industrial complex. http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?p=3666 added by: shanklinmike

Dylan Ratigan Condemns ‘Arizona’s Anti-immigration Law,’ Calls for Mob Rule to Overhaul System

You have to hand it to Dylan Ratigan. The MSNBC bloviator melded immigration reform, the military industrial complex, and congressional gridlock into a scatter-brained diatribe at the top of his eponymous program on Thursday. In the wake of President Barack Obama’s speech on immigration reform earlier in the day, Ratigan railed against “Arizona’s latest anti-immigration law” and praised Obama for “doing a good job, and a better job that almost any politician I’ve seen in a long time, in drawing our nation’s attention to the major broken systems in this country.” The former CNBC anchor who fancies himself a financial guru also babbled about a “War on Drugs that feeds money into the military complex but does nothing to defeat drug use or, for that matter, protect the border.” Then, interviewing Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), Ratigan excoriated a Senate full of “weasels” that perpetuates an “utterly frozen process that allows the special interests to destroy our country and freeze our government.” Not surprisingly, Becerra, a strident supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, concurred with the unhinged talk show host: “Dylan, I don’t know if I could have said it better.” While claiming to criticize both sides of the aisle, Ratigan continued to cheerlead for the Democratic president, asking Becerra, “How do we – how do I in the media, how do you in the Congress – help this president try to lead us?” Without missing a beat, Becerra suggested dismantling one of America’s most treasured safeguards against tyranny – the Senate’s super-majority threshold for closing debate – and replacing it with what the Founding Fathers derided as “mob rule.” “Dylan all we have to do is get the public to tell the Senate to let us go back to majority rule,” proposed Becerra. Ratigan proved it is possible to misrepresent a popular state law, posit outlandish conspiracy theories about the military, and undermine the foundation of republican government over the course of a five minute rant. The transcript of the relevant portions of the program can be found below: DYLAN RATIGAN: A problem, of course, made more pressing by the controversy over Arizona’s latest anti-immigration law. The government expected to file a lawsuit, in fact, against that law in the coming days. First the president drew our attention to health care. All of our attention, whether we like it or not, remains on our financial system, corrupt and destroying our country as it is. And now immigration. While short on true fixes, at least Obama is doing a good job, and a better job that almost any politician I’ve seen in a long time, in drawing our nation’s attention to the major broken systems in this country. So when and if will we actually see reform? Will our lawmakers actually step up and do better on this effort when it comes to immigration, or will we just get another example of nothing more than “reform in name only” that perpetuates the most profitable aspects of illegal immigration, in this case cheap labor, and of course a War on Drugs that feeds money into the military complex but does nothing to defeat drug use or, for that matter, protect the border. Joining us now, California Congressman Xavier Becerra, an outspoken advocate for immigration reform. He’s also Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, excuse me. You have to be pleased with the president at least drawing everybody’s attention to this, and approaching honesty by acknowledging the mess, not only in immigration in this country, but in Washington and its total denial and inability to lead us to a solution. Do you agree with him? Rep. XAVIER BECERRA (D-Calif.): Dylan I do agree with him, and it takes courage to say those things to the American public because right now the public is so very frustrated. RATIGAN: How do we – how do I in the media, how do you in the Congress – help this president try to lead us? How do we come together in a way that resolves this in a way that is closer to fair than not? BECERRA: We shouldn’t let anyone kick the can down the road, as the president said. Everyone should be held accountable. In Congress, we need to see not just Democrats, we’re ready to go to work on this, but Republicans as well. And we know they’re out there. They were there three years ago. We know that there are some votes in the Senate that would want to do something but right now we need to see some courage on the Republican side in the Senate. Unfortunately right now, the Senate has become the graveyard for good ideas because Republicans are holding hostage any vote that doesn’t get to 60 in a house of 100. So you have to have the super-majority vote, and it makes it very difficult, if not impossible to get good ideas into law. RATIGAN: Should we throw out all the senators in November and start over? BECERRA: Well there’s some very good senators who are trying to do some things here, so no no. RATIGAN: How do we tell the difference, how to we figure out who the weasels are? Don’t tell me it’s the Democrats and the Republicans because I’ve been doing this long enough to know there are just as many weasely Democrats as there are Republicans. The trick is trying to tell which is which within the party. BECERRA: Dylan all we have to do is get the public to tell the Senate to let us go back to majority rule. In November, we’re going to operate on majority rule. Whatever individual wins more votes than the other, that person becomes the next congressman or the next senator. But in the Senate, you can have a majority and still not pass a bill to the president’s desk. So majority rule and we get a lot done. RATIGAN: So you would argue that the very same corrupt system that is bankrupting California, the need for a super-majority to do anything, and obviously nobody gets it, so special interests just continue to torch that state. And now the Senate has a duplication of that same utterly frozen process that allows the special interests to destroy our country and freeze our government. Is that basically what we’re dealing with here? BECERRA: Dylan, I don’t know if I could have said it better. Take a look at the Wall Street reform bill. The Senate is making it almost impossible for us to get there. There are more than 58 votes for a bill and we still can’t get it to the president’s desk. Hopefully soon the senators allow this bill to go the president and stop holding it hostage. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

More here:
Dylan Ratigan Condemns ‘Arizona’s Anti-immigration Law,’ Calls for Mob Rule to Overhaul System