Tag Archives: Obama

Obama Gets Highest Ratings from Followers of Olbermann, Maddow and NYT

A new study by the Pew Research Center found that Barack Obama gets his highest approval ratings from people that watch MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, as well as from readers of the New York Times. The numbers are rather staggering, as 84 percent of regular viewers of MSNBC’s “Countdown” give the President high marks for his job performance. This compares to 80 percent for regular viewers of “The Rachel Maddow Show” and 79 percent for regular readers of the Times. But that’s just one of the interesting findings in the Pew survey released Sunday: Americans are spending more time with the news than was the case a decade ago. As was the case in 2000, people now say they spend 57 minutes on average getting the news from TV, radio or newspapers on a given day. But today, they also spend an additional 13 minutes getting news online, increasing the total time spent with the news to 70 minutes. This is one of the highest totals on this measure since the mid-1990s and it does not take into account time spent getting news on cell phones or other digital devices . Only about one-in-four (26%) Americans say they read a newspaper in print yesterday, down from 30% two years ago and 38% in 2006. Meanwhile, online newspaper readership continues to grow and is offsetting some of the overall decline in readership. This year, 17% of Americans say they read something on a newspaper’s website yesterday, up from 13% in 2008 and 9% in 2006. Overall, cable news continues to play a significant role in peoples’ news habits – 39% say they regularly get news from a cable channel. But the proportions saying they regularly watch CNN, MSNBC and CNBC have slipped substantially from two years ago, during the presidential election. The partisan divide in cable news is stunning if not shocking: Only Fox News has maintained its audience size, and this is because of the increasing number of Republicans who regularly get news there. Four-in-ten Republicans (40%) now say they regularly watch Fox News, up from 36% two years ago and just 18% a decade ago. Just 12% of Republicans regularly watch CNN, and just 6% regularly watch MSNBC. As recently as 2002, Republicans were as likely to watch CNN (28%) as Fox News (25%). The share of Democrats who regularly watch CNN or Fox News has fallen from 2008. Interesting. So both Democrats and Republicans are reducing their viewership of CNN. Doesn’t say much for the supposedly must trusted name in news, does it? Eight-in-ten Americans (80%) who regularly listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Sean Hannity are conservative – roughly twice the national average of 36%. And at the other end of the spectrum, the New York Times, Keith Olbermann, the Daily Show, the Colbert Report and Rachel Maddow have regular audiences that include nearly twice the proportion of liberals than in the public. News audiences also vary widely when it comes to opinions about current issues and topics. For instance, those who describe themselves as supporters of the Tea Party movement make up disproportionately large proportions of the audiences for Limbaugh’s radio show and Fox News opinion programs. This also is the case for supporters of the NRA (National Rifle Association). By contrast, supporters of gay rights make up large shares of regular New York Times readers, viewers of the Colbert Report and NPR listeners. Several ideologically divergent news audiences – including Wall Street Journal readers and viewers of the Colbert Report and Glenn Beck show – include larger-than-average percentages of self-described libertarians. Here’s where things really got interesting: Overall, the share of Americans who say keeping up with the news is something they enjoy a lot has dipped, from a consistent 52% in recent biennial news consumption surveys, including 2008, to 45% in 2010. The decline is linked to partisanship and ideology: in 2008 67% of liberal Democrats said they enjoyed the news a lot, compared with just 45% today. By contrast, about as many conservative Republicans say they enjoy keeping up with the news today as did so two years ago (57% now, 56% then). This has resulted in a switch in news enjoyment. Today, conservative Republicans enjoy keeping up with the news more than any other ideological and partisan group; just two years ago it was the liberal Democrats who held that distinction. How much of this is economic? After all, the news was far better when Pew last did this study in 2008. There certainly is less to “enjoy” today. On the other hand, that doesn’t explain the ideological divide. Maybe liberals liked things better when Bush and the Republicans were being blamed for all the problems in the world, and just can’t stand watching their politicians take any heat at all. By contrast, it seems conservatives enjoy keeping up with the news regardless of which Party is getting scrutinized. That says something, doesn’t it? Search engines are playing a substantially larger role in people’s news gathering habits – 33% regularly use search engines to get news on topics of interest, up from 19% in 2008. This is a predictable but yet concerning finding, for it makes it essential that search engines don’t have their own biases. As conservatives have pointed fingers at Google’s algorithms for years, the more people rely on search engines to guide them to news sources, the more impartial such engines better be, especially for the following reason: About eight-in-ten (82%) say they see at least some bias in news coverage; by a 43% to 23% margin, more say it is a liberal than a conservative bias. This makes search engine neutrality essential or conservatives are really going to have a hard time leveling the playing field. That said, we’ve saved the best for last: Among news audiences, Obama gets his highest approval ratings among regular viewers of Keith Olbermann (84% approve) and Rachel Maddow (80%); his rating is nearly as high among regular readers of the New York Times (79%). Obama gets his lowest ratings among regular Sean Hannity viewers (7%) and Rush Limbaugh listeners (9%). So Obama gets his highest approval ratings from folks that watch Olbermann, Maddow, and read the New York Times. What does this say about the journalistic standards at MSNBC and the Gray Lady? After all, depending on which poll you look at, half or less of the nation currently approve of the job Obama is doing.  If Olbermann and Maddow watchers, along with Times readers, have such a drastically different view of the President than the rest of the nation, these entities must be doing a horrible job of reporting the news to their patrons.  Is there any greater example of the dangers of liberal media bias and the need to aggressively combat it? 

Read this article:
Obama Gets Highest Ratings from Followers of Olbermann, Maddow and NYT

MRC-TV: Brent Bozell on Hannity: ‘Obama Needs the Media to Pull His Chestnuts Out of the Fire’

MRC President and NewsBusters founder Brent Bozell appeared on Friday night’s Hannity and knocked a soft Obama interview by George Stephanopoulos and Harry Smith ‘s contention on CBS that the stimulus bill wasn’t “big enough.” He quipped, “Obama needs the media to pull his chestnuts out of the fire.” Tackling the media’s most egregious examples of liberal bias, Bozell joked, “Just a couple hundred billion dollars more.” He added, “Only a liberal Democrat like Harry Smith believes that a spending bill of $862 billion isn’t big enough.” The Media Mash segment also featured a clip of Stephanopoulos deriding House Republican leader John Boehner for his “deep tan.” Bozell wondered why reporters, on the eve of the 2006 elections, didn’t ask Nancy Pelosi “where she got her botox?” Other topics discussed, Richard Engel’s musing on the Today show that Saddam Hussein was becoming “more moderate” before the Iraq war.

Continued here:
MRC-TV: Brent Bozell on Hannity: ‘Obama Needs the Media to Pull His Chestnuts Out of the Fire’

Mark Shields: Obama Created More Jobs In 2010 Than Bush Did In Eight Years

Mark Shields on Friday demonstrated just how far a liberal media member is willing to go to support President Obama and the Democrat Party. Appearing on PBS’s “Inside Washington,” Shields actually made the case that despite a 9.6 percent unemployment rate, and growing fears of a double dip recession, Americans should be uplifted by the fact that more private sector jobs have been created this year than during the entire Bush administration. Showing just how adept he is at repeating Democrat talking points, Shields even said this with a straight face (video follows with transcript and commentary):  MARK SHIELDS: I think the President’s task right now is compared to the situation the nation is comparable to a subway train that has stopped suddenly between two scheduled stops and the lights go out. And what the American people are looking for just as the passengers on that train are looking for is a voice that comes on and says, “This is what happened, this is what’s being done about it, and this when we are going to get out.” And, I mean, just the simple fact that more jobs in the private sector have been created in this year, 2010, this terrible year, then were created in the eight years of George W. Bush’s administration is something to think about and to mention. To paraphrase Hillary Clinton, any American buying this nonsense would have to have a willing suspension of disbelief. After all, when Obama took over the White House, the unemployment rate was 7.7 percent. There are now almost three million more Americans out of work than when the 44th President was sworn in. As for the private sector, it has shed over 3 million workers since January 2009. Does Shields really believe the 763,000 employees added to such payrolls in the past eight months is something to brag about given that with population and labor force growth, the economy has to produce at least 150,000 jobs a month just to keep the unemployment rate from rising? Or is it necessary for the most highly-skilled liberal shills to ignore such facts when they’re inconvenient? 

Read more:
Mark Shields: Obama Created More Jobs In 2010 Than Bush Did In Eight Years

Amanpour Uses ABC’s This Week to Continue Her Crusade to Smear America as Islamophobic and Tout Rauf’s Cause

ABC’s Christiane Amanpour used Sunday’s This Week to again shame Americans for their presumed irrational intolerance and Islamophobia as she railed against the ignorance of too many Americans, provided a friendly forum to Iman Faisal Abdul Rauf, whom she prompted to ridicule Sarah Palin, and then brought aboard a group of three “leading thinkers on faith” to “discuss religious tolerance and Islamophobia in America.” That brings Amanpour’s show tally to six guests in favor of the Ground Zero mosque versus zero opposed (four today, two on the August 22 program). Unmentioned by Amanpour or her guests: A report presented Friday by former 9/11 Commission Co-Chairs Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton about, according to Reuters , a needed “wake-up call about the radicalization of Muslims in the United States.” The report warned: “The U.S. is arguably now little different from Europe in terms of having a domestic terrorist problem involving immigrant and indigenous Muslims as well as converts to Islam.” At the top of Sunday’s show, Amanpour noted the 9/11 anniversary and used it to frame her agenda: “Nine years later, the growing hostility towards American Muslims.” In a lengthy set-up piece leading into Rauf, Amanpour fretted that “the plans to build an Islamic center close to Ground Zero have whipped up anti-Muslim sentiment” and insisted: “Not since 9/11 has the country seen such anti-Muslim fervor.” She asserted “Muslim-Americans are feeling vulnerable, with attacks on mosques in California, Wisconsin, and Tennessee. And the latest fuel poured on the fire, a threat to burn Korans…” And “these tumultuous events have created a global backlash. From Washington, to the Vatican, to Afghanistan.” She cued up Rauf: “Sarah Palin made a famous tweet saying please reconsider, the feelings are too raw. What did you think about that?” Rauf rejected the advice as he regurgitated Amanpour’s spin: “I thought it was disingenuous to a certain extent. The fact of the matter is, this has been used for political purposes and there’s growing Islamophobia in this country.” Amanpour tried to portray a nefarious trend: “In the latest poll that ABC’s conducted, only 37 percent of those who were asked expressed a positive feeling about Islam. Do you think that Muslims, people such as yourself, others here, can actually have a place to practice their religion freely, to live freely as Americans, given that figure? It’s the lowest figure since 2001.” But, it’s “the lowest figure since 2001″ by “just two points,” within the margin or error, ABC’s polling chief, Gary Langer, pointed out on ABCNews.com . Nonetheless, she empathized: “Do you think Muslims feel more afraid today, here in America, than they did right after 9/11?” She next set up her panel of “leading thinkers on faith” to “discuss religious tolerance and Islamophobia in America,” namely: “ Eboo Patel , he serves as an inter-faith adviser to the President, by Irshad Manji , author of The Trouble with Islam Today, and by Richard Cizik, founder of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good.” Citing “this fervor that is being whipped up, this rising tide of anti-Islamic sentiment,” she highlighted a poll number that’s actually held steady since 2003: Eboo, you have done a lot in interfaith dialogue, trying to really build bridges here since the disaster of 9/11. What does this say to you, this fervor that is being whipped up, this rising tide of anti-Islamic sentiment in this country? Because let me read you, actually, some of the poll numbers which are interesting here. ‘Mainstream Islam encourages violence against non-Muslims.’ That was a question by ABC News and 31 percent of the respondents said yes. The next question, ‘do you have a good basic understanding of the teachings and beliefs of Islam?’ 55 percent of the respondents said no. So what has all your work done over the last nine years? Langer: “Just 54 percent call Islam a peaceful religion, while a substantial minority, 31 percent, thinks mainstream Islam encourages violence against non-Muslims. This view has held steady since 2003.” (Manji, while in favor of proceeding with Rauf’s project, is at least a critic of moderate Muslims for not doing more to denounce radical Islam.) From Thursday night: “ Amanpour Paints Rauf’s Protection Racket as ‘a Matter of Vital National Security ‘” My August 22 NB posting, “ Amanpour on One-Sided This Week: ‘Profound Questions About Religious Tolerance and Prejudice in the U.S .’” Amanpour’s set-up leading into the session with Rauf pre-recorded Thursday in New York City: CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: As much as the President wanted to talk about the economy this week, he also found himself having to speak to the country about religious tolerance. Yesterday, at Pentagon ceremonies to observe the 9/11 anniversary, the President reminded Americans that they’re not at war with Islam. The plans to build an Islamic center close to Ground Zero have whipped up anti-Muslim sentiment to the extent that a pastor with a handful of followers can cause an international incident. In an ABC News poll released this week, nearly 50 percent of Americans say they have an unfavorable view of Islam now. Not since 9/11 has the country seen such anti-Muslim fervor. President Obama is now calling for religious tolerance, just as President Bush did in 2001. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SEPT 17, 2001: The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. JOHN ESPOSITO, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: America has a significant Muslim problem. And I think that what we’ve seen now really shows what is the tip of the iceberg. A reality that most people didn’t notice. Unleashed out of Manhattan, then becomes a series of acts, hates, protest. MAN: I feel like Islam has been under attack. WOMAN: I think there’s definitely an increased level of fear because it used to that we’d just walk around and be a normal citizen, a normal part of American society and now you get a lot more suspicion. PROTESTER: No mosque here! AMANPOUR: Muslim Americans are feeling vulnerable. With attacks on mosques in California, Wisconsin, and Tennessee. And the latest fuel poured on the fire, a threat to burn Korans by a fringe pastor with a flock of 30. I went to what’s become the flash point in this debate, the proposed Islamic center just blocks from Ground Zero where I found visitors from out of town. MAN: Certainly it’s a time to draw together, not do things that would divide us and make us more divisive. It sends the wrong message around the world. WOMAN: That is not America. That is not what Americans are about. AMANPOUR: And journalists from around the world. WOMAN: This whole thing is like a huge international issue. MAN, YELLING: We don’t have to agree with Islam. We have to agree on the constitution. WOMAN: I lost both my parents! AMANPOUR: These tumultuous events have created a global backlash. From Washington [Hillary Clinton], to the Vatican, to Afghanistan [Karzai]. ESPOSITO: We have two dangers right now. One is that the civil liberties of Muslim Americans will be even more eroded. Two, and more broadly, we will wake up one day and realize that the America we like to celebrate, you know the America we point to people around the world when we look down on them and say, we’re a democracy, we believe in pluralism, we believe in human rights. That, in fact, all of that, with the exception of this group. And that’s a very dangerous and slippery slope to go down. AMANPOUR: And in New York City yesterday, 9/11 ceremonies were marked by protests for and against plans to build that Islamic center nearby. The imam in charge of the project says that he has no intention of moving it right now, or of meeting with the controversial pastor who wants to burn Korans. I sat down for an exclusive interview with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

See the article here:
Amanpour Uses ABC’s This Week to Continue Her Crusade to Smear America as Islamophobic and Tout Rauf’s Cause

Bob Schieffer Bashes Boehner for Smoking and Taking Tobacco Money

President Obama and the Democrats began a full court press this week smearing House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Oh.), and CBS’s Bob Schieffer made it crystal clear Sunday that he’s going to do his part to stop the Ohio Congressman from replacing Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as Speaker in January. In a hard-hitting interview about a variety of subjects on “Face the Nation,” Schieffer actually hammered his guest for smoking cigarettes and taking campaign contributions from the tobacco industry. “How do you square that with the fact that cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths in this country; 435,000 people — their deaths are linked to cancer. That`s one in five,” scolded Schieffer. “How do you justify that in your own mind?” (video follows with transcript and commentary):   BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: Mr. Boehner, I`m going to ask you this question because I`m not objective about this. I`m — I`m a cancer survivor. I used to be a heavy smoker. Do you still smoke? JOHN BOEHNER, HOUSE MINORITY LEADER (R-OHIO): I do. SCHIEFFER: You have taken $340,000 from the tobacco industry. They`ve been the largest contributor to your political campaigns over the year. How do you square that with the fact that cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths in this country; 435,000 people — their deaths are linked to cancer. That`s one in five. How do you — how do you justify that in your own mind? BOEHNER: Bob, tobacco is a legal product in America. And the American people have the right to decide for themselves whether they want to partake or not. There are lots of things that we deal with and come in contact with every day, from alcohol to food to cigarettes, a lot of things that aren`t good for our health. But the American people ought to have the right to make those decisions on their own. SCHIEFFER: Well, I mean, they have a right to shoot themselves if they choose to. Actually, Bob, suicide is against the law in America. Nice try!  SCHIEFFER: But, I mean, shouldn`t we do something to try to encourage them not to? I mean, do you think that`s a good example? BOEHNER: Well, listen, I wish I didn`t have this bad habit. And it is a bad habit. You`ve had it. You`ve dealt with it. But it`s something that I choose to do. And, you know, at some point maybe I`ll decide I`ve had enough of it. SCHIEFFER: Well, I mean, if you should become speaker, you could set a good example for the country by saying, I`m going to try to stop smoking. Maybe you could get the president. I understand he smokes too. Maybe the two of you could find a way to try to stop smoking. That would be kind of a good thing, wouldn`t it? BOEHNER: Bob, I appreciate your suggestion. The hypocrisy on display here was astounding. After all, as Schieffer noted, Barack Obama is a cigarette smoker. But something Schieffer didn’t mention was that in 2008, Obama took more money from the tobacco industry than Boehner did . Yet, according to LexisNexis, Schieffer has never scolded Obama for his smoking or asked him to quit in order to “set a good example.”  Why might that be, Mr. Schieffer? Is this something else you’re not “objective about?” 

Read more:
Bob Schieffer Bashes Boehner for Smoking and Taking Tobacco Money

George Will Helps Arianna Huffington Make a Fool of Herself on This Week

As NewsBusters has previously reported , liberal Internet publisher Arianna Huffington is breathtakingly ignorant when it comes to basic economic theory. On Sunday, she proved it again by making an absolute fool of herself on ABC’s “This Week.” With the “Roundtable” segment beginning on the subject of the economy, Huffington noted how the failure of the banking bailout to stimulate growth was “proof that the government does not work.” In a stunning display of both idiocy and hypocrisy, she moments later demanded more financial regulations, including a reinstatement of the Depression Era Glass-Steagall Act, to – wait for it! – stimulate the economy. Adding insult to injury, George Will was available to really make clear what an absolute imbecile Huffington is (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):   ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: At the bottom of the Tea Party movement of that anger is anger at the bailout. And you know, here people, Democrats, Republicans have been given proof that the government does not work because the government spent almost $800 billion and look where we are. Wall Street is doing well. Main Street is suffering. CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: Somebody I was talking to over the, during the week, people in business and venture capital who were saying, “Why doesn’t the government do more to force banks to lend, to do more to make it easier for people to actually go out there and show some kind of consumer activity?” GEORGE WILL: Well maybe if the government did less, period, people would be more inclined to lend money. The banks aren’t hoarding the money because they are in a pout. They’re not hoarding the money because they’re mad at somebody. They’re hoarding money because they can’t find lenders who think they can borrow it and make money. HUFFINGTON: No, that’s not true. The banks are getting almost zero-percent interest rate… WILL: Yes. HUFFINGTON: …loans from the Fed and they are spending it to make a lot of profit in derivatives tradings and all the things that got us into this trouble in the first place. And this administration and this Congress still has not passed an end to Too Big To Fail, still has not reinstated Glass-Steagall. So even, even though people may not be able to give you all these details, they know that the system has not been fixed, that financial reform is full of loopholes, and that the system is not fair, basically, for them as they’re seeing their lives falling apart. Amazing. So first she says the failure of the bailout to stoke lending is an example of how government doesn’t work, and then she asks for more government intervention to get the economy going. Boggles the mind, doesn’t it? Moments later, Will put the icing on the cake: WILL: We started arguing about the tax cut. The president says we can’t afford the tax cuts for the wealthy because that would add $700 billion to the deficit over ten years. Which is to say over ten years it would add less to the deficit than Obama added with the stimulus in one year. Simple arithmetic most fourth graders would understand unless they were raised or educated by liberals like Huffington.

Read the original:
George Will Helps Arianna Huffington Make a Fool of Herself on This Week

NYT Tees Up DNC Talking Points With Ethically Questionable Piece on Boehner’s Lobbyist Ties

The New York Times’s lobbyist double standard lives on. Since Barack Obama became president, the paper has routinely overlooked the vast disconnect between his rhetoric on lobbying’s role on the political process – there really isn’t one, if you believe Barack – and his actions on the issue. But while the Gray Lady all but ignores Obama’s deep ties with lobbyists and the industry groups they represent, the paper has hammered Republicans for their ties to “special interests.” The latest such attempt is a hack job in Sunday’s New York Times. Reporter Eric Lipton claims that House Miniority Leader John Boehner “maintains especially tight ties with a circle of lobbyists and former aides representing some of the nation’s biggest businesses, including Goldman Sachs, Google, Citigroup, R. J. Reynolds, MillerCoors and UPS.” The story makes some serious allegations – the most damning of which was sourced to an anonymous lobbyist. Intriguingly, some of the same claims undergird an upcoming DNC ad blitz against Boehner. The Leader’s staff, meanwhile, claim they were not asked for comment before the story went to press. Byron York reported Saturday: Boehner spokesman Michael Steel says he received a fact-checking email from Times reporter Eric Lipton Friday evening asking if Boehner did in fact oppose the cap on greenhouse gases, the tax change for hedge fund executives, the debit card fee cap, and increased fees on oil and gas companies. “Yes, that is correct,” Steel responded to Lipton, adding “I can tell you why, if you care.” Steel says he received no further notes from Lipton. Steel says Boehner has long held those positions and does not hold them as a result of lobbying. Hours after the email exchange, the Times story was published online, with the statement from the lobbyist that he had “won” Boehner’s backing on those matters. After Boehner’s aides complained, the paragraph was changed to read, emphasis added: One lobbyist in the club — after lauding each staff member in Mr. Boehner’s office that he routinely calls to ask for help — ticked off the list of recent issues for which he had sought the lawmaker’s backing: combating fee increases for the oil industry, fighting a proposed cap on debit card fees, protecting tax breaks for hedge fund executives and opposing a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Mr. Boehner’s office said these were positions he already agreed with. The statement that a lobbyist “won” Boehner’s backing was changed to one in which a lobbyist “sought” Boehner’s backing. That’s a rather critical change. The Times also added Boehner’s defense that these were long-held positions. To call Boehner’s aides angry at the account would be an understatement. “They were offered the opportunity to find out if this was true, and they chose to rely instead on the word of an anonymous lobbyist,” says spokesman Michael Steel. “They intentionally refused to get the information to prove that this allegation was false.” That allegation itself is pretty serious. But it would hardly be out of step for a paper that has previously sought to demonize Republicans’ relationships with lobbyists in either complete ignorance of or contradictory to the facts. Remember Vicki Iseman? The New York Times suggested in a February 2008 article that Iseman, then a lobbyist with Alcalde & Fay, had a romantic relationship with then-presidential candidate John McCain. Not a shred of evidence was offered to support the allegation, and the Times later printed a correction claiming it had no intention of making that suggestion. If making baseless accusations against Republicans and their relationships with lobbyists were not sordid enough, the Times has also made a habit of blindly accepting any claim made by President Obama regarding ethics and lobbying at simple face value. Here’s a sampling of Times headlines since 2008: On First Day, Obama Quickly Sets a New Tone Obama’s Transition Team Restricts Lobbyists’ Role Victory for Obama Over Military Lobby ‘All Kinds of Yelling’ Expected From Obama’s Lobbyist Crackdown Obama Returns Lobbyist’s Donations Obama Issues Sharp Call for Reforms on Wall Street White House, Lobbyists Still at Odds The President Orders Transparency The Times does occasionally run watered-down, statistic-ridden pieces such as “As Donors, Lobbyists Often Favor One Party” (since it’s not in the headline, I’ll bet you can guess which party). But neither the immeasurable hypocrisy of this administration’s rhetoric on “special interests” nor the administration’s ties to those special interests are explored in any detail. So when President Obama claimed that he had “excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs” despite the 50 lobbyists he employed (and continues to employ) in policymaking jobs, the Times failed to note any disconnect. Instead, the paper ran a story claiming Obama’s new lobbyist rules would “revolutionize how lobbyists disclose their activities and contribute money to candidates for federal office.” Beyond simply ignoring the specific hypocrisies in Obama’s rhetoric, the Times has taken a see-no-evil approach to the president’s extensive ties to the largest industry groups, while trumpeting relationships between Republicans and “special interests.” The pattern was on full display this summer, when the Times had to be reminded that Obama received seven times as much in campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs as George W. Bush did from Enron. Yet while the Times had vaguely alleged some sort of unethical relationship between the defunct energy company and the Bush administration, it made no such suggestions concerning Goldman. Given its history, the Times’s approach to the Boehner story is, though underhanded, hardly shocking. The agenda in its coverage of lobbyists and lawmakers is quite clear. And given the Times’s clear willingness to toe the Democratic line on this issue, it’s worth pondering this interesting chain of events. Just this past week, President Obama began directing his ire towards congressional Republicans, and Boehner specifically. Mere days later, as Yid With Lid notes , the Times also took up that line of attack. Then, Sunday morning, as NewsBusters reported , White House press secretary Robert Gibbs tweeted a series of quotes from and laudatory remarks about the Times piece, from the official Twitter feed of the White House press office. The Times’s piece also plays pefectly into the DNC’s election strategy. In fact, it kicks off a week in which Democrats are hoping to paint Boehner, well, exactly as he is painted by the Times piece. A DNC official told Talking Points Memo : We are going to tell Americans exactly who he is: a special interest and lobbyist loving typical Washington politician who always puts the well heeled and well-to-do ahead of middle class families and small businesses and who would, if he became speaker, return the capitol to the anything goes, DeLay-Abramoff days and ways of doing business.  So the Times blasted Boehner in the Sunday paper with a line of attack taken up by President Obama last week and touted by the White House the morning of its publication, and teed up a week of Boehner-bashing by offering the laughable veil of objectivity to de facto Democratic talking points. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the mainstream media.

View post:
NYT Tees Up DNC Talking Points With Ethically Questionable Piece on Boehner’s Lobbyist Ties

Saudi diplomat seeking asylum: ‘My life is in danger’

Envoy says he fears persecution if he leaves the U.S. and returns home By Michael Isikoff – National Investigative Correspondent NBC News A ranking Saudi diplomat told NBC News that he has asked for political asylum in the United States, saying he fears for his life if he is forced to return to his native country. The diplomat, Ali Ahmad Asseri, the first secretary of the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles, has informed U.S. Department of Homeland Security officials that Saudi officials have refused to renew his diplomatic passport and effectively terminated his job after discovering he was gay and was close friends with a Jewish woman. In a recent letter that he posted on a Saudi website, Asseri angrily criticized his country’s “backwardness” as well as the role of “militant imams” in Saudi society who have “defaced the tolerance of Islam.” Perhaps most provocatively of all, he has threatened to expose what he describes as politically embarrassing information about members of the Saudi royal family living in luxury in the U.S. If he is forced to go back to Saudi Arabia — as Saudi officials are demanding — Asseri says he could face political persecution and even death. “My life is in a great danger here and if I go back to Saudi Arabia, they will kill me openly in broad daylight,” Asseri said Saturday in an email to NBC. In a recent interview, Asseri and his lawyer said that the Saudi diplomat was questioned by a Department of Homeland Security official in Los Angeles on Aug. 30 after formally applying for asylum on the grounds that he is a member of a “particular social group” — gays — that would subject him to persecution if he returns to his home country. Officials at DHS in Washington as well as the Saudi Embassy in Washington and the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles did not respond to requests for comment. A Homeland Security spokesman said the department is precluded by law from commenting on an individual's asylum request. Asseri’s bid for asylum is highly unusual: No Saudi diplomat is known to have taken such a step since 1994 when Mohammed al-Khilewi, then first secretary for the Saudi mission to the United Nations, was granted asylum after publicly criticizing his country’s human rights record and alleged support for terrorism. Asseri’s application could present an especially awkward dilemma for the Obama administration, which has actively sought Saudi support for the Mideast peace process and for sanctions against Iran. The Saudi government has long been one of the United States’ closest allies in the Middle East and its ruler, King Abdullah, was warmly greeted by President Obama at the White House last June. But the Saudis have also been sharply condemned by the U.S. State Department and human rights groups for religious and political intolerance, including the treatment of gay people. The most recent State Department human rights report on Saudi Arabia notes that, in addition to denying political and religious rights to minorities, “under Sharia (Islamic law) sexual activity between two persons of the same gender is punishable by death or flogging.” While the report stated there was no “official discrimination” on the basis of sexual orientation in employment and housing, “sexual orientation could constitute the basis for harassment, blackmail, or other actions.” It noted that in one case reported in a Saudi newspaper three years ago, two men in the Saudi city of Al-Bahah were publicly lashed 7,000 times after being found guilty of sodomy. 'Challenge to their policies' Ali Ahmed, a prominent Saudi dissident in the U.S., told NBC that Asseri’s fears for his safety are well-founded because of his open criticism of members of the Saudi royal family. In the letter that he posted on a Saudi website, Ahmed noted, Asseri referred to “four princes” — who he did not identify by name — “who are paid salaries and allowances from the consulate and do not work” and yet stay in the United States “spending their time (on) tourism and relaxation as if they were created from light.” “This passage alone is considered an insult to the king and his family, and a challenge to their policies,” Ahmed stated in a declaration filed in support of Asseri’s asylum application, which he shared with NBC. “This statement is enough to put Mr. Asseri in danger if he returns to Saudi Arabia.” Asseri, in a recent telephone interview, said that has been assigned to the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles for the past five years. His problems began some months ago, he said, when Saudi consulate employees who suspected he was gay began following him to gay bars. They also discovered his close friendship with a Jewish woman from Israel. It was some time after these discoveries, Asseri said, that consulate officials began harassing him, refusing to renew his diplomatic passport or provide him with badly needed medical treatment for a painful back ailment. They also continued to monitor his private life and have demanded that he return to Saudi Arabia. In recent months, he said, he has been living “in hiding” in the Los Angeles area. “Words cannot express the anger I feel about how I have been treated,” Asseri said. Ally Bolour, Asseri’s lawyer, who specializes in asylum cases for gays and lesbians, said that other Saudis have been granted asylum by the Department of Homeland Security on the basis of sexual orientation. But he acknowledged that Asseri’s case was unusual because he was a diplomat, thereby raising other political issues that might not be present for other Saudis living in the U.S. added by: putdownmypants

ABC’s Richard Clarke Suggests Obama Inauguration Speech Helped Make America Safer

On Saturday’s Good Morning America on ABC, during a discussion of the Ground Zero mosque and the possibility of Koran burning in Florida by Pastor Terry Jones, after anchor Dan Harris brought up the naive liberal expectation that President Obama would be able to improve relations with the Muslim world because of his family connections to Muslims and his inaugural speech reaching out to Muslims, ABC News consultant Richard Clarke suggested that Obama’s inaugural address had “helped a lot” to make America safer before being derailed by recent controversies.  Clarke’s suggestion came after he had argued that recent events have made America “a lot less safe,” with conversation continuing: DAN HARRIS: But, you know, there was all this talk when President Obama was inaugurated that here’s a man whose middle name was “Hussein,” he spent part of his childhood in a Muslim country, he’s made a LOT of effort to reach out to the Muslim world, and, in fact, gave an impassioned set of statements on this very issue yesterday. Has none of that helped? RICHARD CLARKE: Well, it did help. When he said in his inaugural address, “America is not at war with Islam,” that helped a lot. But the recent controversies have undone all of that. Clarke – a former counterterrorism advisor for both the Clinton and Bush administrations who has a history of sharp criticism of the Bush administration’s response to 9/11 – later in the segment vaguely impugned the Bush administration’s reaction to the 9/11 attacks: “We have to anticipate that there will be another attack. And we have to think about what our reaction’s going to be when that occurs. Last time, a lot of our reaction was counterproductive.” Below is a complete transcript of the relevant segment from the Saturday, September 11, Good Morning America on ABC: DAN HARRIS: Let’s talk about all of this now with Richard Clarke, who was the counterterrorism czar in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. And he was in that position on 9/11. He’s now an ABC News consultant. He joins us from Virginia. Richard, good morning to you. RICHARD CLARKE ABC NEWS CONSULTANT: Good morning, Dan. HARRIS: So, even though this Koran burning has been called off, do you think the damage has been done? Has it made us less safe, do you think? CLARKE: It’s made us a lot less safe. Whenever we do things that support bin Laden’s theory that America is at war with Islam, that strengthens his recruitment process. So he’s probably recruited thousands of more adherents over the last few weeks while we argued about a mosque in New York and Koran burning. HARRIS: But, you know, there was all this talk when President Obama was inaugurated that here’s a man whose middle name was “Hussein,” he spent part of his childhood in a Muslim country, he’s made a LOT of effort to reach out to the Muslim world, and, in fact, gave an impassioned set of statements on this very issue yesterday. Has none of that helped? CLARKE: Well, it did help. When he said in his inaugural address, “America is not at war with Islam,” that helped a lot. But the recent controversies have undone all of that. And the average Muslim in Indonesia or India or Pakistan could be forgiven for thinking that the United States really is at war with Islam. And that’s the fuel that bin Laden needs to get support, financial support, suicide bombers, to get people who will join the al-Qaeda cause. HARRIS: Martha Raddatz brought this up in her piece. Why have we not found Osama bin Laden nine years after the fact? CLARKE: Well, you know, the world has billions of people on it, and finding one person has always proved difficult when they don’t want to be found. But, as General Petraeus said in your piece, he is out there. He is influential. He is still issuing orders. And he’s still issuing orders to attack the United States. HARRIS: You were in the White House, as we said, nine years ago, on 9/11. As you look out at the world right now and you survey our anti-terror defenses in this country, what keeps you up at night? What is our biggest vulnerability? CLARKE: Well, it’s still possible for a handful of people – I mean, even if al-Qaeda is reduced to 150 or 200 people – it’s still possible for 10 or 12 to come to the United States. They could even be people with American passports who went overseas and got trained and came back – to get into the United States and cause an attack. It’s always going to be possible, no matter what we do. So we have to anticipate that there will be another attack. And we have to think about what our reaction’s going to be when that occurs. Last time, a lot of our reaction was counterproductive. And this time, I hope if it happens, we are more realistic. Now, we all want it not to happen, but stopping every terrorist attack is almost impossible. HARRIS: Have our defenses improved measurably, do you think? CLARKE: Yeah, they have in some areas. Certainly, aviation security is much better. But the sort of attack that occurred on the London subway a few years ago on 7/7, that sort of attack could take place on any one of the American subway systems today. There’s some targets that are just really, really tough to protect, no matter what you do. HARRIS: Richard Clarke, thank you very much. We appreciate your input on this anniversary. CLARKE: Thank you, Dan.

More:
ABC’s Richard Clarke Suggests Obama Inauguration Speech Helped Make America Safer

Social Engineering Bill In Senate

A social engineering bill to restrict residence in the suburbs and rural areas and force Americans into city centers has passed the United States Senate Banking Committee and is on the fast track to passage in the Senate. The bill is called the Livable Communities Act (SB 1619) and it was introduced by corruptocrat outgoing Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.). It seeks to fulfill the United Nation’s plan Agenda 21, adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and signed onto by “New World Order” President George H.W. Bush. This bill is designed to destroy your community. According to the non-profit American Policy Center the bill: • Is a blueprint for the transformation of our society into total Federal control. • Will enforce Federal Sustainable Development zoning and control of local communities. • Will create a massive new “development” bureaucracy. • Will drive up the cost of energy to heat and cool your home. • Will drive up the cost of gasoline as a way to get you out of your car. • Will force you to spend thousands of dollars on your home in order to comply. A carrot and stick policy will be used to get your local government to sign on. The carrot is billions of dollars in grants available if your local government agrees to amend zoning laws that restrict housing in outlying areas, forcing people to give up their homes and land and move into the city center. The stick will be denial of the funds and bad publicity generated by “Green” organizations criticizing government officials for turning down free money. The rub is the grants will come with strings attached that force local governments to bend to the will of the Feds. The idea of these social engineering initiatives is to force people to live in a congested area in high rise buildings with housing on the upper floors and stores on the bottom. The whole area will be linked by mass transit creating the “utopian” communities loved by socialists. The result will be higher costs for housing (because overcrowding will make housing space a premium) and goods and services (because of less choice and competition) and less freedom to move about (because cars won’t be necessary and parking space will be prohibitively expensive). As we pointed out here President Barack Obama is — not surprisingly — an advocate of this type of nonsense. And his cabinet is populated by elitists who think they know better than you how you should live. It is imperative that you call your two Senators immediately and tell them to oppose Dodd’s SB1619. http://www.personalliberty.com/conservative-politics/liberty/social-engineering-… Library Of Congress http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111 :1:./temp/~c111C4MupU:e7553: added by: ReverandG