Tag Archives: Obama

Michelle Obama Urged to Take Meat "Unfit for KFC" Out of School Lunch

Image credit: Vegan Peace & The White House Organic Farm Project Michelle Obama may have won the hearts of locavores everywhere with her expansion of the White House organic garden , her campaign against obesity , and even bringing bees into the White House… Read the full story on TreeHugger

View original post here:
Michelle Obama Urged to Take Meat "Unfit for KFC" Out of School Lunch

LAT Writer Declines to Give Details on Huge Defeat of ObamaCare by Missouri ‘Republican Voters’

Wouldn’t you say that an important part of any election story would be the numbers involved, especially in the case of landslides? Perhaps someone should give a heads up on this to Los Angeles Times writer Noam N. Levey of the Times’ Tribune Washington bureau. Although he does report that Missouri voters, whom he labels as “Republican voters,” voted to approve Proposition C yesterday which challenged ObamaCare’s requirement that Americans must purchase health insurance, the all important margin of the lopsided victory was noticeable by its absence. Reading Levey’s article you wouldn’t know if Proposition C was approved by 51 or 52 percent of Missouri voters or was the actual figure so much higher that Levey found it painful to relay that information? Reporting from Washington — Striking a largely symbolic blow at President Obama’s healthcare overhaul, Missouri voters approved a ballot measure Tuesday challenging the new law’s requirement that Americans buy health insurance starting in 2014. The proposition, which sought to deny the federal government the authority to penalize people for not getting insurance, is expected to have little practical effect on implementation of the healthcare law. But the Missouri measure represented the first electoral test for the landmark legislation that Obama signed in March. And it underscored continued hostility to the law from Republican voters. So what was the actual size of the number of “Republican voters” who approved of Proposition C in Missouri? Since Levey won’t provide that detail, let us turn to the Wall Street Journal for that information: With all precincts reporting, 71% of voters supported Proposition C , establishing a state law that says Missouri cannot compel people to pay a penalty or fine if they fail to carry health coverage. Twenty-nine percent voted against the proposition. So an overwhelming 71% of Missouri voters supported proposition C and they were “Republican voters” according to Levey. No wonder he was embarrassed to reveal the actual number. 71% would mean a lot of voters other than “Republican voters” cast their ballots in favor of proposition C.  Despite this obvious fact, Levey continues with his Republican obsession: Opposition to the law has remained particularly intense among Republicans, with nearly 8 in 10 in a recent national USA Today/Gallup survey saying it was a “bad thing.” So it’s all the fault of “Republican voters” who must make up 71% of the Missouri electorate according to Levey’s premise. Of course, the absurdity of that premise is probably the reason why he declined to report on the actual details of the Proposition C landslide yesterday.

Read the rest here:
LAT Writer Declines to Give Details on Huge Defeat of ObamaCare by Missouri ‘Republican Voters’

Obama Touts Fulfilled Iraq Pledge, But Withdrawal Deal Was Set Up by Bush

President Barack Obama told disabled veterans in Atlanta on Monday that he was fulfilling a campaign promise by ending U.S. combat operations in Iraq “on schedule.” But the timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops in Iraq was decided during the Bush administration with the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by U.S. and Iraq officials on Nov. 16, 2008. The Iraqi parliament signed SOFA on Nov. 27, 2008. The agreement , which had been in negotiations since 2007, set a timetable calling for most U.S. troops to leave Iraqi towns and cities by June 30, 2009, with about 50,000 troops left in place until the final withdrawal of all U.S. military forces by Dec. 31, 2011. “Today’s vote affirms the growth of Iraq’s democracy and increasing ability to secure itself,” President George W. Bush said of the Iraqi parliamentary vote in a statement on Nov. 27, 2008. “Two years ago this day seemed unlikely – but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi Parliament.” At the convention for disabled vets on Monday, many of whom served in Iraq, President Obama took credit for ending the war. “As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end,” Obama said. “Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. “And I made it clear that by August 31st, 2010, America’s combat mission in Iraq would end,” Obama said . “And that is exactly what we are doing – as promised and on schedule.” On Feb. 27, 2009 — one month after taking office as president — Obama in a speech said, “Let me say this as plainly as I can. By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.” On his campaign Web site, Organizing for America, however, it states that Obama would end the “war responsibly” within 16 months of assuming office, or by roughly May 20, 2010. The Web site reads: “Barack Obama will work with military commanders on the ground in Iraq and in consultation with the Iraqi government to end the war safely and responsibly within 16 months.” A Dec. 2, 2008 article in the Christian Science Monitor reported that President-elect Obama told Iraqi officials he supported the SOFA. “The security pact was the first such agreement since the invasion to outline specific terms for U.S. involvement in Iraq,” the article stated. “It was also the first in the region to be publicly debated and approved. Iraqi leaders backed the agreement after reassurances from President-elect Obama that his administration would not try to change the accord negotiated by the Bush administration.” The “surge” by U.S. troops in Iraq was announced by President Bush in January 2007 and involved the deployment of more than 20,000 additional soldiers. By mid-June, the additional brigades were in place and the surge began, focusing on al-Qaeda, Sunni and Shia foes in Anbar, Baghdad, Babil and Diyala provinces. By September, U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus was able to report to Congress that “the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met.” At the time Bush announced the surge in January 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said, “I personally indicated that an escalation of troop levels in Iraq was a mistake and that we need a political accommodation rather than a military approach to the sectarian violence there.” Then, in January 2008, after Bush’s state of the Union Speech and when it was evident that the surge had been successful, Obama said , “Tonight we heard President Bush say that the surge in Iraq is working, when we know that’s just not true.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who also opposed the surge, issued a statement on Monday this week giving Obama credit for ending the war in Iraq. “America’s brave men and women in uniform have done everything that has been asked of them in the war in Iraq; they have performed excellently,” Pelosi said. “Soon, our nation will begin a new chapter in this effort, ending combat operations on the schedule President Obama promised.” But in February 2008, Pelosi said Bush’s military strategy in Iraq had failed. “The purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq,” Pelosi said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “They have not done that.” In Atlanta on Monday, Obama praised the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, which will finally end, according to the SOFA agreement, on Dec. 31, 2011. “Already, we have closed or turned over to Iraq hundreds of bases,” Obama said. “We’re moving out millions of pieces of equipment in one of the largest logistics operations that we’ve seen in decades. “By the end of this month, we’ll have brought more than 90,000 of our troops home from Iraq since I took office – more than 90,000 have come home,” Obama said. Crossposted at NB sister site CNSNews .

Originally posted here:
Obama Touts Fulfilled Iraq Pledge, But Withdrawal Deal Was Set Up by Bush

Cindy Sheehan Says Stop Voting for Either Wing of the War Party, Calls for Impeaching Obama

During the campaign, many colleagues and friends of mine, assured me that Obama was just saying this hostile crap to “get elected” and once he was elected that he would “do the right thing.” Well, first of all, why support such a pandering Jackwagon, and secondly, how has that ever worked? Three days after Obama swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, he drone-bombed a “target” in Pakistan killing 3 dozen civilians—and since that day he has elevated the art of drone bombings to new heights, while the so-called antiwar movement looks on in silent complacency and while Democratic operatives disguised as antiwar groups are hoping against hope that Obama comes out strong with a new antiwar marketing campaign to assure his “re-election.” Even though not one progressive issue has been propagated during his term, these war supporters are looking forward to another four years of the dance of death. Right foot kill—left foot torture—spin around for environmental devastation—allemande left for health care fascism—and shimmy right for bankster bailouts. Wasn’t eight years of this crap during the Bush stain enough for y’all? Many antiwar groups and people who claim they are for peace lose their minds during election season thinking that the razor-thin difference between the Democrat and Republican is enough to go ape-shit crazy in working for the Democrat. Just take the last two Democratic candidates, for example. Kerry and Obama both supported more war. An “antiwar” movement de-legitimizes itself when it works hard for a candidate who does not promise total and rapid withdrawal of troops from wherever they happen to be at the time AND does not promise to end war as an imperial tool of corporate conquest. The majority of the so-called antiwar movement, in fact, voted for a candidate that PROMISED to contract one war only to be able to profoundly EXPAND another. Obama all along said that he is not against all war, just “dumb wars.” If there existed an antiwar movement that had integrity—it would have said that “all wars are dumb,” and we withhold our support for just another dyed-in-the-wool warmonger. Read More at the Link: http://beforeitsnews.com/story/109/389/Cindy_Sheehan_Says_Stop_Voting_for_Either… added by: TomTucker

White House apologizes to Shirley Sherrod

This is a good start: At the press briefing just now, Robert Gibbs apeared to extend a heartfelt apology to Shirley Sherrod on behalf of the Obama administration, and promised a look at what went wrong. Interestingly, though, he sidestepped a question about whether fear of the conservative media drove the decision to fire Sherrod before the facts were all in. Here's what Gibbs said, referring to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack: The secretary is trying to reach her. I hope the secretary reaches her soon, and they have an opportunity to talk. The Secretary will apologize for the actions that have taken place over the past 24 to 36 hours. And on behalf of the administration, I offer our apologies. Gibbs also seemed to promise some kind of reckoning as to how the White House botched this mess, though he stopped short of promising anything official: I think everybody has to go back and look at what has happened over the past 24 to 36 hours, and ask ourselves how we got into this. How did we not ask the right questions? How did you all not ask the right questions? How did other people not ask the right questions? When asked directly by a reporter whether the administration had “overreacted” because the White House is “afraid” of the conservative media, Gibbs brushed off the question. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/white_house_apologizes_to_shi… added by: unimatrix0

HuffPo’s New Travel Section Just Another Spot for Liberal Spin

What sets The Huffington Post’s new travel section apart from the rest? That in addition to travel tips and destination profiles, readers also get a health dose of the sites liberal agenda. With President Obama coming under fire from Republicans for taking yet another family vacation – this time to Maine – HuffPo jumped to his defense by highlighting a comparison between Obama and his predecessor Bush – in the travel section.  “The Obamas just returned to Washington from their weekend long excursion to Maine,” Kate Auletta wrote. “While the President was given grief about a) taking a vacation and b) taking a vacation that wasn’t to the Gulf, Obama’s vacation days have really been, in comparison to his predecessors, few and far between. CBS took a look back at the history of presidential vacations.” The post also contained a clip of a CBS news video justifying Obama’s frequent vacations by comparing him to Bush, who was widely criticized by the media for trip to his Texas ranch. When CNN mentioned the first family’s vacation, it was under their political ticker blog , not in the travel section. “It will be a one-stop shop, bringing you up-to-the-minute travel news, travel tips and advice, the hottest deals, reviews of hotels, cruises, spas, and airlines, compelling photographs, blog posts about travel, and more, ” HuffPo founder Arianna Huffington said in the launch announcement. It is evident that the “more” Huffington was referencing was political bias. 

See more here:
HuffPo’s New Travel Section Just Another Spot for Liberal Spin

NBC’s Today Show Inaccurately Blames Fox News for Sherrod Firing

On Wednesday’s Today show, Matt Lauer, Ann Curry and Savannah Guthrie left the impression that Fox News’s criticism of Shirley Sherrod was the reason she lost her job at the Agriculture Department, with Lauer, in his interview with Sherrod, charging: “I don’t know who to blame here, Miss Sherrod. I mean the, the, the activist who put forward this garbage in the first place has an agenda. We shouldn’t be surprised by that. The cable news network that, that played this garbage on and on and talked about it, has an agenda. We shouldn’t be surprised by that.” But Lauer and NBC News, itself, revealed they have their own agenda, by failing to report, as the MRC’s Rich Noyes pointed out , that Fox News didn’t mention the Sherrod story until she had already left her job. However, that didn’t stop Curry from claiming, in the 8am half hour news brief, that: “After the video was used to vilify her on Fox television, she lost her job,” and Guthrie advancing the NAACP’s notion, in her piece, that they had been “snookered” by Fox News. The following is a complete transcript of Guthrie’s set-up piece followed by Lauer’s interview with Sherrod as they were aired on the July 21 Today show: MATT LAUER: Now to the turbulence facing the Obama administration over the resignation of an Agriculture Department official. Was she forced to quit her job for comments that were taken completely out of context? We’re gonna talk to Shirley Sherrod in a moment, but first, NBC’s Savannah Guthrie is at the White House with the latest. Savannah, good morning. [On screen headline: “Race In America, Should Obama Appointee Have Been Forced To Resign?”] SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Good morning to you, Matt. Well these developments are moving really quickly. At first there were condemnations against Shirley Sherrod for alleged racist remarks. But now some of the very first people to rebuke her are now apologizing and over the night the White House directed the agency that fired her to reconsider. This is the video at the center of the controversy. SHIRLEY SHERROD: The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm- GUTHRIE: First posted on a conservative Web site, it shows Shirley Sherrod, a Georgia-based official with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, an Obama administration appointee, at an NAACP dinner in March of this year describing her reluctance to help a white farmer who came for aid. SHERROD: I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. GUTHRIE: The video became an overnight cable news sensation. BILL O’REILLY: Miss Sherrod must resign immediately. The federal government cannot have skin color deciding any assistance. LAURA INGRAHAM: The question is how many more people like Miss Sherrod exist in the Obama administration? GUTHRIE: The action against Sherrod was quick and decisive. The NAACP condemned her, calling her remarks shameful and intolerable. The USDA asked her to resign. Sherrod says she was driving Monday afternoon when she got the call from an official in Washington. SHERROD: She said, “Well they want you to pull over to the side of the road and submit your resignation.” It was just unbelievable. You know, it was just unbelievable. GUTHRIE: But Sherrod says it was a rush to judgment. The incident she had described at the March NAACP dinner had occurred more than 20 years ago, before she worked for the USDA, and it was a story she told, as an example of overcoming her own prejudices. SHERROD: That’s when it was revealed to me that it’s about poor versus those who have. And in telling that story, how I changed while working with him, I used that to help others to see it’s not about race. GUTHRIE: The farmer who Sherrod is accused of treating unfairly went public Tuesday saying she is no racist and saved his family farm. FARMER: I appreciated everything she done for [us], and we got our farm back. GUTHRIE: Still, in a statement Tuesday, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack stood by his decision to fire Sherrod saying, quote, “We have been working to turn the page on this sordid civil rights record at USDA, and this controversy could make it more difficult to move forward on correcting injustices. But by Tuesday night, the NAACP had reversed course. Officials looked at the full context of her remarks made at the NAACP’s own event, concluded they’d been, quote, “snookered” by Fox News and the conservative activist, who first posted portions of the video. But they acknowledged, they were too quick to condemn. BENJAMIN JEALOUS, NAACP PRESIDENT: We made a mistake here. We have a very good batting average. You know it is near 1,000 but some times we make a mistake and we, and we made one here. GUTHRIE: For Shirley Sherrod, the damage has been done. SHERROD: They called me a racist, of all people. They called me a racist. When you look at my work, when you look at everything I’ve done, you know that I’m not a racist. GUTHRIE: Alright, so initially officials here at the White House said this was solely at the discretion of the Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack. That the President was briefed only afterward, although staff knew something of it, and that he fully stood by the Agriculture Secretary’s decision. However, late last night after the full video was posted on the NAACP Web site, the White House contacted the Agriculture Secretary and encouraged the Agriculture Secretary to take another look. He now says he will, and let me read the statement from Tom Vilsack. He said, quote, “I am, of course, willing and will conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts to ensure to the American people we are providing services in a fair and equitable manner.” But no word yet, Matt, this morning whether or not Shirley Sherrod gets her job back. MATT LAUER: Savannah Guthrie, thank you very much. Shirley Sherrod is with us now from Atlanta. Miss Sherrod, good morning to you. SHIRLEY SHERROD: Good morning. LAUER: What a 24-48 hours you’ve had. I mean let’s go through it here. You were villainized, you were forced to resign, and then when, when even the most elementary level of investigation was put toward your situation, what I like to call the “oopses!” began. The NAACP, which had originally come out against you, apologized saying they made a mistake and now I even understand that the Agriculture Secretary who originally stood by his decision, has said he’s willing to see more information. Can you describe your emotions as we sit here and talk this morning? SHERROD: You know, it’s so hard looking at the last 24 hours. When the department, when, you know, this first came to light I said to them you need to look at the whole thing. That’s not the message I was putting out there. And for them, all day yesterday, to say they were standing by their decision and now, you know, at this late hour to be saying they are now willing to look at the facts, you know, it’s hard to take at this point. LAUER: What’s outrageous about this is this story, that was sent out there as an example of racism on your part was the opposite. It was a story of enlightenment and transformation of overcoming the narrow mindedness that you had been surrounded by as a younger woman and here it was completely misconstrued and misrepresented. SHERROD: Yes, and I couldn’t get people, I couldn’t get the people I was working with, people who should have listened to me, to see that because that was one of the things I kept saying. You need to look at the whole thing. That’s not my message. That’s not me. If you look at my life, if you look at my life’s work, you would know that, that’s not me. [On screen headline: “Race In America, Obama Appointee Forced To Resign Speaks Out”] LAUER: As a state worker in Georgia, you tell this story about how you were dealing with a white farmer who was about to lose his farm and perhaps the temptation was there on your part to continue down the road, you had seen so many travel in the past and maybe not give that farmer, that white person, all the benefit of your help. But you had this, almost an epiphany at that moment- SHERROD: Yes. LAUER: -and said, “Wait a second, the civil rights movement was not about black versus white. It’s about the poor and the powerless and this man deserves as much help as anyone.” I mean did, could anyone who had listened, who would have listened to the entire story have, have thought of you as a racist? SHERROD: I don’t think they would have. I don’t, if, you know, anyone, you know, most people would not have known me but if they had looked at the entire tape, I just don’t see how they could’ve come away with it, thinking I was a racist. LAUER: I don’t who to blame- SHERROD: You know those- LAUER: I don’t know who to blame here, Miss Sherrod. I mean the, the, the activist who put forward this garbage in the first place has an agenda. We shouldn’t be surprised by that. SHERROD: Right. LAUER: The cable news network that, that played this garbage on and on and talked about it, has an agenda. We shouldn’t be surprised by that. I am shocked at the NAACP, I have to admit. That, that- SHERROD: Yes. LAUER: -that they did not investigate further before condemning you. And I’m shocked at the Obama administration for not putting an investigation in place either. Can you give me your thoughts on that? SHERROD: Yes. I was particularly hurt by the NAACP’s reaction to it because if they – you know, I put years, all of my life has been about civil rights work and fairness. And if they had just taken the time to look at it, to see, to look at me, to, to see what I’ve done, I’m certain they would not have come out with that first statement. But I can appreciate the fact that they now have looked at it, they’ve seen, and they come up with a new statement. I can accept the apology. LAUER: And as for the Obama administration, as for the Obama administration, why do you think the Secretary of Agriculture acted so quickly in this situation? SHERROD: You know, that is so hard to, to, to take, especially when I kept saying look at the entire thing. Look at my message and no one would listen. No one would listen. LAUER: The NAACP, Miss Sherrod, now calls this “a teachable moment.”What lessons have you learned? SHERROD: Oh, gosh. You know, the, it’s, it’s the outpouring of support has just been great for me. To, you know, I don’t know that I would have done anything different because this is just me. This is my life. It’s all about fairness. And then to not be treated fairly, you know, in this whole situation is, is, it’s, it’s just something hard to deal with. LAUER: The door seems to be open a little bit to you getting your, your old job back. Do you want to walk through that door? SHERROD: You know, I am just not sure of how I would be treated there now. That’s, that’s, that’s one I just don’t know at this point. LAUER: Shirley Sherrod. Miss Sherrod I thank you for your time this morning. SHERROD: Thank you.

Read the original post:
NBC’s Today Show Inaccurately Blames Fox News for Sherrod Firing

Is Denver Post Columnist Littwin Completely Ignorant of Charles Bolden Controversy?

In this morning’s Denver Post, Mike Littwin manages to display simultaneously the insularity and smugness of the One Party media , as well as one of the last tools left in the left’s rather empty playbook. Apparently, during a Senate debate at Channel 12, Jane Norton said, “We need a NASA budget that doesn’t cater to making Muslims feel good but that is strong on science …” This scandalized Littwin, who assumed it was a cheap shot at Muslims. Evidently, he hadn’t seen the video of NASA head Charles Bolden that’s been making the rounds on the conservative and libertarian blogosphere: Remarkably, instead of conceding that we’re paying all those scientists, engineers, and bureaucrats to actually achieve, or at least facilitate achievement, in space, Littwin uses his and the rest of the MSM reporters’ ignorance of the interview as evidence that the argument was out of place, and then goes straight for the race card: When I read the stories, I remembered hearing something about it. But when I showed Norton’s quote to several people up on the news — but not necessarily up on Fox News — they each registered a blank. That suggests something we already knew: that we get our news these days from different places. What it doesn’t tell us, though, is why Norton thought the story was worth mentioning at all. Presumably Norton meant to say “Muslim countries” rather than all “Muslims,” including those who might live, say, next door. I guess that’s still up for debate. For the record, I’m as proud as anyone of Ilan Ramon, but his presence on the shuttle should have been incidental to its mission, not actually its mission.  Also for the record, I’m with Bill Whittle when he lauds NASA’s retreat to make room for a more sustainable private space program. A few years ago, at an LPR session, Littwin told me that reporters were well aware of the blogosphere, that they spent tons of time reading blogs in an effort to understand this new media.  Seems they manage to miss HotAir, Powerline, Pajamas Media, Instapundit. The line of argument, to the extent that there is one, is that since Littwin hadn’t seen the video, Norton may be a bigot.  In a year when the left’s traditional arguments appear to have run out of steam, there’s one they think they can reliably return to, time and again.  The JournoList extracts over at Daily Caller indicate the power that the accusation of racism once had, and that the left still thinks it has.  But with the country having elected a black president, answering a cry of “read the Constitution” with “you must be racist” is increasing falling on deaf ears. Those who thought that Obama’s presidency might herald a post-racial era may yet be right.  Just not exactly how they thought.

Read more here:
Is Denver Post Columnist Littwin Completely Ignorant of Charles Bolden Controversy?

Blaming Fox for Shirley Sherrod’s Firing ‘a Lie,’ Fox & Friends Host Declares

On Wednesday’s Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy took strong exception to the NAACP’s claim it was “snookered” by Fox News into denouncing former Agriculture Department official Shirley Sherrod based on excerpts of a speech she delivered at a dinner in March. “There’s a timeline problem,” Doocy pointed out, noting that the NAACP had on Monday night denounced Sherrod as “shameful,” the same day that she was pressured to quit her job ( she says by the White House ). But Fox News never mentioned the story until Tuesday morning. “So for anybody to say that Fox News pressured her out, that is simply a lie,” Doocy asserted. The liberal media have gone from largely ignoring the Sherrod story on Monday night and Tuesday morning to embracing it as a case of a woman maligned by an unfairly edited video clip. But if Sherrod is indeed the victim, much of the damage seems to have been caused by the precipitous reaction of the NAACP and the Obama administration — not liberals’ favorite target, Fox News. Here’s how Doocy explained the matter at the top of the July 21 Fox & Friends, about 6:07am ET: Co-host STEVE DOOCY: The NAACP has done, essentially, a double-back flip. First, here’s what she said regarding the NAACP: [Words on screen] “They got into a fight with the Tea Party, and all of this came out as a result of that.” But here’s what she says about the NAACP, she says, she blames them for her getting in trouble. Now, here’s what the NAACP said on Monday night — on Monday night, as soon as the news had hit the fan. They said [reading] “her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicaments working with people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.” That was on Monday. Then yesterday, the NAACP came out and they said that we’re now apologizing to her and they say they were snookered by Fox News and Andrew Breitbart. But as [fill-in co-host] Dana [Perino] mentioned, there’s a timeline problem. Fox News did not do the story until after she had already resigned. So she was pressured by the Department of Agriculture to quit. She quit. And then we did the stories. So for anybody to say that Fox News pressured her out, that is simply a lie.

Read the original:
Blaming Fox for Shirley Sherrod’s Firing ‘a Lie,’ Fox & Friends Host Declares

Newsweek Mocks ‘Poor Little CEO’s,’ Attacks Private Sector

The news media love to bash businesses and support regulation, so Newsweek’s mockery of the CEO class and claims that they accomplished nothing between 2001 and 2009 shouldn’t be a surprise. In his July 20 ” Poor Little CEO’s ” story, Newsweek’s Daniel Gross, known for his ” tea bagging ” comments and staunch defense of Obama , derided a July 12 “Jobs for America” summit held by the U.S Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and the National Federation of Independent Business. Gross mocked the jobs summit saying it was “a little like BP holding a deepwater-drilling safety summit.” He also blamed corporate America for a “lost decade” that ended with “the deepest recession since the Great Depression.” “Between 2001 and 2009, corporate America designed the playing field to its specifications – easy money from the Federal Reserve; lower taxes on capital gains, dividends, and income; an administration that let industry essentially write its own regulations,” Gross claimed. On the contrary, the Bush administration passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which policed mark-to-market accounting with criminal penalties, hardly a regulation “designed” to corporate America’s “specifications.” As for the “lost decade,” the Bush Administration oversaw 52 months of job creation in a decade despite constant media assault. Gross criticized both the Bush and Obama administrations for being “remarkably solicitous” to big business and for their regulatory policies not going far enough: “What’s more, many of the policies recently put in place are quite friendly to big business.” As an example he cited one company, General Electric, ignoring the many other businesses threatened by Obama’s policies. Friendly? A financial reform bill that includes a consumer financial protection bureau and the Volcker Rule is not “friendly.” Additionally, President Obama has hardly been “friendly” to businesses, from forcing the ouster of General Motors’ CEO to his constant anti-business rhetoric .

Go here to read the rest:
Newsweek Mocks ‘Poor Little CEO’s,’ Attacks Private Sector