Tag Archives: Obama

Rabbi Who Outed Helen Thomas is ‘Liberal’ Who Opposed Iraq War, ‘Reevaluating’ His Views

During an interview on CNN’s Reliable Sources on Sunday, Rabbi David Nesenoff, known for exposing Helen Thomas’s anti-Semitic views, informed viewers that, up until now, he has has considered himself to be a liberal Democrat – who even opposed the Iraq War and supported Barack Obama – but now asserts that ” I have to really reevaluate liberal and conservative and really find out where I stand because I think I’ve been a little blind.” Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Sunday, June 13, Reliable Sources on CNN: HOWARD KURTZ: Did you have any idea when you took out that video camera and asked Helen Thomas that question that she was hostile toward Israel? RABBI DAVID NESENOFF, RABBILIVE.COM: I didn’t approach her thinking that. Now that I see a lot of things in the news, I certainly can review and see that she’s had a lot of different thoughts, but, of course, there might be anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian. That’s very different than anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish and wanting to cleanse a piece of land, so, up until this point, this is just an individual who is pro-Palestinian. People should look out for the Palestinian rights. Everybody should look out for everybody’s rights, and there’s nothing wrong with that. KURTZ: As you know, Helen Thomas has been a longtime institution here in the capital, she’s been a heroine to many female journalists, and some people are blaming you for ending her career. NESENOFF: Yeah, you know, I received about 25,000 hate mail, you know, emails, and, more shocking than even that, is the hate media I’m beginning to learn about – you know, from TV and newspapers and blogs and talk shows and entertainers, and they’re accusing me of being some right-wing ambusher, and it really rocked my world because I have to reevaluate my life and my standing in the agendas because, yeah, I’m a New York Democrat Jewish liberal supporter of Obama, donated to his candidacy for a year, said give him a chance, give him a chance, defended, watched all these liberal media, and now I have to reevaluate, I have to speak, I have to now speak to people with all different agendas because if I was part of a team where their agenda was that Israel and the Jewish people don’t have a connection – which is exactly what Helen Thomas said – there’s no connection, why are they even there- KURTZ: Well, let me interrupt you. What do you mean when you say “hate media”? I mean, obviously, you find yourself in the middle of this firestorm. Do you feel that journalists, programs, commentators have been personally unfair to you? And can you explain how? NESENOFF: You know, I find that people that don’t cover the story or people that cover the story are so upset that they don’t know what to do, so they have to attack me, maybe we’ll say he did something on purpose or he filmed it a certain way, or we’ll find out what he did in his past. I mean, they don’t know what to do with it, but why don’t they actually ask me and find out maybe I liked Helen Thomas and I was actually for the fact that she went ahead and spoke to President Bush and said watch it with the Iraq War, although now I understand – and we have to reevaluate – that maybe when she was protesting the Iraq War, I was saying that because I didn’t want our soldiers to be in harm’s way. It turns out she didn’t want the Iraqis to be in harm’s way. So we have to, kind of, I have to really reevaluate liberal and conservative and really find out where I stand because I think I’ve been a little blind.

Read the original post:
Rabbi Who Outed Helen Thomas is ‘Liberal’ Who Opposed Iraq War, ‘Reevaluating’ His Views

Snooki Re: Tanning — Pants on Fire!

Filed under: Snooki , Barack Obama , Budweiser Select 55 Snooki wasn’t telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when she said she didn’t use tanning beds anymore because of President Barack Obama ‘s harsh comments. Our ” Jersey Shore ” spies tell us Snooki is now doing what’s called a… Read more

Continued here:
Snooki Re: Tanning — Pants on Fire!

Leaked Draft Treasury Docs: Majority of Employer Health Plans Won’t Be ‘Grandfathered’

Earlier this year, in his “Can we lose health coverage? Yes we can” column, syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock made a point asserted in dozens if not hundreds of columns and reports during the hide-and-seek legistlative process that ultimately led to the passage of what is commonly known as ObamaCare: The President’s core promise relating to the statist health care legislation that ultimately became law in March — namely that “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what” — could not and would not be kept. In that column, Murdock quoted Cato Institute analyst Michael Cannon as follows: “Obama’s definition of ‘meaningful’ coverage could eliminate the health plans that now cover as many as half of the 159 million Americans with employer-sponsored insurance, plus more than half of the roughly 18 million Americans in the individual market. … This could compel close to 90 million Americans to switch to more comprehensive health plans with higher premiums, whether they value the added coverage or not.” In a late Friday afternoon blog post followed by a fuller early evening report , David Hogberg and Sean Higgins at Investors Business Daily confirmed that Obama’s never-credible core promise is on the brink of being shattered, and that the employer-related calculations by Cato’s Cannon were essentially correct (graphically illustrated by IBD at the top right): Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage because of ObamaCare. Small firms will be even likelier to lose existing plans. The “midrange estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfathered status by the end of 2013,” according to the document. In the worst-case scenario, 69% of employers — 80% of smaller firms — would lose that status, exposing them to far more provisions under the new health law. …. The 83-page document, a joint project of the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the IRS, examines the effects that ObamaCare’s regulations would have on existing, or “grandfathered,” employer-based health care plans. Draft copies of the document were reportedly leaked to House Republicans during the week and began circulating Friday morning. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., posted it on his Web site Friday afternoon. … In a statement, Posey said the document showed that the arguments in favor of ObamaCare were a “bait and switch.” … (A White House) source conceded: “It is difficult to predict how plans and employers will behave in the coming years, but if plans make changes that negatively impact consumers, then they will lose their grandfather status.” … In total, 66% of small businesses and 47% of large businesses made a change in their health care plans last year that would have forfeited their grandfathered status. When one looks at the list of what would cause a plan to get de-grandfathered compiled by Hogberg and Higgins, it’s easy to see why the percentages are so large. The referenced Treasury document (an 83-page PDF ) lays out how employers might react to the new law on Page 36: Page Plan sponsors and issuers can decide to: 1. Continue offering the plan or coverage in effect on March 23, 2010 with limited changes, and thereby retain grandfathered status; 2. Significantly change the terms of the plan or coverage and comply with Affordable Care Act provisions from which grandfathered health plans are excepted; or 3. In the case of a plan sponsor, cease to offer any plan. Option 1 would be nice, but as the IBD reporters noted in the bolded paragraph in the excerpt above, most employers would have run afoul of it during the past year. This means that they would have been forced into Options 2 or 3. Employers choosing Option 2 would have to buy pre-designed and very expensive coverage through the bill’s health insurance exchanges. Employers choosing Option 3 would force their employees to buy pre-designed and very expensive coverage through those same exchanges. If the legislation stands, the end result over a not very long time will be that the large majority of employers and employees will be stuck in the exchanges, the roach motels of health care — Once you go in, you can’t come out. Statist mission accomplished. The Associated Press has noticed the story too, but with the weakest of headlines: “Health overhaul to force changes in employer plans.” The content isn’t much better. Earth to AP reporter Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar: ObamaCare, as predicted by so many during the previous year by experts most of the establishment press willfully ignored, will cause many employers to drop their insurance entirely. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

More:
Leaked Draft Treasury Docs: Majority of Employer Health Plans Won’t Be ‘Grandfathered’

Networks That Found Bad Omens at CPAC Skips Pelosi Facing Heckler Protest at Liberal Confab

For the last several years, TV news stars have found electric moments at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) worth predicting how Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives would soon be driving the Republican Party into an electoral ditch. So it was noteworthy that no network except Fox News found it worth a story that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi got booed and heckled Tuesday afternoon at a liberal version of CPAC. Dana Milbank of The Washington Post relayed on Wednesday that Pelosi tried to engage the hecklers unsuccessfully, then pledged to continue her speech: And she did, for an excruciating half-hour. The hecklers screamed themselves hoarse, dominating Pelosi’s speech through her concluding lines: “I want to say thank you to Campaign for America’s Future for your relentlessness, for your dissatisfaction, for your impatience. That’s what I see every day in my district.” Political movements tend to unravel gradually, but on Tuesday this one seemed to be imploding in real time. As the “tea party” right has gained strength, Obama’s hope-and-change left has faded. The frustration has crystallized at the gathering this week of demoralized activists.  On Wednesday, PBS NewsHour anchor Jim Lehrer whistled right past Pelosi’s heckled event, reporting on coming environmental-regulation bills: “In the meantime, members of the House began working on their own proposals. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has asked committee chairs to draft new regulatory legislation by the Fourth of July.” MSNBC’s Ed Schultz suggested he would discuss it on Wednesday night’s Ed Show: “Also, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, well, she got heckled. Not by the Tea Partiers, but by progressives. I`ve got a ‘Rapid Fire’ response to all of that.” Later, he listed it as a topic again: Let’s get some “Rapid Fire” response from our panel on these stories tonight. Liberal activists are not happy with Congressional Democrats. At a progressive conference, a group angry about the lack of action on disability rights booed, heckled and shouted down House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The Tea Partiers got a big win in Nevada. Sharron Angle will challenge Harry Reid this fall.And Sarah Palin says President Obama should call her for advice on how to handle the oil disaster? But in the midst of fighting about Angle and Palin, Schultz never returned to Pelosi.

See the original post here:
Networks That Found Bad Omens at CPAC Skips Pelosi Facing Heckler Protest at Liberal Confab

CNBC’s Cramer and Burnett: Could BP and Obama Have Handled Spill Better?

Reports are surfacing that BP is finally considering a suspension of its shareholder’s dividend, but what could have been done differently to avert the public relations nightmare BP is facing? Two CNBC hosts had some ideas about that, and about what could have happened if BP chose not to play ball. Jim Cramer and Erin Burnett shared their thoughts on the “Stop Trading” segment of “Street Signs” June 11 . According to the “Mad Money” host, Obama could have set a foul precedent for multi-national businesses if BP (NYSE: BP ) didn’t agree to make some concessions on how it is handling its day-to-day operations in the wake of this ecological crisis.  “I think that this is a, a stock that represents great value but you’re dealing with the government,” Cramer said. “I saw that Nancy Pelosi, she’s the second most powerful person in our country, saying that they shouldn’t be paying a dividend. I mean, this is one of those situations where I know, the president’s approval ratings are down and what you got to do is you got to go after BP if you’re the president. I’m not saying I would do it but I’m saying if I were the president of the United States, BP is public enemy number one and you’re not even going to listen to what the British say. You just gotta say, ‘Guys, here’s the deal, we’re not, we’re not going to have any dividends here. And just you know, take it or leave it, partner, because this is a company that needs U.S. ball play.” And as for other cards the Obama administration could play? There were several since it’s politically ripe for the legislative and executive branches to act in an extraordinary manner. “Hey listen, the president could take away Prudhoe Bay,” Cramer continued. “There’s a Fifth Amendment against the taking of property in this country, as opposed to like say the old Soviet Union. But you know what, I got to tell you, when you got an angry president and angry Congress, nobody’s safe. And Mark Twain said that a few years ago.” And Burnett wondered if both parties involved, the federal government and BP, might have come out way ahead had this matter been handled behind the scenes. “You know, yeah, I just wonder Jim, you know if you think about it whether the administration in hindsight could have done it differently,” Burnett said. “You know, instead of having the first thing you do – go out and say they should cut the dividend publicly, making them sort of look evil, maybe privately you have that conversation. And maybe they did and BP was just so resistant, that’s why they went public. So maybe I’m jumping to a conclusion, but if they didn’t, it would seem maybe having a little bit more – let’s just say [better] relationship between the government and BP. At least while we get through this. It might have been a better thing.” But one thing Cramer pointed out that not a lot of other outlets have seemed to pick up on – the amount of oil gushing from this spill in such a short amount of time indicates this was an incredibly huge find from a purely oil exploration perspective. “What you have on right now, you see the flow, and I thought it was 1,500,” Cramer said. “I remember when I was on the ‘Today’ show and they were talking about it being 1,500 barrels, 2,000 barrels. Now look, here’s what my oil friends say. My oil friends are very tied in. This is the greatest well in the world right now. It is literally pumping out more oil than anyone has ever seen. It has not let up one bit. My friends who are oil men are saying the same thing over and over – “This is the greatest discovery in this planet and what’s really going on is that they can’t get the pressure down. They’re just stalling hoping the pressure will come down and it doesn’t stop. It’s the greatest find of all time.”

Read more:
CNBC’s Cramer and Burnett: Could BP and Obama Have Handled Spill Better?

Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson on the Inside Story of How Obama Let the World’s Most Dangerous Oil Company Get Away with Murder

An extensive new investigation into the Obama administration’s handling of the BP oil spill disaster reveals that it was government mismanagement, delays and absence of oversight that allowed the crisis to spiral out of control. In the article “The Spill, the Scandal, and the President,” Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson writes, “Though George W. Bush paved the way for the catastrophe, it was Obama who gave BP the green light to drill.” Dickinson explores how Interior Secretary Ken Salazar kept in place the oil industry-friendly environmental guidelines that Bush had implemented and ultimately let BP, an oil company with the worst safety record, to get away with murder. Filed under BP Oil Spill http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/11/rolling_stones_tim_dickinson_on_the added by: treewolf39

Chuck Todd Rips ‘Unreliable’ Rasmussen, Doesn’t Mind Liberal Polling Firm Even Kos Rejected

Media bias often shows itself in which organizations journalists choose to cite or ignore. A very prevalent form of this bias is selective reporting on polling data–polls that show results friendly to the liberal position like are touted while those that show the opposite are buried. MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, pictured right, is the latest reporter to demonstrate such a bias. He took Rasmussen Reports to task on Twitter yesterday, claiming it is “has a horrible track record and us [sic] proven to be unreliable” and is really “[n]ot a serious polling firm.” Todd said he would only report on “numbers from a more reliable pollster.” Apparently one such pollster, in the mind of Todd’s cable network at least, is Research 2000. But R2K was recently rated one of the least reliable major polling firms in existence by liberal statistician Nate Silver. R2K was not even accurate enough for the Daily Kos, which officially dropped the firm on Wednesday. Rasmussen, in contrast, was rated relatively highly in Silver’s study, at 15th out of the 63 firms that have conducted 10 or more polls. R2K came in at a paltry 59th. But R2K’s findings have nonetheless been touted on MSNBC in discussing the Nevada Senate race, the very topic on which Todd refused to even consider Rasmussen’s findings. Of course Todd does not speak for all of MSNBC, but where were his protestations when a colleague used poll data significantly less reliable than the unserious, unreliable Rasmussen, with its “horrible track record”? And if Silver’s numbers are not good enough for Todd, consider Rasmussen’s actual performance in the last three election cycles. Rasmussen’s track record is far from “horrible,” as Todd claims. As Greg Pollowitz notes , he’s consistently one of the more accurate pollsters out there. Here are his results from 2008 , 2006 ( Senate and governors ) and 2004 . Consider the races Nevada: in 2008 Rasmussen’s final poll had Obama over McCain, 55–43. The vote went for Obama, 50–46. (Rasmussen can hardly be accused of skewing Republican there). In the 2006 Nevada governor’s race, the final poll had Gibbons over Titus, 48–44. The election result was Gibbons, 48–46. And in the 2004 presidential race, the final poll had Bush over Kerry, 50–48. The vote tally was Bush, 49–47. One of the digs lately against Rasmussen is that his 2008 polls are showing a Republican house effect that wasn’t there in other years. Nate Silver has what I think is a fair look at Rasmussen and this development.  I assume this is what Chuck Todd is referring to when he calls Rasmussen “unreliable.” The bottom line is we won’t know the answer until November, but if Rasmussen’s past performance is any indication, Harry Reid is in deep trouble. And I think Reid knows it.

Follow this link:
Chuck Todd Rips ‘Unreliable’ Rasmussen, Doesn’t Mind Liberal Polling Firm Even Kos Rejected

ABC Reporter Hassled on Gulf Coast Beach While Covering Oil Spill

In today’s “Silence of the Cams” segment, an ABC reporter was hassled Thursday for trying to cover the Gulf Coast oil spill from an Alabama beach. According to an article published at ABCNews.com, “Reporting is often about access, but journalists along the Gulf Coast covering the BP oil spill have had some trouble getting it.” The piece continued, “As BP faces more pressure from the government and from its own shareholders unhappy with the company’s falling stock price, it seems to be clamping down on who can talk to reporters” (video follows with more quotes from the article and commentary): Despite company statements that anyone on cleanup crews can share their views, ABC’s Matt Gutman reports that’s not necessarily the case. Today during a “World News” Conversation, he saw firsthand how a BP manager took pains to keep workers away from the press. While preparing for a video chat on his laptop from a public beach in Alabama, Gutman was hassled by the manager of a nearby crew, asking Gutman why he was on the beach. In reality, BP officials likely have learned how to avoid media access by watching the Obama administration handle the press since Inauguration Day. In the end, there are consequences when journalists abdicate their responsibility to advance a political agenda. Maybe if they wouldn’t have assisted candidate Obama’s rise to the White House and then basically reported anything his administration wanted in the opening months of his presidency they wouldn’t be treated with such disregard by a British company. On the other hand, one has to wonder whether or not the White House minds what BP is doing. Think about it: if the Administration wanted greater press access to the beaches and the cleanup, it could just DEMAND BP allow it. After all, these ARE American beaches — or so I’ve been told. 

Follow this link:
ABC Reporter Hassled on Gulf Coast Beach While Covering Oil Spill

Libertarians claim BP spill was false flag attack by Obama administration

The gloves have come off for the Libertarian movement. Alex Jones fill in Paul Joseph Watson claims the Obama administration had something to do with the BP oil spill. added by: trut