Tag Archives: politics

AP Orders Staff: ‘Stop Using the Phrase “Ground Zero Mosque”’

In an unusual move, the Associated Press has publicly released an advisory memo to its reporters on how to cover of the Ground Zero mosque story – and the first rule is that journalists must immediately stop calling it the “Ground Zero mosque” story. “We should continue to avoid the phrase ‘Ground zero mosque’ or ‘mosque at ground zero’ on all platforms,” reads the advisory, which was issued by the AP’s Standards Center. Instead of the “Ground Zero mosque,” AP recommends that reporters use the terms “mosque 2 blocks from WTC site,” “Muslim (or Islamic) center near WTC site,” “mosque near ground zero,” or “mosque near WTC site.” The AP suggests that it might “useful in some stories to note that Muslim prayer services have been held since 2009 in the building that the new project will replace.” In addition, the news service offers a “succinct summary of President Obama’s position” on the mosque, but doesn’t include the positions of any other politicians. Also included in the advisory is a “Fact Check” to provide “additional background” for reporters. “A New York imam and his proposed mosque near ground zero are being demonized by political candidates – mostly Republicans – despite the fact that Islam is already very much a part of the World Trade Center neighborhood,” reads the first paragraph of the Fact Check. “And that Muslims pray inside the Pentagon, too, less than 80 feet from where terrorists attacked. And that the imam who’s being branded an extremist has been valued by both Republican and Democratic administrations as a moderate face of the faith.” One of the “facts” that the AP feels the need to “clarify” is that Ground Zero mosque organizer Feisal Abdul Rauf is a moderate Muslim. “Rauf counts former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright from the Clinton administration as a friend and appeared at events overseas or meetings in Washington with former President George W. Bush’s secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and Bush adviser Karen Hughes,” says the article, though it does also mention briefly Rauf’s comments about America being an “accessory” to the Sept. 11 attacks. The advisory also “fact checks” pure opinion statements made by conservatives, like former House Speaker Newt Gringrich’s assertion that “America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization.” “Such opinions are shared by some Americans, while others are more reluctant to paint the religion with a broad brush and more welcoming of the faith in this country,” reads the Fact Check. “Bush, himself, while criticized at the time for stirring suspicions about American Muslims, traveled to a Washington mosque less than a week after the attacks to declare that terrorism is ‘not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace.'” AP is arguable the most influential news organization in the country, and many media outlets adhere to its guidelines in their reporting.

See the original post:
AP Orders Staff: ‘Stop Using the Phrase “Ground Zero Mosque”’

Lauer to Giuliani: Some Say Mosque Protestors Were Ones That Added ‘Vitriol’ to the Debate

NBC’s Matt Lauer invited on Rudy Giuliani to discuss the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque with the former New York City mayor diplomatically addressing most of the religious freedom concerns while still recommending that the site be moved, but Lauer furthered the notion that the imam fronting the project was not at fault for the “vitriol” in the debate, as he questioned the former mayor: “Some would say he didn’t create the vicious, angry battle. That it’s the people who decided to weigh in on it who add, added the vitriol to the battle.” To which Giuliani responded that “they’re wrong…if you are a healer, you do not go forward with this project.” The following is the full interview with Giuliani as it was aired on the August 19 Today show: MATT LAUER: Now the debate raging over those plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero. The current mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, has been one of the most vocal proponents of that mosque. But former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has a different opinion. Mr. Mayor, good morning. It’s nice to see you. RUDY GIULIANI: Good morning. LAUER: What’s your problem with it? I mean most people say, look, it’s, it’s legal, it’s within the Constitution. We protect religious freedom in this country. Why don’t you think it should be built there? GIULIANI: I agree with all that. And beyond that it’s an as of right project, as far as I can tell under New York law. They never even had to go through all those reviews they went through. The question here is a question of sensitivity, people’s feelings. And, are you really what you pretend to be? As I understand this, this Cordoba House, the idea of it is to healing. To show that Muslims care about the same things as Christians and Jews do. That we’re one people. That we should be one. Well, if you’re going to, if you’re going to so horribly offend the people that were most directly offended by this, most directly affected by this, the families of the September 11 victims — who I happen to know and have gotten to know, you know, really well — then how are you healing? I mean all this is doing is creating more division, more anger, more hatred, and I mean, there are, there are- LAUER: Are you worried about the imam behind this project? In terms of his politics, his religious beliefs, do you find him to be anything but the moderate that he’s described as by the current administration, and by the way, the Bush administration before that? GIULIANI: I’m confused by the imam. I see all the things that you’re saying. But I also see a man who said that America was an accessory to September 11. That, those are the very words that required me to give $10 million back to an Arab chic or prince. He gave us $10 million for the 9/11 fund. LAUER: Let me just clarify so people understand what you’re saying. Shortly after 9/11 on 60 minutes he said, quote, “I wouldn’t say the United States deserved what happened, but United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened on 9/11, because we have been accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world.” GIULIANI: Well, that, that’s exactly what the, what the Arab prince said when he gave me $10 million. That America was an accessory to September 11 because of its foreign policy. America was not an accessory to September 11. All you gotta do is read about jihad. And the second thing, the second thing he said was, he refused to condemn Hamas, with whom he is alleged to have had some ties, as a terrorist group. It’s recognized by everyone as a terrorist group. And he said America should apologize. So, okay, that’s one part of him. The other part of him is he has had a history of appearing to be a healer, appearing to be someone that wants to talk about a moderate Islam. Appearing- LAUER: Yeah he’s made appearances with Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes. GIULIANI: -appearing, appearing to recognize there are two ways you can interpret the Koran. The, the better way, which is the peaceful way, or the warrior way, which is the way in which you get into trouble with jihad. But those quotes trouble me. But here’s what troubled me more. If he’s truly about healing, he will not go forward with this project, because this project is not healing. LAUER: Let, let me- GIULIANI: This project is divisive. This project is creating tremendous pain to people who have already paid the ultimate sacrifice. LAUER: There are a lot of, a lot of issues are divisive, and yet they have to be, tough choices have to be made. GIULIANI: But Matt- LAUER: Let me just play you- GIULIANI: But, but, but Matt, Matt. But Matt, there, there, that’s true. A lot of issues are divisive but if you want to claim to be the healer, then you’re not on the side of the person who is pushing those divisive issues. LAUER: Let me just play you something you said on, on our program, Meet the Press back on December 22nd of 2002. So about 14 months after 9/11. GIULIANI: Right. LAUER: Take a look. (Begin clip) GIULIANI: If you think about the, the attacks on September 11, I think everyone would acknowledge that part of the core of that attack was the fact that we have freedom of religion in America. That, that it’s part of why America was founded. It’s part of what we’re all about. It’s one of the most prominent things about us. That you can be a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, a Muslim, or no religion at all, and no one’s going to interfere with you. (End clip) LAUER: “And no one’s going to interfere with you.” By, by, by saying that these people shouldn’t build their mosque where they plan to build it, isn’t that interfering with them? GIULIANI: Well, of course not. First of all, they have freedom of religion. They can build it. They have every right to build it. The question is, should they build it? In, are they displaying the sensitivity they claim by building it? For example, the Pope asked the nuns to take a convent back from right in front of, I forgot if it was Auschwitz or one of the- LAUER: Auschwitz, it was Auschwitz. GIULIANI: -one of the concentration camps. They had a perfect right to be there. They had their freedom of religion there. The nuns were sensitive enough to the concerns of Jews that they pulled it back. Now here’s a man who is selling sensitivity. He’s got $180,000 in the bank, he wants to raise $100 million. Ask me how he’s going to do it, I don’t know. You don’t do it by creating this kind of vicious, sort of angry battle that’s going on. The people who are speaking about it- LAUER: Well some, some would say he didn’t create the vicious, angry battle. That it’s the people who decided to weigh in on it who add, added the vitriol to the battle. GIULIANI: And they’re wrong, and they’re all wrong. I was the first person on September 11 to step forward in the heat of battle, that afternoon, my third press conference and say, no group blame. Do not blame Arabs. We have to, we have to understand this is a small group, and we have to focus on them. But, the reality is, that right now, if you are a healer, you do not go forward with this project. LAUER: A couple of real quick things before- GIULIANI: If you’re a warrior, you do, but not a healer. LAUER: Before I let you go, a couple of quick things. Do you think union workers in this city- GIULIANI: I don’t know. LAUER: -plumbers, electricians, carpenters, will build on that site? GIULIANI: I told you, I told you before I returned to New York last night on an airplane, and I was walking and there were a couple of construction workers there and they told me, in their typical New York accent. “We ain’t working on that project. Let ’em see if they can go find somebody to work on that project.” My answer is, I know New York well enough, you’re going to probably find somebody to work on it. I question whether they can raise the money. Every indication from the attorney general’s reports of their charities are they have about $180,000. $100 million project. And then where is the money coming from? LAUER: In your gut do you think if we sit down a year from right now this project will be under construction at this site- GIULIANI: No. LAUER: -or a different site? GIULIANI: No. I think Governor Paterson had the best approach here. Nice compromise, find another place, have a beautiful mosque there. Don’t have it there. Don’t offend easily 80, 90 percent of the families are seriously offended. I know some people that are crying over this who have lost, who have lost loved ones. You, you or I might not even agree. We, we might say, “Okay, put the mosque there. What’s the, you know?” But maybe we haven’t lost that, that son, that father, person who if you’re watching their child today and you still remember every day that person is gone. It was an attack in the name of Islam. It was a perverted type of Islam. But a kind of prevalent view that goes on in a lot of parts of the world. So we gotta be sensitive to everybody here. LAUER: Rudy Giuliani, good to have you here. GIULIANI: Thank you, good to see you Matt. LAUER: Good to see you.

Visit link:
Lauer to Giuliani: Some Say Mosque Protestors Were Ones That Added ‘Vitriol’ to the Debate

Time’s Sullivan Defends Obama’s Christianity, Attacks Conservatives for Perception by Some He’s Muslim

The number of Americans from all kinds of demographics who are unsure that President Obama is a Christian have grown since he’s been in office. For instance, “fewer than half of Democrats (46%) know Obama is a Christian, down from 55% in March 2009. Barely four-in-ten African-Americans say he’s a Christian, down from 56% last year,” an exasperated Amy Sullivan noted in an August 19 Swampland blog post at Time.com. So who’s fault is that? Conservatives, of course, the religion reporter insisted: It would also be foolish and naive to pretend that conservatives who call Obama a Muslim are doing it in a neutral way and that their intention is anything other than to raise questions about his “otherness.” Sullivan failed to name which prominent conservatives in particular she felt were responsible for moving public opinion on the president’s religious loyalties. But in her zeal to vigorously defend Obama as a follower of Christ, Sullivan concluded by asserting that the White House has to take care to “offset those perceptions [that Obama is secretly a Muslim] with a little more openness about the president’s real Christian faith.”   Perhaps Sullivan was being extremely charitable and wished to avoid rank cynicism, but not once did it occur to her that President Obama might be an agnostic who, like many Americans, nominally associates with the Christian faith because it’s a proper thing to do.   Prior to his presidency, might President Obama have attended — albeit infrequently — Trinity United Church of Christ out of a mix of a vague sense of social and familial obligation and political calculus? Sullivan leaves that possibility unexplored.   To her mind, Obama is unquestionably a Christian and that story must be put out there by the White House PR shop in order to bolster Obama’s connection with the electorate (emphasis mine): I suppose you could call the White House’s complete lack of concern about Obama’s religious image admirable. It wouldn’t be hard to imagine a crafty political adviser marching into the Oval Office and insisting: “Mr. President, I’m sorry, but we have to have you walking into a church every Sunday morning, preferably with a big Bible under your arm.” And i n a perfect world, nobody would give a hoot whether the president went to church or said grace before meals or ever uttered one word publicly about his religious beliefs. But these Pew results suggest that nearly two years after Americans elected Obama, they know less about him than they did when he was a presidential candidate still making his way onto their radar. Forget the question of what that means for 2012– it’s already a problem for a leader who wants to connect with the country. One last note on another finding I found fascinating: Of those Americans who think Obama is a Muslim, nearly one-quarter (24%) told Pew pollsters they think he talks about his faith too much. Which is impossible, of course, because Obama is not a Muslim, so he’s spent exactly zero minutes talking about being one. What the result really illustrates is how thoroughly those who oppose Obama are willing to read everything he says and does through a filter of distrust. Sixty percent of those who think Obama is a Muslim say they got that idea from the media. But interestingly, one-in-ten say they got it from Obama’s own behavior or words. They hear the Cairo speech or see the outreach to Muslim countries and assume, well of course, it’s because he’s Muslim. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t engage in the outreach–far from it. But it does make it even more important for the White House to offset those perceptions with a little more openness about the president’s real Christian faith.

View post:
Time’s Sullivan Defends Obama’s Christianity, Attacks Conservatives for Perception by Some He’s Muslim

Have You Attended/Will You Attend a Town Hall Meeting During the Recess?

See more here:
Have You Attended/Will You Attend a Town Hall Meeting During the Recess?

Stewart Rips Fox’s GOP Contribution, Ignores Viacom’s Dem Donations

Comedian Jon Stewart on Wednesday bashed Fox News for parent company News Corporation’s $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association. Unfortunately, Stewart failed to inform his viewers that Viacom, the parent company of Comedy Central, has so far given disproportionately to Democrats this year. Also missing in the “Daily Show” host’s attack of FNC and Glenn Beck was that News Corp. prior to this contribution had historically given more to Democrats than Republicans. Such facts were unimportant Wednesday evening, for Stewart was on another in a long line of Fox News is the devil incarnate rants (video follows with commentary): The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c News Corp. Gives Money to Republicans www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party JON STEWART: I really think if anything the Republicans should be paying Fox News millions and millions of dollars.  If Stewart is indeed concerned with “following the money,” maybe he should look at the contributions by his own company. After all, according to Open Secrets, Viacom’s Political Action Committee has so far this year contributed 62 percent of its money to Democrats and only 38 percent to Republicans (h/t Lachlan Markay): In 2008, this ratio was 58 percent Democrats, 42 percent Republicans: Beyond this, as NewsBusters reported hours before Stewart made his comments, prior to this $1 million donation, News Corp. had actually given 54 percent of its donations to Democrats and 46 percent to Republicans. The “Daily Show” host didn’t mention this inconvenient truth Wednesday evening. More importantly, since for his part Stewart has historically bashed Republicans and Fox News far more than he’s attacked liberal politicians and their shills at MSNBC, maybe the Democrats should be paying Comedy Central millions and million of dollars. 

Go here to read the rest:
Stewart Rips Fox’s GOP Contribution, Ignores Viacom’s Dem Donations

Open Thread: Education Secretary Duncan to Join Sharpton’s Counter-Beck Rally

The Daily Caller reported yesterday that Arne Duncan, Obama’s Secretary of Education, will speak at Al Sharpton’s August 28 rally in Washington D.C., seen by some as a counter-protest to Glenn Beck’s march on the same day. The U.S. Department of Education’s spokesperson hung up on The Daily Caller Wednesday when seeking clarification regarding the Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s planned speech at an Aug. 28 protest march that the Rev. Al Sharpton and his National Action Network (NAN) are holding to counter Fox News commentator Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally… Hamilton hung up the phone on TheDC when contacted for further comment, refusing to answer actual questions, including whether Duncan believes the Tea Party is racist or if he believes Beck is trying to “hijack” the American dream, or comment any further on Duncan’s planned participation in the rally… Sharpton was quoted in a blackvoicenews.com story asking black people nationwide to attend his rally, which, by extension, he says casts doubt on Beck’s message.  Duncan’s presence there will certainly aid in that effort. Sharpton claims education is this century’s civil rights issue. Does that fact alone explain Duncan’s presence? 

See original here:
Open Thread: Education Secretary Duncan to Join Sharpton’s Counter-Beck Rally

On Page One, N.Y. Times Plays Up Sharron Angle’s ‘Awkward Retreats’ from ‘Hardline Positions’

Following in the footsteps of The Washington Post , Wednesday’s New York Times put Sharron Angle on the front page, pushing strongly on Harry Reid’s notion that her extremism and ineptitude are working in Reid’s favor. Reporter Adam Nagourney played up Republican pessimism:  Since Ms. Angle won, her campaign has been rocked by a series of politically intemperate remarks and awkward efforts to retreat from hard-line positions she has embraced in the past, like phasing out Social Security. There have also been a staff shake-up and run-ins with Nevada journalists, including one in which a television reporter chased her through a parking lot trying to get her to answer a question. Republicans in this state are concerned that what had once seemed a relatively easy victory is suddenly in doubt, with signs that Ms. Angle’s campaign is scrambling to regroup. “Reid had no chance to win before,” said Danny Tarkanian, one of the Republicans who lost to Ms. Angle. “He has a shot to win now. He could still lose, but I have to say he is favored.” Nagourney does not suggest “Landslide Harry” is a terrific candidate. He makes it clear that the Democrats need an anti-Angle vote to win:  If Mr. Reid is doing better than he once was, it is still relative; he is a politician in deep trouble. A Mason-Dixon poll last week found that 51 percent of Nevadans held an unfavorable opinion of him, a toxic number for an incumbent. That poll found Mr. Reid and Ms. Angle in an effective tie. “I’ll say this about Angle: I still think when we get to the end, it’s still going to be about Harry Reid and whether Nevada voters want to get rid of him and send a message to Washington,” said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon. “They may still hold their nose and vote for Sharron Angle even if they don’t agree with a lot of things that she says and does.” Mr. Reid’s advisers made clear that the only way they could win was to make Ms. Angle so distasteful to Nevada voters that they would vote for Mr. Reid or someone else — it is possible here to vote for “none of the above” — or stay home. “I’m not discounting her,” Mr. Reid said. “In the spite of the work we’ve done, people need to understand more about her. There are some unusual stands she has.” But Nagourney’s story makes no serious attempt to understand the “why” of Reid’s unpopularity — particularly as Reid wants to note the other candidate’s hardline ideological stands and gaffes. Nagourney avoids Reid’s list, like Reid declaring it should be impossible to be both Hispanic and Republican — the Times continues to avoid that gaffe completely. There’s no mention of Reid’s gaffes about how Obama won election because he was a “light-skinned black” with “no Negro dialect.” There’s no mention of Reid claiming the war in Iraq was “lost” and the surge accomplished nothing.  It’s too bad that the Times didn’t offer more of his interview with Angle in the paper, like this exchange in the transcript they posted : NAGOURNEY: do you think President Obama represents the values of this country, in your view? ANGLE: President Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi represent what mainstream America is rejecting about Washington, D.C. And that is this out of touch with the people. When Harry Reid was asked to do town halls, for instance, on Obamacare, he refused. Now people want to talk about these things. They want to talk to their representatives about it. And certainly there was a mainstream reaction, a majority reaction, against Obamacare, and yet they passed it anyway. That portrait of hardline ideology doesn’t match the liberal-media storyline — even if it explains a Republican advantage at the polls.

Read more:
On Page One, N.Y. Times Plays Up Sharron Angle’s ‘Awkward Retreats’ from ‘Hardline Positions’

Crash! Inconvenient Facts Demolish Rachel Maddow’s Premise on Rationale for Arizona’s Anti-Illegals Law

Rachel Maddow has nothing but contempt for the so-called Southern strategy by which Republicans have allegedly courted the votes of Southern white males through veiled or overt race-baiting. Which makes it all the more peculiar for Maddow to engage in a Southwestern strategy of slandering Republicans as racist toward Latinos in order for her to garner votes for Democrats. Here is the most recent example of Maddow doing this, on her MSNBC show Aug. 12 and 13. On both nights, reporter Morgan Loew of the CBS affiliate KPHO in Phoenix was one of her guests. On her Aug. 12 show, Maddow described how three inmates escaped from Arizona State Prison in Kingman, the latest in a string of break-outs from privatized prisons in Arizona stretching back to 1996. Maddow then segued to saying this (first part of embedded video) — MADDOW: After this incredible record of achievement, after all of these prison escapes from private prisons, how did the state of Arizona decide to proceed with the issue of prison privatization? Even as prison privatization declines around the country, even as state budget cuts make it so that many states are closing facilities or reducing their sentencing guidelines so that fewer people are in prison altogether, how did the state of Arizona decide to proceed? As Maddow says this, the graphics on screen show a photo of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a map of Arizona and the capitalized word “INCARCERATION,” with “INC” set off in red font. MADDOW: Last year Arizona state officials moved legislation to try to privatize the whole state prison system! Arizona planned to seek bids from private companies for nine of the state’s 10 prison complexes. It was the first effort by a state to put its entire prison system under private control. Great news for the private prison companies, right? Great news in particular for Corrections Corporation of America, which is the single largest private prison company in the country. CCA already runs six detention facilities in Arizona. They hold prisoners from other states at their facilities in Arizona. They also hold the federal contract to hold federal detainees in the state. Here’s where Maddow makes her shabby insinuation, one that backfired after what Loew would soon reveal — MADDOW: So, you know what would be awesome for a company like that? You know what would be awesome, it would be really awesome for the shareholders and everybody? If the state of Arizona started producing a whole lot more federal detainees, people detained on federal issues. Federal issues like, I don’t know, say, immigration violations? Footage is then shown of Brewer signing SB 1070, Arizona’s anti-illegals law, as Maddow says … — MADDOW: Imagine the boon to the private for-profit prison company that has the contract to house federal detainees in Arizona if Arizona came up with a wacky plan to arrest a lot more people for suspected immigration violations. Imagine how awesome a law like SB 1070 would be for an industry like the for-profit private prison industry in Arizona. Maddow proceeded to air a report by Loew for KPHO in Phoenix, detailing how Brewer’s deputy chief of staff, Paul Senseman, is a former CCA lobbyist whose wife still lobbies for the company; and Brewer policy advisor Chuck Coughlin owns High Ground Public Affairs consulting, which represents CCA. (To see the Maddow segment in its entirety, link here ). In Loew’s report, Brewer was quoted as saying that Senseman “does not advise the governor on these issues”; CCA stated that it “did not lobby at any time … anyone in Arizona on the immigration law.” To remind viewers of her insinuation about Brewer’s rationale for signing SB 1070, Maddow added this — MADDOW: Then again, why would you need to lobby when two of the governor’s top people are your lobbyist, your former lobbyist, and/or married to your lobbyist? But after Maddow introduced Loew, and Loew rehashed the details of his reporting on Senseman, Coughlin and CCA, Loew mentioned this awkward fact right at the end of his interview with Maddow (second part of embedded video, starting at 1:56) — LOEW: In addition, in Arizona we have a mindset among a couple of key legislators that privatizing the prison industry is a good thing. As you mentioned, they tried to privatize the entire system last year. The governor did veto that after the state corrections director sent her a letter saying, look, we can’t imagine having death row inmates in private prison systems and having death row inmates being taken care of by the lowest common bidder. Excuse me, did you say “the governor” — by whom you mean Jan Brewer, correct? — vetoed the bill to privatize nearly all of Arizona’s state prisons? Shortly before she signed SB 1070, the law that would create vast penal colonies of suspected illegal immigrants? Apparently Brewer missed the memo on this fine-tuned, lucrative conspiracy. Maddow’s flimsy premise having been demolished before her eyes — by a simpatico guest, no less — she invited Loew back the next night to harrumph about links between Republican state senator Russell Pearce, a major backer of SB 1070, and the private prison industry. (full segment from Maddow show linked here ). Once again, Loew served up an inconvenient fact right at the end of his discussion with Maddow (third part of embedded video, starting at 2:28) — MADDOW: Morgan, am I also right that in thinking that Russell Pearce was the man behind the effort last year to privatize all of Arizona’s state prisons? LOEW: He was. He sponsored that legislation and we looked through his legislative record and it looks like as far back as 2003 he was pushing legislation that was calling for the privatization of state prison beds, I think 1,000 beds back in 2003, another 1,400 before that. But the biggest one is the bill that you just referred to, which would have handed over our entire prison system to the private prison industry. Now, that bill was vetoed but another bill passed that essentially did the same thing. Last year, our prison system would have, in a sense, most of it, would have been handed over to the private prison industry, but none of those companies would come forward to bid on them. Once again, this fine-tuned, lucrative conspiracy — thwarted by the alleged conspirators. 

See the rest here:
Crash! Inconvenient Facts Demolish Rachel Maddow’s Premise on Rationale for Arizona’s Anti-Illegals Law

Ariz. Sheriff to Obama: Give Me Half Hour, I’ll Show You How to Secure Border

Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County, Ariz., is issuing an invitation to President Barack Obama: If the president will come and spend a half hour with Babeu in Arizona, the sheriff says, he will convince the president he can succeed in securing the border and thus make himself into a hero who transcends partisan politics.   Babeu’s southern Arizona county, while not contiguous with the border, has been designated by the Justice Department as part of a High Intensity Drug Trafficking region that is a major route for drug and alien smugglers bringing narcotics and illegal aliens into the United States from Mexico. Babeu has joined with Sheriff Larry Dever of neighboring Cochise County, Ariz.-which does sit on the border-as well as with Arizona’s two senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl, in endorsing a ten-point plan for securing the border.     Noting that President Obama has visited Afghanistan to assess the security situation there, CNSNews.com asked Babeu in a videotaped interview whether he would like the president visit with him in Arizona so he can have the opportunity to persuade the president that his plan to secure the border will work. “If the president gave me a half hour, I am confident that I could convince him and to show him the way that he can personally secure the border, and he would be the hero of everybody that truly transcends bipartisan politics and secures that border,” said Babeu. “I believe that if a leader truly wanted to do that we have the means and the resources necessary to secure our border and to protect America once and for all, and then we can get to the point in the future, only after the border is secure, that there is some type of discussion about what do we do with the approximate 13 million people who are here illegally.”     The  ten-point border security plan  backed by Sheriffs Babeu and Dever and Senators McCain and Kyl includes provisions to complete 700 miles of double- and triple-layered border fending, significantly increase the number of drone surveillance aircraft patrolling the border, and deploy 3,000 National Guardsmen to the Arizona section of the Mexico border alone until the governor of Arizona in consultation with local law enforcement officials certifies that the border is secure. Crossposted at NB sister site CNSNews.com  

Follow this link:
Ariz. Sheriff to Obama: Give Me Half Hour, I’ll Show You How to Secure Border

LiveChat: Robert Scheer on the Economy (Part 2)

LiveChat: Robert Scheer on the Economy (Part 2) From: truthdig Views: 3 0 ratings Time: 11:47 More in News & Politics

Go here to read the rest:
LiveChat: Robert Scheer on the Economy (Part 2)