Tag Archives: presidents

Chris Rock Says “Yeezy Taught Me” Skit On Kanye Album Invigorated Him

Read more here:

Chris Rock ‘s two-minute skit at the end of Kanye West ‘s “Blame Game” is easily one of our favorite moments on West’s My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy album.  Rock says that the hilarious bit, known unofficially as “Yeezy Taught Me,” invigorated him. Black Presidents In The Movies 25 Reasons We Loved the Arsenio Hall Show “I did that quicker than I read scripts that they offer me money to do,” Rock told the New York Times . “I thank him so much it probably freaks him out. Especially at this late date, to get on something, the album of the moment, that stuff is priceless, you can’t put a price tag on that.” “I felt invigorated by it,” he said. “I’ve still got my fastball.” Chris Rock is currently preparing for a role in the Broadway play, The Motherf*cker In The Hat which begins previews on March 15th. Listen to Chris Rock’s hilariously NSFW skit below.  Fast forward to 5:15 if you don’t feel like sitting through the song. RELATED: Chris Rock Starring In New Broadway Play, “The Motherf**ker With The Hat” [VIDEO] RELATED: Chris Rock Narrating Busta Rhymes’ New Album

Chris Rock Says “Yeezy Taught Me” Skit On Kanye Album Invigorated Him

Top 10 Nude Celebs with Presidential Names

We the peters of the United States honor our leaders past and present on Presidents’ Day. Leader in the field of skinnage, that is! You’ll stand up and salute in your shorts for skinaugural naked stars like Liv Tyler , Holly Madison , and Kerry Washington , no matter if you’re a Democrotch, Re-pubic-an, or a Skindependent!

Continued here:
Top 10 Nude Celebs with Presidential Names

New York Times Beats Drums for War

Bio Ray McGovern is a retired CIA officer. McGovern was employed under seven US presidents for over 27 years, presenting the morning intelligence briefings at the White House under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. McGovern was born and raised in the Bronx, graduated summa cum laude from Fordham University, received an M.A. in Russian Studies from Fordham, a certificate in Theological Studies from Georgetown University, and graduated from Harvard Business School's Advanced Management Program. added by: treewolf39

NBC Finds Most Americans Oppose Repeal of ObamaCare, But CBS Reports ‘Just 30%’ Favor ObamaCare

Sunday’s Today show on NBC and Sunday Morning on CBS presented seemingly contradictory polling results on how much ObamaCare is supported by the American public, although both seemed to be citing the same AP poll. As Meet the Press host David Gregory appeared on Today, anchor Lester Holt suggested that Republicans are going against the majority of Americans in promising to repeal ObamaCare as he vaguely referred to polling data and contended, “But new polling out suggests that most people not only do they not want to, don’t want it repealed, they want more added to it,” and added, “Do Republicans have to refine this message and take a better look at it?” According to the AP poll as reported at msnbc.com , “four in 10 adults think the new law did not go far enough to change the health care system.” By contrast, on Sunday Morning, CBS anchor Charles Osgood briefly recounted numbers from the AP poll which suggested that ObamaCare is unpopular. Osgood: “A poll commissioned by the Associated Press finds just 30 percent of Americans in favor of the new health care law, 30 percent are neutral, and 40 percent oppose it. Four out of 10 respondents say the new law doesn’t do enough to change the health care system.” Returning to NBC, Gregory did not comment directly on whether he believed the poll’s accuracy, as he argued that the Republican message may indeed be successful, and went on to raise the theory from the left that ObamaCare will become more popular as people benefit from it: If the message is government’s out of control, they passed this huge entitlement, it’s going to cost a lot of money and have you felt the effects of it yet, I think that has the shot to be a winning political message. But the more people start to feel health care reform, so the argument goes, it will become more popular. But that has not exactly been the case across the board yet with health care reform, and that’s why the President has to keep hammering away at it. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Sunday, September 26, Sunday Morning on CBS, followed by the same day’s Today show on NBC: #From the September 26 Sunday Morning on CBS: CHARLES OSGOOD: A poll commissioned by the Associated Press finds just 30 percent of Americans in favor of the new health care law, 30 percent are neutral, and 40 percent oppose it. Four out of 10 respondents say the new law doesn’t do enough to change the health care system. #From the September 26 Today show on NBC: LESTER HOLT: The President in his weekly radio address, he talked about the Pledge for America, it’s the Republican pledge that they have released. One of the things they talked about was going after the health care, repealing the health care bill. But new polling out suggests that most people not only do they not want to, don’t want it repealed they want more added to it. Do Republicans have to refine this message and take a better look at it? DAVID GREGORY: Well, I think that, from a political point of view, if the message is government’s out of control, they passed this huge entitlement, it’s going to cost a lot of money and have you felt the effects of it yet, I think that has the shot to be a winning political message. But the more people start to feel health care reform, so the argument goes, it will become more popular. But that has not exactly been the case across the board yet with health care reform, and that’s why the President has to keep hammering away at it. HOLT: This Pledge for America, of course, many compare it to the contract from 1994. How does it differ? GREGORY: Well, I mean, it is, it’s very similar. It lacks some specifics that the ’94 contract had. But one thing that’s similar is that what’s more important than the Pledge to America, what’s more important than the Contract with America is the political climate in which they’re operating. The truth is it’s the unpopularity of President Obama and his policies right now that’s hurting democrats more than faith in the Republicans which, by the way, is an argument that the Presidents trying to exploit and say, look, the alternative is not the way to go here.

Read more here:
NBC Finds Most Americans Oppose Repeal of ObamaCare, But CBS Reports ‘Just 30%’ Favor ObamaCare

Brian Williams Relitigates Bush v Gore, Pushes Breyer to Elaborate on Irreparable Harm

Giving Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer an unusual evening newscast platform to plug a book, on Monday’s NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams brought viewers back to the Left’s ten-year-old grudge, cuing up Breyer to agree: “Do you think Bush v Gore hurt the credibility of the modern court?” Breyer replied with a simple “yes” and Williams suggested: “Irreparably?” “No,” Breyer said in rejecting Williams’ overwrought premise, so Williams pressed: “For how long?” Williams introduced the September 13 segment by marveling: We can’t remember a sitting justice on the U.S. Supreme Court ever stopping by our studios here, but it happened today. We spent some time with Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Clinton and residing on the liberal side of the court. Justice Breyer is out with a new book today. It’s about how the court works, including mistakes the court has made over the years. I started out by asking Justice Breyer, given his love of the Supreme Court, if he’s concerned that just one percent of those Americans polled, in a recent survey, knew his name? That book: Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge’s View . The second topic raised by Williams: WILLIAMS: Do you think Bush v Gore hurt the credibility of the modern court? BREYER: Yes. WILLIAMS: Irreparably? BREYER: No. WILLIAMS: For how long? BREYER: I don’t know. That’s up to historians. I thought that the decision — I was in dissent. I obviously thought the majority was wrong. But I’ve heard Harry Reid, I heard him say this, and I agree with it completely, he said the most remarkable thing about that case, Bush versus Gore, is something hardly anyone remarks. And that remarkable thing is even though more than half the public strongly disagreed with it, thought it was really wrong, they followed it. And the alternative, using guns, having revolutions in the street, is a worse alternative. WILLIAMS: To a new area, academic social elitism on the court. What would be your view of bringing in — Presidents appointing justices who went to a couple of state law schools?

Continued here:
Brian Williams Relitigates Bush v Gore, Pushes Breyer to Elaborate on Irreparable Harm

Time Editor to Obama: Don’t Go to Church! It’s a ‘Piety Trap’!

Time executive editor Nancy Gibbs, the writer of many ridiculously gooey leg-thrill sentences about Democratic politicians, is now begging President Obama to avoid going to church — it’s “The Piety Trap.” Her headline continues: “Sure, we want to know what a president believes in…but that doesn’t always mean he should tell us.” Obama is much more likely to end up in a sand trap than a piety trap on Sundays, but Gibbs doesn’t want him to go to church anyway: Many a pundit has predicted that we are sure to see the Obamas attending some nice, safe church one day soon, the girls in their Sunday best, Obama with a big Bill Clinton Bible under his arm or explaining what Glenn Beck calls Obama’s “version of Christianity.” I devoutly hope the President resists this advice or, if  he feels the call to worship, that he finds a way to do it that meets his private needs rather than his political ones. This is a funny passage coming from Gibbs, who found some poetic equivalence two years ago between the birth of Jesus Christ and the birth of hopes for Obama after the election: “Some princes are born in palaces. Some are born in mangers. But a few are born in the imagination, out of scraps of history and hope.” It won our “Obamagasm Award” as the gushiest pro-Obama quote of the election year.   Sentences like this should be kept in mind when Time’s top editor Rick Stengel declares “No one personifies TIME more than Nancy Gibbs…As a journalist, Nancy is timely and timeless.”   Gibbs also won our “Carve Clinton Into Mount Rushmore Award” in 1998 for her infamous “naked in a sharp dark suit” tribute to Bill Clinton:  He invited his exhausted audience to take a holiday from Lewinsky and spend a refreshing hour and 12 minutes feeling like a country again. For once the talk on the screen was not of oral sex, but of our lives and fortunes and sacred happiness. He had become all human nature, the best and the worst, standing there naked in a sharp, dark suit, behind the TelePrompTer. That which does not kill him only makes him stronger, and his poll numbers went through the roof….That may have been a miracle, but it was no accident: Americans are less puritanical and more forgiving than the cartoon version suggests, and this President is never better than in his worst moments.” — Time magazine Senior Editor Nancy Gibbs, February 9, 1998 issue. Gibbs clearly doesn’t like her presidents to be overtly religious. She declared “We’ve seen what happens when it serves a president’s interest to flaunt his faith — which is almost inevitably does, since every poll affirms that Americans want their leader to submit to some higher power.” So what happens? She never elaborated. She lamented “Religious tests, a constitutional taboo, are a political tradition.”  Her liberal hero, naturally, is John F. Kennedy, who declared in 1960 that he came to Protestant pastors to talk about “now what kind of church I believe in , for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.” She insisted “That was an America where church and state were absolutely separate and priests and preachers did not tell parishioners how to vote.” Clearly, Gibbs doesn’t really mean that progressive Reverends like Jesse Jackson (or even Reverend Wright) can’t tell their parishioners how to vote. She simply doesn’t like it when priests and preachers tell parishioners not to vote straight-ticket Democrat, like most well-coached Time magazine staffers.  

Link:
Time Editor to Obama: Don’t Go to Church! It’s a ‘Piety Trap’!

Pataki Smacks Down Matthews: You Bash Limbaugh, How About Olbermann?

Former New York Governor George Pataki on Wednesday got into a heated discussion with Chris Matthews over the Ground Zero mosque and the Republican opposition to it. In the middle of his second “Hardball” segment on MSNBC, Matthews played a clip of Rush Limbaugh saying on the radio earlier in the day, “If this is a nation that is Islamophobic, how do we elect a man whose name is Barack Hussein Obama?” This led Matthews to ask his guest, “What do you think of guys that keep putting out lies like that?” Over the course of the next five minutes, Pataki basically took over the show not only putting Matthews in his place, but also doing the same to his other guest, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Governor, it just seems to me that people on the right of the spectrum, right across the right center right all the way over, really don`t like Muslims. Take a look — here`s Rush Limbaugh today. Here`s what he said today about — about the — about our election of — well, he refers to President Obama, basically, as a Muslim here again. Here he is. Let`s listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: My question — Mr. Matthews and Mr. Fineman, a question for you. How can America be Islamophobic? We elected Obama, didn`t we? If this is a nation that is Islamophobic, how do we elect a man whose name is Barack Hussein Obama? (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Governor, this is why, I think, 25 or some 30 percent of the people think that Barack Obama is a Muslim, this trash talking by Rush Limbaugh, the voice of the American right here, who speaks for so many Republicans, assuming that he`s a Muslim because we voted for him and that proves we`re not anti-Muslim. What do you think of guys that keep putting out lies like that? So, in Matthews’ view, Limbaugh not only believes Obama is a Muslim, but he’s also responsible for how 25 to 30 percent of the nation thinks.  Well, before we get to Pataki’s fabulous response, here’s what Limbaugh actually said today on this subject: RUSH LIMBAUGH: Monday night on Mess NBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews. He and Howard Fineman are blaming me for the Obama Muslim poll. They’re blaming me for the fact that about 20, 25% of the American people think Obama’s a Muslim and that fewer and fewer Americans believe that Obama is a Christian. Well, that’s not what I was doing. These guys are outthinking me by half here. To put this back in context, I was trying to explain to these people why the poll was what it was. Don’t forget, it’s not us that took the poll. I’m in the wake of this. I had nothing to do with the shaping of opinion on this poll. The only time I have referenced Obama being a Muslim was when I was quoting Khadafy. I’ve never put it out there myself that Obama is a Muslim. I’ve quoted Moammar Khadafy for saying so. I’m trying to explain to these people in the media, “You want to know why the American people think this, let me help you.” What do we know about Obama being a Christian? The only thing we know is that he has said so. But we don’t see him going to church. We don’t hear him talk about it like other presidents have. But we do know that his pastor for 20 years was Jeremiah Wright. And the American people have heard what Jeremiah Wright said, America’s chickens have come home to roost and all of that. And we also have heard Obama say he never heard Wright say any of these things. Well, sorry, media. We just don’t believe that a parishioner does not hear the pastor for 20 years. Sorry. We may be rubes, but that doesn’t compute with us. I mean those of us that go to church know what the pastor says. One of the reasons we go is to hear what the priest or what the pastor says. This Pew poll was taken back in July. Now, I never said anything about Obama being a Muslim until the last few days. With that as pretext, here’s how Pataki responded to Matthews: GEORGE PATAKI, FORMER GOVERNOR NEW YORK (R): Well, I think it`s clear that Rush and I both understand that Barack Obama is a Christian. He has expressed his Christianity. He has shown that he goes to church, although I have doubts about his choice of the right church when he was with Reverend Wright for so many years in Chicago. But, you know, you can pick out inflammatory positions on either side. The idea of this Islamic center so close to Ground Zero is wrong, and you`re painting it as something that the right is opposed to. In New York State, the Democratic governor and the Democratic speaker are opposed to it. Harry Reid has come out against it. There is bipartisan opposition, and by the way, the vast majority of Americans think it is the wrong center and the wrong site at the wrong time. Exactly. The polling data on this issue finds huge bipartisan opposition to this mosque. Yet, Matthews and his ilk continue to blame this on conservative talkers like Limbaugh: MATTHEWS: Right. PATAKI: And just commenting on Eugene`s analysis that it`s making the U.S. look bad in the Islamic world, if the people who proposed building this in fact wanted to reach out, wanted to build bridges, they would understand the nature of the opposition. They would understand the emotion involved around September 11, and they would have taken up a Democratic governor`s offer to relocate that site. They won`t do that. So, it makes me question, not just question, but doubt seriously, if in fact this is about building bridges, as opposed to just sticking — poking a stick in our eye at one of the hallowed grounds and the scenes of one of the greatest tragedies in American history. And I have to tell you that you — I am not anti-Islam. I am very strongly anti that mosque. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Well, you think that`s the message, Gene, that we`re sending here as a country? (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Is that the message that we`re sending, we`re not anti- Islamic? (CROSSTALK) PATAKI: It`s not the message you`re sending, Chris, when you say that the right is anti-Islam. MATTHEWS: I`m looking at the poll data. PATAKI: We`re in favor of tolerance across the political spectrum. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: OK. I have just cited a major national poll that says most Republicans don`t like Islam, period. I have just quoted Rush Limbaugh from today`s broadcast where he is making it sound like we have elected a guy who is Islamic, and therefore we`re not anti-Islamic, playing that old game again, that canard that he`s really not a Christian. I would think if I were a guy sitting in a Cairo cafe right now, I be would thinking, I don`t really want to go to Michigan State and study engineering because those people don`t like me. Nicely set up, Pataki whacked the ball out of the park: PATAKI: Well, you know, you always manage to get a clip from Rush. I would love to have one from Keith Olbermann or someone, because you can always take — MATTHEWS: Well, I`m looking for Republican opinion here. Exactly! Matthews is always looking for Republican opinion to bash, which once again set Pataki up nicely: PATAKI: — take positions — let me give you a Republican opinion. (CROSSTALK) PATAKI: We believe in freedom of religion. In New York City, there are over 100 mosques. In New York State, there are over 300 mosques. MATTHEWS: Right. PATAKI: We believe that religious tolerance is an important part of our Bill of Rights and of our country. But that doesn`t mean that we have to tolerate building a center with questionable sources of funds, questionable leadership so close to Ground Zero. It is the wrong thing to do at the wrong site. MATTHEWS: Gene, your last word here, please. EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST: Well, I believe the organizers of the mosque will refuse, as all of us do, to be classified as second-class citizens of this country. PATAKI: That`s right. ROBINSON: I believe the governor forgets that innocent Muslims died in the collapse of the Twin Towers, along with Christians and Jews and everyone else. And — and I just think it is an outrageous violation of what we as Americans hold sacred, freedom of religion, and the fact that we are all equal to say, yes, sure, we like Islam, but we don`t like you here. Brace yourselves, for Robinson was about to get schooled: PATAKI: You know, I think it`s an incredible violation of our freedom of speech if you think that by expressing an opinion that differs from yours somehow, it is in any way treating people as second-class citizens. Ouch! Even Matthews recognized Pataki was right: MATTHEWS: OK. I`m with you. I`m with you. PATAKI: It`s not. MATTHEWS: Governor — Governor, you rang my bell. I agree. Both sides — I respect your opinion. I respect the other guy`s opinion. What I don`t respect are people talking about blacklisting the construction companies, talking about we`re going to get those people and run them out of business who do try to build this center. That is bad Americanism. That is not American to say, all right, you have a right to do it, but we will ruin your business if you do it. Is that freedom of speech or is that something else? PATAKI: No, it`s not. No, it`s not. And I agree with you. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: OK. Then we`re together on that — (CROSSTALK) PATAKI: We have to follow the law. But let me raise another point here. The developer, so-called developer of this project, earlier, about a year or so ago, plunked down $4.9 million in cash to buy the site. A year-and-a-half before that, he was a waiter. He then plunked down $5 million to buy the second site and got a mortgage in excess of $20 million or $30 million, a guy who was a waiter as a restaurant a year-and-a-half ago. People are asking him the source of that almost $10 million in cash. MATTHEWS: OK. PATAKI: He won`t answer the questions. And I think it`s — the American people and certainly the people of New York have a right to know the source of the funding, because that goes to what this center is going to be used for. I have grave doubts. I think it should be moved. And if they were really serious about reaching out and building bridges, they would listen to those of us who respect Islam, but who don`t believe that center should be there. Outstanding, Governor. Absolutely outstanding. Now watch Matthews further make a fool of himself: MATTHEWS: OK. Seven years ago, the man who is building this center was speaking at Danny Pearl`s funeral. I`m not sure he`s a bad guy, like you say he is. This is why folks like Olbermann don’t allow conservatives on their programs, for Matthews was seriously about to get owned: PATAKI: Well, I can tell you, Danny Pearl`s father has said that it should not be built there. Game, set, and match Pataki. Bravo, Governor! Bravo!

Read more:
Pataki Smacks Down Matthews: You Bash Limbaugh, How About Olbermann?

Tax Cut All-Star — CNBC’s Trish Regan: Calls It ‘Inherently Un-American’ to Penalize Prosperity

Throughout the last half-century, time and time again, a means to stimulate an ailing economy has occurred through tax cuts. Former Presidents John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have proven economic relief is most effective through tax cuts – not government spending.  Still that method has detractors. However, CNBC “The Call” co-anchor Trish Regan, with a panel decidedly against her, made the case for tax cuts. On NBC’s July 11 broadcast of “The Chris Matthews Show,” Regan explained how tax cuts encourage businesses to help reverse the trend of high unemployment and that businessmen are worried about the end of the Bush tax cuts. “They absolutely are,” Regan said. “They’re concerned about it and this is one of the issues when it comes to hiring. They’re hesitant right now when it comes to bringing more employees on board because one, you’re not seeing final demand because consumers aren’t spending that much, and number two, they’re dealing with the tax consequences of having more people in their companies. So that’s definitely an issue.” Matthews followed up Regan’s response with a question to Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page. He asked would if “Democratic progressives” would be open to the idea of tax cuts, if it meant rescuing the economy and solidifying President Barack Obama’s chances for re-election in 2012. “Well, only if it hit those at the bottom,” Page said. “You should expand the earned income tax credit or give some kind of a job incentive. But I disagree that he ought to call off, well continue the Bush tax cut. That’s not going to win Democrat support.” However, as the Congressional Budget Office shows , upper-income taxpayers pay more than their fair share of taxes, over six times as much in terms of a percentage of household income overall. And Regan as explained, penalization through taxation is “inherently un-American” because it discourages aspiration. “Isn’t there something kind of inherently un-American about the more money you make, the more money we’re going to take from you?” Regan said. “I mean, even if you’re not making $250,000 a year as a couple, you may aspire to make that. The government’s going to take more.” Probably at this point, Matthews may have been wondering how someone with these views wound up booked on his shows. Regan’s remarks drew laughter and protest from “The Chris Matthews Show” panel. Nonetheless, Time magazine’s Joe Klein offered up his pro-taxation view – suggesting all conservatives want to abolish the income tax, which he deemed as “radical.” “It’s called the progressive income tax for a reason,” Klein said. “Now conservatives want to abolish the income tax. That is so radical.” But Regan fought back, explaining taxation discourages productivity which is essential to economic growth. “What I’m saying is, you don’t want to necessarily discourage productivity,” she said. “You want the country to grow and there are ways to do that through tax cuts whether it be through individuals or to businesses.” Klein attempted to use former President Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax hike as evidence higher taxes don’t necessarily discourage economic growth. And although there is significant evidence to dispute Klein’s point , Regan explained the economy was in a different place then as it is now. “He did it at a time when the economy was growing,” she said. “We’re in a very different situation right now.” Take away: Good thing Regan is anchoring a CNBC show and Klein is writing a column for a magazine with a dwindling circulation.

View post:
Tax Cut All-Star — CNBC’s Trish Regan: Calls It ‘Inherently Un-American’ to Penalize Prosperity

Bozell Column: Oliver’s Ugly America

Oliver Stone shocked many when his movie “World Trade Center” was released in 2006. It was a masterpiece, a meditation on two firemen trapped in a darkened tomb of broken concrete, twisted metal and shattered glass. They had rushed headlong into the collapsing skyscrapers, only to be buried alive. So many of their colleagues died, but in the end these heroes were located by searchers and rescued. Stone maintained it wasn’t a political movie, and for the most part, it wasn’t. It was a personal story. But this movie was also a gift to our country, a reminder not to forget this dark day’s victims and its heroes. It was only political in that it was patriotic. It reminded us all across our country of how our fellow Americans in Washington, New York and Pennsylvania were mercilessly murdered. It came closest to politics (or patriotism) when the firemen were found by a man who vowed to join the War on Terror. Sadly, that was but a brief hiccup in Stone’s career, a befuddling, out-of-character career move. In most of his movies, Oliver Stone is clearly not a fan of America, both her leaders and her policies. Think “Born on the Fourth of July,” “Platoon,” “JFK,” “Nixon” and “W.” Now he is promoting a new documentary called “South of the Border,” which debuted June 25. Its philosophy is illustrated by the poster: The American eagle’s talon is pierced by a large thorn coming out of a blood-red South America. It’s no overstatement to say Stone deeply adores the trend of Yanqui-bashing leftists coming to power, from Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to Evo Morales in Bolivia to Lula da Silva in Brazil. In a recent interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Stone vouched for Chavez, endorsing him as “absolutely” a “good person.” When asked about Chavez’s censorship of opposition press, he claimed there was none. “There’s no pattern of censorship in this country. I’ve been there,” proclaimed this geopolitical expert. “So, you can see it. You can go down to South America, spend three days, and you’ll see the most vibrant opposition in the world.” Stone somehow missed the Venezuelan penal code from 2005, which states: “Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light.” Oh, and that sanction applies to those who “disrespect” the president or his flunkies in private, too. At the unveiling of “South of the Border” at the Venice Film Festival last September, Time’s Richard Corliss reported that Stone and Chavez appeared in matching dark jackets, white shirts and red ties. When the festival announcer introduced Stone and not Chavez, Stone grabbed the strongman’s hand and raised it overhead like they were presidential running mates. The crowd screamed in support, Stone holding hands with a man who famously suggested our last president was Satan. It’s not merely that Stone is infatuated with Chavez. He doesn’t seem to consider, in his flowery “most vibrant opposition in the world” exclamation, that his last make-believe movie on clueless George W. Bush (and his bullying father George H.W. Bush) could not have been made in Venezuela if the subject were that country’s president. Stone would be in prison. This kind of performance reminds me of how Stone scorned the evil dominance of America right after 9/11. On Oct. 6, 2001, he participated in a panel discussion where he proclaimed that six companies have control of the world. (These all-powerful conglomerates were actually entertainment companies: AOL Time Warner; Disney; Fox’s parent, News Corporation; Sony; Viacom; and Vivendi Universal.) Stone said the six represented “the new world order … And I think the revolt of Sept. 11 was about ‘F—- you. F—- your order.’” He also wondered, “Does anybody make a connection between the 2000 (presidential) election and the events of Sept. 11?” The United States has provided great latitude to filmmakers mocking our presidents — even imagining the assassination of our last president — and somehow still, America, with all its freedoms offered to Hollywood, is mocked as an evil empire. It is absolutely surreal that Stone would ever make a movie like “World Trade Center,” which made heart-warming heroes out of Americans. Stone isn’t just a critic of America, but of Americans, yet there’s a certain paradox here. On the one hand, we want to dominate, exploit and enslave the world. On the other, we’re powerless, rudderless puppets to those who roll over us and dominate. Stone somehow remains blind to the sweet land of liberty that allows him to stab that eagle in the foot with all of his might.

Go here to read the rest:
Bozell Column: Oliver’s Ugly America

Behar Panel Sees ‘Bush-Like’ and ‘Corporatist’ Obama, Garofalo Slams ‘Anti-Intellectual’ Prayer

On Wednesday’s Joy Behar Show, HLN host Behar led a discussion of President Obama’s Address to the Nation with left-wing actress Janeane Garofalo and liberal commentator Ron Reagan, all of whom had some criticisms for President Obama regarding the BP oil spill and his speech on the subject. Garofalo started off complaining that “the prayer thing he did was pandering and anti-intellectual and just sort of a waste of time.” After Behar pointed out that Obama had blamed Mineral Management Service members who were still in place from the Bush administration, Garofalo did not give Obama a pass: “Right, so why did he not take care of that when he got into office?” Reagan complained that his speech was “too little too late,” and that “he`s a corporatist like all our other Presidents have been for a long, long time. That`s what`s being revealed here. Barack Obama is just as much a corporatist as George H.W. – or George W. Bush was.” While Behar was generally more inclined to defend Obama, at one point even she asserted that President Obama’s failure to meet with the head of BP was “so Bush, Bush-like. It`s shocking that he`s behaving this way,” prompting Garofalo to lament: “I don`t know who’s giving him the worst advice in the world. I don`t know, I don`t know why this presidency has been as disappointing as it has been. I really feel like he`s being advised terribly.” After Behar fretted that “some Sarah Palin clone” who would be “even worse” might replace Obama, Reagan pessimistically concluded that “you get somebody worse if it’s not Barack Obama”: BEHAR: And who`s going to take the place? Who are we going to get instead of him? Some Sarah Palin clone, or she herself? It`ll be even worse. REAGAN: That`s the dilemma. BEHAR: Isn`t that`s a scary thought? REAGAN: That`s the dilemma for liberals. That`s the dilemma for progressives and liberals is you get somebody worse if it’s not Barack Obama, even though Barack Obama isn’t doing what we want him to do. Below is a complete transcript of the segment from the Wednesday, June 16, Joy Behar Show on HLN: JOY BEHAR: President Obama appears to be doing everything he can to make sure Americans know that stopping the oil spill is his main priority. He met with BP executives today, and last night he delivered a speech on the disaster from the Oval Office. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: But make no mistake. We will fight this spill with everything we`ve got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused, and we will do whatever is necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy. BEHAR: Well, let`s just hope the next time Malia says, “Daddy, did you plug the hole?” she isn`t 47 years old. So was this speech enough to please his critics or did it just give them more material? Here with me to discuss this are Ron Reagan, liberal commentator, and actress and comedian Janeane Garofalo. … Janeane, start with you, did you like the speech? JANEANE GAROFALO: No, I didn`t feel that it was a strong speech, and I felt that the prayer thing he did was pandering and anti-intellectual and just sort of a waste of time. BEHAR: Anti-intellectual? He’s considered, like, overly intellectual? GAROFALO: He himself is. BEHAR: Yeah. GAROFALO: When politicians use that prayer stuff, it is anti-intellectual. It has nothing do with what has happened, it has nothing to do with any real way to solve a problem. You know, I felt this speech was not very effective. You know, fighting, fighting it with all that they`ve got, what would have been good is to undo the Bush policies that brought this. You know, Ken Salazar should not have been the Interior Secretary. That people from Mineral Management Services should not still have been able to work. BP has a terrible track record. It`s amazing that the Bush policies were allowed to still flourish, that the “drill, baby, drill” policy was still going. That any of these disasters could had been avoided because it wasn`t, it wasn`t unknown what could have gone wrong. BEHAR: Okay, well, he did blame a lot on the agency that was still in place. He did say that it was ineffective. GAROFALO: Right, so why did he not take care of that when he got into office? BEHAR: A good question. Ron, what do you think? RON REAGAN: Well, too little too late I agree with Janeane, he did bring up the Mineral Management Services, of course, and that really is the crux of this, to me. You know, BP was doing what BP could be expected to do – cut corners, act recklessly, all in the name of profits. But Mineral Management Service, which was supposed to be regulating them and overseeing this, had fallen asleep on the job. Actually, that`s not even the right way to put it. Fallen asleep on the job suggests they actually wanted to do the job somehow in the first place, but they didn`t, of course because they`re all former or, you know, prospective oil company employees there. That`s the criminality here, it`s not just BP, it`s the MMS. BEHAR: Do you think it would have been any different if a Republican was in office now? Be the same thing or worse? GAROFALO: Oh, no, the exact same because these are these type of conservative anti-regulation policies and also all this kind of oil culture of oil cronyism. I’m not going to say that Democrats don`t partake in that. Obviously they do. But it might be worse if Bush was in office in maybe more hiding scientific facts or maybe they would do that thing they always say about no fingerprinting, now`s not the time for the blame. Yeah, they always say that. BEHAR: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whenever they’re to blame. GAROFALO: But the policies are still the same unfortunately. BEHAR: Yes. GAROFALO: The same Bush policies that we`ve been laboring under have been continued. There is no reason why MMS has been allowed to thrive the way they have. There`s no reason Ken Salazar should be at the Department of the Interior, and there`s no reason that BP should still be doing what they`re doing right now as we speak with other rigs. BEHAR: The left is very hard on him, though, I think. The left is going very hard. Part of the frustration, I think, with, on the left and the right, probably is that he can`t fix it. He can`t do it. People say he should do it. What do they want him do? GAROFALO: Well, there’s many, many things a President could and should do to make sure these types of things- BEHAR: Isn`t he doing some of it? GAROFALO: I would hope so, but there should had been regulation. You know, I mean, there should had been regulatory reform as he came into office. BEHAR: When he came into office. GAROFALO: Yes. BEHAR: Yeah. Why didn’t, Ron, why didn`t he do that? REAGAN: Well, because he`s a corporatist like all our other Presidents have been for a long, long time. That`s what`s being revealed here. Barack Obama is just as much a corporatist as George H.W. – or George W. Bush was. He`s a little less obvious about it. I think maybe his heart isn’t quite as in it. He`s not an actual oil man himself, but listen, he`s between a rock and a hard place here. He just proposed that we open up a lot of our coastline to deepwater drilling here, to offshore drilling. Completely ignoring the fact that any dependence on oil by America is dependence on foreign oil. That`s the thing that I think a lot of people don`t understand here. You can drill all- BEHAR: It`s kind of shocking in a way. It`s kind of shocking to me. REAGAN: Well, of course, but you can drill all that you want for oil on American territory, it goes into a global market. We`re going to sell it to China just as much as we`re going to sell it to, you know, American drivers here. There`s no such thing as American oil. It`s all fungible. It`s all global, so any dependence on oil is dependence on foreign oil. BEHAR: Well, he used the opportunity to bring up energy policy. Do you think that he was effective at all? Because I was a little disappointed in that. You know, we need alternative energy and there`s no question about it, and the American people are so lackadaisical about it that even now no one seems to see the urgency of the situation. GAROFALO: I think there’s many people who do see the urgency. They just aren’t given a forum to speak about it. There’s many people who are very concerned about this. There should have been clean energy reform made years and years ago. There`s many people who have tried to do this and because oil runs everything it keeps getting thwarted. There`s no reason why we shouldn`t have more clean energy and more reform in that area, too. It`s just, it`s one of those things it just keeps business as usual, it just keeps going and going and going. BEHAR: I know. Well, he met with BP men today. Ron, do you think that he kicked their butts today at all? REAGAN: No, I don`t think it`s about kicking their butts. No, of course not. It`s nice that there’s going to be a $20 billion fund to pay people off- BEHAR: Right. REAGAN: -but who says when the people actually get the money? There are people that are still waiting for a payoff from the Exxon Valdez, you know, I mean, you know, just because there`s money in a fund doesn`t mean it`s actually going to be going to people. I will imagine that BP will litigate every claim. BEHAR: He said, originally he didn`t want to meet with them because he didn`t want to hear their talking points. That is so Bush, Bush-like. It`s shocking that he`s behaving this way certainly.

See the rest here:
Behar Panel Sees ‘Bush-Like’ and ‘Corporatist’ Obama, Garofalo Slams ‘Anti-Intellectual’ Prayer