Tag Archives: security

Stephanie Pratt Cleaning her Pool of the Day

This is what happens when you stop making stupid money from MTV for being on a stupid show that idiots everywhere ate the fuck up, that gave you the security that the good times would last, that made you comfortable spending your paychecks on nonsense cuz the good times can’t even end….you get a job cleaning your pool, or at least pretending to, because it draws attention to her, which is one step closer in the depseration game to this being the intro to her porn video…. She is related to that dude Spencer, therefore she is polluted and you should be lookin’ at her sexually, but unfortunately with you, you look at everything sexually, even that Tuna sandwich your mom made you for lunch. Weirdo…. This pictures may be old, but I was drinking until 8 am and really couldn’t give a fuck right now as to how current a picture of a bitch in a bikini top is….and even when I am not hungover, which happens…I don’t care about that shit….

Read the original here:
Stephanie Pratt Cleaning her Pool of the Day

Matthews-Mitchell Admit: Military Doesn’t Trust Obama’s Political Advisers

Of all the revelations in Bob Woodwards’s new book , this could be the most devastating . . . On this evening’s Hardball, Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell admited that the military people in the Obama administration don’t trust Pres. Obama’s political advisers. That raises grave concerns for America’s security.  In purely political terms, consider the implications given that among Americans, by far the most trusted institution is . . . the military. View video here . ANDREA MITCHELL: This is a new president who had no relationship with the military. And what does come through loud and clear from this book is the distrust and the long knives that were out between the civilian side, the political aides, the former campaign aides, and the military brass . . . National Security Adviser Jim Jones is very clear that he feels ostracized, that he didn’t have access to the president on the president’s first European trip. He had to go to the president and complain. CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well is it true they don’t like each other?  Just bottom line here: is it true the military guys don’t trust the White House political people and the other way around?  Your thoughts first, Andrea, on that one. MITCHELL: I think that is true.  And I think in particular that Jim Jones, a Marine general, retired Marine general, feels very much at odds with some of the civilians on the national security team and is about to leave. I think that’s the next big announcement we’re going to have from the White House, is the shake-up on the foreign policy/national security team that mirrors what’s happened so far on the economic team.

See original here:
Matthews-Mitchell Admit: Military Doesn’t Trust Obama’s Political Advisers

Monsanto and Blackwater’s black ops infiltrating websites

NOTE: Internal company documents show Monsanto paid a Blackwater entity (Total Intelligence) over $200,000 to scan “activist blogs and websites”, and suggest the issue of infiltration also arose. — http://www.thenation.com/article/154739/blackwaters-black-ops?page=0 ,0 Over the past several years, entities closely linked to the private security firm Blackwater have provided intelligence, training and security services to US and foreign governments as well as several multinational corporations, including Monsanto, Chevron, the Walt Disney Company, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines and banking giants Deutsche Bank and Barclays, according to documents obtained by The Nation. Blackwater's work for corporations and government agencies was contracted using two companies owned by Blackwater's owner and founder, Erik Prince: Total Intelligence Solutions and the Terrorism Research Center (TRC). Prince is listed as the chairman of both companies in internal company documents, which show how the web of companies functions as a highly coordinated operation. Officials from Total Intelligence, TRC and Blackwater (which now calls itself Xe Services) did not respond to numerous requests for comment for this article. One of the most incendiary details in the documents is that Blackwater, through Total Intelligence, sought to become the “intel arm” of Monsanto, offering to provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm. Governmental recipients of intelligence services and counterterrorism training from Prince's companies include the Kingdom of Jordan, the Canadian military and the Netherlands police, as well as several US military bases, including Fort Bragg, home of the elite Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), and Fort Huachuca, where military interrogators are trained, according to the documents. In addition, Blackwater worked through the companies for the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the US European Command. On September 3 the New York Times reported that Blackwater had “created a web of more than 30 shell companies or subsidiaries in part to obtain millions of dollars in American government contracts after the security company came under intense criticism for reckless conduct in Iraq.” The documents obtained by The Nation reveal previously unreported details of several such companies and open a rare window into the sensitive intelligence and security operations Blackwater performs for a range of powerful corporations and government agencies. The new evidence also sheds light on the key roles of several former top CIA officials who went on to work for Blackwater. The coordinator of Blackwater's covert CIA business, former CIA paramilitary officer Enrique “Ric” Prado, set up a global network of foreign operatives, offering their “deniability” as a “big plus” for potential Blackwater customers, according to company documents. The CIA has long used proxy forces to carry out extralegal actions or to shield US government involvement in unsavory operations from scrutiny. In some cases, these “deniable” foreign forces don't even know who they are working for. Prado and Prince built up a network of such foreigners while Blackwater was at the center of the CIA's assassination program, beginning in 2004. They trained special missions units at one of Prince's properties in Virginia with the intent of hunting terrorism suspects globally, often working with foreign operatives. A former senior CIA official said the benefit of using Blackwater's foreign operatives in CIA operations was that “you wouldn't want to have American fingerprints on it.” While the network was originally established for use in CIA operations, documents show that Prado viewed it as potentially valuable to other government agencies. In an e-mail in October 2007 with the subject line “Possible Opportunity in DEA—Read and Delete,” Prado wrote to a Total Intelligence executive with a pitch for the Drug Enforcement Administration. That executive was an eighteen-year DEA veteran with extensive government connections who had recently joined the firm. Prado explained that Blackwater had developed “a rapidly growing, worldwide network of folks that can do everything from surveillance to ground truth to disruption operations.” He added, “These are all foreign nationals (except for a few cases where US persons are the conduit but no longer 'play' on the street), so deniability is built in and should be a big plus.” snip Through Total Intelligence and the Terrorism Research Center, Blackwater also did business with a range of multinational corporations. According to internal Total Intelligence communications, biotech giant Monsanto—the world's largest supplier of genetically modified seeds—hired the firm in 2008–09. The relationship between the two companies appears to have been solidified in January 2008 when Total Intelligence chair Cofer Black traveled to Zurich to meet with Kevin Wilson, Monsanto's security manager for global issues. After the meeting in Zurich, Black sent an e-mail to other Blackwater executives, including to Prince and Prado at their Blackwater e-mail addresses. Black wrote that Wilson “understands that we can span collection from internet, to reach out, to boots on the ground on legit basis protecting the Monsanto [brand] name…. Ahead of the curve info and insight/heads up is what he is looking for.” Black added that Total Intelligence “would develop into acting as intel arm of Monsanto.” Black also noted that Monsanto was concerned about animal rights activists and that they discussed how Blackwater “could have our person(s) actually join [activist] group(s) legally.” Black wrote that initial payments to Total Intelligence would be paid out of Monsanto's “generous protection budget” but would eventually become a line item in the company's annual budget. He estimated the potential payments to Total Intelligence at between $100,000 and $500,000. According to documents, Monsanto paid Total Intelligence $127,000 in 2008 and $105,000 in 2009. Reached by telephone and asked about the meeting with Black in Zurich, Monsanto's Wilson initially said, “I'm not going to discuss it with you.” continued added by: JanforGore

Kevin James To Star In Mixed Martial Arts Film

‘Paul Blart: Mall Cop’ star will play a physics teacher moonlighting as a mixed martial arts fighter. By Adam Rosenberg Photo: David Livingston/ Getty Mall cop Paul Blart, better known as Kevin James , is trading in his security uniform for boxing trunks. The actor is all set to go another round with Sony — after “Paul Blart: Mall Cop,” “Grown-Ups” and 2011’s “The Zookeeper” — for a mixed martial arts movie. James will star in the as-yet-untitled feature as a physics teacher who decides to moonlight as a mixed martial arts fighter when the school he works for faces budget cuts, Deadline reports. Whatever his initial intentions are, the main character proves talented enough to land a gig as a fighter in the UFC. Sony is reportedly fast-tracking the film to shoot next year, presumably for a 2012 release. James will also produce with Todd Garner (“Blart” and “Knight and Day”), and the script comes from Allan Loeb (“The Switch”). The actor also has a role in another Loeb-scripted comedy, early 2011 release “The Dilemma,” directed by Ron Howard and starring Vince Vaughn, Winona Ryder and Channing Tatum alongside James. “The Zookeeper” opens next summer, starring James as the titular caretaker, an overweight, lonely guy who decides to get out into the world and meet someone. Seeing this, the animals at the zoo he so loves reveal their great secret — they can talk — and, in doing so, teach their friend how to get his groove on. Rosario Dawson stars as the live-action female lead. The film also features the voice talents of Sylvester Stallone, Adam Sandler, Judd Apatow, Cher and others. Loeb has been busy promoting a pair of 2010 releases that he scripted, the Jason Bateman/Jennifer Aniston-starring rom-com “The Switch” (which he also produced) and the soon-to-be-released long-awaited sequel “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.” In addition to “The Dilemma,” Loeb also worked or is working on the upcoming Sandler/Aniston comedy “Just Go With It,” actioner “Protection” and high-profile reboot/remake “Escape From New York.” For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com .

Excerpt from:
Kevin James To Star In Mixed Martial Arts Film

Chris Matthews Bets Lib Guest Christine O’Donnell Will Win in November

Chris Matthews on Wednesday departed from the liberal media conventional wisdom that Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell’s defeat of Republican favorite Mike Castle was good news for Democrats and President Obama. Quite the contrary, the “Hardball” host has become extremely pessimistic about Democrat chances to retain Congress in the upcoming midterm elections, so much so that he likened his Party to the Titanic. “The boat is sinking,” he told fellow liberal David Corn. “The establishment is sinking.” When Corn tried to push back on Matthews’ view, the devout liberal said, “I take O`Donnell. How many points are you going to give me?” (videos follow with transcripts and commentary):  DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: Two points. First, you have — we have to see how these Tea Partiers do with a general election audience. And the second point — CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Oh, you`re taking the – CORN: No, no, no. MATTHEWS: You are trying to deny — (CROSSTALK) CORN: See what happens. MATTHEWS: You`re still denying it. CORN: I was on last night. You know I`m not denying it. I think they`re major threats to the Democrats. But we got to see what happens. MATTHEWS: Well, let me get this straight. As the Titanic sinks and it`s all the way up to the top decks, and it`s already up to the top decks, well, let`s see how it affects the first class passengers. The boat is sinking. The establishment is sinking. CORN: Listen, Leonardo is still holding on tight. And we see how — what happens to him. (LAUGHTER) CORN: But the other point is, you know that presidential primaries are like family holiday gatherings. All of the internal dysfunctions get played out. And so, really what happens right now, whether the establishment comes and supports people like Christine O`Donnell or not, those passions are going to be really stirred up and if you see Karl Rove continuing to battle with the Tea Party forces, then I think it will put more pressure and create more anger on the far right that will turn into explosive. MATTHEWS: OK. CORN: You know — it will be explosive. MATTHEWS: You`re using a lot of words, David. Usually, you`re much more punchy. The reason you`re taking a lot of words — CORN: I`ll make it simple — (CROSSTALK) CORN: I think it`s still hard for the Republicans. MATTHEWS: I look at Rand Paul, that the guy is going to win. I look at Pat Toomey now and I hate to say, this is a guy who`s going to win. I think the right has got the upper hand now going into this general election. And I`m looking at these numbers — CORN: But they always — they always did. MATTHEWS: They have the upper hand. Your thoughts. Wow! Matthews now thinks Paul and Toomey are going to win. But it gets better: MICHELLE BERNARD, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: But if you look at the people who have been basically sent running from the Republican Party this year, we`ve got Crist, Arlen Specter, Lisa Murkowski — there is definitely a lot of dissension within the Republican Party, and, quote-unquote, “establishment people,” could literally see themselves completely knocked out of Republican politics by the time we get to 2012. CORN: But at the same time — but at the same — MATTHEWS: So, the establishment lost every one of these races, they`re at the bottom of the league. The people that are winning are all the challengers. And I just — every night it happens, I say, this can`t happen. Castle can`t lose. Specter can`t lose. They all lose. The establishment of the politics of America is playing defense now and they`re losing. CORN: The Republican establishment — all those Republicans who are beaten, most of them would probably have done very well in general election. What we`re worrying about now, what some people are worrying about is that — is that Castle would have done better than Christine O`Donnell. I mean, Murkowski would have an easy walk to re-election, right? Joe Miller probably will win, but he has a smaller chance of winning, at least that`s the constitution wisdom at the moment. MATTHEWS: I take O`Donnell. How many points are you going to give me? CORN: How many points will I give you? MATTHEWS: Yes, how many you give. Because you keep acting like this is all over, that she`s going to lose. CORN: No, but I don`t believe it`s all over. MATTHEWS: Right. CORN: But I do believe that the Republicans have this internal split — MATTHEWS: OK. OK. I get back to this. CORN: — that they still haven`t dealt with. MATTHEWS: I can`t see the Republican convention meeting, wherever they`re going to meet, in Tampa, right? They`re down there and they`re thundering in there with delegates, one of these Tea Partiers after another, storming the gates, all excited about they`re going to get rid of the 14th Amendment, get rid of, what, the 17th Amendment, energize the 10th Amendment, love the Second Amendment, and then they go pick Romney, Tim Pawlenty. CORN: But who`s the Tea Party candidate? MATTHEWS: I don`t see how it happens. CORN: But who`s the Tea Party candidate? Sarah Palin? Who else? MATTHEWS: Yes. CORN: Well, what if she doesn`t run? MATTHEWS: Well, I don`t know what happens. CORN: What happens to them? MATTHEWS: I don`t see what — I`m asking the question. BERNARD: I don`t — I don`t think this is the death now for, quote- unquote, “establishment people,” like Mitt Romney. He`s a good guy. I think — we just don`t know. I know you think it`s funny — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I think you like establishment-type Republicans. BERNARD: I do. CORN: He also knows — he knows how to change his skin. He already sent money to Christine O`Donnell. BERNARD: But he`s also never going to campaign like Christine O`Donnell. We are never going to see that type of a flip-flop, I hope, from Mitt Romney or others, I hope. (CROSSTALK) BERNARD: We`re not going to see someone like Christine O`Donnell — MATTHEWS: — abortion rights. CORN: These guys run the way they run and then they look to the vice president to sort of send that message. BERNARD: We will not see a Christine O`Donnell on the Republican ticket in 2012. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: The tea point is boiling and steaming and it`s going to make that whistle sound when it`s ready to coffee. BERNARD: Absolutely. MATTHEWS: The whistle is making that sound. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: You try to put a lid on that (INAUDIBLE). In the final segment of “Hardball,” Matthews really drove this point home: MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with a question. Just where do you think this explosion of voter anger we saw last night in Delaware and have seen growing in voters in Pennsylvania, Florida, Utah, Nevada, Kentucky, Colorado and in just about every poll across the country is going to take us? Last night, as the dust began to clear, I heard progressive glee that the anger was on the verge of burning itself out, that the victory of Christine O`Donnell in Delaware like that of Sharron Angle in Nevada, was throwing away the election. How could voters in the general election go so far as to elect one of these candidates the angry primary voters have kicked pup? I supposed I had my eyes on something different. While others were seeing dead people, the defeated Mike Castle, who was supposed to be strong this November, I saw the strength of the flames that consumed him and will consume many others this rapidly approaching election night. I have waited all my adult life for an election in which voters have the fire to reach up and burn those who have been running the show for decades. But I didn`t know it would come from the right and center. 2010 could be the first year in modern times when being in office in Washington and part of Washington is the worst possible credential when facing voters. I don`t know how far the fire will burn. Based upon last night`s returns, I expect it has a long way to go. It could topple the House and, yes, the U.S. Senate. It could bring the defeat of people who feel even now they are not endangered. It could produce an election night spectacle of name brand politicians standing before stance supporters saying their careers are kaput. Why is this happening? Because this economic system is failing to produce the security and opportunity people have come to expect in this country. In this middle-class country, the middle class are scared and when people are scared, they get angry. They sense a rot at the top and are ready to chop it off. If the plan of those in power to raise a ton of cash and run nasty TV ads saying you can`t vote for this new person, that he or she is flawed — I expect the voter will say, “Are you telling me I have no choice but to vote for you? Are you saying that I, this little voter out there, dare not take a chance on someone who has not yet let me down as you have? If that is what you`re telling me, that I have no choice, well, Mr. Big Stuff, you just have to wait — stay up late election night and see what I have done.” Wow! It appears Mr. Matthews is starting to understand just how strong this anti-Democrat, anti-big government movement is. The only question remaining is when will the rest of his liberal colleagues in the media? Will they get it before Election Day? Stay tuned. 

Read more:
Chris Matthews Bets Lib Guest Christine O’Donnell Will Win in November

Ed Schultz: Obama’s School Speech Should Be Mandatory For All Students

At certain schools across the country, parents possessed the authority to pull their children from class Tuesday so as not to witness President Obama’s address to students nationwide – and Ed Schultz believes that constitutes an “opt-out for Right-wing whackos.” Schultz seemed to be not in favor of academic freedom – in this case. Decrying opposition to the speech as “perverse conservative hatred” for Obama and “motivated by race,” Schultz was apparently doubly-mad about this, as he hit the issue hard for two nights in a row on his MSNBC show. “I think the President’s speech should be mandatory for all students,” he insisted. Some public schools notified parents if their children would be watching the speech, while others left the decision to the teachers whether or not to show it. “If you’re a superintendent, and it wasn’t shown in your school, or in every one of your classrooms, you ought to be ashamed,” Schultz raged. “It’s amazing you’re on the payroll in this country.” “Educators are trying to keep your kids away from President Obama,” he warned, sounding somewhat like a fear-mongering political TV ad. “The conservative movement in this country wants to brand the thinking of young people like cattle.” And why should students be forced to listen to the speech? “This is the President talking to kids about bettering themselves,” Schultz claimed. However, he argued that parents should not even have a say in whether their child listens to the speech. Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter agreed with him, appearing on Schultz’s Monday evening show. Alter asked if the same teachers provided an opt-out clause for parents when President Bush and President Reagan were in the White House. If not, they should be “ashamed,” he admonished. “That’s the subtext of this, that he’s not really the President,” Alter said of conservatives’ opposition to Obama’s speech. “He’s the ‘Other.’ He’s an alien. He’s not our President. That’s not the way things are supposed to work in America. Elections are supposed to have consequences. People should support the results of the election.” “Conservatives, well – they hate public education,” Schultz snarled on his Tuesday show. He added that their opposition is “motivated by race,” and that “there are still millions of people who just don’t want to see their kids have any association with anyone who’s black.” A partial transcript of the two segments, which aired on September 13 and 14, at 6:48 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. EDT respectively, is as follows: THE ED SHOW 9/13/10 6:48 p.m. EDT ED SCHULTZ: Educators are trying to keep your kids away from President Obama. (…) SCHULTZ: And I’m sorry to say folks across America are still suffering from the effects of Righty fear-mongering after the President – and so concerned about the President indoctrinating students. Now in flyover country, let’s take for instance in West Fargo, ND – parents have to be notified if their kids will be watching the speech. And they have to have the option to remove their child from class during the address. Down in Texas, students – well they’ve got to get their parents to sign permission slips to watch the President of the United States. This is absolutely outrageous and ridiculous. Last year we saw the same kind of garbage that was thrown out there by the Righties that infiltrated into the public schools. But all the President did was urge students back then to stay in school and work hard. There was no agenda, no socialist indoctrination. The President of the United States is a prime example of how far you can go if you’re willing to work hard. Treating it as a controversial event with an opt-out for Right-wing whackos I think is appalling. I think the President’s speech should be mandatory for all students.   (…) SCHULTZ: Jonathan, is this a product of a lot of fear-mongering that has taken place surrounding the Obama presidency? What do you think? JONATHAN ALTER, Senior Editor, Newsweek: Oh absolutely. Look, you could barely understand it last year, I mean, even though it was outrageous then, too, because you could argue, okay, maybe some of the far-Right believed some of the right-wing propaganda that he would use the occasion to indoctrinate. But then, as you said, he gave the speech, “Stay in school, work hard, follow your dreams.” So they know what the message is, so for them to ban kids from – prevent kids from seeing it this year is triply ridiculous. Because we know what he’s going to say. SCHULTZ: We have gutless administrators, in my opinion, that don’t have the guts to stand up. In some school districts across the country, they say “Oh well we’ll leave it up to the teachers, meaning the teachers will make a decision in the classroom whether the President’s going to be seen or not. The administration gives them no cover whatsoever, no leadership whatsoever. This is the President talking to kids about bettering themselves, and it’s being, you know – ALTER: And a question for every one of those teachers and administrators – did you do the same when George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan gave their speeches, if you’ve been in the schools long enough? Did you do the same? If not, if not, if you didn’t give parents the chance to opt out you should be completely ashamed of yourself if you didn’t do it in this case. It’s basically saying that this President isn’t legitimate. That’s the subtext of this, that he’s not really the President. He’s the “Other.” He’s an alien. He’s not our President. That’s not the way things are supposed to work in America. Elections are supposed to have consequences. People should support the results of the election.   THE ED SHOW 9/14/10 6:00 p.m. EDT ED SCHULTZ: I’m on fire that conservatives have taken their warped hatred of President Obama into public schools in this country. Parents are shielding kids from watching the President’s “Back to School” message. Can you believe it? What a low-point for this country. (…) SCHULTZ: The perverse conservative hatred for President Obama has infiltrated public schools all across this country. It’s a debate that’s being held in every school district. … For the second straight year, the President of the United States took time to give an uplifting, positive, forward-thinking message to American school kids for the second straight year. Conservatives, what are they doing? Well they’re trying to protect young, impressionable ears and minds from his message. Here’s the deal. In Aiken County, SC, parents were given the choice to opt their children out of the President’s education speech today. In Fargo, ND, parents were given the option to show or not show the speech. And a school near Austin, TX required parents to fill out a permission slip so their kids could watch the President of the United States give their kids this message. (…) SCHULTZ: If you’re a superintendent, and it wasn’t shown in your school, or in every one of your classrooms, you ought to be ashamed. It’s amazing you’re on the payroll in this country, and that’s what’s wrong with education in this country. We don’t have people who can make positive decisions. This is crazy. Now I’ve talked with parents from all over America on my talk show about this for the last two days. A woman in Colorado told me a principal at her kid’s school said that the President was too controversial! This is a low moment in America. The level of acceptance for keeping kids away from the President is disgusting. All of this is fueled by the nutjobs on the Right, Beck saying that the President has a deep-seated hatred for white people, Newt out there trying to make Americans believe that the President is from Kenya. The list goes on and on, and you know who the culprits are. The conservative movement in this country wants to brand the thinking of young people like cattle. It’s outrageous this kind of thinking is commonplace in American public schools. He is the President of the United States of America elected by American citizens! But, you see, conservatives, well – they hate public education. They’re afraid to ask “Where is the leadership?” I’ll ask it tonight. This is all part of villifying public education on the part of the conservatives. Superintendents who shied away from this are just walking in lock step with those who are scared. Superintendents should make the correct call, and not put the burden on the teachers. A speech like this should have been mandatory, it should have been not even considered whether it’s an issue or not. This, you know, if it was Ronald Reagan, or if it was George W. Bush, Hannity, Limbaugh – their heads would explode. They’d be screaming about the liberal schoolteachers dishonoring the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. But nobody seems to care about dishonoring the black President. I think a lot of this is motivated by race. There are still millions of people who just don’t want to see their kids have any association with anyone who’s black. That’s right. What’s wrong with our country? What’s wrong with this picture? I mean, I can’t believe that liberals sit back and take this garbage. Where’s the conversation about this at the leadership level in politics? This is a kitchen table issue that I think the Democratic leadership team should speak to across this country. The story speaks to the decay of our country, the lack of respect for the Oval Office, the lack of respect for our elections, the lack of acceptance that Barack Obama is, in fact, the President of the United States. Now if you’re a superintendent, I should probably point out to you that the irony is that this President is probably one of the most academically-accomplished Presidents we’ve ever had. And his critic across the street loves to tell people that he’s a college dropout. So you make the choice. You mean to tell me that we have school administrators in this country that are so afraid of the local school board, and so concerned about their job and their security that they’re afraid to put the President of the United States, with a positive message about education, in their school? Hell, you’re no better than the politicians that take money in Washington. You’re all about your job. You’re afraid to stand up. And this is one of the problems we have in public education in this country – we don’t have enough leaders. We don’t have enough people that stand up and say “Look, this is the correct thing to do because he’s the President of the United States.” Conversely, what do you think the kind of problem that would be created if President Obama were to take this opportunity and really give a strong speech about universal health care? Or really give a strong speech about taxes and say, “Well, you know your dad makes over $250,000 a year, I think that, heck, he ought to be paying more.” You think the President would do something like that? Well, in the twisted thinking of these Righties, they think he’ll do anything. In fact, one broadcaster on Fox is now saying that President Obama is going to lead liberals to violence if the election doesn’t go their way. I guess this is why we have a segment on this show called “Psycho Talk.” It is a sad day for America, because there are other countries around the world that watch our model of entrepreneurship in developing young minds to be aggressive in the capitalistic system in this country. And what message are we sending? “Hell, they don’t even let Obama speak to their kids in public schools. America’s on the decline. We can kick their ass. Let’s see if we can get more of their jobs.” Yes, there is a ripple effect throughout the whole thing.

Visit link:
Ed Schultz: Obama’s School Speech Should Be Mandatory For All Students

Lady Gaga Backstage At The VMAs: The Realest Girl, The Meatiest Dress

Bigger Than the Sound captures a few moments when the cameras weren’t rolling. By James Montgomery Lady Gaga Photo: Mark Ralston/ Getty Images On Sunday night at the Video Music Awards , Lady Gaga won everything besides Best Contemporary World Music Album, but you probably couldn’t tell by the way she acted. Or at least I couldn’t. After all, I was standing roughly 3 feet from her as she descended from the stage, Video of the Year Moonman in one hand, short-loin inspired clutch in the other. And at that moment, she didn’t seem like the biggest pop icon on the planet, a woman who genuinely inspires millions and appears determined to speak for the voiceless and use her status to elicit actual social change . Instead, she seemed like a very demure, very humble human being. This may have had something to do with the fact that she had just accepted an award from Cher (which can definitely be a disorienting experience), or because she had just won her eighth Moonman of the night, but it definitely struck me as odd. After all, if you take everything you know or have read about her, combine it with her videos, fashion sense and over-the-top, decidedly feisty live performances, you are left with a picture that is less human and more, well, deity. Gaga does not appear to be human — more like a pneumatic lion tamer with a penchant for creative haberdashery, or a fire-breathing neo-Shiva in sunglasses — which is sort of the point, I suppose. But, as I learned on VMA night, it’s not actually the truth. I don’t know why it took me so long to realize this. After all, I have interviewed her and used this very space earlier this year to examine her transformation from otherworldly star to a normal girl . But there was something about watching her fight back tears at the VMAs — something she continued to do backstage, just in case you were wondering — that made it click for me. I watched as she hugged Cher, whispered something to her and then made the trek down to her dressing room, still shaking slightly, still saying “thank you” to the various stagehands and show producers who shouted their congratulations as she passed. I followed her and her entourage out of the theater, trying to keep my eyes on her tiny shoulders as she was surrounded by a ring of beefy security guards. This is much tougher to do than you would imagine; after all, Gaga is very small in person, practically delicate. She does not walk as much as she tiptoes, mostly because of the McQueen armadillo heels she wears, but also because you get the sense that the slightest breeze would knock her over. There is a fine, almost-porcelain quality to her. You want to put her on a glass shelf. You want to run a feather duster over her. There are not many deities you can say this about. Her entourage headed downstairs, and again, I followed. They made their way into the hallway beneath the stage, a carpeted pathway lined with dressing rooms. Most of the stars heard her coming and popped their heads out to catch a glimpse of her. Yes, she has that kind of clout. I watched from a wall as her team of stylists emerged from her dressing room and started clapping and cheering, and only then did I notice that Gaga was smiling. This was the real her, the person that only her closest friends — and, I suppose, nosy reporters — get to see. The Gaga that only comes out when the camera’s aren’t around (which is something, like, three hours of each day). There were still tears in her eyes, though now she wasn’t crying; she was laughing, making a kind of gulping sound. It was exactly the kind of thing you or I would do in a situation like this, when we have just triumphed and are now getting to share that moment with our friends. And I watched as she disappeared into her room, followed by her inner circle. The door closed, and her security guards fell into place, but you could definitely hear the celebratory whoop that happened immediately afterward. It was certainly genuine. After all, Gaga cares about winning awards, though I suspect it has more to do with the fact that she gets to share the victory with her friends. That’s the kind of person I’m guessing she is. I don’t know how long she stayed in there, because I was already making my way down to the other end of the hallway, where Kanye West was having an impromptu, celeb-filled party in his dressing room. It stopped traffic. Usher popped in. Rihanna did too. There were ballerinas involved. The contrast between the two rooms was noteworthy. Because even when the lights aren’t on, Kanye still carries himself like a deity. It’s part of his mystique. Gaga is different. She doesn’t need a mystique; being human seems to be enough for her. And, yes, I realize I’m making tremendous assumptions based on a few unguarded moments, but you learn a lot from someone when they know the cameras aren’t rolling, when it’s just them, their closest confidants and maybe a Moonman or two. For a minute, I got to see the real Lady Gaga, and it was all I needed. She cries and laughs and even gulps on occasion. She is humble and genuine. She is human, after all, even when she’s wearing a meat dress. You learn something new every day. Share your thoughts on Gaga’s victorious VMA night in the comments below. The Moonmen have all been handed out and the stars have gone home, but there’s plenty of MTV Video Music Awards news, interviews, behind-the-scenes scoop, party reports and more still to come, so keep it locked on MTVNews.com. Related Videos VMA 2010: Performances 2010 VMA Pre-Show Uncensored VMA 2010: Lady Gaga’s VMA Moments Related Photos VMA 2010: Top Fashion Trends

Originally posted here:
Lady Gaga Backstage At The VMAs: The Realest Girl, The Meatiest Dress

Rachel Maddow Hits Two-Year Mark at MSNBC With Signature Dishonesty

Not how I’d mark an anniversary, but MSNBC is flexible in its alleged standards. On Sept. 8, Rachel Maddow told viewers it was two years since her cable show started on MSNBC. And what better way to enter her third year of televised liberal polemics than with Maddow’s trademark melding of smarm and deceit.  The following night, Maddow railed at Newt Gingrich and Citizens United for producing and marketing a documentary warning Americans of the threat from radical Islam, after she complained about Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck charging admission to a meet-and-greet on Saturday, the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks (first of four parts in embedded video) — Do you want to know who else has realized the merchandising potential of the 9/11 anniversary this year? In partnership with Citizens United — yes, the same Citizens United that won the Supreme Court case that says corporations can pour limitless cash into American elections — former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has put together a very scary new movie. It’s called ‘America At Risk’ and they have decided to give ‘America at Risk’ its national launch date on (pause) 9/11, whereupon it can be yours for the low, low price of $19.95 plus $4 shipping and handling. Act now, operators are standing by. The trailer for the new launched-on-/9/11 movie is already up online. Here’s an excerpt and I actually should tell you up front that I admit to modifying this excerpt to be able to put it on this TV show in a way that allows me to live with myself. For the first few seconds of this video, I’m not actually going to show you the video part of what Newt Gingrich decided to put on screen while making the argument you will hear him making here. Because the video in the original, the video that he shows while making this argument, the images he chooses to use to sell this stuff, what he is showing is graphic video, graphic video from the real 9/11. And I am not going to help him market that. So, I will show you this clip so you know what this is, you will hear what he says, but I am not going to show the 9/11 ‘sploitation video that he shows while he says it. Ah, how noble. And the “graphic” images Maddow couldn’t bear to share with viewers? There were two, blurred out of focus by Maddow (and both can be seen at the trailer here , starting at 1:01) — the towers from a distance of about a half-mile, the north tower burning, the south tower not yet hit. The second image is of a man giving his coat to a female traffic cop at a dust-clogged Ground Zero and the woman quickly putting the coat to her face to help her breathe or cover an injury. The fleeting images are seen for all of three seconds, if that. One could make the argument that every image from 9/11 is graphic and painful to witness. What Maddow claims here as especially graphic is a stretch, to put it kindly.The first of the two images is smoke billowing from one of the towers, from a distance, with not a single person visible in the frame. Given the brevity of the footage of that follows, of the woman holding a coat to her face, it is difficult to determine if she had been burned or otherwise injured or was gasping for breath.  What Maddow does here is a version of what liberals have done for nearly a decade — airbrushing 9/11 from our history. Toward that end, they stake a proprietary claim to any and all images from the atrocity, at least when cited by conservatives, and proceed to deem the images too graphic for public consumption. Why? To avoid the most awkward question of all — why did it happen? Such discourse leads inevitably to Iraq, as liberals are keenly aware. Not to Iraq as complicit in the planning and execution of the attack, of which there is no evidence. No, Iraq as the rationale for al Qaeda attacking to begin with, due to the jihadists’ towering twin grievances of infidel troops in the Peninsula of Muhammad and UN sanctions on Iraq for flouting Security Council resolutions to disarm in good faith. Maddow also talked on Sept. 9 about the controversy surrounding Dove World Outreach Center pastor Terry Jones’s vow to burn copies of the Koran on the 9/11 anniversary. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., notorious for their obnoxious protests outside the funerals of American soldiers, claimed to have burned a Koran in public in Washington, D.C., in 2007, and garnered scant attention. Here’s Maddow’s take on then and now (second clip in embedded video, starting at 2:24) — What’s different now, the reason no one paid attention to crazy Fred Phelps’ Koran-burning antics and almost literally everyone in the country is paying attention to the Koran-burning antics of this equally crazy Florida guy, is because today the sentiment behind I’m-a-crazy-guy-who’s-gonna-burn-me-some-Korans-on-9/11 is being carried into the mainstream by a current of extreme anti-Muslim, we’re-at-war-with-Islam rhetoric. You really want to know why we’re all suddenly paying attention to one lunatic in Florida who’s been threatening to burn copies of the Koran? This is why — … whereupon Maddow shows an excerpt from the “America at Risk” trailer again, starting with remarks by Newt and Callista Gingrich — as if the Gingriches and this documentary warning of radical Islam motivated Jones in his vow to burn copies of the Koran. For anyone not in a coma over the last month, a more obvious explanation comes to mind — Jones was responding to Imam Rauf’s proposal to build an “Islamic community center” near Ground Zero, and doing so in an equally odious, constitutionally protected provocation. After the “America at Risk” trailer is shown again, Maddow says this (starting at 3:24 in video) — Not just crazy guys who scream at house plants, like the Florida pastor, but supposedly serious political figures like Newt Gingrich have been banging this drum on the right that we in America are at war with Islam. Not with terrorists, with Islam, with an entire religion, with anybody who is a Muslim. And that’s why we’re all talking about the Koran-burning kook in Florida. Sorry, no. The actual reason “we’re all talking” about this is due to allegedly moderate Imam Rauf, the one who describes America as “sharia compliant,” and who humbly seeks to build a Muslim shrine — in a building damaged on 9/11. (In other words, at Ground Zero) That’s the context here, Ms. Maddow, your grasping contortions to the contrary. For Maddow to say Gingrich claims America is at war with “Islam”, with “an entire religion,” isn’t just a stretch, it’s dishonest. Gingrich — as he has since well before 9/11 — is warning of the peril from radical, militant Islam, not Islam itself. It’s not just in the trailer to “America at Risk” where Gingrich makes this distinction. While the documentary was being made, Gingrich spoke at the American Enterprise Institute in late July on the same subject and said this (link to transcript here ; first quote on page 10) — Let me just say I believe that it is very important to draw a distinction between radical jihadis, which I define simply (as) those people who seek to impose sharia, and those Muslims who seek to practice their religion within a framework of the modern world. I would allow each Muslim to define themselves in that sense, but I would be unequivocal about the fact that radical Islamists are not compatible with the modern world and not compatible with civilization as we know it and therefore we are engaged in a long struggle. To Maddow and her ilk, any criticism of radical Islam becomes condemnation of all Muslims, just as any criticism of a (liberal) person of color is immediately deemed racist.  Later in her show Sept. 9, while talking with New York Times columnist Gail Collins, Maddow make this telling remark (third part of video, starting at 3:50) — MADDOW: I made the case in the opening segment, in which I yelled and I’m sorry but I feel a little emotional about it, that the reason that this is getting driven the way it is, and sort of why this kook guy without a congregation who otherwise would be very happily ignored by everybody involved in the creation of news in this country … … which is how Maddow sees her role, “happily” involved in the “creation of news” — as opposed to “coverage” of news. You know, the sort of thing done by actual journalists. “Creation of news,” for example, taking the form of ignoring actual threats to this country — from jihadists — while manufacturing alleged threats, from those warning of jihad.  Maddow revisited the “America at Risk” documentary the following night after showing remarks from President Obama at his press conference that day, juxtaposed with those from President George W. Bush after 9/11 (final clip in video, starting at 4:11) — MADDOW: It sounds like all-American rhetoric when a president, any president, makes the case that Muslim-Americans are Americans too, that we are at war with terrorists, we’re not at war with Islam, that religious freedom wasn’t just a founding principle of this country, it is a living principle of this country. Yes, you heard right — “we are at war with terrorists.” Mark your calendar, it’s not often you hear a left winger acknowledge this. And hitting high above her average, Maddow gets it two-thirds’ correct. Yes, we’re at war. Yes, it’s with terrorists. What she can’t bear to point out is that we’re not at war with Basque or Tamil Tigers or any of dozens of other terrorist groups around the world — it’s with Islamic terrorists. Such is the practice of useful idiocy. As Gingrich also said at the American Enterprise Institute in July (transcript here , page 10 for following quote) — The left’s refusal to tell the truth about the Islamist threat is a natural parallel to the 70-year pattern of left-wing intellectuals refusing to tell the truth about communism and the Soviet Union. If you go back and look at all the years of disinformation, all the years of denial, that were the left’s response to communism, why would you think that the next threat to Western civilization will be more accurately studied? This is why the secular-socialist system is itself such a threat. It is the natural pattern of secular-socialist intellectuals to prefer our opponents to us and to accept their lies over our truths. If you doubt that, go look at any study of the 70-year pattern in which the left consistently apologized for the Soviet empire, and look at the shock of the left when Ronald Reagan described the evil empire. Or the pattern of the last decade in which the left demanded that jihadists were spared from harsh interrogation, and condemned Bush and Cheney as greater war criminals than bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

Visit link:
Rachel Maddow Hits Two-Year Mark at MSNBC With Signature Dishonesty

Wilkerson on 9/11

Lawrence Wilkerson is a retired United States Army soldier and former chief of staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell. Wilkerson is an adjunct professor at the College of William & Mary where he teaches courses on US national security. He also instructs a senior seminar in the Honors Department at the George Washington University entitled “National Security Decision Making.” added by: treewolf39

Drake Says Rat Pack Inspired VMA Performance

‘I wanted to get up there and look fly,’ he tells MTV News. By Shaheem Reid, with additional reporting by Sway Calloway Drake Photo: MTV News LOS ANGELES — You know you’ve made it when the chorus from your song is quoted on “SportsCenter.” You know you’ve made it tenfold when you have a highly anticipated slot at the MTV Video Music Awards . Drake has both, with “you fancy, huh?” permeating pop culture, and on Sunday, you’ll see him team up on the big stage with Swizz Beatz and a very special guest, Mary J. Blige, for his debut VMA performance. “All I remember is that VMAs in Vegas, in the hotel,” Drake said Friday afternoon (September 10) in his dressing room at the Nokia Theatre. He had just finished rehearsing for a couple of hours. “I remember being at home … seeing Tyga perform with Wayne, and I was like, ‘Man, I gotta get my ball rolling. I gotta be there one day.’ It’s surreal, being on that stage.” And yes, Drizzy will be surrounded by several beautiful ladies and one lovely Queen. “Fancy” was originally slated to be a Mary record , before eventually making its way to Thank Me Later. Drake and the song’s producer, Swizz Beatz, decided to keep her vocals on the hook of the song. “Her vocals are what make it so sweet,” Drake beamed of having MJB perform with him. “What’s more classy, more fancy than Mary J. Blige? I’m not sure. She is the epitome of class, in my opinion. It’s more of a real theater production than it is a performance. It’s really a lot of acting.” If rehearsals are any indication, Drake’s performance will be reminiscent of the up-to-date Sinatra cool in his VMA promo spot . “I watched the Rat Pack live at the Copa Room,” Drake recalled. “It was just so relaxed. They were smoking cigarettes and drinking Jack. It was women everywhere. It wasn’t, ‘Let’s just rap and be epic and be huge.’ They were like, ‘I really run this. Me and Sammy and Dean.’ I wanted to get up there and look fly.” Are you looking forward to Drake’s VMA performance? Let us know in the comments! Related Videos Drake’s First VMAs VMA 2010 Exposed Related Photos VMA 2010: Rehearsals Related Artists Drake

See the rest here:
Drake Says Rat Pack Inspired VMA Performance