Tag Archives: senator

Obama Can Shut Down Internet For 4 Months Under New Emergency Powers

President Obama will be handed the power to shut down the Internet for at least four months without Congressional oversight if the Senate votes for the infamous Internet ‘kill switch’ bill, which was approved by a key Senate committee yesterday and now moves to the floor. The Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which is being pushed hard by Senator Joe Lieberman, would hand absolute power to the federal government to close down networks, and block incoming Internet traffic from certain countries under a declared national emergency. Despite the Center for Democracy and Technology and 23 other privacy and technology organizations sending letters to Lieberman and other backers of the bill expressing concerns that the legislation could be used to stifle free speech, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed in the bill in advance of a vote on the Senate floor. In response to widespread criticism of the bill, language was added that would force the government to seek congressional approval to extend emergency measures beyond 120 days. Still, this would hand Obama the authority to shut down the Internet on a whim without Congressional oversight or approval for a period of no less than four months. The Senators pushing the bill rejected the claim that the bill was a ‘kill switch’ for the Internet, not by denying that Obama would be given the authority to shut down the Internet as part of this legislation, but by arguing that he already had the power to do so. They argued “That the President already had authority under the Communications Act to “cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication” when there is a “state or threat of war”, reports the Sydney Morning Herald. ears that the legislation is aimed at bringing the Internet under the regulatory power of the U.S. government in an offensive against free speech were heightened further on Sunday, when Lieberman revealed that the plan was to mimic China’s policies of policing the web with censorship and coercion. “Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley. While media and public attention is overwhelmingly focused on the BP oil spill, the establishment is quietly preparing the framework that will allow Obama, or indeed any President who follows him, to bring down a technological iron curtain that will give the government a foot in the door on seizing complete control over the Internet. As we have illustrated, fears surrounding cybersecurity have been hyped to mask the real agenda behind the bill, which is to strangle the runaway growth of alternative and independent media outlets which are exposing government atrocities, cover-ups and cronyism like never before. Indeed, China uses similar rhetoric about the need to maintain “security” and combating cyber warfare by regulating the web, when in reality their entire program is focused around silencing anyone who criticizes the state. The real agenda behind government control of the Internet has always been to strangle and suffocate independent media outlets who are now competing with and even displacing establishment press organs, with websites like the Drudge Report now attracting more traffic than many large newspapers combined. As part of this war against independent media, the FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream newspapers. added by: im1mjrpain

Media: GOP Blocks Unemployment Bill to Hurt Economy Before Midterm Elections

On Thursday, a new unemployment bill died in Congress as Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) joined Republicans on the grounds that government spending can’t go on forever. Instead of reporting both sides, the media couldn’t seem to hide their anger. The bill was called a “jobless aid” package that “governors were counting on” to help “the poor” across the nation. Almost all news reports began from the Democrat perspective and waited several paragraphs before weakly defending Republicans. Worse yet, a consensus with far more damaging impact began to grow: the loss will cause the nation’s economy to fall into a double dip recession, and it will be entirely the Republicans’ fault. Never mind last year’s stimulus bill worth $700 billion, or the bank bailout of 2008, both of which have failed to live up to promises of recovery. No, our economy is suffering because fiscal conservatives won’t spend even more. The Seattle Times was quick on the draw Thursday night with a clearly disappointed report headlined ” Republicans Continue Blockade of Federal Aid Bill .” What followed was an obviously biased effort to paint Republicans in a bad light: Senate Republicans on Thursday once again blocked legislation to reinstate long-term unemployment benefits for people who have exhausted their aid. With the Senate apparently paralyzed by partisan gridlock, the fate of the aid, as well as tax breaks for businesses and $16 billion in aid for cash-strapped states, remains unclear. Dozens of states, including Washington, are hoping for federal aid to help balance their budgets. Republican lawmakers – joined by Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska – maintained a unified front to sustain a filibuster of the $110 billion bill. The vote was 57-41, three short of the 60 needed to cut off debate and bring the bill to a final vote. Democrats said they would give no further ground and put the onus on Republicans to make concessions. Those who have “exhausted their aid” are the long-term unemployed who received financial assistance for up to 99 weeks already. Republicans seem to have this crazy notion that receiving government assistance that long might be long enough, and perhaps it’s time to start asking if Keynesian economics is working. But according to the Seattle Times, that kind of talk is just “partisan gridlock.” The article quoted one Republican against three Democrats and never got any deeper than vague concerns about the national debt. Toward the end, the Times went to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to imply that Republicans were sabotaging the economy: In a statement, the White House vowed to keep pushing for the bill. “The president has been clear: Americans should not fall victim to Republican obstruction at a time of great economic challenge for our nation’s families,” spokesman Robert Gibbs said. By Friday morning, this became the battle cry for reporters around the country. Reuters published an article that advanced the point in plainer terms: The bill, which also would have provided more aid to cash-strapped states for the Medicaid health program for the poor, fell a few votes short of the 60 needed to advance in the 100-member Senate. One Democrat, Ben Nelson, joined 40 Republicans to block the measure. Democrats argued that the bill would have helped shore up the fragile U.S. economic recovery, a priority for President Barack Obama’s administration. Yes, saving the economy has been one of President Obama’s priorities for some time now, mostly because nothing he does seems to save it. But Reuters didn’t have time to mention an inconvenient thing like that. Readers were expected to believe the premise that one more spending bill would have shored up the economy if not for those meddling Republicans. A few hours later, the Associated Press got involved with an even sharper accusation aimed directly at Republicans: The rejected bill would have provided $16 billion in new aid to states, preserving the jobs of thousands of state and local government workers and providing what White House officials called an insurance policy against a double-dip recession. It also included dozens of tax breaks sought by business lobbyists and tax increases on domestically produced oil and on investment fund managers. “This is a bill that would remedy serious challenges that American families face as a result of this Great Recession,” said Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chief author of the bill. “This is a bill that works to build a stronger economy. This is a bill to put Americans back to work.” How strange that quote didn’t show up in the early dispatches Thursday night. It’s almost as if the media spent Friday collectively drifting toward a good narrative. By 4:00 Friday, the economy-sabotage angle was official. The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent used the Plum Line blog for the announcement : A number of bloggers today have been up in arms about the apparent failure of the jobs bill in the Senate, now that it looks like no Republicans will help Dems break the GOP filibuster. This could have terrible consequences, and Senator Debbie Stabenow, in particular, is furious. Today she argued that Republicans want the economy to tank in order to help themselves in the midterms Thus in less than 24 hours, it went from Republicans worrying about the national debt to Republicans purposely tanking the economy just to embarrass Democrats. Not to be left out, Bloomberg’s Shobhana Chandra also cut right to the bone in an article on Friday: The Senate’s failure to pass legislation extending unemployment benefits will slow the pace of the U.S. recovery, said economist David Resler. The bill’s demise will trim economic growth by 0.2 percentage point this quarter and by 0.4 point in the period from July through September, estimated Resler, chief economist at Nomura Securities International Inc. in New York. So you see, economic growth apparently comes only by way of government spending, and this time there’s a real expert to say so! But all is not lost. While working hard to opine on the terrible news, Chandra inadvertently let something slip: Resler estimated that the unemployment rate, 9.7 percent in May, may decline by as much as one percentage point as some workers drop out of the labor force and others accept jobs they might have rejected earlier. Wait…when people finally realize they can’t live on government assistance forever, they might buckle down and accept a tough job? This nugget appeared exactly 11 paragraphs down from the headline and was quickly glossed over. So maybe, just maybe, Republicans are trying to enact market-based principles by urging people to go back to work. Maybe it has nothing to do with sabotaging the economy after all. Don’t count on that particular narrative to grow any legs, though. An hour after the Washington Post hit piece, the Associated Press was back for more : Labor Secretary Hilda Solis said Friday that Senate Republicans could be prolonging the recession by opposing a spending bill that would have extended unemployment benefits. Solis, talking to a group of Latino government officials in Denver, said Republicans were wrong to oppose to a broader jobs bill that would have extended jobless benefits for about 200,000 people a week. She warned of dire consequences if benefits are shut off. “This will be devastating and could take us back to a deeper recession,” Solis said Oh yeah, urging healthy workers to accept less glamorous jobs is really the “devastating” consequence of a diabolical Republican strategy. Good to know we have professional, independent, unbiased journalists hard on the trail of Republican masterminds. 

See the article here:
Media: GOP Blocks Unemployment Bill to Hurt Economy Before Midterm Elections

WaPo’s Stevens-Arroyo Calls for Catholics to ‘Embrace a Redistribution of Wealth’

The Washington Post’s really should consider renaming Anthony Stevens-Arroyo’s column in its “On Faith” blog. “Catholic America” should be “Liberal Democrat Catholic America,” just for the sake of truth in advertising. On June 23, left-wing hack Stevens-Arroyo again injected his politics into the ostensibly religious column. In “ Common good v corp. profits ,” he actually wrote that Catholics should “embrace a redistribution of wealth.” The column sought to explain how Catholics and others should view Judge Martin Feldman’s ruling overturning the Obama moratorium on off-shore drilling. Why, the reader may ask, should this event have Catholic significance, beyond the fact that a liberal writer whose column has “Catholic” in the title was upset about it? It doesn’t. But Stevens-Arroyo gamely offered that, “There may not be a ‘Catholic’ position about the immediate politics of off-shore drilling, but there is an on-going Catholic approach to resolving the competing interests.” Not surprisingly, that approach vindicates the left. To Stevens-Arroyo, the issue came down to “common good,” which led him to make this puzzling statement: “While we have considerable freedom about our personal political choices in the application of principles, Catholics in America are bound to embrace a redistribution of wealth, even if it goes contrary to ranting from groups like the Tea Party or Wall Street.” He never explained where exactly it states Catholics are bound to encourage the government to confiscate legally earned private property to give it to whomever it deems more worthy. Catholics are bound to assist others through charity, not compulsory redistribution. This isn’t the first time Stevens-Arroyo has conflated socialism with faith. Last year he declared that “ the most Catholic ” part of Ted Kennedy’s funeral was the senator’s grandchildren pleading for nationalized health care. But, not content being an arbiter of what is Catholic and what isn’t, Stevens-Arroyo set himself up as a law scholar, hypothesizing that the “Reagan-appointed judge” Feldman’s ruling could be seen as the work of an “activist court.” He ranted that, “a judge is supposed to be limited to matters of constitutionality — and not to impose his jobs’ policy. There can be no doubt that a presidential moratorium falls within the powers of the White House, so stopping this legitimate executive order on questions about its consequences constitutes activism.” Even the Associated Press explained that the moratorium was overturned because the “Interior Department failed to provide adequate reasoning for the moratorium.” Stevens-Arroyo has a history of being unable to hide his liberal viewpoints. Just last March he claimed that Fox New’s Glenn Beck was using “the same strategy of the Hitler Youth and the Polish Communist Party … ” In December he also attempted to compare Ft. Hood shooter Hidal Hassan to World War 1 hero Alvin York and General Patton.

See the original post:
WaPo’s Stevens-Arroyo Calls for Catholics to ‘Embrace a Redistribution of Wealth’

George Stephanopoulos Fawns Over Obama’s Handling of McChrystal Controversy: A ‘Political Masterstroke’

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Thursday hyped Barack Obama’s handling of the decision to fire General Stanley McChrystal and replace him with David Petraeus, lauding the action as a ” political masterstroke .” His comments built on extensive media praise on Wednesday, including many reporters who called the move “brilliant.” Stephanopoulos seemed particularly pleased. The former Democratic aide turned journalist extolled, “…That pick really seems to have been the political masterstroke that got President Obama out of the tight box he was in. It’s being welcomed both by Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.” Reporter Martha Raddatz agreed with Stephanopoulos, enthusing, “Sending Petraeus to Afghanistan is, by all accounts, a great save, for exactly the reasons the President described.” A transcript of the June 24 segment, which aired at 7:04am, follows: ROBIN ROBERTS: But, it, as you know, is a new day, under new leadership for U.S. troops in Afghanistan. After a high-stakes meeting with General Stanley McChrystal, President Obama announced his resignation, the general’s resignation. And named his replacement, the architect of the surge in Iraq, General David Petraeus. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And, Robin, that pick really seems to have been the political masterstroke that got President Obama out of the tight box he was in. It’s being welcomed both by Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Petraeus is expected to be confirmed quickly by the Senate and to be on the ground in Afghanistan next week. The big question, now, can General Petraeus fix a war effort that has been proceeding in fits and starts? President Obama said he was changing personnel, not policy. But, many wondering if a change in strategy is needed. We have Senator John McCain standing by live to talk about that. But, we’re going to begin with Martha Raddatz and the high drama in the high change of command. And, Martha, it was pretty stunning. 30 minutes with the President and a 30-year career is over. MARTHA RADDATZ: That’s exactly right, George. General McChrystal and his top aide will not be returning to Afghanistan and say good-bye. Their personal effects are being packed up right now for shipping back to the U.S. As an official in Kabul told me this morning, it feels like a death in the family. It all happened so fast. And in retrospect, was so obvious. Cameras trained on a White House entrance, caught Stanley McChrystal leaving his tense and final meeting with President Obama. And a short time later, David Petraeus arrived. He had come for a scheduled national security council meeting about Afghanistan. But we now know that just 45 minutes after McChrystal was ousted, the President called Petraeus to the oval office and asked him to take McChrystal’s job. BARACK OBAMA: He has worked closely with our forces in Afghanistan. He has worked closely with Congress. He has my full confidence. RADDATZ: Sending Petraeus to Afghanistan is, by all accounts, a great save, for exactly the reasons the President described. Petraeus is jokingly referred to by some in the military as a water walker, who seems to turn even the worst situations around. He received enormous credit for that in Iraq, where he served three, different tours, the last overseeing the surge. Ironically, he took over central command in 2008 because the man who was then holding the job, Admiral William Fallon, was ousted, after an Esquire magazine profile put him at odds with the Bush administration. The central command job, headquartered in Tampa, put Petraeus in charge of a swath of global hot spots, from Yemen, to Iran, to Pakistan. A senior administration official joked that sending Petraeus from Tampa to Kabul, was not exactly on the Better Homes tour. But clearly, the President is hoping that the magic touch Petraeus has had in the past, will help him in one of the toughest wars ever. And this may well be the hardest challenge Petraeus has faced. We also don’t know how long he will be in Afghanistan. He has already spent nearly half of the last ten years in a war zone. George?

See the original post:
George Stephanopoulos Fawns Over Obama’s Handling of McChrystal Controversy: A ‘Political Masterstroke’

USA Today’s Request Ted Kennedy-Related FBI Documents Ends with Surprising Lack of Chappaquiddick Papers

USA Today released the results of its Freedom of Information Act requests for FBI documents related to Ted Kennedy. John Fritze’s story leans heavily on the sympathetic “barrage of threats” angle to begin his story, and downplayed the lack of documents on the death at Chappaquiddick. Fritze began:  Sen. Edward Kennedy, who buried two brothers killed by assassins, endured a barrage of threats on his life that continued for much of his political career, thousands of FBI documents released Monday show. More than 2,200 pages of previously secret documents reveal Kennedy, the brother of President John F. Kennedy, received a constant stream of anonymous threats and warnings from members of the Ku Klux Klan and the militant anti-communist “Minutemen.” Fritze arrived at Chappaquiddick late in the article, and hinted without outrage that the Kennedy family may have removed a pile of documents that might have tainted the Ted Kennedy image:  “There might be a lead here or there,” said David Kaiser, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College who has written on the Kennedys. But Kaiser said he is “surprised by what wasn’t there,” including correspondence between the White House and the FBI over Chappaquiddick. The Kennedy family was given a chance to review the documents before they were released. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., and family representatives did not respond to requests for comment. So much for “Freedom of Information.” Remember this one the next time leftists start complaining about George W. Bush being tight with presidential records. Fritze reported that documents show Nixon aide John Dean was asking the FBI to determine if Mary Jo Kopechne, who died in the car Ted Kennedy drove off of Dyke Bridge in 1969, had visited Greece in 1968. Bryan Bender of the Boston Globe suggests the Nixon team was trying to see if Kopechne accompanied the Senator on a Greek vacation.  The Washington Post story by Jerry Markon reported that former Kennedy adviser Bob Shrum said Ted Kennedy delayed running for president until 1980 because of the threats, and somehow not because the threat of Chappaquiddick would also be hanging over his campaign:  Kennedy waited 12 years after Robert was assassinated before running for president, largely because of his family’s concerns about such threats, according to a longtime aide, Robert Shrum. “You took precautions,” said Shrum, Kennedy’s speechwriter during his 1980 presidential campaign. “We had a doctor with us everywhere we went. We had ambulances in most places. The memory was there. But you just lived with it.” Markon’s story ended by relaying only 77 of the 2,200 pages of Ted Kennedy documents were on Chappaquiddick: The files include 77 pages on the drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne when Kennedy drove his car off a bridge on Chappaquiddick Island off Martha’s Vineyard in 1969. The pages are nearly all newspaper articles, but one internal FBI document informed Hoover of the accident and says the police chief in Edgartown, Mass., “confidentially” advised that Kennedy was the driver. “Stated fact Senator Kennedy was driver is not being revealed to anyone,” the document said.

View original post here:
USA Today’s Request Ted Kennedy-Related FBI Documents Ends with Surprising Lack of Chappaquiddick Papers

MSNBC on Etheridge Assault: An ‘Ambush Interview,’ GOP ‘Set Up’

In the 2PM ET hour on MSNBC, anchor Tamron Hall did a news brief on Democratic Congressman Bob Etheridge assaulting two students attempting to ask him a question last week, proclaiming: “…there are some Democrats that are blasting the people allegedly behind this video….some would catagorize that as an ambush interview…” Hall played a clip of the video showing the assault and afterwards quoted an written apology from Etheridge. She described how the video “first appeared on Andrew Breitbart’s conservative blog BigGovernment.org,” remarking that he “was partly responsible for that notorious ACORN video featuring conservative James O’Keefe.” Hall made sure to also mention that “O’Keefe pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for entering Senator Mary Landrieu’s office under false pretenses.” Hall then suspiciously noted about the Etheridge video: “One of these so-called camera men at one point reportedly identified himself as a student, so there’s discrepancy over who these individuals really are.” In the 3PM ET hour on MSNBC, anchor Chris Jansing spoke with NBC correspondent Luke Russert about the altercation and explained to viewers: “…in spite of the fact of what we see on camera and his apology, there are Democrats, right Luke, who frankly say they think that we need to look beyond what might seem obvious.” Russert replied: “…nobody knows who these, quote, ‘students’ are” and cited Democratic Party spokesman Brad Woodhouse claiming they were actually Republican Party operatives. He concluded: “So a lot of Democrats are saying wait, hold on, this was a set up. This guy was intentionally put out to do this by the Republican Party.” Russert admitted: “We obviously don’t know if that’s true or not,” but quickly added, “it’s quite interesting that we do not know who the folks that actually took this video are, this late in the process. You’d think they’d want some notoriety, especially if they are perpetuating this cause against the Obama agenda.” After noting that Etheridge’s  House seat was “fairly safe,” Russert made the obvious observation that “…at the end of the day, everyone agrees, it’s never a good idea to physically assault somebody who’s trying to videotape you, especially in the YouTube age.” Here is a transcript of Hall’s June 14 news brief: 2:37PM EST TAMRON HALL: And North Carolina Representative Bob Etheridge is apologizing for a video that is all over the internet, people are buzzing about it. The video shows him confronted by two camera men as he leaves a fundraiser. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Confrontation on Camera; NC Rep. Apologizes for Confrontation Caught on Video] [VIDEO OF CONFRONTATION] HALL: So in a written statement just a short time ago, the Congressman said, quote, ‘I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved. Throughout my many years of service to the people of North Carolina I’ve always tried to treat people from all viewpoints with respect. No matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become. This does not justify a poor response. I have and will always work to promote a civil public discourse.’ Meanwhile, though, there are some Democrats that are blasting the people allegedly behind this video. It first appeared on Andrew Breitbart’s conservative blog BigGovernment.org. Breitbart, you might recall, was partly responsible for that notorious ACORN video featuring conservative James O’Keefe, when he dressed as a pimp. After a separate video project, O’Keefe pleaded guilty to misdemeanor for entering Senator Mary Landrieu’s office under false pretenses. One of these so-called camera men at one point reportedly identified himself as a student, so there’s discrepancy over who these individuals really are. But for the record, the Congressman has made this an official conversation by releasing this written statement of apology, at least regarding his actions. Not certainly those of the people who, some would catagorize that as an ambush interview, ambushing him. Here is a transcript of Jansing’s later exchange with Russert: 3:15PM EST CHRIS JANSING: Republicans and Democrats are getting fired up over a new viral video posted today on a right-wing website. It shows Democratic Congressman Bob Etheridge of North Carolina in a sidewalk confrontation with someone who identifies himself as a student. [VIDEO OF CONFRONTATION] JANSING: An edited version of the tape first showed up on websites run by well-known conservative Andrew Breitbart, of the ACORN tape controversy. NBC News’s Luke Russert is on Capitol Hill for us. Alright, let’s start with the Congressman himself. I know you reached out to his office, what did you hear from them? LUKE RUSSERT: Yeah, so the Congressman was ready and willing. It had become quite a problem for him politically and he issued an apology saying, quote, ‘I have seen the video posted on several blogs, I deeply and profoundly regret my reaction and I apologize to all involved. Throughout my many years of service to the people of North Carolina I have always tried to treat people from all viewpoints with respect no matter how intrusive and partisan our politics can become. This does not justify a poor response. I have and I will always work to promote a civil public discourse.’ So Congressman Etheridge realizing this has become a very bad political story for him, realizing that he had to get out and make a comment. It took a few hours. This obviously happened last week, it was just put into the public sphere now for the mass media to see. Etheridge realizing that it had been politically damaging, coming out and saying that he regretted it. And quite frankly, just admitting that he really had a bad moment here, I mean, a physical altercation on the street in D.C., Chris. JANSING: Yeah, and in spite of the fact of what we see on camera and his apology, there are Democrats, right Luke, who frankly say they think that we need to look beyond what might seem obvious. RUSSSERT: There’s a few interesting things here, one is the face of the reported student is blurred out. At this moment, nobody knows who these, quote, ‘students’ are. The Breitbart folks have said that this video was submitted to them anonymously. Brad Woodhouse, a Democratic spokesman, said this in a memo that was obtained by Politico, quote, ‘This was a Republican Party tracking operation. If it wasn’t a party tracker or an intern, why is the face blurred and why is the source hidden? You know if it had been a right-wing blog that identified themselves, they’d be booking this person on TV all day.’ So a lot of Democrats are saying wait, hold on, this was a set up. This guy was intentionally put out to do this by the Republican Party. We obviously don’t know if that’s true or not, but it’s quite interesting that we do not know who the folks that actually took this video are, this late in the process. You’d think they’d want some notoriety, especially if they are perpetuating this cause against the Obama agenda. So it’s going to be interesting to see what happens from here on out. Politically, Bob Etheridge, though, is fairly safe. He won his district with 57% of the vote back in 2008. Obama actually won his district 53% to 47% in North Carolina, in the Raleigh area. So politically, he should not lose his seat from this. However, at the end of the day, everyone agrees, it’s never a good idea to physically assault somebody who’s trying to videotape you, especially in the YouTube age. Chris. JANSING: Note to self. Thank you, Luke. RUSSERT: Yup.

Read more:
MSNBC on Etheridge Assault: An ‘Ambush Interview,’ GOP ‘Set Up’

Saturday Night Funnies: Boxer Says CO2 Leading Cause of Conflict Next 20 Years

On Thursday, Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) took to the floor of the Senate and claimed that carbon dioxide — that naturally occurring gas integral to life on this planet! — “will be over the next 20 years the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm’s way” (transcript and commentary follow): I’m going to put in the record, Madam President, a host of quotes from our national security experts who tell us that carbon pollution leading to climate change will be over the next 20 years the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm’s way. And that’s why we have so many returning veterans who want us to move forward and address this issue, so we can create those new technologies that get us off this foreign oil.  As bonus coverage, here’s how this Senator treats higher-ups in the military:

Original post:
Saturday Night Funnies: Boxer Says CO2 Leading Cause of Conflict Next 20 Years

More Liberal Media Figures Say ‘Bravo to Them’ For 40-Year ‘Success’ As Al and Tipper Gore Separate

There were more examples this week of liberal Gore-friendly media outlets trying to smooth over Al and Tipper Gore’s separation. In their “Conventional Wisdom” box Newsweek gave the Gores a sideways arrow: “Famous public smoochers calling it quits after 40 years. Still, they stayed classy.” Time ran a big picture of the 2000 smooch, and underneath Belinda Luscombe wrote “In a leaked e-mail to friends, Al and wife Tipper — whose lascivious smooch on the 2000 campaign trail is etched in the public memory like an awkward childhood experience — announced they ‘have decided to separate’ after 40 years of wedlock, a duration so robust that most statisticians will still count the Gores’ marriage as a success.” On Monday’s edition of the NPR talk show Tell Me More  with Michel Martin, former Washington Post health editor Abigail Trafford also broke out the “Bravo to them” line about the 40 years:   MICHEL MARTIN: Are you as surprised, as so many of the rest of us are, by this news about Al and Tipper Gore? TRAFFORD: Oh, well, you know, of course. We’re all surprised. We’re always shocked when people – we have a certain image of them and they split up. But you know, you never know what goes on inside a marriage. And I think we should sort of turn this around. You know, 40 years is a great accomplishment. It’s not as though you can take away those 40 years. I say bravo to them. And this is one of the differences between divorce that occurs late in life and early divorces. In late divorces, you can’t erase the past. That’s still a glorious past. MARTIN: You’re saying that the 40 years together is still a victory and an accomplishment of which they should be proud, even if the marriage didn’t go the distance. TRAFFORD: Exactly right. Absolutely. Sally Quinn, the first to blame George W. Bush for the breakup, took the rejoicing to an extreme last Sunday from ther perch at the Washington Post On Faith page in an article titled “The Gift of the Gores.”  Rejoice. Al and Tipper have split up. I know, I know. Separation and divorce are supposed to be bad. Marriage is a sacrament to many, a promise and a moral commitment to God and each other. Certainly everyone I talked to was shocked that the Gores were letting go of that commitment. “How sad” was their initial reaction. But there’s another way to look at it. The Gores have handled their decision to separate with dignity and grace. In doing so, they have given us all a great gift — an opportunity for a deeply important and mature conversation about the changing nature of marriage in a time when women have equal opportunities, when people are getting married later in life and when life expectancy is much longer. Not only should we respect their decision, but in some ways we should rejoice in it. Quinn repeated the Bush line: Her role as wife of the Congressman, the Senator, the Vice President and the presidential candidate was all-consuming. Then, just as she was about to become First Lady, a role that would give her the clout to make a difference, the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George W. Bush. Al won the election but lost the presidency, a devastating turn of events that sent him into a deep depression. Imagine what that must have been like for Tipper. Her entire life had been tied to his career. Suddenly, it was all gone. “Poor Al,” everyone thought. “Is Al OK? How’s Al taking it?” What about Tipper? Not only did she lose her career, but she lost her husband, too, at least emotionally. After he came out of his depression, Al’s new career as Nobel Prize-winning environmental activist kept him traveling the globe. His new interests were not hers. Tipper had been the good wife for 40 years. Now it is time for her. Quinn insisted the Gores made the right decision to marry, and also the right decision to separate, and even though she was writing for the “On Faith” page, she made no reference to that old notion that what God has joined, let no man separate .

Original post:
More Liberal Media Figures Say ‘Bravo to Them’ For 40-Year ‘Success’ As Al and Tipper Gore Separate

More Washington Post Hijinks? Reporter Cancels Book Party Appearance Hosted by Democrat Operative

It’s probably safe to assume that a lot of reporters in the mainstream media lean to the left side of the ideological spectrum. And it was seen throughout the health care debate over the past year and a half – that somehow we need to raise the rhetoric beyond hyperbole like death panels, etc. One of those reporters was The Washington Post’s health care reporter Ceci Connolly, who last summer appeared on MSNBC and made such a plea . And since then, she made other gestures to show she was in line with the Obama administration on this issue. Well, lo and behold, according to a story by Jeremy Peters posted on the New York Times Media Decoder blog , Connolly canceled an appearance at a party for the book, “Landmark: The Inside Story of America’s New Health Care Law and What it Means for All of Us,” which according to her Web site Connolly is “one of the main authors of the first definitive book on the 2010 health care law.” “[T]he Post found itself in another potentially embarrassing and ethically compromised position on Wednesday after one of its most senior reporters abruptly canceled an appearance at her own book party, which was being sponsored by a public relations firm with strong ties to the Democratic Party,” Peters wrote. That communications firm was Blue Line Strategic Communications, a public relations firm run by Michael Meehan and David DiMartino. Peters reported Meehan, a Democratic communications strategist, has had some very close ties to several Democrat campaigns. “Mr. Meehan was most recently an adviser to Martha Coakley, the Massachusetts attorney general who lost to Senator Scott Brown, the insurgent Republican candidate who captured Edward M. Kennedy’s former seat,” Peters wrote. “He was also a senior staff member in the Senate for years, working for some of the most powerful members, including John Kerry, Tom Daschle and Barbara Boxer.” Connolly’s questionable association with Blue Line Strategic Communications comes on the heels of abandoned plans by the Post’s publisher Katharine Weymouth to charge lobbyists and trade groups thousands of dollars for access “to top congressional and administration officials for $25,000 a plate” at a dinner party at her home. According to Peters, the book party went on with Connolly. However it does further beg the question if the Post’s reporting throughout the ObamaCare debate was really “objective.”

Read more from the original source:
More Washington Post Hijinks? Reporter Cancels Book Party Appearance Hosted by Democrat Operative

‘Colbert Report’: BP’s PR-mageddon

Leave it to Stephen Colbert to work in a joke about Tiger Woods this late in the game and still make it hit. Oh, and another one about violating sea turtles—how is that funny? Related Entries May 31, 2010 What’s Not to Like About Civil Rights? May 31, 2010 Memorial Day and Our Discontents

The rest is here:
‘Colbert Report’: BP’s PR-mageddon