On This Week with Christiane Amanpour, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the growing democracy movement in the Middle East — and what it means to America. She says “in general” the United States is in favor of human rights and democracy, while recognizing that the process can be “hijacked” by other interests, using as an example the 1979 uprising in Iran that ended up with an extreme Islamist regime. All logical, of course, but I don’t think the U.S. will be treating this as respectfully as the recent events in Egypt: AMANPOUR: In the Middle East overnight, the popular uprising sweeping the region have taken their most violent turn yet. It happened in Libya. Protesters there have been calling for the removal of the strong man, Moammar Gadhafi, for the last five days. He’s been in power for more than 40 years. And eyewitnesses are reporting that the military has now been firing on protesters after gaining their confidence and being welcomed into the crowd . A doctor gave a dramatic radio interview. Let’s listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (UNKNOWN): Oh, my god. They’re firing on the civilians here. They’re crazy. They’re going crazy here. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: There are reports of hundreds dead and thousands injured in Libya. In Yemen this morning, thousands marched again in the streets of the capital, Sana’a. The president, an important American ally in the war on terror, blamed the unrest on a foreign plot. And in Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, which protects crucial oil-shipping lanes, demonstrators retook the square where their calls for reform have now given way to calls for the king to step down. Bahrain, of course, is also a logistical hub and command center for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And last night, in a 180-degree turn, the crown prince offered to open up a dialogue with the protesters. ABC’s Miguel Marquez is there. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARQUEZ: Christiane, it is amazing, the difference that 24 hours makes. This time yesterday, this country appeared poised for civil war; now it is a celebration down here at Pearl Square, as you can see. And it appears we’re headed for a negotiated political settlement. In order the get the settlement they want, these protesters are now willing to stay for the long haul. You can see they’ve set up tents all the way around Pearl Square here. They’re even serving food out here. That tea, by the way, is called Freedom Tea, and they are very organized. This area over here is the men’s section. And then right back here, all these people in black, that’s the women’s section. The big question is, what will get these protesters to go home? They want a constitutional democracy. They want the king to back off of politics and become a figurehead. They want the prime minister, who’s been in power for 40 years, to go home. But so much blood has been spilled here in the past week, these protesters want a significant deal. Will they get it? It’s not clear. It’s not clear what will get them to stop protesting, pack up their tents, and go home . Christiane? (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: And we’ll keep watching Bahrain and the other uprisings. President Obama has called Bahrain’s king — he did that on Friday — urging him to respect the rights of the protesters. The administration once again finds itself in a bit of a bind, as freedom activists face off against an authoritarian ally . Secretary of State Hillary Clinton walked a fine line when I spoke to her exclusively on Friday. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: Madame Secretary, thank you for joining us. CLINTON: Thank you for having me. AMANPOUR: About Bahrain. CLINTON: Uh-huh. AMANPOUR: How do you assess Bahrain right now? Is it stable? CLINTON: You know, Christiane, we’ve been very clear from the beginning that we do not want to see any violence. We deplore it. We think it is absolutely unacceptable. We very much want to see the human rights of the people protected, including right to assemble, right to express themselves, and we want to see reform. And so Bahrain had started on some reform, and we want to see them get back to that as quickly as possible. AMANPOUR: What will the United States do? And will it hold Bahrain to a similar standard, as it did Egypt? CLINTON: We — we try to hold everyone to a similar standard, but we cannot dictate the outcomes. We cannot tell countries what they’re going to do. We had, you know, no control over what happened in Egypt. AMANPOUR: As Americans sit and watch and try to make sense of what’s going on in the Arab Muslim world, is what’s happening — is the emerging new order, is it good for America? What should Americans make of it? CLINTON: Well, I think, in general, Americans are in favor of human rights, freedom, democracy. We know that ultimately the most progress that can be made on behalf of human beings anywhere is when those individuals are empowered, when they have governments that are responsive. That’s what we want to see. At the same time, we recognize that this process can be hijacked. It can be hijacked by both outside and inside elements within any country. I mean, what a tragedy to see what happened in Iran. There was a great deal of hope and pent-up feeling that the time had come in 1979, and look at what Iran is doing today. AMANPOUR: You want democracy. You speak about democracy. Can you control democracy? Should you control democracy? Or do you have to take the chips and let them fall where they may if you want democracy? CLINTON: Well, I think that, first, we have to start from the basic premise as to what democracy means, and democracy is not one election that then whoever wins it decides never to have another one. That is not what anyone wants. We want to work with those forces within societies that are yearning for change to make sure that they have the support needed and, frankly, the technical assistance, the financial assistance to be able to make it through to what is a good outcome, what they’ve asked for in their online blogs and in their posters and in their interviews. AMANPOUR: I want to ask you this, because it’s an in-depth interview that you’ve done in Bazaar. It’s a beautiful layout. I’m struck by the imagery, though. You are there, beautiful, but in a corner. CLINTON: You know, I just do what photographers tell me to do. It has no metaphorical meaning for me. (LAUGHTER) AMANPOUR: But I wanted to ask you, do you feel in a corner right now or on a tight rope, trying to balance the need for stability in countries where you have allies and interests, and your values, wanting democracy and all the human rights for the people there? Is that a struggle? CLINTON: Well, I think it is a challenge. And it is a challenge not only at this point of time in the Middle East; it is an inherent challenge in diplomacy, in America’s efforts in the world. We want to advance our security, our values, and our interests. And if there were one template that could be imposed on every situation, I wouldn’t need to have this job, and nobody else would have to, either. But this is often a balancing act and… AMANPOUR: Do you feel you’re at a turning point, at a sort of a tectonic shift in trying to figure out where the balance is, where your strategic interests lie? CLINTON: Well, Christiane, we deal with, you know, so many countries around the world, some of whom are closer to our values, who see their interests in ways we do and some of who — whom are on the opposite end of the spectrum. AMANPOUR: In the Middle East, America’s strategic interests have been with some of these autocratic rulers. They’ve helped you with Israel and peace in the region. They’ve helped you against terrorism. Do you believe that a democratic people could be a force for much more stability, longer-term stability? CLINTON: Well, ultimately, a really truly functioning, comprehensive democracy has historically been proven to be a greater force for stability. Navigating through what are difficult choices for societies that are doing that transition is something that the United States encourages, as we did after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and will continue to encourage. At the same… AMANPOUR: So here, will you be encouraging it here? CLINTON: Well, we have been. But at the same time, we are also knowledgeable enough about historical experiences to know that this is not an easy journey for any people to make. There are many threats and problems along the way. AMANPOUR: It is beyond dispute that the Obama administration scaled back their democracy and freedom agenda of the Bush administration. In Egypt, the funds for NGOs and the like, civil society, democracy-building, were cut back and furthermore were directed, when they were directed, to NGOs that were supported by the Mubarak regime. Was that a mistake? Clinton: Well, first of all, I just reject the premise. I think that there is… AMANPOUR: It’s — it’s indisputable. CLINTON: Well, it’s not. That’s just not — that’s just not the case. There were differences in approach under the same set of goals to try to promote democracy, economic opportunity, women’s rights, labor organizing. There are many different ways that I think all of us, different administrations, different experts, have struggled with. There is no debate that, for 30 years, Republican and Democratic administrations alike sent the same message to President Mubarak and the regime, that they had to change. And we were all trying different ways. You know, I think it’s fair to say that none of us were particularly successful, because we kept running into an absolute rejection that that was not going to be done in Egypt. But we tried many different approaches, and we’re going to try many different approaches in different settings, as well. AMANPOUR: The State Department just had an Arabic Twitter account, a Farsi Twitter account. This week, what do you expect to do with that? CLINTON: Have you — have you been following the Farsi Twitter account? AMANPOUR: I’m following it all. CLINTON: Excellent. Excellent. Well, what we expect to do is to be communicating through the new social media with literally millions of people around the world, because we want them to hear directly from us what our policies are. We want to use it to rebut some of the falsehoods and accusations that, unfortunately, are made against the United States. But mostly we want to be in the mix with this incredible, young, energetic population that is seeking the same rights to express themselves as young people in the United States seek. AMANPOUR: Thank you very much. CLINTON: Thank you very much. (END VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: And this week, Secretary Clinton called on governments around the world to respect and promote free access to the Internet. And when we return, we’ll take you inside the revolution with the anonymous online revolutionaries who launched a movement.
Continue reading …Discussing the union protests in Wisconsin with political analyst John Dickerson on Monday's CBS Early Show, co-host Chris Wragge noted: “You talk about this being a potential Tea Party movement for the Left.” In response, Dickerson proclaimed: “…this is the energizing moment on the Left, progressives and unions have always been together….It's about the threat to their benefits.” It's interesting that Dickerson made a positive comparison to the Tea Party, given that last year he appeared on the Early Show and described how Democrats hoped the conservative movement would “overreach” and become “a stain on the Republican Party.” On Monday, he further explained to Wragge how liberals “were a little dispirited, Barack Obama didn't turn out to be the president they had hoped. Well now they're quite energized and it's not about President Obama anymore.” Wragge followed up by transitioning to the federal budget debate and predicting trouble for Republicans: “The GOP-controlled House over the weekend passed a budget calling for $60 billion in cutting from federal programs right there. Do the Republicans run a risk at all of – a real political risk – with such cuts that are going to affect so many millions of people?” While Dickerson acknowledged the importance of the GOP following through on spending cuts, he warned: “…they do run up against the problem if people start to feel the squeeze and the pain the way union workers are feeling it in Wisconsin, that gets them energized and they'll be energized to not like Republicans.” In addition to cheering the supposedly “energized” Left, Dickerson made apocalyptic predictions that the budget-cutting proposal in Wisconsin was the beginning of the end of unions in America: “There are other parts of the Governor's plan there that make it difficult for unions to continue and survive.” Wragge added: “You think this could be maybe the first state to fall.” Dickerson argued: “…this isn't just about shrinking benefits. It's about whether unions can survive to organize and raise money….what this shows is just how bad it can get when the squeeze comes on. So if in your state it doesn't hit the unions, it's going to hit somebody.” Earlier on the morning show program, correspondent Cynthia Bowers made similar dire warnings about the future of unions: “Pro-union demonstrators worry if Wisconsin cuts public union power, other states will follow suit….And for people outside Wisconsin, who are not familiar with why this battle is so big, unions – private and public – have been a way of life here for generations and many say they can't even begin to imagine life without them.” Neither Dickerson nor Bowers explained that the Wisconsin proposal does not call for the abolishment of any unions. Here is a full transcript of Dickerson's February 21 exchange with Wragge: 7:12AM ET CHRIS WRAGGE: Wisconsin may be getting the most attention, but it's not the only state where governors are going head-to-head with unions. Nine other Republican governors, from Nevada to New Jersey, are also trying to get some major concessions from the unions. Additionally, 45 states and the District of Columbia are facing budget shortfalls next year, totaling $125 billion. CBS News political analyst John Dickerson joins us from Washington to talk more about the national implications of the Wisconsin protests. John, good morning to you. JOHN DICKERSON: Good morning, Chris. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: The Wisconsin Effect; Union Protests Could Spread Nationwide] WRAGGE: Let me ask you first about the state of Wisconsin. We see that Governor Scott Walker is digging in. We see the Democratic state senators have no intentions of coming back any time soon. How do you see this playing out? DICKERSON: Well, someone's got to give. The unions have said they'll give a little on these benefits. And – but there is one thing – and it's not just collective bargaining – they worry about their ability to organize and survive. There are other parts of the Governor's plan there that make it difficult for unions to continue and survive. So, somebody's got to give and that might start with Democrats, those Democratic senators actually getting back into the state. But for right now it looks like they're at this impasse. WRAGGE: Some people may be sitting at home saying, 'Well, it's an interesting story, but it's Wisconsin, if I don't live in the state of Wisconsin, it really doesn't effect me.' But you think this could be maybe the first state to fall and this could affect a number of different people in a number of different states around the nation. DICKERSON: Well, if you're in a union it matters, because this isn't just about shrinking benefits. It's about whether unions can survive to organize and raise money. If you're not in a union what Wisconsin means is that, as you mention, there are 45 other states with budget deficits. And what this shows is just how bad it can get when the squeeze comes on. So if in your state it doesn't hit the unions, it's going to hit somebody. WRAGGE: You talk about this being a potential Tea Party movement for the Left. What did you exactly mean by that? DICKERSON: Well, the Tea Party always existed within the Republican Party. But they had an energizing moment. And this is the energizing moment on the Left, progressives and unions have always been together. They were very energized in 2006, and in 2008. In 2010 they were a little dispirited, Barack Obama didn't turn out to be the president they had hoped. Well now they're quite energized and it's not about President Obama anymore. It's about the threat to their benefits. WRAGGE: Let me talk about the GOP for a second. The GOP-controlled House over the weekend passed a budget calling for $60 billion in cutting from federal programs right there. Do the Republicans run a risk at all of – a real political risk – with such cuts that are going to affect so many millions of people? DICKERSON: Well, their first risk would be if they didn't pass such cuts because the Tea Party backers who sent them to Washington want to see them deliver. And so they've been able to do that. But in the long-term, yes, they do run up against the problem if people start to feel the squeeze and the pain the way union workers are feeling it in Wisconsin, that gets them energized and they'll be energized to not like Republicans. But those big cuts are not likely to pass, of course, because the Democrats control the Senate, and the President wouldn't sign such cuts into law. WRAGGE: Let me talk about the President for one quick second. He got himself involved in this situation on Friday by calling this 'an assault on the unions,' what's going on in Wisconsin right now. Was it a smart move for the President to get involved? DICKERSON: Well, he's trying to walk a fine line here and White House officials say this is the only thing the President said and they say, 'We don't expect him to say more here.' He's trying to say, 'Everybody should sacrifice, but this is extra a little, they're asking union workers to do a little bit more.' But the President, no, doesn't want to get involved in this. He doesn't want to become the national union boss. So he probably won't say much more about this. WRAGGE: Alright. John Dickerson in Washington for us this morning. John, thank you very much. DICKERSON: Thanks, Chris. — Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.
Continue reading …It’s Presidents Day, so surely you’re wondering: Who is America’s greatest president? A recent Gallup poll has your answer: Ronald Reagan, according to 19% of respondents. Gallup has asked the same “greatest president” question eight times over the last 12 years, and Reagan has come out on top three of…
Continue reading …Mike Huckabee has looked good in early presidential primary polling , but the Fox host isn’t so sure he wants to run. “I’m not one who thinks the future of the world is depending on whether I run for president,” he tells the Washington Post . “It could be that I’ve found…
Continue reading …The unhinged paranoia on the left knows no bounds. Take for example New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who believes that Governor Scott Walker's grand plan is to lessen democracy in Wisconsin and America eventually replacing government with a third-world-style oligarchy: [W]hat’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker’s pretense that he’s just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. After addressing some of the budget issues facing Wisconsin as well as labor's recent concessions, Krugman continued waxing paranoic: But Mr. Walker isn’t interested in making a deal. Partly that’s because he doesn’t want to share the sacrifice: even as he proclaims that Wisconsin faces a terrible fiscal crisis, he has been pushing through tax cuts that make the deficit worse. Mainly, however, he has made it clear that rather than bargaining with workers, he wants to end workers’ ability to bargain. As Ronald Reagan would say if he was still alive, “There you go again.” Contrary to Krugman's paranoid view, the pending legislation does not end public workers' ability to bargain. It instead limits collective bargaining to wages. As the budget-buster for most states including Wisconsin is healthcare insurance and pensions, this goes quite counter to Krugman's assertions. So does the fact that as George Will pointed out on ABC's “This Week” Sunday, “24 states limit or deny entirely collective bargaining rights for public sector unions.” Wisconsin would therefore become the 25th. Hardly the crisis Krugman suggests. Will also correctly noted that one of Krugman's heroes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, opposed public employee unions. On August 16, 1937, Roosevelt wrote the following letter to the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees: My dear Mr. Steward: As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message. Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades “has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships.” Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs. The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that “under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.” successful. I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful. Very Sincerely Yours, (FDR) Maybe Krugman and all the other paranoid media members seeing demons hiding in Madison's Capitol building should read Roosevelt's words about public sector unions and stop trying to scare Americans into thinking what's happening in Wisconsin is about something bigger than a governor trying to comply with his state's requirement to balance the budget.
Continue reading …CNN's Howard Kurtz on Sunday took David Gregory's side of the controversial birther issue over that of Bill O'Reilly. After Gregory pestered House Speaker John Boehner (R-Oh.) on last week's “Meet the Press” to rail against those that believe Barack Obama wasn't born in America, O'Reilly chastized him on Monday's “O'Reilly Factor” for wasting precious air time on this matter leading Kurtz to weigh in on Sunday's “Reliable Sources” (transcript follows with commentary): HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: All right, here is the question. Should Republican leaders who have never questioned President Obama's citizenship be questioned about others who question where he was born? After Fox News aired a focus group last week with GOP poster Frank Lutz, in which some Republicans said Obama is a Muslim who wasn't born in the United States, David Gregory raised the issue on “Meet the Press” with John Boehner. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAVID GREGORY, MEET THE PRESS: As the Speaker of the House, as a leader, do you not think it's your responsibility to stand up to that kind of ignorance? JOHN BOEHNER, SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: David, it's not my job to tell the American people what to think. Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people. Having said that, the state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That's good enough for me. GREGORY: You shouldn't stand up to misinformation and stereotypes? BOEHNER: But — but I've made clear what I believe the facts are. (END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: That line of questioning clearly annoyed Bill O'Reilly. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BILL O'REILLY, HOST, THE O'REILLY FACTOR: Sane, clear thinking people understand the president is not a Muslim and he wasn't born in Indonesia or whatever they're putting out there. So why does Meet the Press and NBC News take up valuable air time to hammer a guy who has nothing to do with it, Boehner? (END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: On ABC News, George Stephanopoulos raised the same issue with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who promptly ducked. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS: Can you just state very clearly that President Obama is a Christian and he is a citizen of the United States? REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R), MINNESOTA: Well, that isn't for me to state, that's for the president to state. And I think that when the president makes… STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you believe it? BACHMANN: …when the president makes his statements, I think they need to stand for their own. (END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: Here's the point. This birther nonsense, as O'Reilly suggests, is crazy talk. Crazy talk that some folks persist in believing. It's not crazy to ask a Republican Speaker if he would dismiss this kind of lunacy any more than it would be to ask a Democratic leader about nutty talk on the left. In principle, I agree. However, does anyone remember former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) being asked by members of the press to denounce folks that claimed George W. Bush stole the election from Al Gore in 2000? Or to scold those that claimed he was involved in the attacks on this nation on 9/11? Or to admonish those who accused him of lying the nation into war? Or to chastize those who claimed he reacted slowly to Hurricane Katrina because he was racist? These were the four major liberal memes in the previous decade that were just as commonly expressed by folks on the left as the birther issue is but some on the right today. Far from asking Democrat leaders to admonish those purporting these conspiracy theories, it was quite common to see members of the media advancing and/or contemplating the veracity of them. Now, with a new man in the White House being hounded by similarly unproven inventions, Kurtz thinks, “It's not crazy to ask a Republican Speaker if he would dismiss this kind of lunacy any more than it would be to ask a Democratic leader about nutty talk on the left. If that's the case, then why wasn't Kurtz imploring his colleagues to ask Democrat leaders about nutty talk on the right when Bush was in office?
Continue reading …Freedom (Senegambia Africa).mov 12816 Matey Road Silver Spring, MD 20906| MC7520180 | RickThompsonTeam.com Real estate for sale in Silver Spring MD – MC7534509 Silver Spring , Singular: Police Shooting Downtown? – Colesville Rd … skip to main | skip to sidebar. Silver Spring , Singular … Sligo: Silver Spring , Maryland, United States: A survivor of the mean streets of Silver Spring . View my complete profile … Silver Spring , Singular: Society is to Blame… If you’ve got the inside scoop on Silver Spring’s newest restaurant(?), please let us all in on the secret. A block south on Georgia, the space that was once solely occupied by Langano has been split in two. … House for Rent | Housing | Classifieds | Post an Ad | Washington … Close to FDA & Fed & Naval Surface Weapons Research Facilities; close to U-MD, beltway & downtown Silver Spring . Available Now. $3100/mnth+utilities for entire home or $2750/mnth+Util for upper levels. 202-723-3808 … Maryland Real Estates » Blog Archive » Search RealtyStore.com Price: $99900, City: Silver Spring , Square feet: n/a; Location: University boulevard w 1306-b, silver spring , md, 20902, usa. Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac has foreclosed on this property because the owner couldn’t meet their payments. … MCS America ©: Anti- Smart Meter Protesters Greet Obama in Woodside “President Obama visited the Bay Area last night for a meeting with leaders of the nation’s top tech firms at the Woodside home of John Doerr, a venture capitalist with links to Silver Spring Networks, one of the companies behind the … CoolingLanoo says: Niggas wild out silver spring niggas getting shot now ohh naww
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Fox News broke this bulletin about an hour ago. It stems from a video posted by the MacIver Institute Wisconsin alleging that a doctor is signing bogus excuses for teachers protesting in Madison. Because it is illegal for teachers to strike, they called in sick and have been told they will have to produce a valid doctors excuse in order to be excused for their absences. So isn’t it interesting that a right-wing organization would produce a news report saying such excuses are fabricated? Usually, the way this works is that part of the final negotiation also forgives the days missed for protests, by the way, so this is ginned up nonsense from the start. Here’s some information about the MacIver Institute : In December the domain maciverinstitute.com was privately registered with no one willing to lay public claim to the new org. They also have set up a super duper secret Twitter account that you can’t follow without special permission. When I visited their actual website last night, it was still largely lacking substance. Right now I am having problems accessing it but here is a cached version. The site did give some important information however. It gave a glimpse of some of the people involved with this operation – a motley crew indeed. First you have Scott Jensen who still is awaiting his second criminal felony trial. Then you have Michael Dean, from the wild-eyed First Freedoms Foundation, listed as a contact person. Listed as treasurer for the org is Mark Block, the guy that got the stiffest penalty for political campaign violations ever handed down in the state. This new right wing org is also listed on a national directory and it lists Block as also being a contact for the organization. Speaking of Mark Block, he posted an interesting entry on his Twitter account on January 30, 2009 at 3:18pm. I’m wondering if that Tweet inadvertently tells us a few more things about this new right wing outfit. It states the following: “Klauser and Grebe will be calling meeting for Saturday, March 7th. Very important.” Klauser is of course a long-time disciple of former Governor Tommy Thompson and Grebe is surely the right wing Bradley Foundation sugar daddy Michael Grebe. Michael Grebe and the Bradley Foundation are notoriously partisan and have funded some of the most extreme and narrow right wing outfits in the country. The doctor on the form they show in the video is James H. Shropshire. A lookup of his political contributions shows $200 to Russ Feingold in 2000 and $200 to the DNC in 1998. Otherwise, nothing. The MacIver “news wire” has an interesting quote, however: On Saturday, a group of men and women in lab coats purporting to be doctors were handing out medical excuse notes, without examining the ‘patients.’ “I asked this doctor what he was doing and he told me they were handing out excuses to people who were feeling sick due to emotional, mental or financial distress,” said Christian Hartsock . “They never performed an exam–he asked me how I was feeling today and I said I’m from California and I’m not used to the cold, so he handed me a note.” Looks like Christian Hartsock is just an ordinary guy, eh? Well, he’s not . Christian Hartsock, 24, is a director, screenwriter, producer and political columnist and activist. He earned his B.A. in Film and Video Production from Brooks Institute in Santa Barbara and currently produces, directs, and writes films including the music video for Guns ‘N Roses’ “Sorry,” as well as the conservative rap music video Victicrat and the short film Sycophant which he wrote and directed, as well as the award-winning feature film The Lives of Better Men which he produced. Hartsock directed the undercover investigation video Teachers Unions Gone Wild which exposed sleaze and corruption in the New Jersey Education Association, earning the accolades of Governor Chris Christie , p roduced B-roll for James O’Keefe’s and Hannah Giles’ investigation videos that brought down ACORN, exposed anti-Americanism at the UN Climate Summit in Cancun and continues to work on investigative journalism videos. He’s traveled to Iraq with Move America Forward to document the Iraq war and was profiled in CNN’s documentary Right on the Edge a documentary about young conservative activists hosted by Abbie Boudreau. He currently writes for several news and commentary websites, including Big Government and Big Journalism, and is Editor-in-Chief of Political Vanguard. So we’re clear on this, Christian Hartsock, the guy “interviewed” and also the guy who probably produced that first video is the same guy who helped out with the smears of ACORN and New Jersey teachers, and he works for Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart has bragged about being at the protests in Wisconsin today. Americans for Prosperity is linked to the MacIver Institute. A Breitbart video smear guy is quoted in an article smearing teachers. Figure it out. Update: Think Progress has much more on the MacIver Institute : MacIver Institute: The MacIver Institute is a think thank that bills itself as “the free market voice for Wisconsin.” On April 9, its website , referring to the Voter Protection Act, warned that “a massive push to facilitate voter fraud” was underway and called on the public to “act soon.” It followed up with another warning on April 13 about the “vote fraud bill on fast track.” After the Voter Protection Act died, an “Open Letter to Wisconsin Tea Partiers” posted on its website thanked them for their hard work in defeating the “Alinsky brigade” and its efforts to pass clean energy and “election deform” legislation. And in a May 10 post entitled “Tea Party Impact Ongoing,” a checklist of Wisconsin Tea Party accomplishments included “Stop Vote Fraud legislation.” The MacIver Institute has numerous ties to the ‘Kochtopus.’ Mark Block, the AFP Wisconsin state director and a key figure in the alleged voter suppression plot, sits on MacIver’s board of directors . MacIver and AFP Wisconsin also share two other board members, David Fettig and Fred Luber. MacIver also works closely with AFP Wisconsin as part of the Wisconsin Prosperity Network , along with another group with ties to Koch funding, American Majority . The think tank also participates in the Koch-funded Institute for Humane Studies’ Koch Summer Fellows Program and is a member of the Koch-funded State Policy Network .
Continue reading …Bill Maher and Tavis Smiley got into a heated debate Friday about the difference between the treatment of women in America versus in Muslim countries. When Smiley continually asserted on HBO's “Real Time” that women are maltreated here, Maher said, “It's such bulls–t,” and eventually ended the discussion by scolding the PBS host, “When you tolerate intolerance, you’re not really being a liberal” (video follows with partial transcript and commentary): BILL MAHER: I think it’s fair to say Muslim men have a bad attitude about women in general, and I would just like to say to them that you’re never going to have this revolution happen unless there is also a sexual revolution that goes with it. Smiley at that point shook his head leading Maher to ask, “Really, Tavis. Muslim men don’t have a problem with women?” SMILEY: No, I’m not going to argue that. MAHER: Good. SMILEY: Let me say up front, I agree with you. MAHER: I was going to cut your head off. SMILEY: No, no, no. Better my head than what Kevin. I was going to say that first of all, obviously what happened to Lara Logan is reprehensible, horrific, we can’t find a language to describe what happened to her. But having said that, if our democracy, Bill, if, if, if our readiness for democracy in this country is based upon, determined by, demonstrated by our respect for women, then we ain’t ready for democracy… MAHER: That is a false equivalence. SMILEY: No, no, no, no, no. MAHER: Please. SMILEY: Absolutely not. MAHER: Are you serious? You think this country, the men in this country have an attitude that even comes close to… SMILEY: I’m suggesting to you if you think that the way we treat women in this country, with patriarchy still alive and well, sexism still alive and well, is determinative or demonstrative of how well our democracy runs, I think you don’t understand how maltreated women are still in this society. That’s all I’m saying. MAHER: What I’m saying is you have no perspective. You have no perspective. SMILEY: I’m saying you have no perspective. MAHER: No. Go ahead. MICHELLE CARUSO-CABRERA, CNBC: I was just, if you look at the history of the United States I would say that actually democracy leads to better attitudes toward women because when the United States was founded of course, women couldn’t vote, African-Americans couldn’t vote, and we got there eventually. So, I think you’ve got it reversed. MAHER: No I don’t. 19 of 22 Arab countries, women cannot vote. In Egypt, women if you want to divorce your husband you have to go to court. If a man wants to divorce his wife if he just has to say that, what they call the triple telac (?) or something, I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee. That must happen like on the first fight. It must be so… KEVIN SMITH, FILMMAKER: I’ve been trying that twelve years of marriage. Doesn’t work. Don’t work. MAHER: In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive a car, sail a boat, fly a plane, which is why their tampon ads are just horseback riding. [ Laughter ] A bit later, Smiley fine-tuned his point, “I don’t disagree with the fact that they got a long way to go. What I’m trying to suggest to you is that when we have these conversations about how they treat women, as if somehow we treat women better in this country, it demonizes Muslims.” Maher vehemently disagreed stating, “It’s not demonizing. That’s saying I’m prejudiced. I’m saying I’m not prejudiced. That’s pre-judging. I’m not pre-judging, I’m judging. I’m judging. They’re worse. What’s wrong with just saying that? You’re a cultural relativist. It’s not relative.” After the discussion was interrupted by a heckler in the audience who ended up being removed from the studio, Smiley actually, “It might surprise us to go into our papers in this country every day and to see stories just like this of how women are maltreated in this country every single day.” Maher countered, “It’s such bulls—t. I mean, in this country, we treat women badly because they don’t get equal pay, or someone calls you sugar tits, or something like that. I don’t think it’s comparable to cutting their heads off, not letting them drive, not letting them work.” As the debate continued, Smiley pompously asserted, “I would rather have us stop acting like that we know the answers to everything, that we’re always right, that our way is always better, that we don’t make mistakes.” “We don’t know the answers to everything,” replied Maher, “But I do know we treat women better.” The discussion ended with Maher scolding Smiley, “When you tolerate intolerance, you’re not really being a liberal.” Although a delicious smack down, it was also rather ironic, for tolerating intolerance is the basis of liberalism, and Maher epitomizes it virtually every time he opens his mouth. He may have been on the right side of this argument, but if a conservative had taken his position, it seems a metaphysical certitude Maher would have been saying virtually the same things Smiley was. Makes you wonder if Maher was just playing devil's advocate for the entertainment value. We'll know the next time he points accusatory fingers at Americans to support Muslims. Stay tuned.
Continue reading …