NewsBreakingOnline | Tag Archive | barack-obama

Home » Posts tagged with » barack-obama (Page 16)

Schultz and Sharpton Take Limbaugh’s MSNBC is Racist Claim Seriously

December 9, 2010 No Comment

Can two grown men really be this dumb, or is their hatred for conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh so blinding they wouldn't know sarcasm if it punched them in the face? As tough as it might be to believe, Ed Schultz and Al Sharpton actually took seriously Limbaugh's claim media outlets that criticized President Obama's tax compromise plan did so because they are racist (video follows with transcript and commentary): read more

Lawrence O’Donnell Exposes Liberal Ignorance of Tax Code

December 8, 2010 No Comment

Lawrence O'Donnell on Tuesday surprisingly exposed how ignorant liberals are of the tax code. In a sometimes heated discussion with prominent progressives on MSNBC's “The Last Word,” the host aggressively challenged the knowledge of two of his guests (video follows with transcript and commentary): read more

Should There be a Democratic Primary Challenge to President Obama?

December 7, 2010 No Comment

Should There be a Democratic Primary Challenge to Obama? survey software Many people who identify with the Democratic Party are upset by the way President Obama has been handling Republicans, health care, Wall Street, taxes and a host of other issues. Clarence B. Jones is the former personal counsel, adviser, draft speech writer and close friend of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, and (as Susie noted already ) he thinks it’s time to consider a primary challenge to Obama: Time to Think the Unthinkable: A Democratic Primary Challenge To Obama’s Reelection Paul Krugman is frustrated that President Obama has caved in to Republican blackmail on the Bush tax cuts that were implemented in an unscrupulous fashion. Let’s Not Make a Deal Back in 2001, former President George W. Bush pulled a fast one. He wanted to enact an irresponsible tax cut, largely for the benefit of the wealthiest Americans. But there were Senate rules in place designed to prevent that kind of irresponsibility. So Mr. Bush evaded the rules by making the tax cut temporary, with the whole thing scheduled to expire on the last day of 2010. — Last but not least: if Democrats give in to the blackmailers now, they’ll just face more demands in the future. As long as Republicans believe that Mr. Obama will do anything to avoid short-term pain, they’ll have every incentive to keep taking hostages. If the president will endanger America’s fiscal future to avoid a tax increase, what will he give to avoid a government shutdown? So Mr. Obama should draw a line in the sand, right here, right now. If Republicans hold out, and taxes go up, he should tell the nation the truth, and denounce the blackmail attempt for what it is. Yes, letting taxes go up would be politically risky. But giving in would be risky, too — especially for a president whom voters are starting to write off as a man too timid to take a stand. Now is the time for him to prove them wrong. He also wrote that Democrats might have to look for leadership elsewhere. Freezing Out Hope It would be much easier, of course, for Democrats to draw a line if Mr. Obama would do his part. But all indications are that the party will have to look elsewhere for the leadership it needs. Frank Rich is also very shrill at the moment. All the President’s Captors But as Madrick adds, there has never been a sitting president over that period who has had to run with an unemployment rate as high as 8 percent — which is precisely where the Fed’s most recent forecasts predict the rate could be mired when Obama faces the voters again in 2012. You’d think he’d be one Stockholm Syndrome victim with every incentive to break out. Obviously the President didn’t get the memo. Ezra Klein argues that this deal could actually work as a stimulus for the economy and the Obama administration is taking the long view about the 2012 elections and not worrying about losing a couple of news cycles over it. Can the White House win in 2012 by losing on the Bush tax cuts now? The irony of the situation is that the White House may strike a better deal because they handled the politics so poorly. If they’d showed more backbone early on and publicly demanded that the Republicans extend a package of tax breaks from the much-hated stimulus bill, it might’ve made it impossible for Republicans to agree to anything of the kind. As it is, the White House defined an extension of the tax cuts for the rich as a loss for them — and now they’re going to extend those tax cuts, and lose. They were not playing for this outcome. But though they’re coming out on the wrong side of the short-term politics and the wrong side of the tax policy, they may be coming out with a win on stimulus that no one expected, and that may ultimately matter much more for both the economy and Obama’s reelection campaign. Actually, if you’ve been paying attention, Obama may not lose news cycles since most Beltway Villagers believe that millionaires should indeed keep their Bush wingnut welfare and would love for it to be made permanent. On the other hand, Progressives that make up Obama’s base are the only people that are screaming about not extending the Bush tax cuts and will never, ever compromise of the cutting of benefits to Social Security and Medicare. The only really hard choices the country has to make, according to the Beltway elites, are all for the sake of reducing the federal budget deficit. The suffering for the sins of the free markets, naturally, will be laid at the feet of the working-class families of America, and not for the Villagers and their friends. We can never punish those very important Wall Street stock pickers and corrupt bankers. Peter Orszag wrote as much in his NY Times column about fixing Social Security, “The program that isn’t broken” . I turned on John King via CNN and heard the same gibberish that Digby did. She was kind enough to write out a transcript. I’ve been writing that the Bush tax cuts should have been dealt with as soon as Obama took office since he ran so hard against them during the general election. Digby and I talk all the time about this issue and we’re in total agreement on this point. At this point the President, the Democratic moderates and the GOP are in agreement that tax cuts are the only way to stimulate the economy, that regulations are bad, that social security must be cut, and that the best way to fix the economy is to cater and pander to the wealthy, the corporations and Wall Street. I think we’ve finally achieved bipartisan heaven. Since they are going to rip Barack Obama to shreds regardless, I hope for his sake that he really does believe this, because he’s going to be Wall Street’s living martyr for the cause. Too bad about all the people, who will have to suffer much harsher punishment. Update: And by the way, Ezra and others continue to misunderstand what the Republicans were really after here. As I’ve said ad nauseum they want the tax cuts to be temporary because they want to have this fight over tax cuts to continue into the presidential campaign. If the President agreed to extend the tax cuts permanently, the issue would be off the table and that’s not to their advantage. (Believe me, the business community is not really *uncertain* about anything at this point.) Yes, it’s better that they didn’t extend them permanently, but are liberals looking forward to this argument two years from now? (And will there ever be any circumstances that will make it easier for them to expire than there were in the spring of 2009?) It’s a missed opportunity, and one which I suspect was always planned to miss. The Bushies knew what they were doing when they rigged this one and it would have taken a Democratic party and a president much more brave and populist than the ones we have to undo it. Paul Krugman checks out the new deal and thinks it’s not as bad, but still disappointing. So, was this worth it? I’d still say no, although it’s better than what I expected over the weekend. It still greatly increases the chances of the Bush tax cuts being made permanent — especially because the front-loading of the stimulative stuff actually worsens Obama’s 2012 electoral prospects. Overall, enough sweetener has been added to diminish, but not eliminate, the bitterness of the disappointment. Americablog has a twitter reaction from some Liberals and it ain’t pretty. Chris Bowers writes: Rebellion to tax cut deal spreading on Capitol Hill Does the White House really believe it’ll help them in 2012 to run against extending the Bush tax cuts? The payroll tax holiday sounds like another vehicle that Republicans can use to try and destroy Social Security, We’ve been hearing rumblings about a primary challenge in grass-roots progressive circles lately. The liberal elites will dismiss this as insane because the GOP doesn’t have a credible candidate at this point to run against Obama. I understand what a primary could do, since it took a wrecking ball to the Democratic Party in 1980, but I’m curious to see what you guys feel at this moment. So here’s a snapshot poll on the topic. Should There be a Democratic Primary Challenge to President Obama?

Breaking: Elizabeth Edwards has died

December 7, 2010 No Comment

Very sad news: Elizabeth Anania Edwards, who became a national figure in her fight against cancer and as a partner in her husband John’s political career, died today. She was 61. Edwards spent much of her life as a little-known Raleigh lawyer and mother. But that all changed when her husband, John Edwards, entered politics as a U.S. senator and became a two-time presidential candidate and the Democratic nominee for vice president. Her husband’s career put her in the spotlight as a smart, plain-spoken wife who was a key adviser to her husband. She later became a figure of sympathy as she battled breast cancer and dealt with her husband’s infidelity. And, in the last few years, her public image shifted again: the scorned woman whose husband fathered a child with another woman. She and John Edwards separated at the beginning of 2010 but remained close. Still, Elizabeth Edwards helped change the way political wives were viewed. She was the self-proclaimed “anti-Barbie” who was comfortable sitting in on campaign strategy meetings, chatting with Oprah on TV, or even going head-to-head with conservative columnist Ann Coulter. http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/06/847131/cancer-claims-elizabeth-edwards.html

Krauthammer on Obama’s Televised Tax Announcement: He Was Addressing Daily Kos, NYT and MoveOn

December 7, 2010 No Comment

Charles Krauthammer on Monday said that when Barack Obama spoke to the nation hours ago to announce a tax extension compromise just reached with Republicans, “It was actually a speech addressed at Daily Kos, the New York Times, and MoveOn.” In Krauthammer's view expressed on Fox's “Special Report,” “This was a speech aimed at appeasing the Left which is extremely angry over this” (video follows with transcript and commentary): read more

Frank Rich: Weak Obama Suffers from ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ for Agreeing to Extend Bush Tax Cuts

December 6, 2010 No Comment

It appears that President Obama is about to approve the extension of the Bush tax cuts and this has sent liberals into a frenzy. How to explain it? Well, Frank Rich of the New York Times has a very creative explanation : a weak Barack Obama has been spiritually kidnapped by Republicans and is now suffering from Stockholm Syndrome which allows him to sympathize with his captors. Here is Rich explaining it in “All the President's Captors” at his entertaining best: THOSE desperate to decipher the baffling Obama presidency could do worse than consult an article titled “Understanding Stockholm Syndrome” in the online archive of The F.B.I. Law Enforcement Bulletin. It explains that hostage takers are most successful at winning a victim’s loyalty if they temper their brutality with a bogus show of kindness. Soon enough, the hostage will start concentrating on his captors’ “good side” and develop psychological characteristics to please them — “dependency; lack of initiative; and an inability to act, decide or think.”

Obama and McCain on the Couch

December 4, 2010 No Comment

enlarge Watching Barack Obama and John McCain over the past week has left pundits and armchair psychologists alike scratching their heads. While the two foes from the 2008 presidential election couldn’t be more different, their puzzling performances over tax cuts for the wealthy and the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell have the Washington commentariat paging Dr. Freud. Matthew Yglesias and James Fallows reflect the stunned reaction to McCain’s increasing mania over allowing gay Americans to openly serve in the United States military. Despite his past promises to support the military leadership if and when it concluded DADT should end, McCain has since concluded that the policy must remain in place until the last bigot has left the service. As Yglesias lamented: I really wonder what’s happening, subjectively, inside the heads of people who oppose repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Do any of them think they’re on the right side of history here? That people are going to look back from 2040 and say “if only we’d listened to John McCain thirty years ago?” For his part, Fallows worried that McCain’s descent was something more pathological than mere grumpiness . I’ll stress the incredible part, because much more than my colleagues I can remember when McCain seemed to be a potentially Eisenhower-ish, as opposed to an increasingly Bunning-like, figure in American public life. Broad-minded, tolerant, eager to bridge rather than open divides — this was the way he seemed to so many people starting from his arrival in the Congress in the 1980s. Seeing him now is surprising not simply because it reminds us: this man could be the sitting president, but also because it again raises the question, how did he end up this way? Even if his earlier identity had been artifice, what would be the payoff in letting it go? Fallows concluded his brief psychoanalysis of McCain, “John McCain seems intentionally to be shrinking his audience, his base, and his standing in history. It’s unnecessary, and it is sad.” He could have been describing President Obama’s shocking collapse over the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. To be sure, Obama is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. His popular campaign promise to end the Bush tax cuts for households earning over $250,000 retains its strong public support . A new CBS poll showed that only 26% of respondents – and just 46% of Republicans – want the budget-busting Bush tax cuts to continue for the richest Americans. And yet President Obama is on the verge of folding a great hand, possibly without even securing GOP pledges to allow votes on extended unemployment benefits or the START treaty. It’s no wonder Ezra Klein shook his head at Obama’s “bad poker” and Robert Reich lamented that “the President legitimizes everything the right has been saying.” This blogger has long fretted over Barack Obama’s counterproductive fetish for bipartisanship. (For example, see, ” Obama’s Self-Fulfilling Prophecy ” and ” The ‘Thank You Sir May I Have Another’ President “.) Now, sympathetic columnists and pundits are at a loss to explain Obama’s missing cojones and apparent penchant for punishment. Howard Fineman was floored after Team Obama’s surreal paean to compromise after Tuesday’s White House meeting with Republican leaders: What planet do he and they think they are on? And have they paid any attention to Sen. Mitch McConnell? The president emerged from the meeting yesterday to say, hopefully, that he had suggested that they work together not just on taxes and spending, but on the other issues pending, including an extension of unemployment insurance. But at that very moment McConnell and the rest of the GOP Senate leadership were beginning work on a plan to force the Senate to do just the opposite: a unified GOP threat to filibuster debate on anything but taxes and spending. Three weeks ago, the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne foreshadowed what was to come. “The lame-duck session of Congress that kicks off this week will test whether Democrats have spines made of Play-Doh,” Dionne predicted, “and whether President Obama has decided to pretend that capitulation is conciliation.” And on Thursday, he had a sinking feeling that he had his answer : Is President Obama’s strategy of offering preemptive concessions destined to make enemies of his potential friends in the electorate without winning over any of his adversaries? … What we are witnessing here is the political power that comes from the Republican Party’s single-minded focus on high-end tax cuts and the strategic incoherence of a Democratic Party that is confused and divided – and not getting much help from its president. Obama’s same recurring pattern on display in producing the too-small stimulus and watered down health care bill was at work again in the tax cut debate Democrats should have convincingly won months ago. And it’s all too much for Paul Krugman . He’s seen this movie before, and doesn’t he like the ending. Mr. Obama, who has faced two years of complete scorched-earth opposition, declared that he had failed to reach out sufficiently to his implacable enemies. He did not, as far as anyone knows, wear a sign on his back saying “Kick me,” although he might as well have… It’s hard to escape the impression that Republicans have taken Mr. Obama’s measure — that they’re calling his bluff in the belief that he can be counted on to fold. And it’s also hard to escape the impression that they’re right. The real question is what Mr. Obama and his inner circle are thinking. Do they really believe, after all this time, that gestures of appeasement to the G.O.P. will elicit a good-faith response? Obama’s Democratic allies know the answer. House Democrat Barney Frank called the President’s looming surrender, “gravely mistaken” Iowa liberal Tom Harkin warned, “I just think, if [Obama] caves on this, then I think that he’s gonna have a lot of swimming upstream [to do],” Harkin said, adding, “He would then just be hoping and praying that Sarah Palin gets the nomination.” And outgoing Ohio Governor Ted Strickland asked Obama out loud what others have just been thinking: “After all of this you don’t realize these people want to destroy you and your agenda? How many times do you have to be, you know, slapped in the face?” Compared to John McCain and Barack Obama, understanding the inner workings of the mind of George W. Bush was relatively straight forward. But his actual and would-have-been successor are another matter altogether. This week, the bizarre behavior and puzzling positions McCain and Obama have confused friend, foe and Freudian alike. (This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)

Helen Thomas: ‘Congress, White House, Hollywood and Wall Street Owned by Zionists’

December 3, 2010 No Comment

Disgraced former columnist Helen Thomas on Thursday not only stood by the anti-Semitic remarks that got her fired in June but also went a disgusting step further. Speaking at an anti-Arab bias workshop in Detroit, Thomas told attendees, “Congress, the White House, and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists” (h/t Detroit Free Press via Yid with Lid ): read more

Rep. Steve King Attempts to Defend His Racist Remarks on AC360

December 3, 2010 No Comment

Click here to view this media Steve King appeared on CNN’s AC360 and attempted to defend his racist statements comparing the black farmers’ settlement to slavery reparations and calling President Obama “very, very urban”. King’s dog whistles are about as subtle as a fire alarm, but that didn’t stop him from feigning ignorance when called out for them by the founder of the Black Farmer’s Association, Dr. John Boyd. For some context on King’s prior remarks, you can read more over at TPM — Steve King: Black Farmers’ Settlement Is ‘Slavery Reparations’ (VIDEO) and at Mediaite — Controversy Alert: Republican House Rep. Steve King Calls Obama “Very, Very Urban” . Transcript via CNN . COOPER: We begin, as always, “Keeping Them Honest.” Tonight: the congressman who says a billion-dollar federal program for settling African-American discrimination claims is full of fraud, was pushed by what he calls a — quote — “very, very urban” Barack Obama, and amounts, he says, to slavery reparations. We’re talking about Steve King, Republican of Iowa. You’re going to hear from him in a moment. At issue is a program just passed in Congress to extend payments to African-American farmers who have been discriminated against by the U.S. government. Now, the government, the U.S. Department of Agriculture in this case, admits they discriminated against black farmers, unfairly denying them federal loans, for instance, loans they needed, as all farmers do from time to time, to stay afloat. The USDA also admits that, for years, they ignored or even threw away discrimination claims made by black farmers. A farmer named Pigford sued. It became a class-action suit. The government came up with a settlement and now a new settlement for farmers who missed the filing deadline of the first one. Congressman King objects to this latest round of payments, saying there is widespread fraud. He’s alleging three-quarters-of-a-billion dollars were wasted in the first round of payments. And, this week, Congressman King spoke on the House floor for an hour attacking the process and President Obama for sponsoring a bill supporting it when he was a senator. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. STEVE KING (R), IOWA: Figure this out, Madam Speaker. We have a very, very urban Senator Barack Obama who has decided to run for president, and what does he do? He introduces legislation to create a whole new Pigford claim. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Congressman King did not point out then-Senator Obama was representing the state of Illinois, some 80 percent of which is made up of farmland. The congressman went to equate these payments with slave reparations. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KING: We have got to stand up at some point and say, we’re not going to pay slavery reparations in the United States Congress. That war’s been fought. That was over a century ago. That debt was paid for in blood, and it was paid for in the blood of a lot of Yankees especially. And there’s no reparations for the blood that paid for the sin of slavery. No one’s filing that claim. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Well, just for the record, President Obama is on the record as opposing reparations for slavery, said it several times. I asked him even about it during a CNN/YouTube presidential debate three years ago. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, JULY 2007) COOPER: Senator Obama, your position on reparations? (CHEERING AND APPLAUSE) SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think the reparations we need right here in South Carolina is investment, for example, in our schools. That’s the kind of reparations that are really going to make a difference in America right now. COOPER: Is anyone — is any… (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: So, point one, President Obama’s not for reparations. But the president’s motivations aside, though, what about Congress — Congressman King’s claim that the first phase of the Pigford settlement was full of fraud? He says 94,000 people have submitted claims, but only 18,000 African-American farmers could have qualified, and that the vast majority of those claims were fraudulent. Here’s what he said Monday night about a federal claims processor he talked to. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KING: One of those individuals — and I have had anecdotes from several, but one of those individuals felt the burden of the corruption and the fraudulent claims that were coming forward in front of him, that he copied a box of applications, a literal box of applications, which I’m really sure that would not have been very constructive to him maintaining his job with the USDA. But it bothered his conscience so much. And when he came back to Iowa, he wanted to make it a point to make sure that I knew that these applications that he was dealing with, were, he believed, a minimum of 75 percent fraudulent — 75 percent fraudulent. Now, if you just apply that to the $1.05 billion in claims that were paid out, if he’s right in that number, $750 million were wasted paying people that didn’t have it coming. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Seven hundred and fifty million dollars out of $1 billion wasted, according to the congressman. Now, if true, obviously, it’s a shocking amount of fraud. But he gets that figure by extrapolating from, at most, several people. We asked the USDA. They gave us this statement. “All allegations,” they say, “were forwarded to the OIG” — that’s the Office of the Inspector General — “who in turn referred them to the FBI.” It goes on to say, “The FBI prosecuted a total of three individuals. With approximately 20,000 claimants, three prosecutions means that 0.015 percent of the claimants were determined by the FBI to be serious enough to merit prosecution.” Congressman — Congressman King also says that there have been more than — more claims than possible farmers. The USDA says, in a nutshell, that, in the 15 years covered by the current bill, farms changed hands. So, according to the department, the 44,000 African- American farmers in 1996 were not all the same farmers in 1981, hence the additional claims, and that many farmers were driven out of business by discrimination. I spoke with Congressman King a few moments ago, along with John Boyd, president of the National Black Farmers Association. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) COOPER: Representative King, you liken these payments to slave reparations, but just factually speaking, how can you say that? These payments are — are not for anyone descended from slaves. They’re — these are payments, they’re — they’re not even for black farmers who were discriminated against all throughout the 1900s. They’re payments specifically for black farmers who the USDA admits were being discriminated against between 1983 and 1997. So, how are these slave reparations? KING: Well, I have sat on the Judiciary Committee for eight years. I sat through slavery reparation hearings that were held by Chairman John Conyers, and, of course, through the hearings here on the Pigford farms claims. And the motivation that comes From this looks to me like there’s no resistance on the part of the proponents to hold back or look for fraud IN this. They just simply seem to be content with every black farmer that would apply would get what was defined as Judge Friedman and his — in his opinion as virtually an automatic payment. COOPER: Dr. Boyd, though, let me just ask you specifically, though, staying on this — on this topic, Representative King has talked about a hypothetical Johnny who was born on a farm, but — quote — “went off to the city, became a… DR. JOHN BOYD, FOUNDER, NATIONAL BLACK FARMERS ASSOCIATION: Well, first of all… (CROSSTALK) COOPER: “… a drug addict, and now wants the $50,000…” BOYD: Well, first of all… COOPER: “… that comes from the USDA under this claim.” How strict is the vetting of these claims? BOYD: Well, first of all, I think that — that statement has a terrible, terrible racial undertone, and very, very offensive to our black farmers. And — and we need to forget here, we help feed — we help feed the country. We help feed the world. And we paid our price to be in this country and to own land. And what the government done to — done to black farmers is wrong. COOPER: How strict is the vetting? I mean, Representative King is saying just about anybody who is African-American can claim to have been a farmer or… (CROSSTALK) BOYD: Oh, that’s not true. That’s not true. COOPER: So, how strict is it? BOYD: The consent decree says African-Americans who farmed or attempted to farm between 1981 and 1997. And the reason we use that definition is because the Civil Rights Office at USDA was closed under the Reagan administration. And we went in and found — and investigated and found thousands of black farmer civil rights cases that had never been processed. And that’s what this case is about. COOPER: Yes, Representative… BOYD: This case is not about fraud. This case is about bringing justice and equality and fairness to a group of people who deserve it. And it’s long, long overdue justice. COOPER: Congressman — Congressman King, it is pretty shocking when you start to look into what happened in the USDA. I mean, they were literally throwing out discrimination claims, just dumping them in the garbage in some cases. You said — you claim 75 percent of the claims now being made in this program by African-American farmers have been fraudulent. You say an unnamed person working for the USDA gave you that estimate. USDA says that percentage is complete nonsense. The FBI has investigated. They say it found only three cases of fraud. Where’s the proof of this 75 percent claim you made? KING: Well, and John Boyd says that there’s no fraud. The FBI — or the USDA has reported that the FBI came up with three cases that they prosecuted. Now, what is the level of fraud here? I have said that I had a… BOYD: Well, I’ll tell you. (CROSSTALK) KING: … district director who was deployed to Washington, D.C., to help administer the distribution of the first $1.05 billion under Pigford. He came back, he among others, with stacks of copies of the documents, sick at heart. And he said at least 75 percent are fraudulent. And so we can’t say that there’s no fraud here. Here’s what we know. BOYD: But let me — well, Anderson, let me jump in here. KING: Judge Friedman put in his decision — he wrote 40 acres and a mule in his decision. So, I’m not making this part up about reparations. That’s the words — that’s the code words for reparations. And he also said… (CROSSTALK) COOPER: No, but wait. (CROSSTALK) COOPER: But wait a minute. Wait a minute. (CROSSTALK) COOPER: Sir, I have read that — I have read that… (CROSSTALK) COOPER: I have read that decision. And he just… (CROSSTALK) COOPER: Sir, I have read that decision, and he just used that in a — in a recitation about the history of the interaction between African-Americans and — and the U.S. government and the USDA. He wasn’t — he wasn’t equating 40 acres and a mule to this program. BOYD: Well, and, also… (CROSSTALK) KING: Let me say, though, Anderson, that — that he laments that he can’t fix all the wrongs of slavery and — and segregation in one civil rights case. Now he’s got a second one in front of him. (CROSSTALK) COOPER: I want — I want Dr. Boyd to be able to respond. (CROSSTALK) COOPER: Dr. Boyd? BOYD: Let me talk here. The farmers deserve this restitution. It’s long, long, long, long overdue for the black farmers. This is not a — a rush to judgment. Mr. King has known about this issue. I have testified before — before him many, many, many times before. And this case is about African-American farmers who farmed or attempted to farm who were discriminated against by the United States Department of Agriculture. And I can tell you about discrimination, because I had a county official to spit on me and to tear my application up and throw it in the trash can. And I begged and pleaded with the committee to have that person fired. That person was never fired. He was transferred to another county office to continue — to continue to — to work out his service for the United States Department of Agriculture. And they gave him a big party, a big retirement party. So, I can tell you that this discrimination is real. And I invite Mr. King to walk in my shoes and other black farmers’ shoes around this country before he pass judgment and refer to them as Johnny or some — or someone that has a drug problem. And I will tell you that, Anderson, these farmers have proven their case, and they deserve to have their cases heard based on its merit. And Mr. King needs to stop with that kind of rhetoric and — and — and making racial undertones, because, when you do that… KING: I’m not going to sit here and allow you to call… BOYD: … and, because, when you do that — because, when you do that… KING: … me a racist or misrepresent the language or tell people how I voted. (CROSSTALK) BOYD: … you are rolling back the clocks of justice in America. KING: I voted for a bill that put a $100 million cap on this thing. BOYD: That’s right. KING: And that’s what the chairman of the Ag Committee says. And either — either — either he misrepresented it, or you did, John. (CROSSTALK) BOYD: … voted to bring justice… (CROSSTALK) KING: Now, which one is it? COOPER: Let Congressman King finish. (CROSSTALK) COOPER: Sorry. (CROSSTALK) COOPER: Congressman — Representative King, just finally, I just want to give you a chance to respond. A lot of liberals have been attacking you because you described President Obama this week as — quote — “very, very urban.” They have said that’s a euphemism referring to the president’s race. KING: You know, we had to go look this up and try to figure out anybody could hypervigilant over calling the president a very urban, actually, a very, very urban president — or very urban senator at the time. He comes from a very urban area. It’s not something that would ever occur to anybody in my background that that would be something that would some kind of a racial pejorative. It’s just simply he comes from the city. That’s urban. You come from the country, you’re rural. I would say John Boyd is rural. And I would say, also, in spite of the way that he has insulted me, I still support your claim, John. I just don’t support the fraudulent ones. COOPER: Congressman King, I appreciate your time, Dr. John Boyd, as well. Thank you very much, both of you. BOYD: Thank you. Thank you for having… (CROSSTALK) KING: Thank you. (END VIDEOTAPE)

Anderson Cooper Takes on Another Birther on AC360

December 1, 2010 No Comment

Click here to view this media Another day, another wingnut birther who was willing to come on Anderson Cooper’s show and make an ass of themselves. This time around it was Texas State Representative Leo Berman. Cooper took on Arizona Rep. Cecil Ash on the same subject back in April. Now we get round two of the stupidity with Texas Rep. Berman here. I’ll just say I agree with Media Matters Eric Boehlert’s tweet on this which is not safe for work. My head hurts after watching this nonsense as well. I don’t know what they’re putting in the water down in Texas but apparently their representatives are drinking the same wingnut Kool Aid as they are in Arizona. Transcript via CNN . COOPER: Representative Berman, you have said this bill is needed because — and I quote — we have a president who the American people don’t know whether he was born in Kenya or some other place. Do you personally believe that President Obama was not born in Hawaii? LEO BERMAN (R), TEXAS STATE REPRESENTATIVE: Well, you know, I really don’t know. If you look at my white hair, you can tell I have been around for a while. And I have known everything about every president that I have come across for the last 70-some-odd years. I don’t know anything about President Obama. I wish I did. COOPER: How can you say that? BERMAN: But there’s nothing to prove. COOPER: How can you say that, though? BERMAN: Excuse me COOPER: Because, I mean, there is a — a birth certificate. There’s a certificate of live birth, which is what the state of Hawaii sends out. We’re showing a picture of it to our viewers. It has got a raised seal. And it’s got the stamp of the — the — the — the health register from the state. Why — why isn’t that good enough? BERMAN: Well, because it’s not an original birth certificate. It doesn’t show the parents’ place of birth. And, also, we know for certain that President Obama’s father was born in Kenya. Since he was born in Kenya, in 1 — that was a British protectorate. President Obama was born in 1961. And with his father being a British citizen, at least, President Obama, we think, holds duel citizenship. COOPER: Well, actually, technically that’s not correct. (CROSSTALK) COOPER: He may have been born with duel citizenship because of the technicality of his father being under the British — a British subject, being from Kenya, but he automatically lost that in — in — when he — at the age of 23, as anybody — anybody does. And to say that that document is not… BERMAN: How do you lose that? COOPER: To say — it’s just — it’s the way it happened. To say that that document, though, is not the original birth certificate, that’s what the state sends out when anybody asks for a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. And it’s accepted by the U.S. State Department as valid for a U.S. passport. And — and the Hawaii state health director has acknowledged that, back in 2008, she has — and I quote — “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate — certificate on record, in accordance with state policies and procedures.” BERMAN: Well, you mentioned the State Department. Now, let’s talk about the State Department. COOPER: But — no, no, first, do you… (CROSSTALK) COOPER: … do you not acknowledge that the state of Hawaii has the original birth certificate? The health director there says it. The governor of Hawaii says this is not an issue. The governor of Hawaii, who is a Republican, was quoted as saying: “I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records at the Department of Health. We issued a news release at the time saying the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that is just a fact.” Is she lying? BERMAN: Well, my question to you, then, Anderson, is, why — did you see it? I would like to see it. COOPER: Well, you can go… BERMAN: And I would also like to see President… (CROSSTALK) COOPER: You can go and see it. The nonpartisan fact-checking organization FactCheck.org, they — they looked at it. It has a raised seal. They say it’s legit. BERMAN: A raised seal could be put on by any type of machinery. But what I’m saying is, where are the president’s passports? Where are his travel documents? Where are his school records? Why don’t we know anything at all about a president who has such a radical agenda? There’s a radical agenda. And I would like to know something about the president of United States. COOPER: Well, let me — let me ask you about that… BERMAN: The state of Hawaii… COOPER: … because have you seen… BERMAN: Sure. COOPER: … George W. Bush’s transcripts from college? BERMAN: I could see anything I want from George W. Bush. COOPER: Actually, sir, you couldn’t. BERMAN: I can go right online and get it, yes. COOPER: No, actually, sir, you couldn’t. BERMAN: Yes. COOPER: Under — under federal law, you’re not — the — those — the schools cannot release that information. And President Bush refused to release that information from Andover and from his time at Yale. Someone actually leaked the Yale records illegally, but, actually, he refused to release them. But, sir, again, you haven’t answered any of the facts on this which I have — I have — I have brought up to you. The state of Hawaii has… BERMAN: You haven’t answered me. You haven’t — tell me, where are his passports? COOPER: I am answering it. The state of Hawaii, for a fact, has verified the original birth certificate is there. When you — if you request one, as the Obama campaign did, what they are sent is the certificate of live birth. It’s the short firm. It’s what they send out. Hawaii doesn’t send out the long form. Yet, for some reason, in this man’s case, it’s not acceptable to you. BERMAN: Well, let me — let’s say it is acceptable to me. Now, let’s answer — let’s get on to another point. Where are the president’s passports and his travel records which got him to Pakistan in the early ’90s, when no U.S. citizen could get to Pakistan at all? COOPER: Sir, where did you hear that? BERMAN: Where are his college records? COOPER: Sir, where did you hear that? BERMAN: Why can’t we see anything? COOPER: Sir, where did you hear that? BERMAN: We can’t see any personal documents about this president. COOPER: Sir, I don’t mean to contradict you. BERMAN: I’m sorry? COOPER: I — I respect you. And I respect, certainly, your service to this country, but where do you get your information? Because that — that — what you have just said is factually incorrect. BERMAN: I’m getting my information the same place you are getting your information. COOPER: OK. BERMAN: I want to see a passport that got the president… COOPER: Well, how do you know the president traveled to Pakistan, what did you say, in the late ’90s, late ’80s? BERMAN: I think it — late ’80s, early ’90s. That’s common knowledge. COOPER: That’s actually not true, sir. BERMAN: Everybody knows he traveled to Pakistan — he had a passport — when… COOPER: Right. BERMAN: … U.S. citizens couldn’t travel to Pakistan. So, which country… COOPER: OK. Sir, he traveled to Pakistan… BERMAN: … did he… COOPER: Sir, he traveled to Pakistan in 1981, and — when he was a student. And — and, actually, Americans could travel to Pakistan then. In fact, I — we have an article from “The New York Times” from 1981 from the travel section about the joys of traveling in Pakistan. You needed a — American citizens, I think they needed a 30-day visa, but American citizens could go and travel in Pakistan. That’s just an Internet rumor that you’re spreading. BERMAN: No, it’s — it’s not an Internet rumor that I’m spreading. I’m sorry, it’s not. COOPER: Sir… (CROSSTALK) BERMAN: It’s not. No, it’s not. (CROSSTALK) COOPER: Barack Obama went to Pakistan in 1981, when Americans could go there. It — it’s an Internet rumor that Americans couldn’t travel there. And you had the dates completely wrong. You’re saying the early ’90s. BERMAN: I have got a report here from the Congressional Research Service and their legislative attorney, Jack Maskell. And there’s a lot of good information here. I’m not asking for a lot. I’m asking for simple information about the president of the United States. The news media, they… (CROSSTALK) COOPER: So — so, is his travel to Pakistan in the Congressional Research Service information there? BERMAN: Yes. The major news — the major news media will not answer any of these questions. Why won’t you put this out factually? COOPER: Sir, I’m asking for where you got that information. BERMAN: Why won’t you show us the long birth certificate or the passport? And why didn’t the United States Congress — we have 535 members of the United States Congress. They are the only body of the federal government in a Constitution that really should be vetting the president of the United States… COOPER: OK. BERMAN: … because they take an oath of office in which they will support and defend the Constitution against — of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and they will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, so help me God. COOPER: But, sir, again, just… (CROSSTALK) BERMAN: Not a single member of the… (CROSSTALK) BERMAN: … United States Congress raised their hand when they were counting the electoral votes in 2008… COOPER: OK. BERMAN: … to say, show us. I want to see it. COOPER: Sir, just, of the points you — of the points you have raised, the factual points to — to — I mean, you’re basing legislation on stuff that’s basically just rumors and — and stuff that’s been proven to be false. I mean, you — you say that — that President Obama didn’t release college records. That’s true. He hasn’t released college records. But, under federal law, the schools can’t release them, and he doesn’t want to, for whatever reason. And you know what? George W. Bush didn’t want to, for whatever reason, from Andover and from Yale. You didn’t seem to object about that. You have raised medical records issue, that he didn’t fully release his medical records. Well, you know what? John McCain didn’t fully release his medical records either. They both did in a very limited way. BERMAN: Am I wrong when I say that the president has employed many, many lawyers and is spending millions of dollars to keep all these records from public view? COOPER: Well, actually, sir, we don’t know exactly what — what — what he spent the money — first of all, I’m not sure it’s millions. I think the record I saw was one-point-something million. And we don’t know that the bulk of the work that the lawyer, the law firm he has obtained is — is directed to this. He’s certainly being sued by a couple of people, and those lawsuits have gone nowhere. And, yes, he’s — he’s, you know, paying lawyers for that. But we don’t know if that — all that money has gone for that. We just — we just factually don’t know that, so we can’t say what — what exactly… BERMAN: Have the major media actually gone into an investigative mode to see if the president… COOPER: Sir, this has been looked at for… BERMAN: … is really entitled… COOPER: … years and years. BERMAN: … to be the president of the United States? COOPER: And — and no court has supported this. Most legitimate, you know, observers of this, most people in the country have moved on from this and say, look, the president is a — is a United States citizen. BERMAN: Oh, I don’t think most people have moved on. I think either 50 percent — even CNN polls have shown that 50 to 60 percent of the people of the United States do not believe that the president is eligible to be holding that office. COOPER: Sir, again, I’m sorry to — to keep… BERMAN: That’s your own CNN poll, isn’t it? COOPER: All right, sir, OK, I have the CNN poll right here. I hate to — I hate to keep reading this. The CNN poll from July 16-21, all Americans, question, was Barack Obama born in the U.S.? The number of Americans who said definitely or probably, the percentage was 71 percent, definitely or probably no, 27 percent. So, according to this poll, if you believe this poll, 71 percent of Americans believe probably or definitely that Barack Obama was born in the United States. Admittedly, 30 — 27 percent who don’t believe it, that’s a lot. That’s a big number. But, again, just factually, you haven’t shown me any fact that proves he’s not, and — and — and you haven’t been able to answer anything of — any direct thing about the facts that you have brought up that have been wrong. BERMAN: May I — may I say that no major media has shown me any facts either? I will give you my public mailing address, and you can send me the facts, if you would like to. But no one will send me the facts, the State Department, the public media, I mean the major media. I haven’t seen anything yet. And I would like to see it. And I do extensive reading. COOPER: But how much of this is about — purely about politics? Because, look, you — you — you are a good person, and you have served your country remarkably in the military, and you’re a public servant now. But you’re basing legislation on things which have been disproven. And you have said — in the past, you said — and I quote — “I believe that Barack Obama’s God punishment on us today.” Is this just about politics, that you don’t like this guy, and, therefore, you’re raising these objections about him? BERMAN: Well, it’s — it’s a lot more than politics. Like you said, I did serve my country. And there is a lieutenant colonel who will be court-martialed in mid-December for refusing an order from a president who he believes is not the commander in chief of the United States military forces. We also have a case in the U.S. Supreme Court — I think it was started either yesterday or today — based on the same information that we’re discussing right now. COOPER: But, so far, the Supreme Court has batted down attempts to — to get — I mean, most — all courts have rejected these arguments. This — this is going nowhere, other than in a few state legislatures. BERMAN: Well, it’s in the Supreme Court today, isn’t it? Have they already completed the case? COOPER: It — it got thrown out. hit got thrown out. They’re not going to take it. BERMAN: Was that today? COOPER: Yes, that was today. BERMAN: Because I was listening for it. COOPER: Yes. No, that was today. BERMAN: OK. I didn’t hear. I will have to — I will have to check on it. COOPER: Yes. Well, I appreciate you coming on. If you could send us the Congressional Research Service document you have that talks about then young Mr. Obama traveling to Pakistan with the dates you gave us, I would appreciate if you would send it to us. Leo Berman, Representative Leo Berman, I appreciate your time, sir. Thank you. BERMAN: It’s a pleasure. Thank you very much, Anderson. (END VIDEOTAPE) COOPER: Well, Representative Berman, as we mentioned, we asked him to send us the copy of the Congressional Research Service report that he mentioned that talked about Pakistan. He didn’t send us the report itself, which — we actually found it on our own. And, when you read through it, it actually concludes that the doubts that have been raised about the president’s citizenship really don’t hold water. That’s what the Congressional Research Service report concluded. Instead, what — what Representative Berman sent us, what he was actually talking when he cited the CRS report was actually a critique of that report by a blogger. And in the critique — critique that Mr. Berman sent us, the blog actually made no mention of President Obama’s travel to Pakistan. We did our own research. We found another article by the same blogger which did mention President — then Barack Obama’s travels to Pakistan in 1981. That much was correct. The blogger, however, said Mr. Obama couldn’t have used a U.S. passport for that trip because Pakistan was on the United States’ no-travel list in 1981. That’s just not true. An American could get a 30-day visa to travel in Pakistan in 1981. And that fact is easy for anyone to check.

Page 16 of 25« First ‹ Previous 14 151617 18 Next ›Last »