WMAL’s Chris Plante Rips Obama Campaign for ‘Made in USA’ Birth Certificate T-Shirt
May 19, 2011 No CommentYesterday our good friend Chris Plante of WMAL radio mocked the Obama reelection campaign for its dopey “Made in USA” birth certificate T-shirts. (Watch the video after page break)
Continue reading …
Former government adviser says sentence discounts could make convictions more difficult and stop victims coming forward A high-ranking former police officer who advised the government on rape for 10 years has said proposals to halve sentences for attackers who plead guilty will make it harder to convict rapists and could deter victims from coming forward. Dave Gee – who was recently commended by the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), Sir Hugh Orde, as the UK’s leading authority on rape investigation – said he felt “despair” when he heard Kenneth Clarke appear to suggest some rape cases were more serious than others , and accused the justice secretary of ignorance of the subject and the law. The former head of Derbyshire CID told the Guardian that Clarke’s plan to increase the discounted tariff for rape when assailants admitted guilt to 50%, alongside crimes like robbery and burglary, downplayed the severity of the offence, in turn inviting officers to investigate it less thoroughly. He also said Clarke had got the law wrong when he claimed that a case of an 18-year-old having sex with a 15-year-old girl would be treated as rape even if she were willing. In fact in those circumstances the crime would be unlawful sexual intercourse; statutory rape is when the girl is 13 or under. In an interview on BBC Radio 5 Live on Wednesday, Clarke rejected a suggestion that “rape is rape” and talked about “serious rape with violence and an unwilling woman”. Gee, who travelled the country advising police forces on how to increase conviction rates in his work for the Home Office and Acpo, said: “I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. When I listened to it again to check my hearing of it, it was even worse then I’d thought. “It showed an ignorance of the facts and about rape in general. He drew an obvious distinction between ‘serious’ rape and other categories. “It legitimises the myth that ‘proper’ rape must involve violence and injury. It sends a message to jurors who have an attitude that there are degrees of rape that they are right and may make them less likely to convict.” Gee said it was “outrageous” for Clarke to get his facts wrong on statutory rape. “He’s responsible for justice and he doesn’t know the law.” On the sentencing proposals, he said: “Why is rape being included with what are currently deemed to be lesser offences? It will weaken the investigative mindset of officers at the outset. “At a time when we’re trying to get more people to report rape, this announcement will have done nothing to help and may even have reversed those efforts. What are they thinking of?” He also criticised Clarke for suggesting victims wanted to be spared the trauma of going to court, saying that for many it was an important part of the cathartic process. Gee, a retired detective chief superintendent, for five years managed Acpo’s rape support programme, which worked with forces around the country to improve their handling of rape cases and drive up conviction rates. He also worked with officials in the Home Office dealing with policy on sexual violence and co-wrote Acpo’s national guidance on rape. He left his role in March this year voluntarily and has not been replaced, but still does unpaid work with voluntary organisations and talks to police forces when asked. Kenneth Clarke Rape UK criminal justice Rachel Williams guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Shh! Networks Don’t Want to Talk About Obamacare Waivers for Wealthy Pelosi Liberals
May 19, 2011 No Comment
According to the three major networks, the granting of numerous waivers to Barack Obama's health care law, including 38 in April alone to wealthy, entertainment businesses in Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district, isn't of much interest. ABC and CBS have completely ignored waivers, while NBC only included a general mention from a Republican senator. As the Daily Caller's Matthew Boyle reported, 1300 waivers have been granted and while that information is online, “it has not made public which companies and other entities have been denied waivers and why they were denied.” 20 percent went to Pelosi's district. Appearing on the January 2, 2011 Meet the Press, Senator Lindsey Graham pointed out, “…But the Obama health care is a real burden to small businesses and large businesses. There's been 200 and something waivers.” Chuck Todd made a reference to a future waiver program on May 1. Those two were the only instances of waivers even being referred to on NBC. However, while ABC ignored waivers, Good Morning America, for example, found time to promote the obstacle course game show Wipeout and other pressing topics. Here's what the networks haven't been telling you about waivers in general, as explained by conservative columnist Michelle Malkin : Seattle-based REI. The trendy Pacific Northwest outdoor equipment retailer's progressive CEO and Democratic campaign donor, Sally Jewell, appeared with President Obama in 2009 to tout White House health care reform initiatives. Two years later, REI snagged a waiver to protect the health benefits of a whopping 1,180 workers from the very tentacles of the big government bureaucrats Jewell embraced at Obama's roundtable. The Daily Caller's Boyle also noted , “Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.” The New York Times covered waivers only in relation to comments made by Mitt Romney that he would grant them for all 50 states.
Continue reading …
• FA board agrees to reject both Blatter and Bin Hammam • Decision taken due to ‘a well-reported range of issues’ The Football Association’s board has decided to abstain in the vote for the presidency of Fifa, citing “a well-reported range of issues”. The decision to support neither Sepp Blatter nor his Qatari challenger Mohamed bin Hammam in the vote on 1 June had been expected following the recent allegations of bribery surrounding Qatar’s successful bid for the 2022 World Cup. Bin Hammam, central to the Qatar bid, denies any wrongdoing. The FA chairman David Bernstein said: “There are a well-reported range of issues both recent and current which, in the view of the FA board, make it difficult to support either candidate. “The FA values its relationships with its international football partners extremely highly. We are determined to play an active and influential role through our representation within both Uefa and Fifa. “We will continue to work hard to bring about any changes we think would benefit all of international football.” Bernstein had previously admitted that “it wouldn’t go down very well” with the public if the FA board decided to vote for the 75-year-old Blatter. He said: “We will look at the recent events and take that on board. There are two candidates and three possible decisions, the other being that we will abstain.” One of the board members from the amateur game is Roger Burden, who withdrew his application to become FA chairman after the World Cup vote in December, saying he would have to work with Fifa and “I am not prepared to deal with people whom I cannot trust”. The Premier League members may have argued in favour of Bin Hammam – they have developed close links with the head of the Asian confederation – but evidently did not win a majority. The FA Fifa Sepp Blatter Mohamed bin Hammam David Bernstein guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• FA board agrees to reject both Blatter and Bin Hammam • Decision taken due to ‘a well-reported range of issues’ The Football Association’s board has decided to abstain in the vote for the presidency of Fifa, citing “a well-reported range of issues”. The decision to support neither Sepp Blatter nor his Qatari challenger Mohamed bin Hammam in the vote on 1 June had been expected following the recent allegations of bribery surrounding Qatar’s successful bid for the 2022 World Cup. Bin Hammam, central to the Qatar bid, denies any wrongdoing. The FA chairman David Bernstein said: “There are a well-reported range of issues both recent and current which, in the view of the FA board, make it difficult to support either candidate. “The FA values its relationships with its international football partners extremely highly. We are determined to play an active and influential role through our representation within both Uefa and Fifa. “We will continue to work hard to bring about any changes we think would benefit all of international football.” Bernstein had previously admitted that “it wouldn’t go down very well” with the public if the FA board decided to vote for the 75-year-old Blatter. He said: “We will look at the recent events and take that on board. There are two candidates and three possible decisions, the other being that we will abstain.” One of the board members from the amateur game is Roger Burden, who withdrew his application to become FA chairman after the World Cup vote in December, saying he would have to work with Fifa and “I am not prepared to deal with people whom I cannot trust”. The Premier League members may have argued in favour of Bin Hammam – they have developed close links with the head of the Asian confederation – but evidently did not win a majority. The FA Fifa Sepp Blatter Mohamed bin Hammam David Bernstein guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Move comes after peer uses parliamentary privilege to discuss former RBS chief’s injunction in Lords The high court has partially lifted a gagging order brought by Sir Fred Goodwin, the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, just hours after details of his alleged extra-marital affair were made public in the House of Lords. Mr Justice Tugendhat varied the injunction to allow publication of Goodwin’s name, but not details of the alleged relationship and the name of the woman said to be involved. Goodwin obtained the wide-ranging injunction against the Sun newspaper in March. News Group Newspapers, the News International subsidiary that publishes the Sun, went to the high court on Thursday afternoon seeking to get the injunction lifted. However, by that point Goodwin had already informed the high court “that he did not wish to persuade the court to continue the anonymity,” according to his lawyer, Hugh Tomlinson QC. Tugendhat then amended the wide-ranging injunction to allow Goodwin to be named, but to prevent reporting of the detail of his alleged “sexual relationship” with a colleague. Tugendhat said: “The main point is that this is an injunction relating to a sexual relationship. The existing order of Mrs Justice Sharp prohibits the naming of the other person to the relationship and prohibits the publication of any details. That remains in force.” The injunction – which even prevented Goodwin from being identified as a banker – was raised by Lord Stoneham, a Liberal Democrat peer, earlier on Thursday during a debate in the upper house. Stoneham’s comments are protected by parliamentary privilege. Stoneham, speaking on behalf of fellow Liberal Democrat peer Lord Oakeshott, said during the debate: “Would [the speaker] accept that every taxpayer has a direct public interest in the events leading up to the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland? “So how can it be right for a injunction to hide the alleged relationship between Sir Fred Goodwin and a senior colleague? If true it would be a serious breach of corporate governance and not even the Financial Services Authority would know about it.” Following the Lords claims on Thursday morning, Lord McNally, the minister of state for justice and deputy leader of the Lords, revealed that the Ministry of Justice does not know how many superinjunctions presently exist. The ability of MPs and peers to bypass gagging orders issued against the media is likely to feature in a report on superinjunctions by the master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, on Friday. However, the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, on Thursday ruled out new legislation to deal specifically with the issue of balancing privacy and freedom of speech, saying that a privacy law was “not the way forward”. He added: “We’re not minded to have a new privacy law but we’re not ruling out the need for legislative changes.” •
Continue reading …
Move comes after peer uses parliamentary privilege to discuss former RBS chief’s injunction in Lords The high court has partially lifted a gagging order brought by Sir Fred Goodwin, the former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, just hours after details of his alleged extra-marital affair were made public in the House of Lords. Mr Justice Tugendhat varied the injunction to allow publication of Goodwin’s name, but not details of the alleged relationship and the name of the woman said to be involved. Goodwin obtained the wide-ranging injunction against the Sun newspaper in March. News Group Newspapers, the News International subsidiary that publishes the Sun, went to the high court on Thursday afternoon seeking to get the injunction lifted. However, by that point Goodwin had already informed the high court “that he did not wish to persuade the court to continue the anonymity,” according to his lawyer, Hugh Tomlinson QC. Tugendhat then amended the wide-ranging injunction to allow Goodwin to be named, but to prevent reporting of the detail of his alleged “sexual relationship” with a colleague. Tugendhat said: “The main point is that this is an injunction relating to a sexual relationship. The existing order of Mrs Justice Sharp prohibits the naming of the other person to the relationship and prohibits the publication of any details. That remains in force.” The injunction – which even prevented Goodwin from being identified as a banker – was raised by Lord Stoneham, a Liberal Democrat peer, earlier on Thursday during a debate in the upper house. Stoneham’s comments are protected by parliamentary privilege. Stoneham, speaking on behalf of fellow Liberal Democrat peer Lord Oakeshott, said during the debate: “Would [the speaker] accept that every taxpayer has a direct public interest in the events leading up to the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland? “So how can it be right for a injunction to hide the alleged relationship between Sir Fred Goodwin and a senior colleague? If true it would be a serious breach of corporate governance and not even the Financial Services Authority would know about it.” Following the Lords claims on Thursday morning, Lord McNally, the minister of state for justice and deputy leader of the Lords, revealed that the Ministry of Justice does not know how many superinjunctions presently exist. The ability of MPs and peers to bypass gagging orders issued against the media is likely to feature in a report on superinjunctions by the master of the rolls, Lord Neuberger, on Friday. However, the culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt, on Thursday ruled out new legislation to deal specifically with the issue of balancing privacy and freedom of speech, saying that a privacy law was “not the way forward”. He added: “We’re not minded to have a new privacy law but we’re not ruling out the need for legislative changes.” •
Continue reading …As the GOP field of candidates crumbles,The Politico revs up the spin machine for Mitch Daniels with a typical fawning profile: GOP elite see Mitch Daniels as 2012 savior Top Republicans are increasingly convinced that President Barack Obama will be easily reelected if stronger GOP contenders do not emerge, and some are virtually begging Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels to add some excitement to the slow-starting nomination race . It’s a sign of the GOP’s straits that the party is depending on the bland, wonkish Daniels for an adrenaline boost. But interviews this week with longtime party activists and strategists made clear that many in the Republican establishment are unnerved by a field led by Mitt Romney, who could have trouble confronting Obama on health reform ; Tim Pawlenty, who has yet to ignite excitement; Jon Huntsman, who may be too moderate to get the nomination; and Newt Gingrich, weighed down by personal baggage and a sense that he is a polarizing figure from the 1990s. Despairing Republican lobbyists say their colleagues don’t ask, “Who do you like?” but instead, “Who do we back?” “It’s not that they’re up in arms,” said a central player in the GOP money machine. “It’s just that they’re depressed.” It’s a very weird article because it’s not about how great Daniels is and how fired up the Republicans elite are over his possible candidacy, but rather how weak the rest of the GOP field is. There really isn’t much about Daniels at all in the article that’s supposedly about him. The headline doesn’t match the substance of the piece itself, but I guess they want links from bloggers like me. The MSM began lining up behind Mitch Daniels in May because he’s a conservative governor, as Ed Kilgore explains in TNR: “The conservative establishment’s hopeless infatuation with Mitch Daniels” Later he expanded on this here: Mitch Daniels and the Gravitas Lobby Which leads Digby to write: The Villagers’ New Heartthrob Daniels also has some baggage I don’t think the Villagers realize is poison among just about everyone — he was a member of George W. Bush’s economic team. Now, Republicans don’t really care about that but they have gone to a great deal of trouble to distance themselves from Bush’s epic failure by robotically claiming that they didn’t support Bush’s spending either. Daniels is going to have a bit of trouble making that argument and you can bet his primary rivals will hang Bush’s effigy around his neck and set it afire. The mere idea that a Bush economic advisor has “gravitas” would be astonishing if we weren’t living in bizarroworld. So out came stories about his Daniels’ wife. As Doug J at Balloon Juice writes: Oh Cheri, all alone I think Daniels is a weak primary candidate for a variety of reasons, but there’s no doubt Daniels will be establishment media’s favored candidate in both the primary and, if he gets there, the general. He’s the new John McCain. So his personal life will not be explored. Funny how this never happens with Democratic candidates. What was the top news story of last week? Obviously Bin Laden’s demise. CNN’s Reliable Sources TV show focuses on how the media covers the most important stories that drive the news for the past week. After Bin Laden was killed, the right wing then tried to shift the debate to justify torture so it became a two pronged lead in a sense. What story did Reliable Sources begin their show with? The wives of GOP candidates running for President in 2012. And one of those wives who was featured was Cheri Daniels . HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: Running for public office these days means subjecting your family to a whole lot of journalist scrutiny. From Bill Clinton’s marriage, to Sarah Palin’s kids, to the pain of Elizabeth Edwards, the media glare can be harsh, as we saw again this week. Should Newt Gingrich’s third wife — you know, the one he had the affair with — be on the front page of “The New York Times”? What about Mitch Daniels divorcing and then remarrying his wife? Front page news? Should Arnold Schwarzenegger split with Maria Shriver be all over the airwaves? Are journalists trying to probe our political leaders or just play the gossip game? — I’m Howard Kurtz, and this is RELIABLE SOURCES. One day before he jumped into the presidential race, Newt Gingrich was greeted by a front-page picture of his wife Callista. She is, according to “The New York Times,” perhaps best remembered for the six-year affair that contributed to her husband’s downfall, when he was speaker of the House, of course, and pushing to impeach Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair. But now, says the paper, he is counting on the third Mrs. Gingrich for his political redemption. Another page one story in The Times this week zeroed in on Mitch Daniels’ wife Cheri, who divorced him in the ’90s, married another man, and then remarried Daniels. And the Indiana governor hasn’t decided even whether to run for president. The “Los Angeles Times” reported this week that it had approached Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver about their deteriorating marriage and gotten a statement saying the movie-star-turned-governor and his wife had separated. Given their star power, the coverage quickly exploded.
Continue reading …As the GOP field of candidates crumbles,The Politico revs up the spin machine for Mitch Daniels with a typical fawning profile: GOP elite see Mitch Daniels as 2012 savior Top Republicans are increasingly convinced that President Barack Obama will be easily reelected if stronger GOP contenders do not emerge, and some are virtually begging Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels to add some excitement to the slow-starting nomination race . It’s a sign of the GOP’s straits that the party is depending on the bland, wonkish Daniels for an adrenaline boost. But interviews this week with longtime party activists and strategists made clear that many in the Republican establishment are unnerved by a field led by Mitt Romney, who could have trouble confronting Obama on health reform ; Tim Pawlenty, who has yet to ignite excitement; Jon Huntsman, who may be too moderate to get the nomination; and Newt Gingrich, weighed down by personal baggage and a sense that he is a polarizing figure from the 1990s. Despairing Republican lobbyists say their colleagues don’t ask, “Who do you like?” but instead, “Who do we back?” “It’s not that they’re up in arms,” said a central player in the GOP money machine. “It’s just that they’re depressed.” It’s a very weird article because it’s not about how great Daniels is and how fired up the Republicans elite are over his possible candidacy, but rather how weak the rest of the GOP field is. There really isn’t much about Daniels at all in the article that’s supposedly about him. The headline doesn’t match the substance of the piece itself, but I guess they want links from bloggers like me. The MSM began lining up behind Mitch Daniels in May because he’s a conservative governor, as Ed Kilgore explains in TNR: “The conservative establishment’s hopeless infatuation with Mitch Daniels” Later he expanded on this here: Mitch Daniels and the Gravitas Lobby Which leads Digby to write: The Villagers’ New Heartthrob Daniels also has some baggage I don’t think the Villagers realize is poison among just about everyone — he was a member of George W. Bush’s economic team. Now, Republicans don’t really care about that but they have gone to a great deal of trouble to distance themselves from Bush’s epic failure by robotically claiming that they didn’t support Bush’s spending either. Daniels is going to have a bit of trouble making that argument and you can bet his primary rivals will hang Bush’s effigy around his neck and set it afire. The mere idea that a Bush economic advisor has “gravitas” would be astonishing if we weren’t living in bizarroworld. So out came stories about his Daniels’ wife. As Doug J at Balloon Juice writes: Oh Cheri, all alone I think Daniels is a weak primary candidate for a variety of reasons, but there’s no doubt Daniels will be establishment media’s favored candidate in both the primary and, if he gets there, the general. He’s the new John McCain. So his personal life will not be explored. Funny how this never happens with Democratic candidates. What was the top news story of last week? Obviously Bin Laden’s demise. CNN’s Reliable Sources TV show focuses on how the media covers the most important stories that drive the news for the past week. After Bin Laden was killed, the right wing then tried to shift the debate to justify torture so it became a two pronged lead in a sense. What story did Reliable Sources begin their show with? The wives of GOP candidates running for President in 2012. And one of those wives who was featured was Cheri Daniels . HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: Running for public office these days means subjecting your family to a whole lot of journalist scrutiny. From Bill Clinton’s marriage, to Sarah Palin’s kids, to the pain of Elizabeth Edwards, the media glare can be harsh, as we saw again this week. Should Newt Gingrich’s third wife — you know, the one he had the affair with — be on the front page of “The New York Times”? What about Mitch Daniels divorcing and then remarrying his wife? Front page news? Should Arnold Schwarzenegger split with Maria Shriver be all over the airwaves? Are journalists trying to probe our political leaders or just play the gossip game? — I’m Howard Kurtz, and this is RELIABLE SOURCES. One day before he jumped into the presidential race, Newt Gingrich was greeted by a front-page picture of his wife Callista. She is, according to “The New York Times,” perhaps best remembered for the six-year affair that contributed to her husband’s downfall, when he was speaker of the House, of course, and pushing to impeach Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair. But now, says the paper, he is counting on the third Mrs. Gingrich for his political redemption. Another page one story in The Times this week zeroed in on Mitch Daniels’ wife Cheri, who divorced him in the ’90s, married another man, and then remarried Daniels. And the Indiana governor hasn’t decided even whether to run for president. The “Los Angeles Times” reported this week that it had approached Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver about their deteriorating marriage and gotten a statement saying the movie-star-turned-governor and his wife had separated. Given their star power, the coverage quickly exploded.
Continue reading …Boston Who? Establishment Press ‘Colleagues’ Virtually Ignore WH Shutout of Boston Herald
May 19, 2011 No Comment
Imagine if the Bush 43 administration had decided to exclude a newspaper's reporters from full access to presidential events–regardless of the ostensible reason. Does anyone believe that the New York Times or Associated Press would have ignored the story? Well, in a thoroughly predictable but nonetheless sad development, that is what has happened since the Boston Herald's Hillary Chabot reported that “The White House Press Office has refused to give the Boston Herald full access to President Obama’s Boston fund-raiser today, in e-mails objecting to the newspaper’s front page placement of a Mitt Romney op-ed, saying pool reporters are chosen based on whether they cover the news 'fairly.'” Lachlan Markay relayed Chabot's item at NewsBusters yesterday, and also chronicled several previous examples of White House mistreatment, maltreatment, and abuse of disfavored media members. A search of the Associated Press's main site late this morning on “Boston Herald” (without quotes) returned nothing relevant , as seen after the jump: An advanced search at the New York Times also returned nothing relevant : At the Washington Post , the coverage consists of the following in Chris Cilliizza's “The Fix” Blog, in its entirety: “The White House has shut out the Boston Herald from a presidential event today.” Wow. Don't get carpal tunnel over this, Chris. The LA Times, to its credit, had an item yesterday by Kim Geiger at its Politics Now blog. To its discredit, the story's headline (“White House quarrels with Boston newspaper over Romney op-ed”) failed to communicate the situation's true nature, while Geiger aired a mindless White House argument over what was supposedly “on the record”: More than two months after the Boston Herald devoted its front page to promoting an opinion piece by Republican Mitt Romney, the White House press office denied the Herald full access to President Obama’s activities in Boston on Wednesday, sparking an unusual release of email banter that illustrated the sometimes adversarial relationship between the White House and the media.
Continue reading …