Alex Crawford’s (Sky news) riveting report from inside Zawiyah, Libya, a city under siege by the madman Muammar Gadhafi. As the world continues to dither on what, if anything, to do about Libya this small city near Tripoli defies the odds by fending off Gadhafi’s army which bombards residential areas with abandon. Will Gadhafi level an entire city? Gadhafi denies any of this is happening. State run television does not show any of it of course. WARNING : Some of the hospital scenes are graphic. A full 10 min version here . The people of Zawiyah are fighting for their lives. We have seen with our own eyes Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s forces firing on peaceful protesters. We have witnessed the regime’s tanks shelling residential buildings. We have sheltered in a mosque as the colonel’s soldiers fired on the minarets. Later, we were in the town’s Martyrs’ Square watching the rebels’ celebrations as the authorities in Tripoli told the foreign media they had “liberated” the place. The Sky News crew of cameraman Martin Smith, foreign editor Tim Miller and I found ourselves trapped in Zawiyah as the Libyan army still loyal to Col Gaddafi moved in to crush them. The day before, we had joined thousands and thousands of Zawiyah’s towns folk as they marched through the streets demanding Col Gaddafi stepped down. They shouted slogans for change and waved the original Libyan flag as they moved en masse to the army tank lines on the edge of the town. In the crowds were children, mostly young boys. They looked around eight, maybe 10 years old. “Go Gaddafi, go,” the crowd shouted. We were constantly stopped by the demonstrators. “Tell the UN we need their help,” one man said. “Gaddafi is killing Libya. Send your report. We need to show people this.” Then, as the crowd came close to the first tank, near an intersection, the soldiers opened fire. The crowd appeared to flinch but carried on walking – the firing carried on too. It caused a stampede as people fled. The firing continued. We saw ambulances being driven at high speed to pick up the first casualties and they too were fired on. This is a completely full attack. Approximately 50 tanks have been bombarding the city, crushing everything in sight. –Eyewitness account of Pro-Gaddafi forces assault on Zawiyah It was mayhem at the Zawiyah teaching hospital, as dozens of people were stretchered in by friends, colleagues and strangers. The injuries were appalling. One doctor, who we shall call Dr M for his own safety, told us: “This is a shoot to kill policy. Most of the injuries are to the head, chest and neck. ” These are not shots to frighten people, these are shots to kill.”
Continue reading …
• Gaddafi forces in ‘final battle’ for rebel-held Zawiyah • Witnesses say onslaught has ‘flattened’ the town • Opposition calls on Gaddafi to quit in 72 hours • New airstrikes near oil port of Ras Lanuf • Read the latest summary of today’s events 6.28pm: As the Gaddafi regime deploys tanks and hundreds of troops in all-out effort to take the town of Zawiya, my colleague Peter Beaumont reports from nearby Tripoli on an escalation in the Libyan conflict : If it is confirmed, the defeat of opposition forces in Zawiyah, just 30 miles from Tripoli – already claimed twice by the regime in recent days – would mark a significant psychological moment for Gaddafi. Although most sources were suggesting the rebellion in Zawiyah had been crushed, a resident named Ibrahim claimed combat was continuing. The Gaddafi regime has cut all mobile and landline communications with the town and accounts of today’s fighting came from witnesses who had driven out of the combat area and one who had climbed on a roof to find a phone signal. Residents described a hail of bullets, with women and children being killed and families trapped within their homes. The violence of this assault marks a disturbing escalation in the developing civil war in Libya, suggesting that the regime has now decided to pursue a no-holds barred strategy to crush the rebellion, despite the growing threats of international action. Witnesses in Zawiyah said many buildings, including mosques, had been destroyed and rebel forces had used loudhailers to call on residents to help defend positions in the town centre. 6.00pm: Good evening and welcome to our evening coverage of events in Libya. Here is a summary of what we know so far. • Forces loyal to the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi have launched what is being described as a “final assault” on the town of Zawiyah, 50km from the capital, Tripoli. Accounts from the town report a sustained battle, and there are reports of significant damage and many injuries. • Sky News, whose correspondent Alex Crawford and her crew were trapped in Zawiyah over the weekend, said it witnessed Gaddafi forces firing on unarmed civilians and ambulances . These accounts were corroborated from Tripoli by the Guardian’s Peter Beaumont, who reports: “Residents described a hail of bullets with women and children being killed and families trapped within their homes by the ferocity of the fighting.” • The Libyan National Council in Benghazi, set up by the opposition, claims Gaddafi sent a representative to negotiate a peaceful exit for the Libyan leader, which would see him retain assets and avoid prosecution. A spokesman for the council said it would not negotiate with “someone who spilled Libyan blood and continues to do so”. But a Libyan foreign ministry official described the reports as “absolute nonsense”. • In Egypt, a march by women to mark international women’s day and to call for greater female participation in post-revolution political developments, was marred by a counter-demonstration by men. The scenes at the Cairo march turned ugly, and there were reports of scuffles. Arab and Middle East protests Libya Muammar Gaddafi Yemen Egypt Ben Quinn guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The conflicts that are erupting in the Middle East are being blamed for the rising costs of gas at the pumps — notably the biggest two-week jump ever. Republicans are on the warpath to find anything to attack President Obama with, so now they are pulling out their dusty 2008 playbook tactic of crying to America that we need to “Drill, Baby Drill,” as if that could solve anything. They are so deep into the pockets of big oil that the only solution they can come up with is a meaningless slogan that does nothing to solve our energy problem. On MSNBC earlier today, Republican talking head Doug Heye, who used to be at the RNC and was involved in their damage control over Stripper Gate, used that tactic along with their age-old assault on the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to try and spin what’s happening. To me this signals new attacks to try to open up the ANWR region to oil drilling, a fight they’ve been losing for years and which is inconsequential in the great oil debate. But reality doesn’t really matter to them anyway. Contessa Brewer was the host and Heye’s opening shot was both revealing and typically stupid. Brewer: We’re talking about production shutting gown there, how can you blame the president for that? Heye: I think the blame goes back 30 years — goes back longer than we are in talking about getting off foreign oil, but we know what we need. We need to drill. We need to explore. You look at what we see in the Gulf right now, it’s not really a moratorium right now, it’s an Obamatorium because we’re not allowed to go in and press for new oil. We’ve been talking about this for so long and if you keep talking about doing something and don’t do it. Nothing gets done. I remember In 2003, I was in ANWR. Democrats said we couldn’t explore for oil in ANWR because it wouldn’t be ready by 2011. Yes, Heye, Jimmy Carter approached the subject about getting off of oil, but was rebuked by the Republican Party and everyone else who was on the Big Oil dole. Everyone knows ANWR doesn’t have enough oil to do anything except upset progressives. When oil prices rose to 5 dollars a gallon under George Bush, there wasn’t an outbreak of revolution throughout the Middle East, so why was there an incredible rise in price back then? John McCain and Sarah Palin shouted “Drill, Baby Drill,” but that had nothing to do with gas prices. Oil speculators, on the other hand, did — and it’s happening again. Jamie Court: Speculators & Oil Cos Are To Blame For Gas Prices, Not The Middle East While skirmishes in Libya and uncertainty in the Middle East are nice cover for outrageous gasoline prices, the fact is the same old suspects are making a killing from sky-high gas prices approaching $4 dollars per gallon in California: big oil companies and greedy speculators. The speculative market may have driven crude oil prices up, but that’s not the price oil companies pay for the crude oil that goes into our gasoline. America’s big oil companies use crude oil that they have harvested from the ground or bought much cheaper on long term contracts to refine into gasoline. You’ll see the results in next quarter’s profit statements: big profits from both crude oil sales and refineries that make gasoline, what’s called “upstream’ and “downstream” operations in profit reports. Consumer Watchdog has for years both tried to curb the opaqueness of the volatile speculative market for oil and to regulate supplies at gasoline refineries because oil companies game both systems, creating artificial shortages in the markets to jack up prices or exploiting historical events to justify obscene profits. Today’s sky high gasoline prices are the result of oil companies shutting down refineries and playing the speculative markets for big gains… read on Will the GOP use ANWR as a bargaining chip to try and get President Obama to make a deal with them as the year progresses? Americans get angry when gas prices rise, and it would be helpful if the administration called out Big Oil and Wall Street instead of letting Republicans once again win the war of words.
Continue reading …The conflicts that are erupting in the Middle East are being blamed for the rising costs of gas at the pumps — notably the biggest two-week jump ever. Republicans are on the warpath to find anything to attack President Obama with, so now they are pulling out their dusty 2008 playbook tactic of crying to America that we need to “Drill, Baby Drill,” as if that could solve anything. They are so deep into the pockets of big oil that the only solution they can come up with is a meaningless slogan that does nothing to solve our energy problem. On MSNBC earlier today, Republican talking head Doug Heye, who used to be at the RNC and was involved in their damage control over Stripper Gate, used that tactic along with their age-old assault on the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to try and spin what’s happening. To me this signals new attacks to try to open up the ANWR region to oil drilling, a fight they’ve been losing for years and which is inconsequential in the great oil debate. But reality doesn’t really matter to them anyway. Contessa Brewer was the host and Heye’s opening shot was both revealing and typically stupid. Brewer: We’re talking about production shutting gown there, how can you blame the president for that? Heye: I think the blame goes back 30 years — goes back longer than we are in talking about getting off foreign oil, but we know what we need. We need to drill. We need to explore. You look at what we see in the Gulf right now, it’s not really a moratorium right now, it’s an Obamatorium because we’re not allowed to go in and press for new oil. We’ve been talking about this for so long and if you keep talking about doing something and don’t do it. Nothing gets done. I remember In 2003, I was in ANWR. Democrats said we couldn’t explore for oil in ANWR because it wouldn’t be ready by 2011. Yes, Heye, Jimmy Carter approached the subject about getting off of oil, but was rebuked by the Republican Party and everyone else who was on the Big Oil dole. Everyone knows ANWR doesn’t have enough oil to do anything except upset progressives. When oil prices rose to 5 dollars a gallon under George Bush, there wasn’t an outbreak of revolution throughout the Middle East, so why was there an incredible rise in price back then? John McCain and Sarah Palin shouted “Drill, Baby Drill,” but that had nothing to do with gas prices. Oil speculators, on the other hand, did — and it’s happening again. Jamie Court: Speculators & Oil Cos Are To Blame For Gas Prices, Not The Middle East While skirmishes in Libya and uncertainty in the Middle East are nice cover for outrageous gasoline prices, the fact is the same old suspects are making a killing from sky-high gas prices approaching $4 dollars per gallon in California: big oil companies and greedy speculators. The speculative market may have driven crude oil prices up, but that’s not the price oil companies pay for the crude oil that goes into our gasoline. America’s big oil companies use crude oil that they have harvested from the ground or bought much cheaper on long term contracts to refine into gasoline. You’ll see the results in next quarter’s profit statements: big profits from both crude oil sales and refineries that make gasoline, what’s called “upstream’ and “downstream” operations in profit reports. Consumer Watchdog has for years both tried to curb the opaqueness of the volatile speculative market for oil and to regulate supplies at gasoline refineries because oil companies game both systems, creating artificial shortages in the markets to jack up prices or exploiting historical events to justify obscene profits. Today’s sky high gasoline prices are the result of oil companies shutting down refineries and playing the speculative markets for big gains… read on Will the GOP use ANWR as a bargaining chip to try and get President Obama to make a deal with them as the year progresses? Americans get angry when gas prices rise, and it would be helpful if the administration called out Big Oil and Wall Street instead of letting Republicans once again win the war of words.
Continue reading …
enlarge Poor, poor bankers! You know, fellas, we do remember how to use cash. It’s bad enough that we let you guys charge us for the automatic cash machines that first allowed you to lay off thousands of bank tellers when you first came up with the idea. But now you want to just keep upping the charges for using the debit cards you gave us — again, yet another device that let you cut labor costs? You bankers really have no shame: WASHINGTON — It seemed a good idea last year, when the financial crisis had turned banks into Public Enemy No. 1 and lawmakers were looking for ways to reward consumers still bitter about billion-dollar bailouts and executive bonuses. Without much warning or debate, the Senate passed an amendment directing the Federal Reserve to reduce the hidden “swipe fees” that banks collect from retailers each time a customer makes a purchase with a debit card. Merchants, who had complained that the $20.5 billion in annual fees were biting into their profits, were elated. Banks were stunned. Their lobbyists tried to reverse the move, but when the overhaul of the nation’s financial regulation was passed by Congress last July, the debit card cut survived. Now, as the Fed faces a deadline in April to write the rules for the lower fees, banks and debit card companies are engaged in an all-out assault on Capitol Hill, enlisting a growing cadre of lawmakers and lobbyists to push for changes, delay or outright repeal. Banks contend the proposed cut in fees — to 12 cents per transaction from an average of 44 cents — will leave many of them unable to afford to issue debit cards to customers or will force them to raise other consumer banking charges to cover the costs . They also claim retailers will reap unfair profits. A coalition of banks and card companies have plastered subway cars and Internet sites with ads warning, “Bureaucrats want to take away your debit card!” “I am appalled that our members will shoulder tremendous financial burden and still be on the hook for fraud loss while large retailers receive a giant windfall at the hands of the government ,” John P. Buckley Jr., the president of Gerber Federal Credit Union of Fremont, Mich., told a House of Representatives subcommittee last week.
Continue reading …enlarge Credit: Boston Globe/New York Times Ten years ago, George W. Bush was sworn in as America’s first MBA President . Now, Mitt Romney wants to be the second. Two years after President Bush completed the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover, Romney the perpetual White House hopeful declared, “I spent my career in the private sector. I know how jobs are created and how jobs are lost.” Especially, it turns out, the part about how jobs are lost . Addressing New Hampshire Republicans Saturday, Governor Romney decried the state of the U.S. economy. “This is the Obama Misery Index, he said, “and it is at a record high. It’s going to take more than new rhetoric to put Americans back to work–it’s going to take a new president.” In a Boston Herald op-ed Tuesday , Mitt regurgitated both his Obama Misery Index and “I know a thing or two about how jobs are created and how they are lost” talking points. At CPAC last month, Romney was clear about who that new president should be: If I decide to run for President, it won’t take me two years to wake up to the job crisis threatening America. And I won’t be asking Tim Geithner how the economy works-or Larry Summers how to start a business. If Mitt’s line sounds familiar, it should. In his latest incarnation, the man Michael Kinsley deemed “the most transparent candidate” is once again campaigning to be America’s CEO. On the stump in Florida three years ago, Romney made the case that his Harvard MBA, his tenure at Bain, his Salt Lake Olympics experience and his stewardship of Massachusetts made him uniquely qualified him to lead during tough economic times. The multimillionaire venture capitalist told Florida voters: “I know how America works because I spent my life in the real economy…I won’t need a briefing on how the economy works. I’ve been there. I know how the economy works.” Days earlier, Romney offered the reader’s digest version of his resume: “I’ve spent my life, 25 years…in the world of business. I know why jobs come and go.” As his record shows, Mitt Romney is all too familiar with why jobs go – out of state, out of the country or just go altogether. In 1994 , Romney’s career as a vulture capitalist boomeranged against him in his Senate race against Ted Kennedy. The tale of SCM, a northern Indiana-based stationery company purchased by Ampad, a firm owned by Romney and a group of investors, came to dominate the campaign. As the New York Times recounted, in that instance in the vulture capitalist label was well-earned in the subsequent crackdown on the workers there: Management has shed 41 of 265 blue-collar jobs, cut wages, tripled some workers’ health insurance payments, abolished most of their seniority rights and junked the prior management’s union contract, which had two years to run. Romney’s record in Massachusetts also loses some its luster upon closer inspection. While his campaign this week boasted of creating 57,600 jobs during Romney’s tenure from 2003 to 2007, Northeastern University economist Andrew Sum pointed out that Massachusetts’ performance lagged well behind the national average. As Reuters reported: “The state lagged the U.S. average during that period in job creation, economic growth and wage increases. As a strict labor market economist looking at the record, Massachusetts did very poorly during the Romney years, he [Sum] said. “On every measure you’ve got, the state was a substantial under-performer.” Two weeks ago, the New York Post , surely no friend of Democrats, documented Mitt Romney’s career as a vulture capitalist. As John Kosman detailed, Romney didn’t merely produce a “spotty jobs record” when he ran Bain Capital. During a time when he retained a controlling stake, his company reaped huge paydays on investments in firms that later went belly up. For example, the leveraged buyout of medical testing company Dade Behring by Bain and Goldman Sachs in 1994 was followed eight years later by Dade’s failure in 2002. But not until Bain Capital had extracted a rich reward: Bain reduced Dade’s research and development spending to 6 to 7 percent of sales, while its peers allocated between 10 and 15 percent. Dade in June 1999 used the savings as part of the basis to borrow $421 million. Dade then turned around and used $365 million from the loan to buy shares from its owners, giving them a 4.3 times return on their investment. Bain’s slash and burn business model didn’t end there. As Kosman explained in the Post: Bain in 1988 put $5 million down to buy Stage Stores, and in the mid-’90s took it public, collecting $100 million from stock offerings. Stage filed for bankruptcy in 2000. Bain in 1992 bought American Pad & Paper (AMPAD), investing $5 million, and collected $100 million from dividends. The business filed for bankruptcy in 2000. Bain in 1993 invested $60 million when buying GS Industries, and received $65 million from dividends. GS filed for bankruptcy in 2001. Bain in 1997 invested $46 million when buying Details, and made $93 million from stock offerings. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2003. Of course, Romney’s tenure at Bain also produced some big wins – and job gains – at firms like Staples and Domino’s Pizza. But as it turns out, Romney’s old employer was also creating jobs in Iran . That revelation came to light four years ago in the run up to Romney’s failed 2008 bid for the Republican nomination. His pathetic 24-hour crusade for disinvestment from Iran lasted just as long as it took the press to uncover Bain’s business connections with Tehran. Following the lead of once and future Israeli Prime Minister (and one-time colleague at Boston Consulting Group) Benjamin Netanyahu, Romney began his grandstanding on Iranian disinvestment by targeting the Democratic-controlled states of New York and Massachusetts. On February 22, 2007, Romney sent letters to then New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton as well as state comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli urging a policy of “strategic disinvestment from companies linked to the Iranian regime.” As it turns out, scrutiny begins at home. As the AP detailed , Romney’s former employer (Bain and Co.) and the company he founded (Bain Capital) had links to very recent Iranian business deals. Caught flat-footed by his hypocrisy that took the AP less than a day to uncover, Romney feebly responded that his crusade didn’t apply to him: “This is something for now-forward. I wouldn’t begin to say that people who, in the past, have been doing business with Iran, are subject to the same scrutiny as that which is going on from a prospective basis.” As Chuck Todd and his NBC News colleagues suggested Monday, the “now-forward” Romney 3.0 launched this weekend in New Hampshire looks a lot like the buggy 1.0 version. After his flip-flopping failure as a hard right social conservative in 2008 and comic retreat from his signature achievement on health care, Mitt Romney is returning to his political roots as a proven business leader. Unfortunately for Romney, Americans have already seen this picture and already know how it ends. Mitt Romney may want to be the Second MBA President. But Americans still haven’t recovered from the first one. UPDATE: The DNC responded to Romney’s latest attack with a catalog of Mitt’s dismal record of job creation in Massachusetts and job destruction at Bain. In a nutshell, “Romney’s private sector career consisted of profiting off of laying off thousands of workers. Romney’s job creation record in Massachusetts was one of the worst in the country.”
Continue reading …Alan McCrankypants Simpson Chastises Kids for Listening to ‘Enema Man’ and ‘Snoopy Snoopy Poop Dogg’
March 8, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media The head of President Obama’s now defunct deficit commission apparently decided to see if he could outdo himself after his offensive “milk cows” statement on Fox’s Your World with Neil Cavuto. Alan Simpson Invokes ‘Snoopy Snoopy Poop Dogg’ In Scolding Fears Of Cuts To Social Security : Alan Simpson, co-chairman of President Barack Obama’s debt commission, furthered his penchant for colorful commentary Monday when he unleashed a rambling diatribe targeting what he characterized as a generation of disrespectful youth and their confused grandparents. “This is a fakery,” the former Wyoming senator said on Fox News, referring to retirement-age Americans expressing fears about having Social Security funds slashed. “If they care at all about their children or grandchildren, and sometimes I doubt that — I think, you know, grandchildren now don’t write a thank-you for the Christmas presents, they’re walking on their pants with the cap on backwards listening to the enema man and Snoopy Snoopy Poop Dogg, and they don’t like them!” In February, Simpson exhibited his flair for the dramatic when he called the White House’s spending cut effort a “sparrow belch in the midst of the typhoon.” The deficit, he later said, was “a stink bomb in the garden party and it’s never going to go away.” Amazingly a little later in the segment as the topic turned to raising the debt limit, even Simpson admitted here that if there is a government shutdown, it will be the Republicans who end up taking the blame for it.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media I’m becoming more and more convinced that Newt Gingrich is the Glenn Beck of 2012 Presidential candidates. Knowing he cannot hope to be a viable candidate, Newt just spews the crazy to make the others look sane. From last night’s appearance at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Forum, we get this gem. Keep in mind, this forum featured Herman Cain, Newtie, Tim Pawlenty, Buddy Roemer and Rick Santorum. With the exception of a few nods toward faux populism by Roemer, the others said the same thing in a sort of boring and predictable way. But Newt kicked it up and out a few notches. Transcript of the clip above: But for me, the real turning point was when the 9th Circuit court decided in 2002 to…that it was unconstitutional to say “one nation under God” as part of the Pledge of Allegiance in a school. And I decided — in some ways it was very parallel to Lincoln responding to the Dred Scott decision about slavery. I decided that if we now have judges so fundamentally out of touch with America that they have no clue what this country was based on, we need a political change so deep and so profound that nothing we have seen in our lifetime is comparable to the level of depth we have to go to get this country back on the right track again. [applause] Let me be very clear about this. Since 1952, we have won 9 presidential elections for Republicans and Democrats won 6. But despite the fact that Republicans were in the White House for 50% more time than Democrats, we did not at a fundamental level change the power of the left. We didn’t change the bureaucracies, we didn’t change the biases of the judiciary. And over that period, they have all gotten worse, moved further to the left and become more alienated from the American system. There’s so many dogwhistles in that little clip it’s a veritable symphony. He sort of drops the thing about Dred Scott in there, which of course led to the Civil War just before saying we need political change so deep and profound it hasn’t been seen in our lifetime? And then for good measure, claims the judiciary and bureaucracies have moved farther left? In what world? Yes, of course a ‘secular socialist left’ judiciary gave us Citizens United. Of course it did. And it was that secular socialist left that dropped troops in Iraq, too. Sure it was. But wait, there’s more. Here’s Newt describing the first day of his fantasy Presidency. Click here to view this media I was accused of overreacting to this on Twitter last night when I said “These people really want a dictatorship.” Tell me if you think I was. Here’s the transcript: Now how fast could we in fact turn the country around if we had a President who shared our values instead of the values of the secular socialist left ? Start on the very first day. There’s a system called an executive order which allows the President to interpret the application of the law. Imagine just four examples. What if, on the very first day, we had a President who said, we are now abolishing as of this minute every single czar in the White House and their offices, including spending? [applause] What if we said, on the very first day, we are reinstating Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City policy and no American tax money will go to any abortion anywhere outside the United States, period? [louder applause] What if we said, on the very first day, that George W. Bush’s implementation of conscience protection will be reinstated so the government will actively protect those who as a matter of conscience refuse to do things that the left wants done? [applause] And finally, what if we said on the very first day that the State Department will be instructed as of this date to recognize the right of every sovereign nation to define its own capitol and the United States embassy will be in the capitol of the country that defines it, which would mean that for the first time we would put the capitol in Jerusalem. The only country — think about this — the only country in the world where the United States government refuses to allow the local government to define its capitol is Israel, which is a democracy, an ally of ours, and it is profoundly wrong to discriminate against Israel, the government of Israel, the people of Israel and we should stop it on the very first day. [wild applause] Now, I’m not yet a candidate, I’m in the process of exploring as you know, and you can go to newtexplore.com — I thought I’d put that plug in — but let me say that every person who’s going to speak tonight is a friend of mine. We’re all going to have to be on the same team after this is over. It’s going to take all of us to defeat the left because — and I agree with what Steve said — we can’t just defeat the left in Washington. We need 40 more house seats in Washington, we need a dozen more US Senators, we need to pick up the State Senate here, we need to strengthen the hand that the governor has, we need to across the board recognize there are 513,000 elected officials at the state and local level and only 537 at the federal level. We need, for the first time in 80 years to replace the governing structure of the left with a governing structure that is center right and then we need, from the very first day, to implement decisively the re-establishment of an American exceptionalism that recognizes that the power starts with you and eventually goes to Washington when necessary. Power does not start in Washington with a bunch of judges and bureaucrats dictating to you what you do. Thank you, good luck and God bless. Ignore the reference to center right. That’s just silly. There is no center right, only hard John Birch-style right now. The center is dead. If that’s not a call for a right wing revolution, I don’t know what would be. Newt Gingrich knows he won’t get elected. He has way too much baggage. But he managed, in this short little speech, to further de-legitimize President Obama ( “…if we had a President who shared our values… ) and to push all the buttons stoking far-right morals voters’ anger while making the Santorums, Pawlentys and Cains look like sane human beings. 2012 will be all about wedge issues if we “secular socialist leftists” can’t manage to put together a message and enough unity to push forward. Last night’s speakers made that abundantly clear.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media I’m becoming more and more convinced that Newt Gingrich is the Glenn Beck of 2012 Presidential candidates. Knowing he cannot hope to be a viable candidate, Newt just spews the crazy to make the others look sane. From last night’s appearance at the Faith and Freedom Coalition Forum, we get this gem. Keep in mind, this forum featured Herman Cain, Newtie, Tim Pawlenty, Buddy Roemer and Rick Santorum. With the exception of a few nods toward faux populism by Roemer, the others said the same thing in a sort of boring and predictable way. But Newt kicked it up and out a few notches. Transcript of the clip above: But for me, the real turning point was when the 9th Circuit court decided in 2002 to…that it was unconstitutional to say “one nation under God” as part of the Pledge of Allegiance in a school. And I decided — in some ways it was very parallel to Lincoln responding to the Dred Scott decision about slavery. I decided that if we now have judges so fundamentally out of touch with America that they have no clue what this country was based on, we need a political change so deep and so profound that nothing we have seen in our lifetime is comparable to the level of depth we have to go to get this country back on the right track again. [applause] Let me be very clear about this. Since 1952, we have won 9 presidential elections for Republicans and Democrats won 6. But despite the fact that Republicans were in the White House for 50% more time than Democrats, we did not at a fundamental level change the power of the left. We didn’t change the bureaucracies, we didn’t change the biases of the judiciary. And over that period, they have all gotten worse, moved further to the left and become more alienated from the American system. There’s so many dogwhistles in that little clip it’s a veritable symphony. He sort of drops the thing about Dred Scott in there, which of course led to the Civil War just before saying we need political change so deep and profound it hasn’t been seen in our lifetime? And then for good measure, claims the judiciary and bureaucracies have moved farther left? In what world? Yes, of course a ‘secular socialist left’ judiciary gave us Citizens United. Of course it did. And it was that secular socialist left that dropped troops in Iraq, too. Sure it was. But wait, there’s more. Here’s Newt describing the first day of his fantasy Presidency. Click here to view this media I was accused of overreacting to this on Twitter last night when I said “These people really want a dictatorship.” Tell me if you think I was. Here’s the transcript: Now how fast could we in fact turn the country around if we had a President who shared our values instead of the values of the secular socialist left ? Start on the very first day. There’s a system called an executive order which allows the President to interpret the application of the law. Imagine just four examples. What if, on the very first day, we had a President who said, we are now abolishing as of this minute every single czar in the White House and their offices, including spending? [applause] What if we said, on the very first day, we are reinstating Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City policy and no American tax money will go to any abortion anywhere outside the United States, period? [louder applause] What if we said, on the very first day, that George W. Bush’s implementation of conscience protection will be reinstated so the government will actively protect those who as a matter of conscience refuse to do things that the left wants done? [applause] And finally, what if we said on the very first day that the State Department will be instructed as of this date to recognize the right of every sovereign nation to define its own capitol and the United States embassy will be in the capitol of the country that defines it, which would mean that for the first time we would put the capitol in Jerusalem. The only country — think about this — the only country in the world where the United States government refuses to allow the local government to define its capitol is Israel, which is a democracy, an ally of ours, and it is profoundly wrong to discriminate against Israel, the government of Israel, the people of Israel and we should stop it on the very first day. [wild applause] Now, I’m not yet a candidate, I’m in the process of exploring as you know, and you can go to newtexplore.com — I thought I’d put that plug in — but let me say that every person who’s going to speak tonight is a friend of mine. We’re all going to have to be on the same team after this is over. It’s going to take all of us to defeat the left because — and I agree with what Steve said — we can’t just defeat the left in Washington. We need 40 more house seats in Washington, we need a dozen more US Senators, we need to pick up the State Senate here, we need to strengthen the hand that the governor has, we need to across the board recognize there are 513,000 elected officials at the state and local level and only 537 at the federal level. We need, for the first time in 80 years to replace the governing structure of the left with a governing structure that is center right and then we need, from the very first day, to implement decisively the re-establishment of an American exceptionalism that recognizes that the power starts with you and eventually goes to Washington when necessary. Power does not start in Washington with a bunch of judges and bureaucrats dictating to you what you do. Thank you, good luck and God bless. Ignore the reference to center right. That’s just silly. There is no center right, only hard John Birch-style right now. The center is dead. If that’s not a call for a right wing revolution, I don’t know what would be. Newt Gingrich knows he won’t get elected. He has way too much baggage. But he managed, in this short little speech, to further de-legitimize President Obama ( “…if we had a President who shared our values… ) and to push all the buttons stoking far-right morals voters’ anger while making the Santorums, Pawlentys and Cains look like sane human beings. 2012 will be all about wedge issues if we “secular socialist leftists” can’t manage to put together a message and enough unity to push forward. Last night’s speakers made that abundantly clear.
Continue reading …D.C. PBS Station Insists Its ‘Call Congress’ Ad Doesn’t Take Sides — As It Warns of ‘Devastating Effect’ on Kiddie Shows
March 8, 2011 No Comment
The Washington Times took up the issue today of how PBS and NPR stations exploit their own airwaves to lobby against Republican budget-cut proposals. Reporter Seth McLaughlin and Stephen Dinan reported that spokesmen for PBS superstations WGBH in Boston and WETA in Washington “said their appeals never told their audiences which way to lobby Congress, but only to call and let their feelings be known.” A look at WETA’s ad (which we recorded after the February 22 Frontline) shows this is simply and obviously untrue. The announcer clearly insists the House Republicans are putting kiddie programs at risk and cuts “will have a devastating effect on WETA and the television programs you and your family rely on.” Do they really expect people to agree this isn’t an advocacy ad? Do they think someone would say “I'm so glad they've inspired me to call and say “I hate WordGirl and Sid the Science Kid. Please defund those little jerks.'” Here’s the whole script: (video, audio and transcript after the jump) (MP3 audio) ANNOUNCER: As you may know the House of Representatives has passed a bill to eliminate all federal funding of public broadcasting. They want to completely eliminate the federal funding that supports educational and commercial-free children's programs. [Over images of children’s TV characters comes the exploitative graphic: “Eliminate special children’s funding." ] Shows like Sesame Street, WordGirl, and Sid the Science Kid are at risk. These cuts will have a devastating effect on WETA and the television and radio programs you and your family rely on – like Masterpiece. Mystery! NOVA. And the PBS NewsHour. Do your elected officials know how you feel about funding for public broadcasting?Call your representatives in Congress today and let them know where you stand. And for more information visit our Web site at WETA.org. The 2009 CPB Annual Report shows WETA’s combined radio and television efforts received over $7.5 million from CPB. There was no line item for “special children's funding.” All the aforementioned shows are made by profitable private entities: Sesame Street by Sesame Workshop, WordGirl by Scholastic, and Sid the Science Kid by the Jim Henson Company. McLaughlin and Dinan added that some stations are more blatant in arguing against budget cuts on their taxpayer-funded airwaves: WQED in Pittsburgh urges on its website to “Stop the Senate From Cutting Funding for Public Broadcasting and WQED!” The station's also airing a TV ad featuring historic footage from a 1969 hearing in which Fred [Mister] Rogers testified for Lyndon Johnson's original $20 million grant for the new CPB. Rogers died in 2003. [Hat tip to MRC's Geoffrey Dickens for finding the ad.]
Continue reading …