About Me

Name: Cecilia Trent
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Times Buries Jeff Zeleny's 'Enchanting' Question

From Timeswatch.org

Posted by: Tim Graham
4/30/2009 4:13:09 PM


At President Obama’s 100-day press conference on Wednesday night, White House correspondent Jeff Zeleny became a mini-celebrity – or a national laughingstock – for asking President Obama how he was surprised/troubled/enchanted/humbled over the first 100 days. The Times itself seemed embarrassed by the question. The press conference was relegated to page A-19, with the headline "Obama Voices Concern on Pakistan and Defends Interrogation Memo Release." Nine paragraphs in, Zeleny and Helene Cooper acknowledge the "light moments," but don’t acknowledge they were a gift from Zeleny and the Times:

There were a few light moments, particularly when Mr. Obama was asked what has surprised, troubled, enchanted and humbled him in the past 100 days. "Wait, let me get this all down," he said, taking out a pen.

Why the passive "mistakes were made" phrasing? Then Zeleny and Cooper provided all the president's answers to the multi-part softball, including: "He called himself enchanted by American servicemen and women, and their sacrifices they make, although he allowed that ‘enchanted’ might not be the exact characterization."

The story briefly mentioned Obama's town hall meeting in Missouri, but ignored his mockery of the protesters with the tea bags and the networks that don’t like him very much.

This was Zeleny's question: "During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?" This is not a question one would associate with a Gray Lady, a prestigious daily. It sounds more like an question from Access Hollywood.

On The Caucus blog, political reporter Adam Nagourney collegially declared Zeleny’s puffball his favorite question of the night when the press conference was over:

Besides my favorite question – yes, the enchanting one from Jeff – the president was discursive on torture, offered his medical counsel to a country worried about the flu, was reflective about the political meaning of Senator Specter’s defection, and lent his view of the dramatic expansion of government on his watch. That said, he did not make any jaw-dropping news, which was probably his intention. He also didn’t make any obvious mistakes, and for this president, no surprise there. He was also more lively and engaging than he was at the previous news conference.

Blogger Michelle Malkin gave Zeleny her Drool Bucket of the Day award:

He could have, I dunno, pressed Obama for details about how and why his administration spooked and freaked out countless New Yorkers this week for the sake of an alleged photo op update.

But no, New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny decided he was going to be Perry Como and sing "Some Enchanted Evening."

Which makes sense, of course, given the New York Times’ $2 million financial stake in hawking Obama-themed merchandise.

Posted by Cecilia Trent

Tags: Media bias  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Times Buries Jeff Zeleny's 'Enchanting' Question

From Timeswatch.org

Posted by: Tim Graham
4/30/2009 4:13:09 PM


At President Obama’s 100-day press conference on Wednesday night, White House correspondent Jeff Zeleny became a mini-celebrity – or a national laughingstock – for asking President Obama how he was surprised/troubled/enchanted/humbled over the first 100 days. The Times itself seemed embarrassed by the question. The press conference was relegated to page A-19, with the headline "Obama Voices Concern on Pakistan and Defends Interrogation Memo Release." Nine paragraphs in, Zeleny and Helene Cooper acknowledge the "light moments," but don’t acknowledge they were a gift from Zeleny and the Times:

There were a few light moments, particularly when Mr. Obama was asked what has surprised, troubled, enchanted and humbled him in the past 100 days. "Wait, let me get this all down," he said, taking out a pen.

Why the passive "mistakes were made" phrasing? Then Zeleny and Cooper provided all the president's answers to the multi-part softball, including: "He called himself enchanted by American servicemen and women, and their sacrifices they make, although he allowed that ‘enchanted’ might not be the exact characterization."

The story briefly mentioned Obama's town hall meeting in Missouri, but ignored his mockery of the protesters with the tea bags and the networks that don’t like him very much.

This was Zeleny's question: "During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?" This is not a question one would associate with a Gray Lady, a prestigious daily. It sounds more like an question from Access Hollywood.

On The Caucus blog, political reporter Adam Nagourney collegially declared Zeleny’s puffball his favorite question of the night when the press conference was over:

Besides my favorite question – yes, the enchanting one from Jeff – the president was discursive on torture, offered his medical counsel to a country worried about the flu, was reflective about the political meaning of Senator Specter’s defection, and lent his view of the dramatic expansion of government on his watch. That said, he did not make any jaw-dropping news, which was probably his intention. He also didn’t make any obvious mistakes, and for this president, no surprise there. He was also more lively and engaging than he was at the previous news conference.

Blogger Michelle Malkin gave Zeleny her Drool Bucket of the Day award:

He could have, I dunno, pressed Obama for details about how and why his administration spooked and freaked out countless New Yorkers this week for the sake of an alleged photo op update.

But no, New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny decided he was going to be Perry Como and sing "Some Enchanted Evening."

Which makes sense, of course, given the New York Times’ $2 million financial stake in hawking Obama-themed merchandise.

Posted by Cecilia Trent

Tags: Media bias  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Times Buries Jeff Zeleny's 'Enchanting' Question

From Timeswatch.org

Posted by: Tim Graham
4/30/2009 4:13:09 PM


At President Obama’s 100-day press conference on Wednesday night, White House correspondent Jeff Zeleny became a mini-celebrity – or a national laughingstock – for asking President Obama how he was surprised/troubled/enchanted/humbled over the first 100 days. The Times itself seemed embarrassed by the question. The press conference was relegated to page A-19, with the headline "Obama Voices Concern on Pakistan and Defends Interrogation Memo Release." Nine paragraphs in, Zeleny and Helene Cooper acknowledge the "light moments," but don’t acknowledge they were a gift from Zeleny and the Times:

There were a few light moments, particularly when Mr. Obama was asked what has surprised, troubled, enchanted and humbled him in the past 100 days. "Wait, let me get this all down," he said, taking out a pen.

Why the passive "mistakes were made" phrasing? Then Zeleny and Cooper provided all the president's answers to the multi-part softball, including: "He called himself enchanted by American servicemen and women, and their sacrifices they make, although he allowed that ‘enchanted’ might not be the exact characterization."

The story briefly mentioned Obama's town hall meeting in Missouri, but ignored his mockery of the protesters with the tea bags and the networks that don’t like him very much.

This was Zeleny's question: "During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?" This is not a question one would associate with a Gray Lady, a prestigious daily. It sounds more like an question from Access Hollywood.

On The Caucus blog, political reporter Adam Nagourney collegially declared Zeleny’s puffball his favorite question of the night when the press conference was over:

Besides my favorite question – yes, the enchanting one from Jeff – the president was discursive on torture, offered his medical counsel to a country worried about the flu, was reflective about the political meaning of Senator Specter’s defection, and lent his view of the dramatic expansion of government on his watch. That said, he did not make any jaw-dropping news, which was probably his intention. He also didn’t make any obvious mistakes, and for this president, no surprise there. He was also more lively and engaging than he was at the previous news conference.

Blogger Michelle Malkin gave Zeleny her Drool Bucket of the Day award:

He could have, I dunno, pressed Obama for details about how and why his administration spooked and freaked out countless New Yorkers this week for the sake of an alleged photo op update.

But no, New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny decided he was going to be Perry Como and sing "Some Enchanted Evening."

Which makes sense, of course, given the New York Times’ $2 million financial stake in hawking Obama-themed merchandise.

Posted by Cecilia Trent

Tags: Media bias  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

By Calvin Woodward

April 29, 2009

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090429/D97SCPI00.html


WASHINGTON (AP) - "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.

It actually was him - and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years - who shaped a budget so out of balance.

And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.

Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review his progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.

(AP) President Barack Obama speaks at a town hall meeting at Fox Senior High School in Arnold, Mo.,...
Full Image
At various times, he brought an air of certainty to ambitions that are far from cast in stone.

His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller among many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits and economic calamity that the government is negotiating.

He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.

A look at some of his claims Wednesday:

OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." - in Missouri.

(AP) President Barack Obama speaks during a town hall meeting Wednesday, April 29, 2009, at Fox Senior...
Full Image
THE FACTS:

Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.

To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.

The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.

Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."

He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion.

---

OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term." - in Missouri.

THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."

---

OBAMA: "You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody's payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax." - in Missouri.

THE FACTS: Obama's proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund's deficit by less than half, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

That means he would still have to cut benefits, raise the payroll tax rate, raise the retirement age or some combination to deal with the program's long-term imbalance.

Workers currently pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay an equal rate - for a total of 12.4 percent - on annual wages of up to $106,800, after which no more payroll tax is collected.

Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.

---

Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

Posted by Cecilia Trent

Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=508332

From OneNewsNow.com

Posted by Cecilia Trent

April 29, 2009

Josh Friedeman, the Millennial Perspective

Congratulations! You have survived the first 100 days of the Barack Obama presidency.

While much of the media is praising President Barack Obama for his high approval ratings for his first 100 days in office, the credit he is receiving seems to be greater than he deserves. According to the latest Gallup poll, the percentage of Americans who think President Obama is doing either an excellent or good job is 56%. While an approval rating of that magnitude is certainly nothing to be ashamed of, it is by no means remarkably high.

As a matter of fact, Judith Apter Klinghoffer of the History News Network writes that President Obama ranks sixth out of the last seven elected presidents in approval ratings for their first 100 days (higher only than Bill Clinton's).

Also interesting: Michelle Obama's "remarkable" approval rating of 79% is not quite as outstanding when compared to Laura Bush's rating of 85%.

Posted by Cecilia Trent

Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

MSNBC's Brewer: GOP Obstructionism Slowing Response to Swine Flu?

The LIberal Left Is Seriously Raching On This One

From Media Research Center

Posted By Cecilia Trent


Response to Swine Flu?

     MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer on Tuesday morning speculated as to whether supposed obstructionism by congressional Republicans may end up hampering the response to the swine flu outbreak. Talking to Republican strategist Tucker Bounds and Democratic strategist Peter Mirijanian in the 10 AM EDT hour, she asserted: "Let me ask you, Health and Human Services Secretary has not been confirmed. You have a missing director of the CDC. The surgeon general is not there."

     Specifically addressing Bounds, Brewer quizzed: "Do you, Tucker, think that Republicans are in any way to blame for standing in the way of those important positions -- when you're facing swine flu -- from being filled?" Bounds, of course pointed out that Democrats control both the Senate and the House. As for the CDC, Obama has not even nominated a candidate. Regarding the position of Surgeon General, Dr. Sanjay Gupta was considered, but took his name out of contention. No one has picked to fill the spot. See Politico: www.politico.com

     So, how, exactly, would Republicans be to blame? Brewer didn't say.

     In an odd non sequitur, Brewer began the question on Republican culpability by musing, "A viewer just e-mailed me here and he said he just saw this bumper sticker called- that says 'Republicans No Everything.' And no was N-O."

     [This item, by the MRC's Scott Whitlock, was posted Tuesday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

     The MSNBC host also announced that "Rush Limbaugh is blaming President Obama for swine flu." She then proceeded to play the following clip, which obviously seems like a joke and not an actual accusation by the popular talk show host: "Everywhere Obama is spreading Obamaism, there is a deadly disease taking place either in the T.A.R.P. community or in the newspaper business. Obama goes to Mexico, they have an earthquake. Obama goes to Mexico, pig flu."

     Brewer then taunted, "Wow! Tucker, would you like to respond on behalf of conservatives everywhere?"

     To be fair, Brewer did discuss Democratic criticism of GOP Senator Susan Collins for removing $800 billion from the stimulus bill that would have gone to fight a flu pandemic. Brewer noted, "Peter, do you think it's fair to point the finger at Susan Collins? After all, Senator Schumer also called the flu pandemic money porky?"

     A transcript of the April 28 segment, which aired at 10:14 EDT, follows:

     CONTESSA BREWER: Yeah, some of that finger pointing, Tamron, is directed at Republican Senator Susan Collins, the moderate Republican from Maine led the effort to remove more than $800 billion to fight a flu pandemic- fought to remove it from the stimulus bill. John Nichols at The Nation today calls Collins a "no nothing" and accuses her of irresponsibly playing politics. Republican strategist Tucker Bounds and Democratic strategist Peter Mirijanian are here with me now. Peter, do you think it's fair to point the finger at Susan Collins? After all, Senator Schumer also called the flu pandemic money porky?
     PETER MIRIJANIAN (Democratic strategist): Yeah. I mean, to give Senator Collins the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure she regrets that now. You know, there was no way to foretell this was out there. But, I just think that there has to be an abundance of caution when it comes to this. I mean, you know, we live in a world where everybody, you know, flies all over the place and these diseases are transmitted. So, this is serious stuff. So, to look at it just as a budget item that could be cut and it's unnecessary I think she probably regrets that decision today.
     CONTESSA BREWER: You know, it's interesting the people who are finger pointing today- Rush Limbaugh is blaming President Obama for swine flu. Let me play it.
     MIRIJANIAN: I'm surprised.
     RUSH LIMBAUGH: Everywhere Obama is spreading Obamaism, there is a deadly disease taking place either in the T.A.R.P. community or in the newspaper business. Obama goes to Mexico, they have an earthquake. Obama goes to Mexico, pig flu.
     BREWER: Wow! Tucker, would you like to respond on behalf of conservatives everywhere?
     TUCKER BOUNDS (Republican strategist): Uh, no, you know, I really wouldn't. I think that's a radio host weighing in. What I think here is that we have serious issues that surround the response to this. And I think that the politics of it, they're really not mature yet. I think that the politics and the political debate that surround the response to this swine flu really will stem from the management of how we're able to respond nationwide once we get a better handle on what the actual response is going to be from the Obama administration. Right now, they've been trying to perpetuate a calmness. I think that's smart. But I think we're going to have to wait and see how the politics play on this, save Rush Limbaugh. I mean, his radio show is every day. He's forced to wade into these waters regardless. I don't think that represents Republican politics.
     BREWER: You know, a viewer- A viewer just- A viewer just e-mailed me here and he said he just saw this bumper sticker called- that says "Republicans No Everything." And no was N-O. Let me ask you, Health and Human Services secretary has not been confirmed. You have a missing director of the CDC. The surgeon general is not there. Do you, Tucker, think that Republicans are in any way to blame for standing in the way of those important positions- when you're facing swine flu- from being filled?
     BOUNDS: Well, look, Governor Sebelius is going to be confirmed today. I think that the Obama administration could be doing more to get their nominees confirmed. They control both houses of
     Congress, the House and the Senate. So, I don't think it's a good time to lay blame on anyone's hands. But, I think what we're going to see, and I'll say it again, is that the politics and the political debate that surround this issue are going to get more divisive as the issues of management become more mature. At this point, we're in such an infant stage of where this issue really is, it's hard to weigh in on a political perspective.
     BREWER: Peter, given this could- has the potential, we're not there yet and certainly we could avoid a pandemic. This has the potential of being a very serious for the Obama administration, how much is riding on how effectively he and his team address it?
     MIRIJANIAN: Well, certainly the American public wants to see the administration taking action and taking all the kind of precautions, not signaling there should be any reason to panic, but that we should take precautions and safeguard against it. Look, let me go back to what Tucker said. I mean, the fact of the matter is, as Tucker knows, in the Senate any one senator, if they really choose to do so can hold up a nomination. The fact that Sebelius' nomination is now troubled because of her views on abortion, you know, shocks me because you know, I think the average American, again, looks at this and says why should the head of the largest health agency, the most important health agency in the country, should their nomination be held up over one's personal views on abortion rights? So, I mean, yeah, Republicans run the risk they become obstructionist on areas of widespread public health concern. That's the problem. And that's why, although we can give Senator Collins the benefit of the doubt, you know, if you're a partisan Democrat, you can make hay over this.

-- Brent Baker

From Media Research Center

Exposing Media Bias

Posted by Cecilia Trent

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Low-level flight panics New York

Insensitive Twits In DC Terrorize Manhattan.

From BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8021830.stm

Posted by Cecilia Trent

The White House has apologised after a low-level flight by a presidential jet and a fighter plane sparked panic among New York City office workers.

The half-hour flight triggered the evacuation of a number of office buildings in the city.

Pentagon officials said the fly past - a photographic exercise not involving President Obama - had been co-ordinated with city and state authorities.

No general public notification was issued in advance.

"While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, it's clear that the mission created confusion and disruption," Louis Caldera, director of the White House military office, said in a statement.

"I apologise and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused."

Mobile phone photo of Boeing 747 flying low over New York harbour, followed by an F-16 fighter jet, 27 April 2009
New Yorkers were startled as the planes flew over the city's harbour

Correspondents say many New York residents are still scarred by the September 2001 attacks when airliners ploughed into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he was "furious" about the incident, criticising those responsible for failing to warn the public.

"The good news is it was nothing more than an inconsiderate, badly conceived and insensitive photo op with the taxpayers' money," said Mr Bloomberg.

The Boeing 747 jet is one of two planes known as Air Force One when the US president is aboard.

Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

100 Days of Reckless Photo-Op Hubris

I just love Michelle Malkin. She tells it like it is.
Posted By Cecilia Trent
From CNS.com

Wednesday, April 29, 2009
By Michelle Malkin
Come on, who’s surprised? The White House-engineered photo-op of low-flying Air Force aircraft that caused terror in New York City this week epitomizes the Age of Obama. What better way to mark 100 days in office than with an appalling exercise in pointless taxpayer-funded stagecraft?
 
The superficiality, the unseriousness, the hubris, the obliviousness to post-9/11 realities: They were trademarks of the Obama campaign, and they are the tattoos on his governance.
 
He never leaves home without his teleprompter. All the Obama world’s a stage. Or a world ready to be staged.
 
So is it any wonder he would staff his White House military office with a clueless paper pusher who saw nothing wrong with spending inordinate government resources—and re-creating 9/11 havoc—to update Air Force One publicity shots? And who planned, believe it or not, to do the same in Washington, D.C., next month, where the 9/11 jihadists murdered 53 passengers and 6 crewmembers on board American Airlines Flight 77, and 125 military and civilian personnel inside the Pentagon?
 
All for some publicity shots.
 
No one should be shocked. Remember: Barack Obama is the frivolous man who concocted his own presidential-looking Great Seal before he was elected. An ego big enough to publicly display a ridiculous “Vero Possumus” (“Yes, we can” in Latin) motto and a regal eagle with the Obama campaign logo emblazoned on its chest is an ego capable of far more reckless things.

Obama orchestrated a grand photo-op in Berlin, Germany, to declare his world citizenship at the Siegessäule—the Victory Column—a soaring monument of arrogance championed by Adolf Hitler and Third Reich architect Albert Speer. He manufactured his own Open Temple of The One in Denver for the Democratic National Convention last summer, replete with fake Greek columns.
 
Since taking office, Obama has remained in perpetual campaign mode, idling in 9/10 gear. The photo album has filled up quickly with megalomaniacal moments. When his massive pork-filled stimulus package was in trouble, he ran to Ft. Myers, Fla., for a carefully choreographed revival meeting with his most ardent supporters. “It is such a blessing to see you. Oh! Gracious God, thank you so much!” one young booster exclaimed.
 
The president’s famous embrace with another questioner—homeless woman Henrietta Hughes, a perpetually unemployed drifter looking for a handout—turned up on the White House online retrospective of the stimulus bill victory. (Missing: The photos of hundreds of thousands of Americans who took to the streets in Tea Party protests to oppose this massive act of generational theft and expansion of the entitlement state.)
 
Another Kodak moment from the stimulus campaign exposed Obama’s hype of the spending boondoggle’s effects. Using a Caterpillar plant and workers as a backdrop, Obama grandly promised that if the stimulus passed, Caterpillar would rehire laid-off workers. It made front-page headlines. After the photo-op: Caterpillar’s own CEO refuted the bogus promise and last week posted its first quarterly net loss in 16 years. After the signing, it finally dawned on pliant media outlets that the stimulus money was stupendously wasteful, and the job creation estimates, bogus. No pictures of those epiphanies.
 
Obama’s photo-ops abroad have been more unsettling: Bowing and scraping before Saudi King Abdullah, trashing America as “arrogant” (talk about a pot and kettle moment) in front of adoring French and German students, chumming it up with Venezuelan thug-in-chief Hugo Chavez. These are the defining images of a stunt(ed) presidency blind to our enemies and in a perpetual state of (re)pose.
 
Obama appointed Leon Panetta, a chief of intelligence with no intelligence experience. He gave us Hillary Clinton, a secretary of state who cackled about the Somali pirate hijacking and laughed off serious questions about the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation techniques. He installed Rosa Brooks, a radical George Soros-trained ideologue, as a top Pentagon adviser. He came close to embracing Charles Freeman as top U.S. intelligence analyst—a jihadi-sympathizing conspiracist who blamed America for 9/11.
 
And he appointed Janet Napolitano, the homeland security secretary who can’t get her facts straight about the 9/11 terrorists, pooh-poohed our immigration laws, disseminated a hit job on conservatives and veterans as right-wing extremist threats, and redefined acts of terrorism as “man-caused disasters.”
 
“Man-caused disaster.” That’s a perfect description of the Scare Force One torture photo-op that took place this week and an apt summary of the last 100 days. Say cheese.




Posted By Cecilia Trent
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Republicans Warn of Unchecked Power by Democrats

Wednesday, April 29, 2009
By David Espo, Associated Press
CNS Email
Posted By Cecilia Trent

Two faces of Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, now a Democrat. (AP Photo)
Washington (AP) - Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter is a Democrat again, following a decades-long turn among Republicans. His defection that has the GOP warning about the perils of unchecked power only a few years after it controlled both the White House and Congress.
 
"The threat to the country presented ... by this defection really relates to the issue of whether or not in the United States or America our people want the majority party to have whatever it wants without restraint, without a check or balance," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Tuesday after Specter made his startling switch.
 
The move left Democrats with 59 votes in the Senate, and hoping that Al Franken can finally win a marathon recount in Minnesota and become their 60th. That's the number needed to overcome any Republican filibuster aimed at blocking President Barack Obama's ambitious agenda.
 
Even at their high point during President George W. Bush's presidency, when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, they were well shy of 60 seats in the Senate.
 
But they brought the Senate to the brink of a crisis in 2005, when their leadership claimed the rules permitted them to confirm conservative judicial appointees by simple majority after they failed repeatedly to muster the strength needed to overcome Democratic filibusters.
 
A bipartisan group of senators eventually intervened to defuse the crisis. Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada was Democratic leader at the time, and McConnell was the second-ranking Republican in the Senate.
 
Specter was a Democrat until 1965, when he ran successfully on the Republican ticket for district attorney in Philadelphia. His switch Tuesday triggered something of a debate among Republicans, who lost not only the White House in 2008 but fell deeper into the minority in both the House and Senate.
 
Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, one of a few remaining GOP moderates in the Senate, called Specter's decision another sign that the Republican Party needs to move toward the center.
 
"Ultimately, we're heading to having the smallest political tent in history, the way events have been unfolding," she said. "If the Republican Party fully intends to become a majority party in the future, it must move from the far right back toward the middle."
 
Countering, McConnell said Republicans have a broad party. "We have not done very well in the Northeast the last couple of years. We haven't done as well any places as we would like to have done in the last couple of years," he said.
 
"We intend to be competitive on a nationwide basis. I do not accept that we are going to be a regional party. And we're working very hard to compete throughout the country," he said.
 
Democrats, savoring Specter's switch as they celebrated Obama's first 100 days in office, couldn't resist taunting their rivals.
 
"I welcome Sen. Specter and his moderate voice to our diverse caucus," Reid, the majority leader, said in a statement.
 
Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, head of the Democratic campaign committee, called the development "proof positive that the Republican Party is so out of touch with Americans that they're losing one of its most prominent leaders."
 
Specter told a news conference he did not intend to become an "automatic 60th vote" for Democrats trying to approve Obama's agenda of health care, energy and education by year's end. As evidence, he reaffirmed his opposition to legislation making it easier for workers to form unions, a bill that is a top priority for organized labor and backed by the White House and Democratic leadership in Congress.
 
No less an authority than Reid has attested to Specter's independence.
 
Specter "is always with us when we don't need him," Reid wrote in his 2008 autobiography, describing efforts to find Republicans willing to vote against the Iraq war.
 
Yet Specter cast one of only three Republican votes for the president's economic stimulus bill earlier this year, noting he concluded that without the legislation, the country ran the risk of an even deeper economic downturn than the one it is enduring.
 
At his news conference, Specter grew animated as he blamed conservatives for helping deliver control of the Senate to Democrats in 2006, a result he said made it impossible to confirm numerous judicial appointees of Bush.
 
"They don't make any bones about their willingness to lose the general election if they can purify the party. I don't understand it, but that's what they said," he added.
 
The five-term senator repeatedly cast his switch as a decision of principle. But he also said his own pollster had told him his chances of winning a Republican primary in Pennsylvania next year were bleak.
 
Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., said that in a private meeting with Republicans, Specter "gave a purely political explanation. ... He said: 'I've looked at the polls. I can't win as a Republican, I can't win as an independent. The only way I have a shot is to be a Democrat.'"
 
As recently as late winter, Specter was asked by a reporter why he had not taken Democrats up on past offers to switch parties.
 
"Because I am a Republican," he said.
 
------
 
Associated Press writer Julie Davis contributed to this report.

Posted By Cecilia Trent
Tags: Politics  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Tells Americans, ‘Wash Your Hands’

Wednesday, April 29, 2009
By Susan Jones, Senior Editor
CNS
Posted By Cecilia Trent

President Barack Obama leaves the White House on Wednesday, April 29, 2009, for a trip to St. Louis, Mo. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)
(CNSNews.com) -President Obama assured the American people on Wednesday that his administration is closely monitoring “the H1N1 flu virus” – he refrained from calling it swine flu.
 
And while the government is prepared to do what it can to stop the illness from spreading, he said individual Americans must also do their part: “Keep your hands washed, cover your mouth when you cough, stay home from work if you are sick, keep your children home from school if they are sick,” Obama said.
 
“This is obviously a serious situation, serious enough to take the utmost precautions.”
Obama said his thoughts are with the family of a baby who died of the flu in Texas. It is the first confirmed fatality in the United Statesfrom this particular flu virus.
 
Obama said schools with confirmed or suspected cases of H1N1 “should strongly consider temporarily closing so we can be as safe as possible.” That means parents need to think about alternative child care arrangements, in case schools do shut down. Sending sick children to daycare because school is closed “is not a good solution,” the president said.
 
Obama noted that he has asked Congress for an immediate $1.5 billion in emergency funding, for “adequate vaccine supplies” and equipment to handle a potential flu outbreak.
 
Obama said his “entire team” is in close contact with state authorities, and he urged local communities to be vigilant as well in identifying suspected flu cases and reporting them immediately to federal authorities.

President Obama has not curtailed his own schedule. He flew to Missouri on Wednesday – his hundredth day in office, for those who are counting – for a town hall meeting in suburban St. Louis.
 
He’ll return to Washington Wednesday afternoon to prepare for this evening’s prime-time news conference.
 
Obama made his comments on the flu during a photo-op with Sen. Arlen Specter, the newly minted Democrat from Pennsylvania.

posted by cecilia trent
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another Obama nominee facing legal questions

Alan Zibel - Associated Press Writer - 4/28/2009 3:05:00 PM

Posted by Cecilia Trent

WASHINGTON - Lawmakers on Tuesday delayed a vote to confirm the Obama administration's nominee for a key housing post to review lawsuits alleging his real estate company broke federal anti-kickback laws.

The Senate Banking Committee had been scheduled to vote to confirm David Stevens, president and chief operating officer of Long & Foster, as an assistant secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Stevens, who was nominated in March, had a confirmation hearing last week. But lawmakers decided to hold off on a final vote after being told this week of new information concerning a legal case involving Long & Foster, a Virginia real estate brokerage, banking committee spokeswoman Justine Sessions said.

The committee confirmed six other Obama administration officials on Tuesday, including four from HUD.

Chantilly, Va.-based Long & Foster is facing several class action lawsuits, filed in U.S. District Court in Baltimore, alleging that it broke the law governing the relationships between real estate agents, title companies and mortgage lenders. The suits allege Long & Foster agents steered homebuyers to affiliated mortgage and title companies, which then shared the profits with the real estate brokerage.

Such affiliated relationships are common in the real estate industry and by themselves are not illegal. HUD enforces the laws designed to protect consumers from any abuses from these close business relationships.

In October 2007, six big homebuilders agreed to pay $1.4 million to resolve federal allegations that they illegally established title insurance companies that took payments amounting to kickbacks. The builders agreed to halt the practices.

Long and Foster has a 50-50 joint venture with Wells Fargo & Co, known as Prosperity Mortgage. It says the relationship is a legitimate because Prosperity is run as a separate business entity with its own employees.

"It's like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse," said Richard Gordon, a Baltimore-area lawyer who has filed four class action cases against Long & Foster. "Here's a guy who's a president of the company against which their are significant allegations ... He just doesn't have a good track record on this."

HUD, however, said it investigated the claims underlying the litigation 18 months ago and found no violation of the law. Stevens also wasn't named as a defendant in the lawsuits.

"We continue to believe that David Stevens is an excellent choice to lead the FHA through the current housing crisis," said Melanie Roussell, HUD spokeswoman. Stevens declined to comment.

Long & Foster's mortgage joint-venture is a "legitimate and substantial player in the mortgage business," said Jay Varon, a lawyer for the company. "The notion that it's not a genuine entity is without any shred of merit."

Stevens helped draft a 2007 memo to Long & Foster employees that raised eyebrows because it encouraged real estate agents to use Prosperity Mortgage.

Varon defended that memo, saying that "it's permissible to encourage people to use their joint venture as long as you don't pay them or require them to do it."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Black clergy lead protest against gay marriage

Posted By Cecilia Trent
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=507786

WASHINGTON -  Black clergy have led a rally against homosexual marriage in the nation's capital.

The Washington, D.C., city council voted unanimously this month to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they're legal. Before becoming law, the legislation requires a final council vote next week and then must be reviewed by Congress, which has final say over the city's laws.


But local clergy told about 200 supporters that God created marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and governments have no right to change it.


The ministers also insisted that gay marriage is not a civil right, and led the mostly black crowd in singing "We Shall Overcome" to suggest that their religious view might prevail.


City councilman and former Mayor Marion Berry, who missed the first council vote, led about 200 protesters in chanting, "No to same-sex marriage in D.C.!"

Will this story get the same attention and produce the same level of hatred and criticism that Miss California continues to endure for her stance on traditional marriage? No of course not. It would not be politically correct.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Black clergy lead protest against gay marriage

Posted By Cecilia Trent
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=507786

WASHINGTON -  Black clergy have led a rally against homosexual marriage in the nation's capital.

The Washington, D.C., city council voted unanimously this month to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where they're legal. Before becoming law, the legislation requires a final council vote next week and then must be reviewed by Congress, which has final say over the city's laws.


But local clergy told about 200 supporters that God created marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and governments have no right to change it.


The ministers also insisted that gay marriage is not a civil right, and led the mostly black crowd in singing "We Shall Overcome" to suggest that their religious view might prevail.


City councilman and former Mayor Marion Berry, who missed the first council vote, led about 200 protesters in chanting, "No to same-sex marriage in D.C.!"

Will this story get the same attention and produce the same level of hatred and criticism that Miss California continues to endure for her stance on traditional marriage? No of course not. It would not be politically correct.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

'The Truth': Barack Obama depicted as Jesus

Posted By Cecilia Trent


From OneNews.com


The Truth. That's the title of a painting by Michael D'Antuono that is going to be unveiled in New York City's Union Square April 29th, Obama's hundreth day as president. The painting, which depicts Obama with his arms outstretched and wearing a crown of thorns upon his head, isn't the first picture that depicts Obama as a messiah, but it is the most blatant portrayal of Obama as Jesus.

The artist claims that the painting is open to "individual interpretations", but the outstretched hands and the crown of thorns on Obama's head don't leave a lot of room for interpretation. The title of the painting also is rather unnerving. It's not absolutely clear why D'Antuono entitled the piece "The Truth", but the press release for the painting said that "'The Truth,' like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder".

Truth is in the eyes of the beholder? This is the problem with our culture and with our world today. People think that truth is relative, that truth can be decided on a personal level. Nothing could be less true. There is one Truth, one Savior of the world and His name is Jesus Christ. No political figure, no party affiliation, no moral code can save you. Only a relationship with the true Messiah will save you.

Update:


The author has decided not to unveil his painting after all.

Here's how he explained his decision not to show the painting:

The idea of the piece, or the reaction that I'd hoped for, was to highlight our nation's deep partisan divide and how our interpretation of the truth is really prejudiced by our political perspective and I think that to a large degree we are being manipulated by the media. I miss the old day when we just have the facts. Now we have pundits and spin and strategists.

I just thought that through that painting people would see different things. The right and the left would have different interpretations of it based on their political lens. But I have to admit I was very surprised that instead of that I got thousands of email complaining on the religious front. And that was not my intent at all. I wanted to create a dialog politically but not religiously. I didn't mean to make fun of anybody's religion; maybe I did so naively but I didn't mean it that way. In the bible Jesus is The Truth and comparing Obama that way isn't something I meant to do at all.

Apparently, I've upset a lot of people. And I've decided that's not what I wanted to do and I'm not going to display it in the park on Wednesday ... art is meant to be somewhat provocative but the religious element went way farther than I had anticipated.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »