The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) announced today, in the first of a series of stunning announcements, that ITS TELEVISION SUBSIDIARY THE PUBLIC BROADCASTING SYSTEM (PBS) WILL BE REPLACING THE DEFUNCT BILL MOYERS JOURNAL WITH A NEW WEEKLY PROGRAM, ANN COULTER'S FAR OUT JOURNEY.
The Coulter show is one of several dramatic changes to the public broadcasting network composed of PBS and its corporate sibling National Public Radio (NPR). The changes are the result of major upheavals in the wake of the firing of NPR commentator Juan Williams and covert 60 Minutes-style videos from journalist James O'Keefe showing NPR executives entertaining financial offers from "donors" they believed to be representing the Muslim Brotherhood. The shift in approach is also a direct consequence of the Republican and Tea Party victories in the U.S. House and Senate in the 2010 elections.
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/01/pbs-hires-ann-coulter-levin-an
Expect to hear howls from the left about this. Even though they claim PBS is not biased, the audience for PBS likes it just the way it is, that is, without conservative input.
Obama gets transparency award—in secret
President Barack Obama accepted an award for making the government more open and transparent in secret.
The White House even left the event off the President’s public schedule, so no one knew about it and requests for journalists to cover the meeting by those attending were turned down.
‘To have such a meeting not be transparent is the height of irony. How absurd can that be?’ said one participant, Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, which keeps tabs on the White House Office of Management and Budget.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372184/Barack-Obama-awarded-prize-transparency-closed-doors.html#ixzz1IGumiJjj
Somehow this seems apropos.
Live Mikes and Democrats
Politicians are notorious for the use of canned talking points. So when New York Sen. Chuck Schumer stuck his foot in his mouth on a conference call this week by admitting that he was simply parroting what Democratic Party chiefs had told him to say about the Tea Party, it wasn't as shocking as some made it out to be.
SLOPPY, YES. JAW-DROPPING, NO.
Schumer was caught on tape explaining to his fellow Democrats WHY HE FAVORS CHARACTERIZING SPENDING CUTS PROPOSED BY THE GOP AS "EXTREME" AND "DRACONIAN."
He proceeded to elaborate: "I ALWAYS USE THE WORD 'EXTREME'; THAT'S WHAT THE CAUCUS INSTRUCTED ME TO DO THE OTHER WEEK."
His unknowing moment of honesty EXPOSED HOW THE LEFT IS STILL DESPERATELY TRYING TO SLANDER THE TEA PARTY, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge its members' concerns and respect their opinions, unwilling to stop mocking them (as, for example, with the tired "tea bagger" label).
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/tantaros/index.html
It seems that when Democrats don’t know others can hear them they say what they really think and mean, and it doesn’t work out too well for them.
Obama’s choice: The False Choice
It’s time to retire the false choice.
As a rhetorical device, particularly as A POLITICAL RHETORICAL DEVICE, THE FALSE CHOICE HAS OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS, IF IT EVER HAD ANY. The phrase has become a trite substitute for serious thinking. It serves too often to obscure rather than to explain….
…. THE FIRST, A PARTICULAR OBAMA SPECIALTY, IS THE “FALSE” FALSE CHOICE. Set up two unacceptable extremes that no one is seriously advocating and position yourself as the champion of the reasonable middle ground between these unidentified straw men.
Thus, Obama on health care, stretching back to the presidential campaign: “I REJECT THE TIRED OLD DEBATE THAT SAYS WE HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO EXTREMES: GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE WITH HIGHER TAXES — OR INSURANCE COMPANIES WITHOUT RULES DENYING PEOPLE COVERAGE,” he said in 2008. “That’s a false choice.” IT’S ALSO A CHOICE THAT NO ONE — CERTAINLY NO OTHER POLITICIAN — WAS PROPOSING.
Or Obama on financial reform: “WE NEED NOT CHOOSE BETWEEN A CHAOTIC AND UNFORGIVING CAPITALISM AND AN OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT-RUN ECONOMY. That is a false choice that will not serve our people or any people.” Again, please find me the advocate of either extreme….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/presidential-myth-the-false-choice/2011/03/31/AFvoZRBC_story.html?hpid=z5
As long as this is simply a rhetorical device, President Obama’s uses, it is of little consequences. What is of concern is whether or not he actually believes this himself.
Krauthammer’s Take: Obama on Energy
From Wednesday night’s Fox News All-Stars.http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263608/krauthammers-take-nro-staff
On President Obama’s speech on energy policy:
"You’ll notice he picked an odd number as his starting point as a way to measure the one-third reduction. He said ‘WHEN I WAS SWORN INTO OFFICE,’ AND YOU ASK YOURSELF, WELL, WHY WOULD HE PICK THAT NUMBER INSTEAD OF TODAY’S? It’s because on the day he was sworn into office we imported 11 million barrels a day. Well, because of recession and other causes it’s now 9.7 [million]. SO WE’RE A THIRD OF THE WAY TO HIS GOAL AS OF TODAY WITHOUT HIM HAVING LIFTED A FINGER."
So Obama takes credit for the recession when it’s in his interest to do so, but blames Bush for the bad parts. I guess he really is just another politician.
Obama would ignore Congress if they tried to curtail Libya actions
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), who asked Clinton about the War Powers Act during a classified briefing, SAID CLINTON AND THE ADMINISTRATION ARE SIDESTEPPING THE MEASURE’S PROVISIONS GIVING CONGRESS THE ABILITY TO PUT A 60-DAY TIME LIMIT ON ANY MILITARY ACTION.
“They are not committed to following the important part of the War Powers Act,” he told TPM in a phone interview. “SHE SAID THEY ARE CERTAINLY WILLING TO SEND REPORTS [TO US] AND IF THEY ISSUE A PRESS RELEASE, THEY’LL SEND THAT TO US TOO.”
THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD FORGE AHEAD WITH MILITARY ACTION IN LIBYA EVEN IF CONGRESS PASSED A RESOLUTION CONSTRAINING THE MISSION, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a classified briefing to House members Wednesday afternoon.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263582/clinton-congress-obama-would-ignore-war-resolutions-daniel-foster
They told me if I voted for McCain, the government would end up in military adventures where they would ignore the Constitution and the congress if they wanted to limited them—and they were right.
Just Say No
This oral testimony (around 25 minutes) by ARNOLD KLING, A FORMER FREDDIE MAC ECONOMIST AND NOW MY COLLEAGUE AT THE MERCATUS CENTER, IS A MUST-WATCH. Speaking before the Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday, he urged Congress to “just say no,” to more government involvement in the housing market.http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/263574/just-say-no-veronique-de-rugy
ANY SCHEME TO BRING A GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE IS COMPARABLE TO BUILDING A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ON TOP OF A FAULT LINE.
The best part is when Kling explains that “IT WOULD BE NAÏVE TO THINK THE PRIVATE SECTOR ALWAYS GETS THINGS RIGHT. BUT EVEN MORE NAÏVE TO THINK GOVERNMENT COULD GET IT RIGHT. THE GOVERNMENT IS CAPTURED BY SPECIAL INTERESTS.” As evidence, he points to the other witnesses on the panel: Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, and Michael Berman, chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association. Both institutions would benefit from a government guarantee on mortgage-backed securitizations, which is one option under consideration. The chairman was obviously upset with Kling, but I thought it was priceless.
How true this is. Special interests are always trying to get government to do their bidding. Government is neither efficient nor effective, it is political.
USAID Official claims Republicans budget cuts will kill 70,000 Kids
House Republicans offered delayed outrage to President Obama's point man on U.S. development and humanitarian missions, who testified before Congress this week that A BUDGET PLAN HOUSE REPUBLICANS PASSED LAST MONTH WOULD LEAD TO 70,000 KIDS DYING.
USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah told the House Appropriations State and Foreign Ops subcommittee on Wednesday that the budget plan, which would cut $61 billion in federal spending, would lead to the deaths of 30,000 kids in a malaria control program that would have to be scaled back, 24,000 from a lack of immunizations and 16,000 from a lack of skilled attendants at birth.
"There's a way to do this that does not have to cost lives and we're very focused and very much want to work with the committee to identify a path forward that can allow us to be effective at doing so," he said. SHAH IS SEEKING $59.5 BILLION IN FUNDING FOR HIS AGENCY, UP 22 PERCENT, OR $10.7 BILLION, FROM THE CURRENT LEVEL.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/01/obama-official-gop-budget-kill-70000-kids/
Here is someone who obviously believes the best defense is a good offense. In the current budget situation he is asking for a 22% increase!!! Looking at history, the USAID budget in 2006 was $20.7 billion which increased 25% over the previous six years. If USAID were granted what they asked for here, that would amount to a 187% increase over the last six years. When the Democrats tell you about dire consequences in cutting the budget, understand they are not telling you the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment