By Andrew Gully (AFP)
CHARLOTTE, North Carolina — Liz Wills remembers the unbelievable feeling when Barack Obama entered the White House in January 2009. Now she looks fearfully at the specter of his defeat by a Republican candidate she sees as gripped by the racist right.
"I'm old enough to have seen the 'black' and 'white' signs for bathrooms, schools segregated, you couldn't ride in the front of the bus or the train. I saw all of that. I lived through that," Wills, 73, of Durham, North Carolina, told AFP.
"It's not supposed to be segregated now but there's a lot like that still. Racism is alive and well and thriving," she said, speaking in Charlotte, where Democrats are gathering to formally nominate Obama for re-election in November.
Wills was overcome with emotion when a nation struggling to turn the hard-won gains of the civil rights era into real economic change for poor African Americans elected its first black president.
"There are no words that can tell you the true feeling. It was just so exciting. I didn't think I would ever see the day," she told AFP. "They were so beautiful and their hearts looked like they were so warm."
Her tone changes markedly when asked about the prospect of Republican challenger Mitt Romney ousting Obama after one term, an eventuality she said would be akin to a racist backlash.
"I would be depressed if Mitt Romney was elected. I have to be honest with you, I would be depressed," she said. "A lot of it's racism, we have to be truthful, a lot of it would be racism.
"Most people know that Obama has done a good job or has at least tried to do a good job, and a lot of the things that he wanted for all people could not be done because Republicans were just determined to get him out of office."
Behind Wills, the Harvey B. Gantt Center for African American Arts and Culture chronicles the stories of the civil rights struggle that made Obama's election possible.
Wills' hometown of Durham, a railroad hub for slave labor in the 19th century, saw sit-ins and visits from Martin Luther King Jr., en route to its transformation into part of today's booming Research Triangle zone.
Her cousin Dorothea Jones, 69, recognized those gains but said people of different ethnicities are still being discriminated against.
She recalled in horror a racist incident at the Republican National Convention last week in Tampa, Florida that the Romney campaign strongly condemned and will hope is quickly forgotten.
Two attendees on the floor of the convention hall, who were later ejected, threw peanuts at a black CNN camerawoman and said "this is how we feed animals."
"You have to look at everyone around those two people who allowed that kind of thing to happen," said Jones, who was born in North Carolina but is now a Democratic delegate for Massachusetts.
"Our history as African Americans is that people were taken out and lynched. It might have been one or two people that dragged those people out and lynched them, but there was a whole group of people that stood silent, egged them on. That's how racism flourishes."
US blacks and Hispanics are far poorer on average than Asian and white counterparts. In 2010, 27.4 percent of blacks and 26.6 percent of Hispanics were poor, compared to 9.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 12.1 percent of Asians.
Politically at least, gains have been made though.
David Goldfield, history professor at the University of North Carolina and author of several books on politics and race, said it would have been impossible for a black man to run for president 30 or 40 years ago, let alone be elected.
The 2008 Obama campaign succeeded in energizing a black electorate that generally didn't vote, but it is unclear if he can expect the same turnout this time around.
And while 2008 was undoubtedly historic, the 2012 election could hold even greater significance.
"Electing a black man as president of the United States, that's really hard to top in terms of history," said Goldfield. "But I think this election is more important in the sense that the Republican Party really has been captured by the right-wing.
"I believe that voters will be presented with a very stark choice in November. This is going to be a very different country if Republicans come in. George W. Bush's Republican Party is not the Republican Party out there today."
If Romney is elected it would have serious implications for the judicial sphere, Goldfield warned, pointing to his belief that the candidate has rented a party with strong doubts about his conservative credentials.
"One of the best ways to prove his bonafides as a conservative is to nominate really conservative federal judges not just at the Supreme Court but also at the federal district court level," he said.
The whiteness of the audience as Romney picked up the Republican nod in Tampa last week was staggering, as is polling data that shows anywhere between 90 and 100 percent of blacks prefer Obama over his rival.
Nationwide surveys of all American voters show the pair neck-and-neck with nine weeks to go until election day.
Copyright © 2012 AFP. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Blacks have a big reason to vote for Romney
Last Updated: 10:58 PM, September 3, 2012
John Crudele
New York Post - A recent poll conducted by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal came up with this startling result: Mitt Romney has absolutely no support among black voters.
I’m not saying that he had “little support” or “less support” than President Obama — who, I don’t think I need to remind you, is half-black.
Romney, the official Republican presidential candidate as of last week, polled absolutely no support.
Zero percent for Romney, 94 percent for Obama. (The rest, I presume, will be voting for me.)
I’ll assume the poll is accurate because of the quality of the news organizations involved. Accurate — and mind-boggling.
But not only for the reason you think.
My first thought is that at least a few black people called by pollsters must have said they liked Mitt. Sure, he’s whiter than white, but the guy’s not blazing red with horns.
And even if they don’t care for the candidate himself, a few black people must like his wife, Ann, or the fact that he has successfully supported his many kids and avoided getting arrested during his 63 years on Earth.
(I didn’t actually fact check for arrests but I assume the Republicans have.)
In the typical poll, people also say things they don’t really believe — “I like his name. Sure I’ll vote for him.” Surely a few people must have misspoke to the pollsters!
But there’s another, more important reason why this poll was so shocking: blacks have not done well financially during the Obama Administration.
I know, nobody has done well. But blacks have a legitimate gripe.
Yesterday was Labor Day (yes, that’s why you didn’t have to go to work) and the August employment report will be released this Friday. So I thought this would be a good time to revisit the job situation in this country.
And I’m going to start by chronicling the fact that black people love President Obama despite what the economy has done to them.
You can interpret the numbers I am going to give you in different ways.
One is that the president has an amazingly loyal following among blacks. The second interpretation is that blacks — because they have fared so poorly over the past four years — might be ripe for Mitt and his vice-presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, to pick off.
Here are some numbers.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 15 percent of all blacks were unemployed in July. That is down from 16.8 percent in July, 2011, but the figure is still much higher than the 8.3 percent total unemployment rate.
Overall, whites had an 8.2 percent jobless rate in July — a terrible number, of course, but not nearly as bad as the figure for blacks.
When President Obama took office in January, 2009, unemployment among all blacks over 16 years old was “just” 13.4 percent. The figure has been rising steadily and peaked at 17.3 percent in early 2012.
There’s nothing in those numbers to be happy about. Yet Romney doesn’t seem able to use those dire figures as leverage against Obama.
That’s the truly mind-blowing part.
It’s not that people of other races are doing so tremendously well.
Nobody knows what Friday’s numbers will look like. But everyone will be amazed (not to mention suspicious) if employment growth exceeds the already puzzling 163,000 new jobs recorded in July.
And the unemployment rate is unlikely to budge from the 8.3 percent level to which it rose last month.
The “fiscal cliff” everyone keeps talking about is likely to keep employers restrained in their hiring. And the fact that we are going over that cliff with an economic rope that’s already frayed is not going to make anyone feel any better.
In case you don’t know what the “fiscal cliff” is, it’s our elected officials in Washington once again behaving irresponsibly by delaying a decision on taxes until after the presidential election.
Going over the cliff. A train wreck. A disaster waiting to happen — use any analogy you’d like for this malfeasance.
So just how bad was the employment situation this Labor Day — the holiday that, since 1892, has celebrated the right to earn a living and the people who accomplish that miracle?
Well, according to the Labor Department, 13.4 million people were unemployed in a workforce of 156.5 million. If you add in all the people who are working fewer hours than normal because they couldn’t find full-time jobs (they are officially called involuntary part-time workers), then the figure jumps by an additional 8.3 million.
If you add in all the people who’ve said, “Screw this, there aren’t any jobs and I ain’t looking anymore,” then the figure rises to ...
Actually, there is no statistic for that.
Labor treats people who’ve been too discouraged to look for work for more a year as if they don’t exist. But it wouldn’t be surprising if all the categories above, including those too discouraged to even thumb through the classifieds, add up to 25 million people.
Twenty-five million people!
President Obama has a lot to overcome on Nov. 6. If he can pull out a victory with the economy doing this badly it’ll either be because his core supporters held firm or because the Republicans nominated a guy who walks, talks and smells like the Wall Street bankers that both the employed and jobless have come to justifiably hate.
My guess: the economic issue wins out. Romney beats Obama.
John Crudele
New York Post - A recent poll conducted by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal came up with this startling result: Mitt Romney has absolutely no support among black voters.
I’m not saying that he had “little support” or “less support” than President Obama — who, I don’t think I need to remind you, is half-black.
Romney, the official Republican presidential candidate as of last week, polled absolutely no support.
Zero percent for Romney, 94 percent for Obama. (The rest, I presume, will be voting for me.)
I’ll assume the poll is accurate because of the quality of the news organizations involved. Accurate — and mind-boggling.
But not only for the reason you think.
My first thought is that at least a few black people called by pollsters must have said they liked Mitt. Sure, he’s whiter than white, but the guy’s not blazing red with horns.
And even if they don’t care for the candidate himself, a few black people must like his wife, Ann, or the fact that he has successfully supported his many kids and avoided getting arrested during his 63 years on Earth.
(I didn’t actually fact check for arrests but I assume the Republicans have.)
In the typical poll, people also say things they don’t really believe — “I like his name. Sure I’ll vote for him.” Surely a few people must have misspoke to the pollsters!
But there’s another, more important reason why this poll was so shocking: blacks have not done well financially during the Obama Administration.
I know, nobody has done well. But blacks have a legitimate gripe.
Yesterday was Labor Day (yes, that’s why you didn’t have to go to work) and the August employment report will be released this Friday. So I thought this would be a good time to revisit the job situation in this country.
And I’m going to start by chronicling the fact that black people love President Obama despite what the economy has done to them.
You can interpret the numbers I am going to give you in different ways.
One is that the president has an amazingly loyal following among blacks. The second interpretation is that blacks — because they have fared so poorly over the past four years — might be ripe for Mitt and his vice-presidential candidate, Paul Ryan, to pick off.
Here are some numbers.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 15 percent of all blacks were unemployed in July. That is down from 16.8 percent in July, 2011, but the figure is still much higher than the 8.3 percent total unemployment rate.
Overall, whites had an 8.2 percent jobless rate in July — a terrible number, of course, but not nearly as bad as the figure for blacks.
When President Obama took office in January, 2009, unemployment among all blacks over 16 years old was “just” 13.4 percent. The figure has been rising steadily and peaked at 17.3 percent in early 2012.
There’s nothing in those numbers to be happy about. Yet Romney doesn’t seem able to use those dire figures as leverage against Obama.
That’s the truly mind-blowing part.
It’s not that people of other races are doing so tremendously well.
Nobody knows what Friday’s numbers will look like. But everyone will be amazed (not to mention suspicious) if employment growth exceeds the already puzzling 163,000 new jobs recorded in July.
And the unemployment rate is unlikely to budge from the 8.3 percent level to which it rose last month.
The “fiscal cliff” everyone keeps talking about is likely to keep employers restrained in their hiring. And the fact that we are going over that cliff with an economic rope that’s already frayed is not going to make anyone feel any better.
In case you don’t know what the “fiscal cliff” is, it’s our elected officials in Washington once again behaving irresponsibly by delaying a decision on taxes until after the presidential election.
Going over the cliff. A train wreck. A disaster waiting to happen — use any analogy you’d like for this malfeasance.
So just how bad was the employment situation this Labor Day — the holiday that, since 1892, has celebrated the right to earn a living and the people who accomplish that miracle?
Well, according to the Labor Department, 13.4 million people were unemployed in a workforce of 156.5 million. If you add in all the people who are working fewer hours than normal because they couldn’t find full-time jobs (they are officially called involuntary part-time workers), then the figure jumps by an additional 8.3 million.
If you add in all the people who’ve said, “Screw this, there aren’t any jobs and I ain’t looking anymore,” then the figure rises to ...
Actually, there is no statistic for that.
Labor treats people who’ve been too discouraged to look for work for more a year as if they don’t exist. But it wouldn’t be surprising if all the categories above, including those too discouraged to even thumb through the classifieds, add up to 25 million people.
Twenty-five million people!
President Obama has a lot to overcome on Nov. 6. If he can pull out a victory with the economy doing this badly it’ll either be because his core supporters held firm or because the Republicans nominated a guy who walks, talks and smells like the Wall Street bankers that both the employed and jobless have come to justifiably hate.
My guess: the economic issue wins out. Romney beats Obama.
Frank Marshall Davis and the Subversion of the Democratic Party
September 4, 2012
By Paul Kengor
American Thinker - A curious specter will be hovering over the Democratic convention this week. It is the ghost of Frank Marshall Davis, Communist Party USA member 47544 and mentor to a young Barack Obama.
Readers of this site are well aware of Davis, from my writings and those of others who have posted articles here. Davis joined the Communist Party during World War II and was unflinchingly pro-Soviet and pro-Red China. He was the founding editor-in-chief of the Chicago Star (1946-48) -- the CPUSA publication for Chicago -- before moving on to the Honolulu Record (1949-57), the CPUSA publication there. He excoriated the Western leaders who stood in the way of Stalin, meaning Winston Churchill and Harry Truman, whom he portrayed as colonialists, imperialists, fascists, and racists. He blasted American initiatives like the Marshall Plan, which he labeled "white imperialism" and "colonial slavery." And because Democrats were the party in power at the time, and thus America's first line of defense against the Red Army, Davis -- who literally wrote poetry hailing Stalin's tanks -- vilified the Democratic Party in particular.
Frank Marshall Davis's politics were so radical, and so pro-Soviet, that the Democrats who ran the Senate in 1956 summoned him to Washington to testify on his pro-Soviet activities. Even more remarkable, the FBI placed him on the federal government's Security Index, meaning that if a war broke out between the United States and the Soviet Union, Obama's mentor could have been placed under immediate arrest.
I've noted this here before. I've also noted Davis's unceasing class-based rhetoric and class warfare. Those words will be echoing throughout the halls of the Democratic convention this week, especially from the mouth of the man Davis influenced.
And yet, that isn't the only way that the presence of Davis will be felt this week. His presence at the Democrats' convention will be felt in a much more profound, troubling way that speaks to the overall leftward drift of the modern Democratic Party. Consider:
After all those years trashing the Democratic Party, Davis, like many American communists, decided to join the Democrats. There were two primary factors that drove this decision: 1) American communists realized that they could never get elected to national office openly campaigning as communists, and 2) when Henry Wallace's Progressive Party collapsed in 1948, the communists who had pervaded it had nowhere else to go. So, many American communists opted to hitch their wagon to a different star -- namely, to the most viable left-leaning party in America: the Democratic Party. Sure, this would be a challenge when they encountered old anti-communist Democrats like John F. Kennedy, Pat McCarran, Thomas Dodd, and Scoop Jackson, but overall, in the long run, they would be patient, and they would seek alliances with Democrats much closer to their collectivist thinking.
Frank Marshall Davis was among these. This tactical move by Davis is evident in his declassified 600-page FBI file, and specifically an April 1950 report that states that "members of the subversive element in Honolulu were concentrating their efforts on infiltration of the Democratic Party through control of Precinct Clubs and organizations." These communist subversives, said the report, were pushing "their candidates in these Precinct Club elections." According to the report, on April 6, 1950, one such candidate, Frank Marshall Davis, was elected "assistant secretary and delegate" to the Territorial Democratic Convention in his particular Precinct Club. This was the Third Precinct of the Fifth District. Davis, in fact, attended that convention on April 30, 1950.
In other words, the Hawaiian Communist Party went underground, realizing that it lacked political viability. Hawaii's communists changed their tactics, concentrating instead on the mainstream Democratic Party, even running their members in local elections to seize delegate positions. One of those who not only urged this tactic, but was himself elected to a Democratic precinct was Frank Marshall Davis.
With that, the steady subversion of the Democratic Party was on. This began a long march to transform the Democratic Party from the party of Truman and JFK to the party of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. And in a quite fascinating twist of history, Frank Marshall Davis, as a "Democrat," would go on to influence today's Democratic Party standard-bearer: Barack Obama.
Tellingly, Davis himself, in an eerily Obama-like sentiment, had emphasized the need for "fundamental change" in America -- advocating exactly that in his kick-off column for the Chicago Star on July 6, 1946. Well, with the Democrats and with Barack Obama, he has gotten just that. Frank Marshall Davis's presence will be there at the Democrats' convention this week.
Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and author of the new book The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mentor.
By Paul Kengor
American Thinker - A curious specter will be hovering over the Democratic convention this week. It is the ghost of Frank Marshall Davis, Communist Party USA member 47544 and mentor to a young Barack Obama.
Readers of this site are well aware of Davis, from my writings and those of others who have posted articles here. Davis joined the Communist Party during World War II and was unflinchingly pro-Soviet and pro-Red China. He was the founding editor-in-chief of the Chicago Star (1946-48) -- the CPUSA publication for Chicago -- before moving on to the Honolulu Record (1949-57), the CPUSA publication there. He excoriated the Western leaders who stood in the way of Stalin, meaning Winston Churchill and Harry Truman, whom he portrayed as colonialists, imperialists, fascists, and racists. He blasted American initiatives like the Marshall Plan, which he labeled "white imperialism" and "colonial slavery." And because Democrats were the party in power at the time, and thus America's first line of defense against the Red Army, Davis -- who literally wrote poetry hailing Stalin's tanks -- vilified the Democratic Party in particular.
Frank Marshall Davis's politics were so radical, and so pro-Soviet, that the Democrats who ran the Senate in 1956 summoned him to Washington to testify on his pro-Soviet activities. Even more remarkable, the FBI placed him on the federal government's Security Index, meaning that if a war broke out between the United States and the Soviet Union, Obama's mentor could have been placed under immediate arrest.
I've noted this here before. I've also noted Davis's unceasing class-based rhetoric and class warfare. Those words will be echoing throughout the halls of the Democratic convention this week, especially from the mouth of the man Davis influenced.
And yet, that isn't the only way that the presence of Davis will be felt this week. His presence at the Democrats' convention will be felt in a much more profound, troubling way that speaks to the overall leftward drift of the modern Democratic Party. Consider:
After all those years trashing the Democratic Party, Davis, like many American communists, decided to join the Democrats. There were two primary factors that drove this decision: 1) American communists realized that they could never get elected to national office openly campaigning as communists, and 2) when Henry Wallace's Progressive Party collapsed in 1948, the communists who had pervaded it had nowhere else to go. So, many American communists opted to hitch their wagon to a different star -- namely, to the most viable left-leaning party in America: the Democratic Party. Sure, this would be a challenge when they encountered old anti-communist Democrats like John F. Kennedy, Pat McCarran, Thomas Dodd, and Scoop Jackson, but overall, in the long run, they would be patient, and they would seek alliances with Democrats much closer to their collectivist thinking.
Frank Marshall Davis was among these. This tactical move by Davis is evident in his declassified 600-page FBI file, and specifically an April 1950 report that states that "members of the subversive element in Honolulu were concentrating their efforts on infiltration of the Democratic Party through control of Precinct Clubs and organizations." These communist subversives, said the report, were pushing "their candidates in these Precinct Club elections." According to the report, on April 6, 1950, one such candidate, Frank Marshall Davis, was elected "assistant secretary and delegate" to the Territorial Democratic Convention in his particular Precinct Club. This was the Third Precinct of the Fifth District. Davis, in fact, attended that convention on April 30, 1950.
In other words, the Hawaiian Communist Party went underground, realizing that it lacked political viability. Hawaii's communists changed their tactics, concentrating instead on the mainstream Democratic Party, even running their members in local elections to seize delegate positions. One of those who not only urged this tactic, but was himself elected to a Democratic precinct was Frank Marshall Davis.
With that, the steady subversion of the Democratic Party was on. This began a long march to transform the Democratic Party from the party of Truman and JFK to the party of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. And in a quite fascinating twist of history, Frank Marshall Davis, as a "Democrat," would go on to influence today's Democratic Party standard-bearer: Barack Obama.
Tellingly, Davis himself, in an eerily Obama-like sentiment, had emphasized the need for "fundamental change" in America -- advocating exactly that in his kick-off column for the Chicago Star on July 6, 1946. Well, with the Democrats and with Barack Obama, he has gotten just that. Frank Marshall Davis's presence will be there at the Democrats' convention this week.
Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and author of the new book The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama's Mentor.
Ending The Obama Era
September 1st, 2012 - T. Carter
Poletical:
“They don't have to like [Romney], they just have to know he can get the job done. People don't care about his bedside manner, they care about his surgical skills.” - Mike Huckabee
In terms of charisma, shrewdness, and personality, Mitt Romney is not a strong candidate. He will make an excellent president, but to see that, Americans will have to look beyond the exterior to see Romney's true substance. On the morning of November 7th, Americans will wake up to realize that Romney didn't necessarily win, but that Obama lost.
Romney's lack of favorability amongst most Americans is consistent in most opinion polls. This doesn't mean that they won't elect him or that Republicans won't turn out in droves to choose him as the country's next president. This election is about America and its future, not about who can throw the biggest parties with the most celebrities. Americans understand this more today than they did in 2008.
Opinion polls are showing stronger enthusiasm amongst Republicans than Democrats, and Democratic enthusiasm is down sharply from 2008. The reasons for this may have something to do with Obama's failed message of hope and change. In 2008, Obama won the election against a dull and lackluster Republican named John McCain. 7% more Democrats showed up to vote than Republicans that year. Since then, the Republicans have begun to rebuild their image following the Bush Administration. Candidates like Ron Paul and Paul Ryan have infused the party with a Reagan-esque energy that takes the party back to a time when liberty and personal identity mattered more than collectivism. On November 6th, the election will be won by the candidate that spurs the most enthusiasm, and this time it will take more than charm, poetry, and a smile to get the job done.
Romney and Ryan have become candidates of substance and meaning, while Obama continues to be what he has always been: a man of empty words and no real message. Obama is the Democratic Party's attempt to entrap Americans in a system of entitlements and false security. The party has always tried to expand the size and scope of government, and individual liberty has never really been a part of their platform. The Democrats are today what they have always been: the party of slavery. Obama is nothing more than a salesman for big government.
What will drive this election won't be the enthusiasm for a particular candidate but the enthusiasm for America. Bringing back the gold standard, firing Ben Bernanke, auditing the Fed, securing internet freedom, cutting social programs and eliminating the deficit have all become parts of the new Republican agenda. In contrast to the Democratic agenda of bigger government, more spending, and more reliance on social programs, this message sounds fresh, brave, and optimistic. As Americans watch the national debt soar out of control under a Democratic leadership, it's hard to believe that anyone will prescribe four more years of the same remedy.
By 2016, it is estimated that an additional 4 trillion will have been added to the national debt.
The Republican agenda of independence, transparency, debt slashing, and individual freedom to earn wealth go against everything the Democratic Party stands for. So much so that The Huffington Post recently published a column by Michael Farr condemning Romney's call to audit the highly secretive Federal Reserve. Farr defended the Fed's confidentiality and ridiculed the Republican plan as “moronic”.
This year's election will be one of the hardest fought in decades, not only on the campaign trail but on the media front. America has become so polarized by its two mainstream political parties that a small 5% margin of independents and swing voters could determine the country's next president. That is only if both parties are able to drive an equal amount of supporters and registered members to the polls. This election may very well come down to who can inspire more voters to take time out of their day to cast a ballot. So far, it looks like the Republicans are two steps ahead of the Democrats. It's now up to Romney and Ryan to keep the momentum. If they fail, the election may again fall into Obama's hands.
At around this time in 2008, John McCain was trailing Obama by an average of 2% in most opinion polls. This time, the margin is slightly slimmer with Romney trailing by only 1% on average. The poll numbers are similar to 2008, but the dynamics of this election are far different, with a difference in voter enthusiasm being the official game changer. As long as the economy is in the dumps, Democratic enthusiasm will remain low.
The University Of Colorado's election model, which has successfully predicted every election since 1980, has projected a Romney win based on a state-by-state analysis. The analysis pinpoints the economy as the key to Romney's election victory. If economic factors in the US don't improve by November, the model predicts that Obama will only be capable of winning 218 electoral votes, leaving the rest to Romney. In terms of popular support, Romney would also win that with 52% between only the two candidates. This is unlikely, as there are third party candidates, including the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. A scenario reminiscent of 2000 could play out, with Obama just barely edging Romney in actual votes, but failing to win the required 270 electoral votes. This, too, is unlikely. The most likely scenario would see a slim Romney electoral win with 49% support and perhaps 48% for Obama.
Since economic factors are often subject to political spin, the Romney campaign will have to do everything that it can to convince voters that even the slightest bump in job numbers is not enough to qualify as growth. The campaign will have to work hard at making sure that Americans understand the nation's imperative and crucial debt crisis. With such a high national debt – and no sign of it slowing – economic growth and confidence are nearly impossible. This will be why Democrats, too, will be making every effort to spin the slightest economic growth into something spectacular. It will be up to Romney to deflect such falsehoods and keep Americans focused on the impossibility of true, sustainable growth under such horrific debt. Romney and Ryan will have to make sure to articulate the message that America's economic sustainability for the long term is in danger of complete collapse. If the Romney campaign succeeds with its message, they will win the election and put an end to one of the most destructive presidencies in US history. They will effectively end the Obama Era.
Poletical:
“They don't have to like [Romney], they just have to know he can get the job done. People don't care about his bedside manner, they care about his surgical skills.” - Mike Huckabee
In terms of charisma, shrewdness, and personality, Mitt Romney is not a strong candidate. He will make an excellent president, but to see that, Americans will have to look beyond the exterior to see Romney's true substance. On the morning of November 7th, Americans will wake up to realize that Romney didn't necessarily win, but that Obama lost.
Romney's lack of favorability amongst most Americans is consistent in most opinion polls. This doesn't mean that they won't elect him or that Republicans won't turn out in droves to choose him as the country's next president. This election is about America and its future, not about who can throw the biggest parties with the most celebrities. Americans understand this more today than they did in 2008.
Opinion polls are showing stronger enthusiasm amongst Republicans than Democrats, and Democratic enthusiasm is down sharply from 2008. The reasons for this may have something to do with Obama's failed message of hope and change. In 2008, Obama won the election against a dull and lackluster Republican named John McCain. 7% more Democrats showed up to vote than Republicans that year. Since then, the Republicans have begun to rebuild their image following the Bush Administration. Candidates like Ron Paul and Paul Ryan have infused the party with a Reagan-esque energy that takes the party back to a time when liberty and personal identity mattered more than collectivism. On November 6th, the election will be won by the candidate that spurs the most enthusiasm, and this time it will take more than charm, poetry, and a smile to get the job done.
Romney and Ryan have become candidates of substance and meaning, while Obama continues to be what he has always been: a man of empty words and no real message. Obama is the Democratic Party's attempt to entrap Americans in a system of entitlements and false security. The party has always tried to expand the size and scope of government, and individual liberty has never really been a part of their platform. The Democrats are today what they have always been: the party of slavery. Obama is nothing more than a salesman for big government.
What will drive this election won't be the enthusiasm for a particular candidate but the enthusiasm for America. Bringing back the gold standard, firing Ben Bernanke, auditing the Fed, securing internet freedom, cutting social programs and eliminating the deficit have all become parts of the new Republican agenda. In contrast to the Democratic agenda of bigger government, more spending, and more reliance on social programs, this message sounds fresh, brave, and optimistic. As Americans watch the national debt soar out of control under a Democratic leadership, it's hard to believe that anyone will prescribe four more years of the same remedy.
By 2016, it is estimated that an additional 4 trillion will have been added to the national debt.
The Republican agenda of independence, transparency, debt slashing, and individual freedom to earn wealth go against everything the Democratic Party stands for. So much so that The Huffington Post recently published a column by Michael Farr condemning Romney's call to audit the highly secretive Federal Reserve. Farr defended the Fed's confidentiality and ridiculed the Republican plan as “moronic”.
This year's election will be one of the hardest fought in decades, not only on the campaign trail but on the media front. America has become so polarized by its two mainstream political parties that a small 5% margin of independents and swing voters could determine the country's next president. That is only if both parties are able to drive an equal amount of supporters and registered members to the polls. This election may very well come down to who can inspire more voters to take time out of their day to cast a ballot. So far, it looks like the Republicans are two steps ahead of the Democrats. It's now up to Romney and Ryan to keep the momentum. If they fail, the election may again fall into Obama's hands.
At around this time in 2008, John McCain was trailing Obama by an average of 2% in most opinion polls. This time, the margin is slightly slimmer with Romney trailing by only 1% on average. The poll numbers are similar to 2008, but the dynamics of this election are far different, with a difference in voter enthusiasm being the official game changer. As long as the economy is in the dumps, Democratic enthusiasm will remain low.
The University Of Colorado's election model, which has successfully predicted every election since 1980, has projected a Romney win based on a state-by-state analysis. The analysis pinpoints the economy as the key to Romney's election victory. If economic factors in the US don't improve by November, the model predicts that Obama will only be capable of winning 218 electoral votes, leaving the rest to Romney. In terms of popular support, Romney would also win that with 52% between only the two candidates. This is unlikely, as there are third party candidates, including the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. A scenario reminiscent of 2000 could play out, with Obama just barely edging Romney in actual votes, but failing to win the required 270 electoral votes. This, too, is unlikely. The most likely scenario would see a slim Romney electoral win with 49% support and perhaps 48% for Obama.
Since economic factors are often subject to political spin, the Romney campaign will have to do everything that it can to convince voters that even the slightest bump in job numbers is not enough to qualify as growth. The campaign will have to work hard at making sure that Americans understand the nation's imperative and crucial debt crisis. With such a high national debt – and no sign of it slowing – economic growth and confidence are nearly impossible. This will be why Democrats, too, will be making every effort to spin the slightest economic growth into something spectacular. It will be up to Romney to deflect such falsehoods and keep Americans focused on the impossibility of true, sustainable growth under such horrific debt. Romney and Ryan will have to make sure to articulate the message that America's economic sustainability for the long term is in danger of complete collapse. If the Romney campaign succeeds with its message, they will win the election and put an end to one of the most destructive presidencies in US history. They will effectively end the Obama Era.
If Clint Made Such a Damn Fool of Himself, Why Are The Dems Scrambling To Stage a Similar Schtick with Crazy Ole Betty White?
04 September 2012
And what about those naked pics...
(Reaganite Republican) - You've got to give the benefit-of-the-doubt to an 82-year old American icon, entrepreneur, and patriot who's fighting to save what he knows made this country great- more than you can say for most of the other spoiled Hollywood ingrates still licking Obama's scrawny rear-end.
But of course wretched opportunists of the American left -watching hopenchange turn to dust in their hands- absolutely couldn't resist going-after Clint Eastwood as 'senile', completely out-of-it, and worse for having the audacity to mock Dear Leader as the empty suit/chair he is at the RNC in Tampa... so could somebody please tell me why the Democrats are in such a big hurry to produce a near-duplicate routine with dependable Obama lick-spittle Betty White?
Aren't these mostly the exact, same people pushing for White to speak at the DNC that were remorselessly mocking Eastwood just three days ago?
Not only did the Dems clearly see enough value in Clint Eastwood's old-fashioned comedy monologue to consider producing their own such act on extremely short-notice, but as Rush Limbaugh noted, 'Clint got under Obama's skin'... how else to explain Dear Leader tweeting a response at 12:30am...?
So Betty's -n- Barry's writers surely coming up with belly-splitting Romney yucks as we speak... better not be the same guys that have been producing her lame sitcom lines for the last two decades if they actually hope to land any shells in the GOP camp.
Could it be that Betty White naked pics remind
Obama of his own white-trash mom...?
And what about those naked pics...
(Reaganite Republican) - You've got to give the benefit-of-the-doubt to an 82-year old American icon, entrepreneur, and patriot who's fighting to save what he knows made this country great- more than you can say for most of the other spoiled Hollywood ingrates still licking Obama's scrawny rear-end.
But of course wretched opportunists of the American left -watching hopenchange turn to dust in their hands- absolutely couldn't resist going-after Clint Eastwood as 'senile', completely out-of-it, and worse for having the audacity to mock Dear Leader as the empty suit/chair he is at the RNC in Tampa... so could somebody please tell me why the Democrats are in such a big hurry to produce a near-duplicate routine with dependable Obama lick-spittle Betty White?
Aren't these mostly the exact, same people pushing for White to speak at the DNC that were remorselessly mocking Eastwood just three days ago?
Not only did the Dems clearly see enough value in Clint Eastwood's old-fashioned comedy monologue to consider producing their own such act on extremely short-notice, but as Rush Limbaugh noted, 'Clint got under Obama's skin'... how else to explain Dear Leader tweeting a response at 12:30am...?
So Betty's -n- Barry's writers surely coming up with belly-splitting Romney yucks as we speak... better not be the same guys that have been producing her lame sitcom lines for the last two decades if they actually hope to land any shells in the GOP camp.
Obama of his own white-trash mom...?
Monday night protesters block streets, say large security force like a 'police state'
By Meghan Cooke, Caroline McMillan and Ely Portillo
Posted: Tuesday, Sep. 04, 2012
Protesters march through Charlotte, NC and taunt police late night on Monday, September 3, 2012 before the official start of the Democratic National Convention. Photo by JASON E. MICZEK - Special to the Observer
CHARLOTTE, N.C. About 100 protesters blocked several uptown Charlotte streets late Monday in an impromptu march that signaled the first significant disturbance of the Democratic National Convention.
One member of the group called it a “test” of police, who vastly outnumbered the marchers.
No arrests were reported.
The group apparently left the Occupy Charlotte camp in Marshall Park about 11 p.m., walking north on McDowell Street and later on Davidson Street. The protesters turned on 11th Street before marching down McDowell Street and ending back at the camp around 12:10 a.m. Tuesday.
A large force of bicycle-riding officers quickly surrounded the protesters, keeping them on the streets but preventing them from walking down some residential roads on the northeast side of uptown. More officers carrying batons and zip-tie handcuffs also walked with the march.
Among the officers following the march was Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Rodney Monroe, who walked at the back of the group.
“We’re trying to protect our neighborhoods,” he told the Observer.
At one point, a protester approached him, thanked Monroe and asked if he could give the chief a fist bump. Monroe smiled and bumped fists with the young man.
But some protesters chanted and shouted at police.
“This is what a police state looks like!” they yelled. “Police everywhere, justice nowhere!”
At times they broke into obscenities: “---- the police!” and “---- the DNC!”
At some points, protesters stopped the march to taunt officers who formed a line with their bicycles.
One woman stood facing a line of officers and pulled a bandana up over her mouth and nose. During Sunday’s March on Wall Street South, a protester was arrested for wearing a scarf over her face and carrying a concealed knife, police said. One other person was also arrested Sunday.But late Monday, police didn’t react to obscenities or taunts from protesters, apparently determined to avoid any direct confrontations.
“This isn’t a protest,” one member of the group said. “This is an articulation of the boundaries of the police state.”
“This is a test march,” said Shangry Gorecki, 32, of Los Angeles. “We want to see how they play.”
Others criticized police for what they called an excessive reaction to their peaceful march. There was at least twice as many officers as there were protesters.
Andrew Speirs, of New York, said the group, which included some anarchists, thought Monday night would be a good time to assert their First Amendment rights.
“We were met with an overwhelming police presence,” Speirs said. “Unnecessary would be a good word.”
William Estrella of Occupy Wall Street said the group was protesting excessive police force. He called the police response to the march a waste of taxpayer money, saying the group could have been escorted by a small number of officers. But he said they planned their march expecting that police would respond in such a manner.
“Charlotte police delivered beautifully,” he said.
At one point, as protesters were walking back toward their camp on South McDowell Street, they passed some DNC delegates and party-goers, who flashed blue wristbands and lanyards with credentials. Some of them were unsympathetic.
“I hope they go to jail,” one woman said.
As the march ended at Marshall Park, many of the protesters trickled back to their tents. But a few remained by the street, where police holding bicycles had formed a line along the sidewalk.
Estrella laid down on the road by the sidewalk as police held their line around him. The officers remained motionless for several minutes until an officer announced, “Everybody’s rolling.”
The officers climbed on their bicycles, leaving the handful of protesters by the sidewalk.
Then, some of the young men briefly laid in the middle of the street before getting up and heading toward the camp.
“We made our point,” Estrella said as he walked away. “We took the streets.”
Staff writers Cleve R. Wootson Jr. and Steve Lyttle contributed.
Posted: Tuesday, Sep. 04, 2012
CHARLOTTE, N.C. About 100 protesters blocked several uptown Charlotte streets late Monday in an impromptu march that signaled the first significant disturbance of the Democratic National Convention.
One member of the group called it a “test” of police, who vastly outnumbered the marchers.
No arrests were reported.
The group apparently left the Occupy Charlotte camp in Marshall Park about 11 p.m., walking north on McDowell Street and later on Davidson Street. The protesters turned on 11th Street before marching down McDowell Street and ending back at the camp around 12:10 a.m. Tuesday.
A large force of bicycle-riding officers quickly surrounded the protesters, keeping them on the streets but preventing them from walking down some residential roads on the northeast side of uptown. More officers carrying batons and zip-tie handcuffs also walked with the march.
Among the officers following the march was Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Rodney Monroe, who walked at the back of the group.
“We’re trying to protect our neighborhoods,” he told the Observer.
At one point, a protester approached him, thanked Monroe and asked if he could give the chief a fist bump. Monroe smiled and bumped fists with the young man.
But some protesters chanted and shouted at police.
“This is what a police state looks like!” they yelled. “Police everywhere, justice nowhere!”
At times they broke into obscenities: “---- the police!” and “---- the DNC!”
At some points, protesters stopped the march to taunt officers who formed a line with their bicycles.
One woman stood facing a line of officers and pulled a bandana up over her mouth and nose. During Sunday’s March on Wall Street South, a protester was arrested for wearing a scarf over her face and carrying a concealed knife, police said. One other person was also arrested Sunday.But late Monday, police didn’t react to obscenities or taunts from protesters, apparently determined to avoid any direct confrontations.
“This isn’t a protest,” one member of the group said. “This is an articulation of the boundaries of the police state.”
“This is a test march,” said Shangry Gorecki, 32, of Los Angeles. “We want to see how they play.”
Others criticized police for what they called an excessive reaction to their peaceful march. There was at least twice as many officers as there were protesters.
Andrew Speirs, of New York, said the group, which included some anarchists, thought Monday night would be a good time to assert their First Amendment rights.
“We were met with an overwhelming police presence,” Speirs said. “Unnecessary would be a good word.”
William Estrella of Occupy Wall Street said the group was protesting excessive police force. He called the police response to the march a waste of taxpayer money, saying the group could have been escorted by a small number of officers. But he said they planned their march expecting that police would respond in such a manner.
“Charlotte police delivered beautifully,” he said.
At one point, as protesters were walking back toward their camp on South McDowell Street, they passed some DNC delegates and party-goers, who flashed blue wristbands and lanyards with credentials. Some of them were unsympathetic.
“I hope they go to jail,” one woman said.
As the march ended at Marshall Park, many of the protesters trickled back to their tents. But a few remained by the street, where police holding bicycles had formed a line along the sidewalk.
Estrella laid down on the road by the sidewalk as police held their line around him. The officers remained motionless for several minutes until an officer announced, “Everybody’s rolling.”
The officers climbed on their bicycles, leaving the handful of protesters by the sidewalk.
Then, some of the young men briefly laid in the middle of the street before getting up and heading toward the camp.
“We made our point,” Estrella said as he walked away. “We took the streets.”
Staff writers Cleve R. Wootson Jr. and Steve Lyttle contributed.
Obama’s 2nd-term agenda: Global warming, immigration, taxes
Fiscal policy will be the top priority if President Barack Obama is reelected. More details about his plans may be revealed this week.
Posted on Tuesday, 09.04.12
By Lesley Clark
McClatchy News Service
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama says his Republican challenger has the “wrong vision” for the country. So what’s his?
Some of his agenda for a second term is a continuation of the first. He’d raise taxes on annual family incomes above $250,000. He’d continue to spend on education and green energy. He’d implement the health care law and financial regulations already enacted. And he’d continue to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Afghanistan with a goal of getting them all out by the end of 2014.
Much of his plan is an open question, though, rendered all the more mysterious when he was caught on an open microphone telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev earlier this year that he’d have “more flexibility" after the November election. To do what isn’t yet clear. Though he’s offered broad themes on the campaign trail, Obama has yet to flesh out the details.
More may be revealed this week as the Democrats meet in Charlotte, N.C., when the president will be formally nominated as their candidate. Some of the possible second-term goals are ones he set aside in the first when they were too difficult or politically costly. They include a rewrite of immigration laws, efforts to combat global warming and a sweeping change in the tax code beyond the year-to-year extensions of Bush-era tax cuts.
Despite the gridlock that’s paralyzed Washington since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 elections, Obama thinks his reelection would make it more likely that he could reach agreements with them. With him in office for another four years and no more, he thinks, the Republican “fever” would break.
“My hope and my expectation is that after the election, now that it turns out the goal of beating Obama doesn’t make much sense because I’m not running again, that we can start getting some cooperation again,” he said earlier this summer.
Fiscal policy would be Job One from the moment of reelection.
The government faces a “fiscal cliff” of scheduled tax increases and spending cuts at the end of this year. If he and Congress can’t reach a permanent agreement this year, the face-off will carry into his second term and a new session of Congress.
That could “impede anything else he wants to do,” said William Galston, a former advisor to President Bill Clinton who’s a scholar at the Brookings Institution.
Beyond the must-do, much of what Obama hopes to accomplish may depend on its reception in Congress, where a Republican-led House has blocked most of his agenda.
“The question is, do Republicans see success in continuing a scorched-earth strategy, or do they figure since Obama won’t be on the ticket, they’ll agree to get some things done and make themselves look a little better,” said Tom Perriello, a former Democratic congressman from Virginia who’s the president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a left-of-center think tank with close ties to the administration.
“The ball is still somewhat going to be in their court.”
Perriello expects Obama to keep pushing for new spending on infrastructure, clean energy and education in a bid to goose the economy.
The president has cited budget deficit reduction, the highway transportation bill and immigration as areas where he and Republicans could find common ground. And, he said that if the Republican “fever” were to break, he’d hope for support for clean energy and energy efficiency.
White House energy legislation cleared the then-Democratic-controlled House in 2009, but it never advanced. Obama rarely raises the issue.
Environmentalists hope that a second term would lead to substantial climate-change legislation.
“Looking back in 20 years, what does or does not happen in terms of climate change could be a defining indicator of success for his administration, and we’ve told them that,” said Michael Brune, the Sierra Club’s executive director. “The challenge is that we have to go a lot further and a lot more quickly.”
Obama says he’d push for immigration restructuring if he’s reelected, after disappointing many Hispanic advocacy groups that had hoped for sweeping immigration revisions in his first term. “I can promise that I will try to do it in the first year of my second term,” he told Univision in April.
Immigration advocates applauded his decision in June to stop deporting some young undocumented students and workers, but they said there is still the problem of nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants.
“It’s fair to say there’s some unfinished business,” said Eric Rodriguez, the vice president of public policy at the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights organization with close ties to the administration. He hasn’t had talks with the administration about its plan, but he said second terms often came with thoughts of the presidents’ legacies. Also, insiders think that an Obama reelection with two-thirds of the vital Hispanic vote could bring Republicans to the table.
“There’s that early part of a second term where there may be greater political capital to expend some energy on an issue that could be a signature accomplishment,” Rodriguez said.
Second terms often are marked by a focus on foreign policy, particularly as presidents halfway through their second terms begin to be viewed as “lame ducks,” their power diminishing as they approach the ends of their administrations.
Obama has a number of unfinished foreign-policy entanglements: He’s pledged to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, but that’s been complicated by a spike in the number of attacks on coalition troops by Afghan security forces.
A year after he demanded that Syrian leader Bashar Assad step down, the country remains in turmoil and the U.S. seems to have few solutions.
Obama also has been unable to prevent Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear enrichment program that the U.S. and Israel fear will result in a nuclear-armed Iran.
Posted on Tuesday, 09.04.12
By Lesley Clark
McClatchy News Service
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama says his Republican challenger has the “wrong vision” for the country. So what’s his?
Some of his agenda for a second term is a continuation of the first. He’d raise taxes on annual family incomes above $250,000. He’d continue to spend on education and green energy. He’d implement the health care law and financial regulations already enacted. And he’d continue to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Afghanistan with a goal of getting them all out by the end of 2014.
Much of his plan is an open question, though, rendered all the more mysterious when he was caught on an open microphone telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev earlier this year that he’d have “more flexibility" after the November election. To do what isn’t yet clear. Though he’s offered broad themes on the campaign trail, Obama has yet to flesh out the details.
More may be revealed this week as the Democrats meet in Charlotte, N.C., when the president will be formally nominated as their candidate. Some of the possible second-term goals are ones he set aside in the first when they were too difficult or politically costly. They include a rewrite of immigration laws, efforts to combat global warming and a sweeping change in the tax code beyond the year-to-year extensions of Bush-era tax cuts.
Despite the gridlock that’s paralyzed Washington since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 elections, Obama thinks his reelection would make it more likely that he could reach agreements with them. With him in office for another four years and no more, he thinks, the Republican “fever” would break.
“My hope and my expectation is that after the election, now that it turns out the goal of beating Obama doesn’t make much sense because I’m not running again, that we can start getting some cooperation again,” he said earlier this summer.
Fiscal policy would be Job One from the moment of reelection.
The government faces a “fiscal cliff” of scheduled tax increases and spending cuts at the end of this year. If he and Congress can’t reach a permanent agreement this year, the face-off will carry into his second term and a new session of Congress.
That could “impede anything else he wants to do,” said William Galston, a former advisor to President Bill Clinton who’s a scholar at the Brookings Institution.
Beyond the must-do, much of what Obama hopes to accomplish may depend on its reception in Congress, where a Republican-led House has blocked most of his agenda.
“The question is, do Republicans see success in continuing a scorched-earth strategy, or do they figure since Obama won’t be on the ticket, they’ll agree to get some things done and make themselves look a little better,” said Tom Perriello, a former Democratic congressman from Virginia who’s the president of the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a left-of-center think tank with close ties to the administration.
“The ball is still somewhat going to be in their court.”
Perriello expects Obama to keep pushing for new spending on infrastructure, clean energy and education in a bid to goose the economy.
The president has cited budget deficit reduction, the highway transportation bill and immigration as areas where he and Republicans could find common ground. And, he said that if the Republican “fever” were to break, he’d hope for support for clean energy and energy efficiency.
White House energy legislation cleared the then-Democratic-controlled House in 2009, but it never advanced. Obama rarely raises the issue.
Environmentalists hope that a second term would lead to substantial climate-change legislation.
“Looking back in 20 years, what does or does not happen in terms of climate change could be a defining indicator of success for his administration, and we’ve told them that,” said Michael Brune, the Sierra Club’s executive director. “The challenge is that we have to go a lot further and a lot more quickly.”
Obama says he’d push for immigration restructuring if he’s reelected, after disappointing many Hispanic advocacy groups that had hoped for sweeping immigration revisions in his first term. “I can promise that I will try to do it in the first year of my second term,” he told Univision in April.
Immigration advocates applauded his decision in June to stop deporting some young undocumented students and workers, but they said there is still the problem of nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants.
“It’s fair to say there’s some unfinished business,” said Eric Rodriguez, the vice president of public policy at the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights organization with close ties to the administration. He hasn’t had talks with the administration about its plan, but he said second terms often came with thoughts of the presidents’ legacies. Also, insiders think that an Obama reelection with two-thirds of the vital Hispanic vote could bring Republicans to the table.
“There’s that early part of a second term where there may be greater political capital to expend some energy on an issue that could be a signature accomplishment,” Rodriguez said.
Second terms often are marked by a focus on foreign policy, particularly as presidents halfway through their second terms begin to be viewed as “lame ducks,” their power diminishing as they approach the ends of their administrations.
Obama has a number of unfinished foreign-policy entanglements: He’s pledged to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, but that’s been complicated by a spike in the number of attacks on coalition troops by Afghan security forces.
A year after he demanded that Syrian leader Bashar Assad step down, the country remains in turmoil and the U.S. seems to have few solutions.
Obama also has been unable to prevent Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear enrichment program that the U.S. and Israel fear will result in a nuclear-armed Iran.
The following rich liberals have all used legal tax shelters to legally lower their taxes
September 3, 2012.
The following rich liberals have all used legal tax shelters to legally lower their taxes:
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
The Weekly Standard reports:
Disclosure forms reveal that Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of Congress from Florida, previously held funds with investments in Swiss banks, foreign drug companies, and the state bank of India. This revelation comes mere days after the Democratic chair attacked presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for holding money in Swiss bank accounts in the past.
Nancy Pelosi
The Daily Caller reports:
According to Pelosi’s 2011 financial disclosure statement, the Democratic House Minority Leader received between $1 million and $5 million in partnership income from ”Matthews International Capital Management LLC,” a group that emphasizes that it has a “A Singular Focus on Investing in Asia.”A quick trip to the company website reveals a featured post extolling the virtues of outsourcing.
Valerie Jarrett
fireandreamitchell.com reports:
Top Obama adviser and BFF Valerie Jarrett has a line of credit from a Bermuda insurance company valued between $100,000 and a quarter of a million dollars.
Barack Obama
Fox News reports:
President Obama and his wife, Michele, gave a total of $48,000 in tax-free gifts to their daughters, according to tax records made public on Friday.The president and his wife separately gave each daughter a $12,000 gift under a section of the federal tax code that exempts such donations from federal taxes.There is nothing illegal about the president’s taking advantage of this tax shelter, but it does raise eyebrows given that he has lamented the myriad tax exemptions used by the wealthy—“millionaires and billionaires” like himself—to pay less in taxes.
Noam Chomsky
The Hoover Institution reports:
One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky’s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the “massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich” and criticized the concentration of wealth in “trusts” by the wealthiest 1 percent. The American tax code is rigged with “complicated devices for ensuring that the poor—like 80 percent of the population—pay off the rich.”
But trusts can’t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston’s venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in “income-tax planning,” set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.
Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution—just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.
When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: “I don’t apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren,” he wrote in one e-mail. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam.
John Kerry
The Boston Globe reports:
Documents obtained by the Globe detail John Kerry’s 1983 investment of between $25,000 and $30,000 in offshore companies registered in the Cayman Islands. The document below, signed by Kerry, shows his pledge to purchase 2,470 shares of Peabody Commodities Trading Corp. through Sytel Traders, registered in the Caymans.
Barney Frank
National Review reports:
When Massachusetts cut its top tax rate to 5.3 percent in 2001, it let guilty liberals pay the old 5.85 percent rate if they wished… Pro-tax U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) spurned the higher rate. “No, I won’t” pay some $800 extra, Frank told Boston radio host Howie Carr in April 2003.
Michael Moore
ihatethemedia.com reports:
Moore’s most recent effort, Capitalism: A Love Story, took aim at businesses that used shelters to avoid paying taxes and took government bailouts during the market crash.
The thing is, Moore used similar tactics, taking advantage of a Michigan tax break to fund the making of his film–which raked in millions, by the way. Michigan taxpayers–already hit hard with the collapsing auto industry–were left holding the funny money bag for that one.
Bill Clinton
USA Today reports:
Former president Bill Clinton once made public a tax return on which he deducted $2 apiece for donated underwear.
Source: Dan From Squirrel Hill
The following rich liberals have all used legal tax shelters to legally lower their taxes:
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
The Weekly Standard reports:
Disclosure forms reveal that Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of Congress from Florida, previously held funds with investments in Swiss banks, foreign drug companies, and the state bank of India. This revelation comes mere days after the Democratic chair attacked presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for holding money in Swiss bank accounts in the past.
Nancy Pelosi
The Daily Caller reports:
According to Pelosi’s 2011 financial disclosure statement, the Democratic House Minority Leader received between $1 million and $5 million in partnership income from ”Matthews International Capital Management LLC,” a group that emphasizes that it has a “A Singular Focus on Investing in Asia.”A quick trip to the company website reveals a featured post extolling the virtues of outsourcing.
Valerie Jarrett
fireandreamitchell.com reports:
Top Obama adviser and BFF Valerie Jarrett has a line of credit from a Bermuda insurance company valued between $100,000 and a quarter of a million dollars.
Barack Obama
Fox News reports:
President Obama and his wife, Michele, gave a total of $48,000 in tax-free gifts to their daughters, according to tax records made public on Friday.The president and his wife separately gave each daughter a $12,000 gift under a section of the federal tax code that exempts such donations from federal taxes.There is nothing illegal about the president’s taking advantage of this tax shelter, but it does raise eyebrows given that he has lamented the myriad tax exemptions used by the wealthy—“millionaires and billionaires” like himself—to pay less in taxes.
Noam Chomsky
The Hoover Institution reports:
One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky’s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the “massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich” and criticized the concentration of wealth in “trusts” by the wealthiest 1 percent. The American tax code is rigged with “complicated devices for ensuring that the poor—like 80 percent of the population—pay off the rich.”
But trusts can’t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston’s venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in “income-tax planning,” set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.
Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution—just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.
When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: “I don’t apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren,” he wrote in one e-mail. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam.
John Kerry
The Boston Globe reports:
Documents obtained by the Globe detail John Kerry’s 1983 investment of between $25,000 and $30,000 in offshore companies registered in the Cayman Islands. The document below, signed by Kerry, shows his pledge to purchase 2,470 shares of Peabody Commodities Trading Corp. through Sytel Traders, registered in the Caymans.
Barney Frank
National Review reports:
When Massachusetts cut its top tax rate to 5.3 percent in 2001, it let guilty liberals pay the old 5.85 percent rate if they wished… Pro-tax U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) spurned the higher rate. “No, I won’t” pay some $800 extra, Frank told Boston radio host Howie Carr in April 2003.
Michael Moore
ihatethemedia.com reports:
Moore’s most recent effort, Capitalism: A Love Story, took aim at businesses that used shelters to avoid paying taxes and took government bailouts during the market crash.
The thing is, Moore used similar tactics, taking advantage of a Michigan tax break to fund the making of his film–which raked in millions, by the way. Michigan taxpayers–already hit hard with the collapsing auto industry–were left holding the funny money bag for that one.
Bill Clinton
USA Today reports:
Former president Bill Clinton once made public a tax return on which he deducted $2 apiece for donated underwear.
Source: Dan From Squirrel Hill
Roger Ebert reviewed seven movies this weekend, but not “2016: Obama’s America”
Note: At the end of this posting I have added updates, which are in bold, including Roger Ebert’s responses to me from his blog.
This is Roger Ebert’s website. For the weekend of Friday, August 24, 2012, he has written reviews of seven new movies.
All seven of those reviews are actually dated Wednesday, August 22, 2012.
As I sit here writing this, it is Friday evening, August 24, 2012, and his website does not have a review for 2016: Obama’s America.
I suppose it’s possible that the movie was not available early for critics in Chicago to see. If that’s the case, then his review should be up tomorrow, August 25, 2012. (Update: It is now Saturday afternoon, August 25, and he has still not reviewed the movie. )
Over at one of Roger Ebert’s blog entries, I asked him:
Roger, when will I get to have the privilege of reading your review of the new film “2016: Obama’s America”?
He answered:
At such time as it opens theatrically here.
I responded with the following. Since I just submitted it, it has not yet been approved by Ebert:
So you’re saying that the movie which is number one all over the country is not playing in any theaters in one of biggest cities in the country? I can’t recall that ever happening before.
Actually, it’s playing at FOURTEEN different Chicago theaters:
http://www.google.com/movies?hl=en&near=chicago&dq=where+in+chicago+is+%222016+obama%27s+america%22+playing&sort=1&mid=d65eeebaa6d36b72&sa=X&ei=bxs4UI2cEef00gHMhYHwDw&ved=0CEYQwAMoHg
Showtimes
AMC Showplace Galewood 14
5530 W. Homer Blvd, Chicago, IL
10:15am 12:45 3:15 5:45 8:15 10:45pm
AMC Showplace Village Crossing 18
7000 Carpenter Road, Skokie, IL
11:40am 2:10 4:50 7:30 10:10pm
Regal Gardens 7-13
4999 Old Orchard Center, Skokie, IL
12:10 2:40 5:10 7:30 9:50pm
AMC Loews Quarry Cinemas 14
9201 63rd St., Hodgkins, IL
11:35am 1:50 4:05 6:20 8:40pm
AMC Loews Crestwood 18
13221 Rivercrest Drive, Crestwood, IL
10:15am 12:40 3:00 5:30 7:50 10:30pm
AMC Showplace Niles 12
301 Golf Mill Center, Niles, IL
10:25am 12:55 3:25 5:45 8:05 10:25pm
AMC Loews Country Club Hills 16
4201 W.167th St., Country Club Hills, IL
11:00am 1:45 4:15 7:20 9:45pm
AMC Northbrook Court 14
1525 Lake Cook Road, Northbrook, IL
10:35am 1:05 3:45 6:15 8:30pm
AMC Randhurst 12
200 Randhurst Village Drive, Mount Prospect, IL
11:30am 1:50 4:20 7:40 10:20pm
AMC Yorktown 17
80 Yorktown Shopping Ctr, Lombard, IL
11:50am 2:30 4:55 7:25 9:55pm
Marcus Addison Cinema
1555 West Lake Street, Addison, IL
12:55 3:15 5:30 7:50 10:05pm
AMC Loews Woodridge 18
10000 Woodward Ave., Woodridge, IL
11:00am 1:20 3:40 6:00 8:20 10:40pm
AMC Loews Streets of Woodfield 20
601 N. Martingale Road, Schaumburg, IL
11:05am 1:30 3:50 6:20 9:00pm
Cinemark at Seven Bridges
6500 Route 53, Woodridge, IL
12:10 2:30 4:50 7:10 9:30 11:45pm
http://www.deadline.com/2012/08/first-box-office-anti-obama-movie-1/
FIRST BOX OFFICE: Anti-Obama Movie #1
By NIKKI FINKE
August 24, 2012
FRIDAY 2 PM: The anti-Obama movie 2016 Obama’s America went into wider release around America today and is opening right now in first place at the domestic box office. That’s quite a feat since the Rocky Mountain Pictures political documentary is still playing in only 1,090 North American theaters – or about 1/3 as many theaters as big-budget actioner The Expendables 2 (3,355 theaters).
Like I said above, I suppose it’s possible that the movie was not available early for critics in Chicago to see. If that’s the case, then his review should be up tomorrow.
Update: Roger Ebert has responded to my blog posting at his blog with the following:
Thanks for the info. Those are in outlying suburbs or cities. The distributors offered no screenings or screeners and did not announce the opening. A 40-mile round trip isn’t that easy for me. If they want to spend a couple of bucks to mail me a screener, that would be nice.
OK. So there really are no theaters in Chicago that are playing the movie. That’s a big surprise for such a major city, but it is certainly a legitimate explanation on Roger’s part.
Update #2: On September 3, 2012, I posted the following at Ebert’s blog:
Roger, “2016: Obama’s America” is now playing at a theater which (according to mapquest) is less than one mile from the Chicago-Sun Times. When will we be able to read your review?
AMC Loews 600 North Michigan 9
600 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL
10:25am 12:50 3:10 5:30 7:55 10:20pm
Ebert responded:
Didn’t know that. They must have just opened it. I’m going to the Toronto film festival, and in preparation have had 15 screenings in the last seven days. Why are you so obsessed with this?
I told him I don’t know why I’m so obsessed.
This is Roger Ebert’s website. For the weekend of Friday, August 24, 2012, he has written reviews of seven new movies.
All seven of those reviews are actually dated Wednesday, August 22, 2012.
As I sit here writing this, it is Friday evening, August 24, 2012, and his website does not have a review for 2016: Obama’s America.
I suppose it’s possible that the movie was not available early for critics in Chicago to see. If that’s the case, then his review should be up tomorrow, August 25, 2012. (Update: It is now Saturday afternoon, August 25, and he has still not reviewed the movie. )
Over at one of Roger Ebert’s blog entries, I asked him:
Roger, when will I get to have the privilege of reading your review of the new film “2016: Obama’s America”?
He answered:
At such time as it opens theatrically here.
I responded with the following. Since I just submitted it, it has not yet been approved by Ebert:
So you’re saying that the movie which is number one all over the country is not playing in any theaters in one of biggest cities in the country? I can’t recall that ever happening before.
Actually, it’s playing at FOURTEEN different Chicago theaters:
http://www.google.com/movies?hl=en&near=chicago&dq=where+in+chicago+is+%222016+obama%27s+america%22+playing&sort=1&mid=d65eeebaa6d36b72&sa=X&ei=bxs4UI2cEef00gHMhYHwDw&ved=0CEYQwAMoHg
Showtimes
AMC Showplace Galewood 14
5530 W. Homer Blvd, Chicago, IL
10:15am 12:45 3:15 5:45 8:15 10:45pm
AMC Showplace Village Crossing 18
7000 Carpenter Road, Skokie, IL
11:40am 2:10 4:50 7:30 10:10pm
Regal Gardens 7-13
4999 Old Orchard Center, Skokie, IL
12:10 2:40 5:10 7:30 9:50pm
AMC Loews Quarry Cinemas 14
9201 63rd St., Hodgkins, IL
11:35am 1:50 4:05 6:20 8:40pm
AMC Loews Crestwood 18
13221 Rivercrest Drive, Crestwood, IL
10:15am 12:40 3:00 5:30 7:50 10:30pm
AMC Showplace Niles 12
301 Golf Mill Center, Niles, IL
10:25am 12:55 3:25 5:45 8:05 10:25pm
AMC Loews Country Club Hills 16
4201 W.167th St., Country Club Hills, IL
11:00am 1:45 4:15 7:20 9:45pm
AMC Northbrook Court 14
1525 Lake Cook Road, Northbrook, IL
10:35am 1:05 3:45 6:15 8:30pm
AMC Randhurst 12
200 Randhurst Village Drive, Mount Prospect, IL
11:30am 1:50 4:20 7:40 10:20pm
AMC Yorktown 17
80 Yorktown Shopping Ctr, Lombard, IL
11:50am 2:30 4:55 7:25 9:55pm
Marcus Addison Cinema
1555 West Lake Street, Addison, IL
12:55 3:15 5:30 7:50 10:05pm
AMC Loews Woodridge 18
10000 Woodward Ave., Woodridge, IL
11:00am 1:20 3:40 6:00 8:20 10:40pm
AMC Loews Streets of Woodfield 20
601 N. Martingale Road, Schaumburg, IL
11:05am 1:30 3:50 6:20 9:00pm
Cinemark at Seven Bridges
6500 Route 53, Woodridge, IL
12:10 2:30 4:50 7:10 9:30 11:45pm
http://www.deadline.com/2012/08/first-box-office-anti-obama-movie-1/
FIRST BOX OFFICE: Anti-Obama Movie #1
By NIKKI FINKE
August 24, 2012
FRIDAY 2 PM: The anti-Obama movie 2016 Obama’s America went into wider release around America today and is opening right now in first place at the domestic box office. That’s quite a feat since the Rocky Mountain Pictures political documentary is still playing in only 1,090 North American theaters – or about 1/3 as many theaters as big-budget actioner The Expendables 2 (3,355 theaters).
Like I said above, I suppose it’s possible that the movie was not available early for critics in Chicago to see. If that’s the case, then his review should be up tomorrow.
Update: Roger Ebert has responded to my blog posting at his blog with the following:
Thanks for the info. Those are in outlying suburbs or cities. The distributors offered no screenings or screeners and did not announce the opening. A 40-mile round trip isn’t that easy for me. If they want to spend a couple of bucks to mail me a screener, that would be nice.
OK. So there really are no theaters in Chicago that are playing the movie. That’s a big surprise for such a major city, but it is certainly a legitimate explanation on Roger’s part.
Update #2: On September 3, 2012, I posted the following at Ebert’s blog:
Roger, “2016: Obama’s America” is now playing at a theater which (according to mapquest) is less than one mile from the Chicago-Sun Times. When will we be able to read your review?
AMC Loews 600 North Michigan 9
600 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL
10:25am 12:50 3:10 5:30 7:55 10:20pm
Ebert responded:
Didn’t know that. They must have just opened it. I’m going to the Toronto film festival, and in preparation have had 15 screenings in the last seven days. Why are you so obsessed with this?
I told him I don’t know why I’m so obsessed.
War On Cats: Beware of the cat: Britain's hidden toxoplasma problem
New research shows 350,000 Britons a year are being infected with pet-borne parasite linked with schizophrenia and increased suicide risk
Steve Connor
Tuesday 04 September 2012
UK Independent:
A parasite spread by cats is infecting 1,000 new people every day in Britain – about 350,000 a year – according to an official assessment of the risks posed by toxoplasma, which can cause serious illness and has been tentatively linked with schizophrenia and other psychotic disturbances.
In news that will challenge public perceptions about the country's most popular pet, official figures to be published later this week will reveal the shocking levels of infection within the UK human population of Toxoplasma gondii, a microscopic parasite that forms cysts in the human brain and other vital organs of the body.
Toxoplasma infections come either through direct contact with cats or from eating contaminated meat or vegetables, tests on British blood donors have revealed.
Although the clinical signs can be mild, risk groups, such as pregnant patients with compromised immune systems, can suffer very serious side-effects, leading to congenital birth deformities, blindness, dementia and even death.
The true scale of the hidden problem has shocked experts who believe not enough is being done to warn the public of the known risks posed by toxoplasma, which they judge to be one of the worst food-borne illnesses because of the severity of its effects.
Some experts call in The Independent today for the condition to be made a notifiable disease in England and Wales – meaning that medical staff must be put on alert – bringing the two countries on a par with Scotland, where infections must be reported on a national database. Others question whether families with young children should have pet cats, while some say advice on cooking lamb and preparing vegetables should be changed.
In addition to infections caused by direct contact with cats, people can pick up the parasite by eating the meat of infected animals or from raw vegetables that have not been washed properly to rid them of any toxoplasma eggs contaminating the soil.
About 80 per cent of infected people show no obvious symptoms of toxoplasma and are completely unaware that they are harbouring the parasite. However, new estimates suggest that up to 70,000 people a year in the UK develop some kind of symptoms.
Experts are especially concerned about the emerging scientific evidence suggesting that apparently healthy people with toxoplasma may still be affected unwittingly by the parasite, even when they show no obvious clinical symptoms.
A number of small-scale studies suggest that toxoplasma infection may alter people's personality, making them more prone to risk-taking or delayed reaction times. Studies have also linked toxoplasma infection to psychotic disturbances such as self-harm and suicide, and to serious psychiatric illnesses such as schizophrenia.
This week the Food Standards Agency (FSA) will publish a "risk profile" of toxoplasma in the food chain, The Independent has learnt.
The group of experts commissioned to write the report estimates that 350,000 new toxoplasma infections occur each year in the UK, most of them probably from eating contaminated food.
Experts contacted by The Independent have urged the FSA to review its advice to pregnant women and immune-compromised patients and have strongly advised it to change its policy stating that it is safe for people to eat rare lamb.
Sheep are thought to pick up the parasite by eating pasture grass or concentrated feed that is contaminated with cat faeces and preliminary studies indicate that nearly 70 per cent of British sheep have been exposed to the feline parasite.
Although pregnant women and patients with compromised immune systems are warned to avoid pink meat, the FSA's chief scientist, Andrew Wadge, said that it is safe for people to serve lamb rare, even though one study found that two thirds of lamb samples from one Manchester butcher tested positive for toxoplasma.
"People traditionally eat and enjoy lamb cooked rare, the same as beef. That's how people enjoy it and for most people that is perfectly safe," Dr Wadge said.
"Our advice is always on the basis of what we know and the science changes. I'm not going to tell you about the safety of lamb based on another five or ten years of research, I'm going to tell you what I know now, and there is a long history of people eating rare lamb without any adverse consequences," he said.
However, other experts warned that much of the lamb sold in British supermarkets is likely to be contaminated with toxoplasma cysts in the muscle tissue, which can survive cooking when meat is served pink.
"I would steer very well clear of rare lamb. I would certainly not recommend eating rare lamb," said Barbara Lund, a microbiologist at the Institute of Food Research in Norwich.
"Regarding the comment that it is safe to serve whole cuts of beef and lamb rare as long as they have been properly cooked on the outside, it is not clear to me that we can be confident of this advice for sheep meat," Dr Lund said.
Fuller Torrey, an expert on schizophrenia and toxoplasma at America's Stanley Medical Research Institute in Maryland, said that the seriousness of the potential risks posed by the parasite to the general public means that all meat should be cooked thoroughly to kill parasitic cysts lying dormant within muscle tissue.
"Eating any meat that is rare or undercooked is not safe. I would not advise anyone to eat undercooked meat given what we know and don't know about this organism," Dr Torrey said.
Richard Holliman, a consultant medical microbiologist at St George's Hospital in London, who chaired the FSA's working group on toxoplasma, said that based on existing scientific evidence it is not yet justified to change the official advice on the safety of eating rare lamb for the general public.
"Certainly for pregnant women, the advice is to eat meat that has been thoroughly cooked through, but it's difficult to advise the wider population because you have to balance the risk against people's personal tastes," Dr Holliman said
"Some people enjoy food if the meat it not well done. To them it would be a disbenefit to cook meat until it is well done," he said.
Dr Holliman pointed out that vegetarians also suffer from high levels of toxoplasma infection which indicates that meat is not the only source of food-borne contamination.
"Toxoplasma infects a lot of people but only has an impact in terms of lifestyle on a small proportion of them," Dr Holliman said.
"Toxoplasma is more important, or as important as salmonella and campylobacter, which affect a lot of people. Toxoplasma affects a few people but when it does affect them it can be devastating. A child born with congenital toxoplasma is damaged for life," he said.
Steve Connor
Tuesday 04 September 2012
UK Independent:
A parasite spread by cats is infecting 1,000 new people every day in Britain – about 350,000 a year – according to an official assessment of the risks posed by toxoplasma, which can cause serious illness and has been tentatively linked with schizophrenia and other psychotic disturbances.
In news that will challenge public perceptions about the country's most popular pet, official figures to be published later this week will reveal the shocking levels of infection within the UK human population of Toxoplasma gondii, a microscopic parasite that forms cysts in the human brain and other vital organs of the body.
Toxoplasma infections come either through direct contact with cats or from eating contaminated meat or vegetables, tests on British blood donors have revealed.
Although the clinical signs can be mild, risk groups, such as pregnant patients with compromised immune systems, can suffer very serious side-effects, leading to congenital birth deformities, blindness, dementia and even death.
The true scale of the hidden problem has shocked experts who believe not enough is being done to warn the public of the known risks posed by toxoplasma, which they judge to be one of the worst food-borne illnesses because of the severity of its effects.
Some experts call in The Independent today for the condition to be made a notifiable disease in England and Wales – meaning that medical staff must be put on alert – bringing the two countries on a par with Scotland, where infections must be reported on a national database. Others question whether families with young children should have pet cats, while some say advice on cooking lamb and preparing vegetables should be changed.
In addition to infections caused by direct contact with cats, people can pick up the parasite by eating the meat of infected animals or from raw vegetables that have not been washed properly to rid them of any toxoplasma eggs contaminating the soil.
About 80 per cent of infected people show no obvious symptoms of toxoplasma and are completely unaware that they are harbouring the parasite. However, new estimates suggest that up to 70,000 people a year in the UK develop some kind of symptoms.
Experts are especially concerned about the emerging scientific evidence suggesting that apparently healthy people with toxoplasma may still be affected unwittingly by the parasite, even when they show no obvious clinical symptoms.
A number of small-scale studies suggest that toxoplasma infection may alter people's personality, making them more prone to risk-taking or delayed reaction times. Studies have also linked toxoplasma infection to psychotic disturbances such as self-harm and suicide, and to serious psychiatric illnesses such as schizophrenia.
This week the Food Standards Agency (FSA) will publish a "risk profile" of toxoplasma in the food chain, The Independent has learnt.
The group of experts commissioned to write the report estimates that 350,000 new toxoplasma infections occur each year in the UK, most of them probably from eating contaminated food.
Experts contacted by The Independent have urged the FSA to review its advice to pregnant women and immune-compromised patients and have strongly advised it to change its policy stating that it is safe for people to eat rare lamb.
Sheep are thought to pick up the parasite by eating pasture grass or concentrated feed that is contaminated with cat faeces and preliminary studies indicate that nearly 70 per cent of British sheep have been exposed to the feline parasite.
Although pregnant women and patients with compromised immune systems are warned to avoid pink meat, the FSA's chief scientist, Andrew Wadge, said that it is safe for people to serve lamb rare, even though one study found that two thirds of lamb samples from one Manchester butcher tested positive for toxoplasma.
"People traditionally eat and enjoy lamb cooked rare, the same as beef. That's how people enjoy it and for most people that is perfectly safe," Dr Wadge said.
"Our advice is always on the basis of what we know and the science changes. I'm not going to tell you about the safety of lamb based on another five or ten years of research, I'm going to tell you what I know now, and there is a long history of people eating rare lamb without any adverse consequences," he said.
However, other experts warned that much of the lamb sold in British supermarkets is likely to be contaminated with toxoplasma cysts in the muscle tissue, which can survive cooking when meat is served pink.
"I would steer very well clear of rare lamb. I would certainly not recommend eating rare lamb," said Barbara Lund, a microbiologist at the Institute of Food Research in Norwich.
"Regarding the comment that it is safe to serve whole cuts of beef and lamb rare as long as they have been properly cooked on the outside, it is not clear to me that we can be confident of this advice for sheep meat," Dr Lund said.
Fuller Torrey, an expert on schizophrenia and toxoplasma at America's Stanley Medical Research Institute in Maryland, said that the seriousness of the potential risks posed by the parasite to the general public means that all meat should be cooked thoroughly to kill parasitic cysts lying dormant within muscle tissue.
"Eating any meat that is rare or undercooked is not safe. I would not advise anyone to eat undercooked meat given what we know and don't know about this organism," Dr Torrey said.
Richard Holliman, a consultant medical microbiologist at St George's Hospital in London, who chaired the FSA's working group on toxoplasma, said that based on existing scientific evidence it is not yet justified to change the official advice on the safety of eating rare lamb for the general public.
"Certainly for pregnant women, the advice is to eat meat that has been thoroughly cooked through, but it's difficult to advise the wider population because you have to balance the risk against people's personal tastes," Dr Holliman said
"Some people enjoy food if the meat it not well done. To them it would be a disbenefit to cook meat until it is well done," he said.
Dr Holliman pointed out that vegetarians also suffer from high levels of toxoplasma infection which indicates that meat is not the only source of food-borne contamination.
"Toxoplasma infects a lot of people but only has an impact in terms of lifestyle on a small proportion of them," Dr Holliman said.
"Toxoplasma is more important, or as important as salmonella and campylobacter, which affect a lot of people. Toxoplasma affects a few people but when it does affect them it can be devastating. A child born with congenital toxoplasma is damaged for life," he said.
‘2016: Obama’s America’ shocks film industry after becoming a box office success despite having virtually no promotional budget
Conservative scholar Diniseh D'Souza's film has shocked industry prognosticators by earning an estimated $20 million to date, more than five times what the second-highest documentary this year, "Bully," earned.
By Ethan Sacks
Monday, September 3, 2012, 12:42 PM
2016TheMovie: Scene from Dinesh D'Souza's '2016: Obama's America 2016.'
New York Daily News - While pundits and critics are divided over whether "2016: Obama's America" is a sobering documentary examining "the most mysterious U.S. president in modern history" or an 87-minute attack ad, there's no debating that the film is a box office phenomenon.
Taking a page from his own book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," conservative scholar Diniseh D'Souza's film has shocked industry prognosticators by earning an estimated $20 million to date, more than five times what the second-highest documentary this year, "Bully," earned. With virtually no promotional budget, the film has expanded in a little over a month from one theater in Houston to 1747 screens this weekend.
"People see the success and they think we have the marketing budget of 'Dark Knight Rises,' we probably don't even have the catering budget of the 'Dark Knight,'" co-director John Sullivan, who helped craft the promotional plan, told the News.
So they had to rely on the choir preaching to an even bigger choir. Sullivan says ahead of the film's mid-July opening at the Edward Houston Marq'E Stadium 23 & IMAX, local right-wing radio host Michael Berry championed the film with an all-out publicity blitz on his show.
Roughly 200 movie-goers were turned away from the sold out shows that weekend, a theater manager told the Hollywood Reporter.
From there, the film opened in three additional Houston-area theaters, then a handful of other cities in the reddest of states. It helped that by the time it jumped onto 1,071 screens last weekend, it didn't have to go toe-to-toe with Batman or Iron Man.
"This is a case of good timing," says Paul Dergarabedian, box office analyst for Hollywood.com. "If it would have come out even two weeks earlier, it would have been swamped by the big blockbusters."
Through the week of the Republican National Convention, D'Souza and producer Gerald Molen, who won an Academy Award for "Schindler's List," have been doing dozens of interviews. Along the way they picked up some key endorsements from the likes of Glen Beck and Rupert Murdoch.
Despite the clearly partisan image surrounding the film, Mark Joseph, whose firm MJM Entertainment is handling marketing of the film, insists the ticket-buyers aren't all coming from one side of the great political divide.
"The producers did some testing early on that yielded some surprising and counterintuitive results: it played very well among non-whites and independents," said Joseph by email. "There was speculation that that could be because Dinesh is himself a native of India and the high marks from independents were because he rejects birtherism and gives no quarter to the suggestion that the President isn't a Christian."
"The Passion of The Christ audience was roughly half very devout and half not so devout," says Joseph. "The latter wanted to see what the fuss was about."
But it's clear this film taps into Republican dissatisfaction with President Obama - not unlike the rage Democrats felt in 2004 that Michael Moore tapped with "Fahrenheit 9/11."
We knew this would be a word-of-mouth movie, because we knew we didn't have the marketing budget that say a Paramount or a Sony would have," said Sullivan.
"Yes, we don't have any stars, but we have a recognizable figure at the heart of this movie - President Obama - so from that standpoint you have almost 100% name recognition."
By Ethan Sacks
Monday, September 3, 2012, 12:42 PM
New York Daily News - While pundits and critics are divided over whether "2016: Obama's America" is a sobering documentary examining "the most mysterious U.S. president in modern history" or an 87-minute attack ad, there's no debating that the film is a box office phenomenon.
Taking a page from his own book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," conservative scholar Diniseh D'Souza's film has shocked industry prognosticators by earning an estimated $20 million to date, more than five times what the second-highest documentary this year, "Bully," earned. With virtually no promotional budget, the film has expanded in a little over a month from one theater in Houston to 1747 screens this weekend.
"People see the success and they think we have the marketing budget of 'Dark Knight Rises,' we probably don't even have the catering budget of the 'Dark Knight,'" co-director John Sullivan, who helped craft the promotional plan, told the News.
So they had to rely on the choir preaching to an even bigger choir. Sullivan says ahead of the film's mid-July opening at the Edward Houston Marq'E Stadium 23 & IMAX, local right-wing radio host Michael Berry championed the film with an all-out publicity blitz on his show.
Roughly 200 movie-goers were turned away from the sold out shows that weekend, a theater manager told the Hollywood Reporter.
From there, the film opened in three additional Houston-area theaters, then a handful of other cities in the reddest of states. It helped that by the time it jumped onto 1,071 screens last weekend, it didn't have to go toe-to-toe with Batman or Iron Man.
"This is a case of good timing," says Paul Dergarabedian, box office analyst for Hollywood.com. "If it would have come out even two weeks earlier, it would have been swamped by the big blockbusters."
Through the week of the Republican National Convention, D'Souza and producer Gerald Molen, who won an Academy Award for "Schindler's List," have been doing dozens of interviews. Along the way they picked up some key endorsements from the likes of Glen Beck and Rupert Murdoch.
Despite the clearly partisan image surrounding the film, Mark Joseph, whose firm MJM Entertainment is handling marketing of the film, insists the ticket-buyers aren't all coming from one side of the great political divide.
"The producers did some testing early on that yielded some surprising and counterintuitive results: it played very well among non-whites and independents," said Joseph by email. "There was speculation that that could be because Dinesh is himself a native of India and the high marks from independents were because he rejects birtherism and gives no quarter to the suggestion that the President isn't a Christian."
"The Passion of The Christ audience was roughly half very devout and half not so devout," says Joseph. "The latter wanted to see what the fuss was about."
But it's clear this film taps into Republican dissatisfaction with President Obama - not unlike the rage Democrats felt in 2004 that Michael Moore tapped with "Fahrenheit 9/11."
We knew this would be a word-of-mouth movie, because we knew we didn't have the marketing budget that say a Paramount or a Sony would have," said Sullivan.
"Yes, we don't have any stars, but we have a recognizable figure at the heart of this movie - President Obama - so from that standpoint you have almost 100% name recognition."
Hostage watch: Gov. O’Malley gets ‘Cory Bookered’ by Team Obama
That was fast!
Just yesterday, when asked if people are better off today than they were four years ago, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley answered with a clear “no.”
Today he was forced to retract his remark in a complete about-face. That’s what happens when Democrats don’t stick to the current script.
The Cory Booker comparison is irresistible.
Continue Reading>>
Sit back, put your feet up, and enjoy #EmptyChairDay!
3 Sept 12
As Twitchy reported earlier, conservatives are mobilizing today to celebrate National Empty Chair Day. Clint Eastwood’s much-buzzed-about RNC speech last week really got conservatives’ creative juices bubbling, and they erupted today in a glorious display of hilarity and snarkage.
But don’t take our word for it; feast your own eyes on the beauty>>
As Twitchy reported earlier, conservatives are mobilizing today to celebrate National Empty Chair Day. Clint Eastwood’s much-buzzed-about RNC speech last week really got conservatives’ creative juices bubbling, and they erupted today in a glorious display of hilarity and snarkage.
But don’t take our word for it; feast your own eyes on the beauty>>
Obama Punishing Victims of Hurricane Isaac. Avoiding Louisianna Republican Governor's Plea for Federal Help, Chooses to Campaign Instead of Alter Schedule to Visit Flood-Ravaged Areas
Is President Obama still trying to avoid Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal? Evidently he’s aware there was a devastating hurricane this week, but visiting the storm-torn areas doesn’t seem to be on his list of priorities.
Continue Reading>>
Continue Reading>>
Free Vacation for many S.C. Black Church Members and College Students
Dems bring in crowds by the busload to fill stadium for Obama speech
Published September 03, 2012
Associated Press
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – College students from across North Carolina will arrive in Charlotte by the busload. Same with members of predominantly black churches in neighboring South Carolina.
Their goal: help fill a 74,000-seat outdoor stadium to capacity when President Obama accepts the Democratic nomination Thursday night.
Anything short of a full house on the final night of the Democratic Party's national convention will be instant fodder for Republicans eager to use empty seats as symbols of waning voter enthusiasm for Obama.
Democrats have been fretting for months over whether the president can draw a capacity crowd at Bank of America Stadium. Polls show voter enthusiasm is down, as are Obama's crowds for his battleground state campaign rallies.
Obama advisers insist the stadium will be filled when Obama delivers his speech. Vice President Joe Biden also will speak Thursday night, along with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who will vouch for Obama's national security credentials.
"The response we've seen from the community has been incredible and it's obvious that people have a big interest in owning a piece of the most open and accessible convention in history," said Adam Fetcher, a campaign spokesman. "President Obama's speech on Thursday night will bring this election into focus for the American people, and it will be even more significant because so many North Carolinians will be there to see it."
Convention delegates, volunteers and other Democratic officials already in Charlotte for the party gathering could make up as much as one-third of the crowd. But filling the rest of the stadium is a piecemeal process.
Elena Botella, a student at Duke University and president of the College Democrats of North Carolina, said her school was busing 100 students to the speech.
Lonnie Randolph, the president of the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP, said several large black churches in his state are planning to send busloads of members on Thursday to watch the president's speech.
"There are plenty of people who wouldn't miss it for the world," Randolph said. "How often does this happen this close to South Carolina?"
Obama aides say several thousand tickets also have been given to new campaign volunteers in North Carolina. People who complete three volunteer shifts totaling nine hours got one ticket to the final speech.
The volunteer ticketing program also helps Obama boost his grassroots network in North Carolina, a battleground state he moved into the Democratic column in 2008 for the first time in nearly 40 years. But Obama is facing an uphill battle this time around in North Carolina, where the unemployment rate exceeds the national average and voters approved a gay marriage ban the day before the president announced his support for same-sex unions.
Thursday's event is certain to draw comparisons to 2008, when Obama accepted the Democratic nomination before a capacity crowd at an 84,000-seat stadium in Denver. There was little concern back then over whether Obama would fill the stadium, in part because he was easily attracting tens of thousands of people to his campaign rallies across the country.
This time around, Obama's crowds are far smaller. He drew his biggest audience at his campaign kick-off rally in May, a 14,000-person crowd at Ohio State University. About 13,000 people attended Obama's rally at the University of Colorado in Boulder Sunday.
The campaign says the size of Obama's events this summer have purposely been kept low. Large rallies are more expensive and security requirements are more intense for a sitting president than a candidate.
Convention organizers in Charlotte may have more control over the crowds than their other big concern: the weather. Heavy evening rains doused Charlotte over the weekend, and thunderstorms are in the forecast for Thursday.
Officials say the outdoor event will go on rain or shine, except if there is severe weather.
Published September 03, 2012
Associated Press
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – College students from across North Carolina will arrive in Charlotte by the busload. Same with members of predominantly black churches in neighboring South Carolina.
Their goal: help fill a 74,000-seat outdoor stadium to capacity when President Obama accepts the Democratic nomination Thursday night.
Anything short of a full house on the final night of the Democratic Party's national convention will be instant fodder for Republicans eager to use empty seats as symbols of waning voter enthusiasm for Obama.
Democrats have been fretting for months over whether the president can draw a capacity crowd at Bank of America Stadium. Polls show voter enthusiasm is down, as are Obama's crowds for his battleground state campaign rallies.
Obama advisers insist the stadium will be filled when Obama delivers his speech. Vice President Joe Biden also will speak Thursday night, along with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, who will vouch for Obama's national security credentials.
"The response we've seen from the community has been incredible and it's obvious that people have a big interest in owning a piece of the most open and accessible convention in history," said Adam Fetcher, a campaign spokesman. "President Obama's speech on Thursday night will bring this election into focus for the American people, and it will be even more significant because so many North Carolinians will be there to see it."
Convention delegates, volunteers and other Democratic officials already in Charlotte for the party gathering could make up as much as one-third of the crowd. But filling the rest of the stadium is a piecemeal process.
Elena Botella, a student at Duke University and president of the College Democrats of North Carolina, said her school was busing 100 students to the speech.
Lonnie Randolph, the president of the South Carolina chapter of the NAACP, said several large black churches in his state are planning to send busloads of members on Thursday to watch the president's speech.
"There are plenty of people who wouldn't miss it for the world," Randolph said. "How often does this happen this close to South Carolina?"
Obama aides say several thousand tickets also have been given to new campaign volunteers in North Carolina. People who complete three volunteer shifts totaling nine hours got one ticket to the final speech.
The volunteer ticketing program also helps Obama boost his grassroots network in North Carolina, a battleground state he moved into the Democratic column in 2008 for the first time in nearly 40 years. But Obama is facing an uphill battle this time around in North Carolina, where the unemployment rate exceeds the national average and voters approved a gay marriage ban the day before the president announced his support for same-sex unions.
Thursday's event is certain to draw comparisons to 2008, when Obama accepted the Democratic nomination before a capacity crowd at an 84,000-seat stadium in Denver. There was little concern back then over whether Obama would fill the stadium, in part because he was easily attracting tens of thousands of people to his campaign rallies across the country.
This time around, Obama's crowds are far smaller. He drew his biggest audience at his campaign kick-off rally in May, a 14,000-person crowd at Ohio State University. About 13,000 people attended Obama's rally at the University of Colorado in Boulder Sunday.
The campaign says the size of Obama's events this summer have purposely been kept low. Large rallies are more expensive and security requirements are more intense for a sitting president than a candidate.
Convention organizers in Charlotte may have more control over the crowds than their other big concern: the weather. Heavy evening rains doused Charlotte over the weekend, and thunderstorms are in the forecast for Thursday.
Officials say the outdoor event will go on rain or shine, except if there is severe weather.
Biden: 'If It Weren't So Hot I'd Go Into Detail' On How America's Better Off
(Breitbart.Com) - While at a campaign event in Detorit Joe Biden is forced to respond to the question of whether Americans are better off under Obama (September 3, 2012).
More Obama Lies Exposed! Turns out, Obama doesn't have Israels back, but Iran's....
Israeli Officials See Gap With U.S. Widening Over Iran
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images
By Calev Ben-David
Sep 3, 2012 11:54 AM GMT-0400
(BLOOMBERG) - Military action against Iran’s nuclear program could be averted if the international community sets a clear “red line” it will not permit Iran to cross, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said today.
Netanyahu’s comments came as the U.S. reportedly is considering making such a declaration to head off a possible Israeli strike on Iran. President Barack Obama has said the U.S. won’t allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, while Israeli leaders have said that Iran even attaining the capability to make them would pose an existential threat to their country.
“This is a brutal regime that is racing ahead with its nuclear program, because it doesn’t see a clear red line from the international community,” Netanyahu said today at a meeting in his Jerusalem office, according to an e-mailed statement. “The greater the resolve and the clearer the red line, the less likely we’ll have conflict.”
Obama is considering new steps to forestall a unilateral Israeli strike, including a declaration on what Iranian actions might trigger a U.S military response, the New York Times reported yesterday.
Netanyahu’s statement today came after Israeli officials expressed dismay over remarks last week by U.S. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that an Israeli strike would “delay but probably not destroy” Iran’s program, and that he doesn’t “want to be complicit” if Israel chooses to attack on its own. The two officials, who were not authorized to give their names, said that Dempsey’s comments had weakened the argument that Israel should not strike by Iran by itself because it can count on U.S. willingness to take military action to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons.
Quickened the Pace
The International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report last week that Iran has quickened the pace of enriching uranium to possible weapons capability, and that there was new information that supports concern Iran may have researched how to make nuclear arms.
“The report confirms what we have been saying for some time: while the international sanctions are indeed making things difficult for the Iranian economy, they are not delaying the progress,” Netanyahu said in a Cabinet meeting yesterday.
Netanyahu is scheduled to visit New York on Sept. 27 to speak at the United Nations General Assembly. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro told Channel Two television yesterday that the relationship between Obama and Netanyahu is “what it needs to be” and said the media are exaggerating the differences between the U.S. and Israel on Iran.
Disagreement With U.S.
The disagreement between Israel and the U.S. on Iran is “over timing, and regarding that, there are certainly our statements and opinions as opposed to those of the Americans,” Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom said today on Army Radio. “But there is no disagreement between us and the Americans over the need to stop Iran.’
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Aug. 31 in Tehran that his country’s nuclear program is intended for civilian purposes only and to use it to build weapons would be ‘‘a sin.”
Israeli and U.S. leaders have said repeatedly that “all options are on the table” to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, including a military strike. Netanyahu told U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Aug. 1 that time “is running out” for a peaceful solution to Iran’s atomic program.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told France’s BFM television today that he is “absolutely hostile to Iran having nuclear weapons, but I think that if there were an Israeli attack, unfortunately it could come back to haunt Israel by allowing Iran to cast itself as a victim.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Calev Ben-David in Jerusalem at cbendavid@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Andrew J. Barden at barden@bloomberg.net
By Calev Ben-David
Sep 3, 2012 11:54 AM GMT-0400
(BLOOMBERG) - Military action against Iran’s nuclear program could be averted if the international community sets a clear “red line” it will not permit Iran to cross, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said today.
Netanyahu’s comments came as the U.S. reportedly is considering making such a declaration to head off a possible Israeli strike on Iran. President Barack Obama has said the U.S. won’t allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, while Israeli leaders have said that Iran even attaining the capability to make them would pose an existential threat to their country.
“This is a brutal regime that is racing ahead with its nuclear program, because it doesn’t see a clear red line from the international community,” Netanyahu said today at a meeting in his Jerusalem office, according to an e-mailed statement. “The greater the resolve and the clearer the red line, the less likely we’ll have conflict.”
Obama is considering new steps to forestall a unilateral Israeli strike, including a declaration on what Iranian actions might trigger a U.S military response, the New York Times reported yesterday.
Netanyahu’s statement today came after Israeli officials expressed dismay over remarks last week by U.S. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that an Israeli strike would “delay but probably not destroy” Iran’s program, and that he doesn’t “want to be complicit” if Israel chooses to attack on its own. The two officials, who were not authorized to give their names, said that Dempsey’s comments had weakened the argument that Israel should not strike by Iran by itself because it can count on U.S. willingness to take military action to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons.
Quickened the Pace
The International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report last week that Iran has quickened the pace of enriching uranium to possible weapons capability, and that there was new information that supports concern Iran may have researched how to make nuclear arms.
“The report confirms what we have been saying for some time: while the international sanctions are indeed making things difficult for the Iranian economy, they are not delaying the progress,” Netanyahu said in a Cabinet meeting yesterday.
Netanyahu is scheduled to visit New York on Sept. 27 to speak at the United Nations General Assembly. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro told Channel Two television yesterday that the relationship between Obama and Netanyahu is “what it needs to be” and said the media are exaggerating the differences between the U.S. and Israel on Iran.
Disagreement With U.S.
The disagreement between Israel and the U.S. on Iran is “over timing, and regarding that, there are certainly our statements and opinions as opposed to those of the Americans,” Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom said today on Army Radio. “But there is no disagreement between us and the Americans over the need to stop Iran.’
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Aug. 31 in Tehran that his country’s nuclear program is intended for civilian purposes only and to use it to build weapons would be ‘‘a sin.”
Israeli and U.S. leaders have said repeatedly that “all options are on the table” to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, including a military strike. Netanyahu told U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Aug. 1 that time “is running out” for a peaceful solution to Iran’s atomic program.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius told France’s BFM television today that he is “absolutely hostile to Iran having nuclear weapons, but I think that if there were an Israeli attack, unfortunately it could come back to haunt Israel by allowing Iran to cast itself as a victim.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Calev Ben-David in Jerusalem at cbendavid@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Andrew J. Barden at barden@bloomberg.net
U.S. Nears Aid Deal to Relieve $1 Billion in Terrorist Organization Muslim Brotherhood's Debt
To Back "Democracy", U.S. Prepares to Cut $1 Billion From Egypt’s Debt
President Mohamed Morsi of Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood have made it clear that the struggling economy is their most urgent priority.
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: September 3, 2012
New York Times:
WASHINGTON — Nearly 16 months after first pledging to help Egypt’s failing economy, the Obama administration is nearing an agreement with the country’s new government to relieve $1 billion of its debt as part of an American and international assistance package intended to bolster its transition to democracy, administration officials said.
The administration’s efforts, delayed by Egypt’s political turmoil and by wariness in Washington about new leaders emerging from its first free elections, gained new urgency in recent weeks, even as the United States risks losing influence and investment opportunities to countries like China. President Mohamed Morsi chose China for his first official visit outside of the Middle East, although a spokesman said the crisis in Syria was the main issue driving the visit.
In addition to the debt assistance, the administration has thrown its support behind a $4.8 billion loan being negotiated between Egypt and the International Monetary Fund. Last week, it dispatched the first of two delegations to work out details of the proposed debt assistance, as well as $375 million in financing and loan guarantees for American financiers who invest in Egypt and a $60 million investment fund for Egyptian businesses.
The assistance underscores the importance of shoring up Egypt at a time of turmoil and change across the Middle East, including the relatively peaceful uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, Libya’s unfinished transition, the showdown over Iran’s nuclear program and the war in Syria.
Mr. Morsi has called for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to leave power and end the bloodshed there, while China, along with Russia and Iran, has been a supporter of Mr. Assad as his military assaults opposition strongholds and civilians.
Given Egypt’s influence in the Arab world, the officials said, its economic recovery and political stability could have a profound influence on other nations in transition and ease wariness in Israel about the tumultuous political changes under way.
The administration’s revived push came after Mr. Morsi won the presidency in June and overcame a constitutional showdown with the Egypt’s military rulers.
Mr. Morsi and his Islamic movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, have since made it clear that the struggling economy is their most urgent priority, brushing aside reservations about American and international assistance and outright opposition to it from other Islamic factions.
American officials say they have been surprised by how open Mr. Morsi and his advisers have been to economic changes, with a sharp focus on creating jobs.
“They sound like Republicans half the time,” one administration official said, referring to leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was long banned from office under the former president, Hosni Mubarak, a close American ally.
Hoping to capitalize on what they see as a ripening investment climate, the State Department and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will take executives from nearly 50 American companies, like Caterpillar and Xerox, to Cairo beginning Saturday as part of one of the largest trade delegations ever. The officials and executives will urge the government to make changes in taxation, bankruptcy and labor laws to improve the investment climate.
“It’s important for the U.S. to give Egypt a reason to look to the West, as well as the East,” said Lionel Johnson, the chamber’s vice president for the Middle East and North Africa.
From the start of the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt in 2011, President Obama and others argued that the United States and the rest of the world needed to address the poverty and joblessness that fueled popular anger and opposition to authoritarian governments in the region.
The assistance that Mr. Obama first pledged in a speech at the State Department in May 2011 has been slow in coming, because of the political turmoil and street unrest in Egypt, the sluggish bureaucracy in Washington and anger in Congress over the prosecution by Egypt of American nongovernmental organizations that promote democracy.
The delay has frustrated officials who fear that the United States has risked missing an opportunity to reshape a relationship that for decades was focused more on arms sales and security than on economic prosperity for a broad group of Egyptians.
“Our goal is to send a very strong message to Egypt that the government understands it’s not just about assistance,” Deputy Secretary of State Thomas R. Nides, who will travel with the Chamber of Commerce delegation, said in an interview. “It’s about growth and business.”
Next Page »
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: September 3, 2012
New York Times:
WASHINGTON — Nearly 16 months after first pledging to help Egypt’s failing economy, the Obama administration is nearing an agreement with the country’s new government to relieve $1 billion of its debt as part of an American and international assistance package intended to bolster its transition to democracy, administration officials said.
The administration’s efforts, delayed by Egypt’s political turmoil and by wariness in Washington about new leaders emerging from its first free elections, gained new urgency in recent weeks, even as the United States risks losing influence and investment opportunities to countries like China. President Mohamed Morsi chose China for his first official visit outside of the Middle East, although a spokesman said the crisis in Syria was the main issue driving the visit.
In addition to the debt assistance, the administration has thrown its support behind a $4.8 billion loan being negotiated between Egypt and the International Monetary Fund. Last week, it dispatched the first of two delegations to work out details of the proposed debt assistance, as well as $375 million in financing and loan guarantees for American financiers who invest in Egypt and a $60 million investment fund for Egyptian businesses.
The assistance underscores the importance of shoring up Egypt at a time of turmoil and change across the Middle East, including the relatively peaceful uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia, Libya’s unfinished transition, the showdown over Iran’s nuclear program and the war in Syria.
Mr. Morsi has called for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to leave power and end the bloodshed there, while China, along with Russia and Iran, has been a supporter of Mr. Assad as his military assaults opposition strongholds and civilians.
Given Egypt’s influence in the Arab world, the officials said, its economic recovery and political stability could have a profound influence on other nations in transition and ease wariness in Israel about the tumultuous political changes under way.
The administration’s revived push came after Mr. Morsi won the presidency in June and overcame a constitutional showdown with the Egypt’s military rulers.
Mr. Morsi and his Islamic movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, have since made it clear that the struggling economy is their most urgent priority, brushing aside reservations about American and international assistance and outright opposition to it from other Islamic factions.
American officials say they have been surprised by how open Mr. Morsi and his advisers have been to economic changes, with a sharp focus on creating jobs.
“They sound like Republicans half the time,” one administration official said, referring to leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was long banned from office under the former president, Hosni Mubarak, a close American ally.
Hoping to capitalize on what they see as a ripening investment climate, the State Department and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will take executives from nearly 50 American companies, like Caterpillar and Xerox, to Cairo beginning Saturday as part of one of the largest trade delegations ever. The officials and executives will urge the government to make changes in taxation, bankruptcy and labor laws to improve the investment climate.
“It’s important for the U.S. to give Egypt a reason to look to the West, as well as the East,” said Lionel Johnson, the chamber’s vice president for the Middle East and North Africa.
From the start of the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt in 2011, President Obama and others argued that the United States and the rest of the world needed to address the poverty and joblessness that fueled popular anger and opposition to authoritarian governments in the region.
The assistance that Mr. Obama first pledged in a speech at the State Department in May 2011 has been slow in coming, because of the political turmoil and street unrest in Egypt, the sluggish bureaucracy in Washington and anger in Congress over the prosecution by Egypt of American nongovernmental organizations that promote democracy.
The delay has frustrated officials who fear that the United States has risked missing an opportunity to reshape a relationship that for decades was focused more on arms sales and security than on economic prosperity for a broad group of Egyptians.
“Our goal is to send a very strong message to Egypt that the government understands it’s not just about assistance,” Deputy Secretary of State Thomas R. Nides, who will travel with the Chamber of Commerce delegation, said in an interview. “It’s about growth and business.”
Next Page »
Now Obama must build the case for government
Empty Chair Day: Frustrated union leader throws empty chair
Labor Brings Its Frustrations To Charlotte
“Charlotte wouldn’t have been our choice as a city.” Lee Saunders beats the hell out of a chair.
Rosie Gray
BuzzFeed Staff
AFSCME President Lee Saunders. Image by Stewart Cairns / AP
Posted Sep 3, 2012 4:25pm EDT
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The newly-elected president of the giant public workers’ union AFSCME, Lee Saunders, took a page out of Clint Eastwood's book at an Ohio delegation Labor Day breakfast on Monday, speaking to an empty chair that he pretended was occupied by Eastwood. At first it was just a lark.
"He's been sitting here listening to all the speakers before me, he's been listening to me, I want you to give Clint Eastwood a round of applause," Saunders said. "I brought him with me to learn some things, OK? To teach him, to educate him." The audience murmured and laughed.
Saunders asked the chair questions, then joked, "He doesn't have anything to say."
"Mitt Romney doesn't have anything to say," Saunders continued. "Paul Ryan doesn't have anything to say."
Suddenly, the tone changed: Saunders, finishing his speech, began to kick the chair, threw it, and yelled "Dirty Harry, make my day! We're gonna kick ass in November!"
The crowd was cheering, and the humor had gained a palpable edge.
"We wanted to respond to the nonsense that he did last week," Saunders said later. "We're here to have fun but we're here to work, too, so we thought we were sending a message."
Saunders isn’t the only frustrated labor leader at the Democratic National Convention this year. American unions, in the throes of a long slide, have had perhaps their worst run ever facing not only the usual declining membership rolls, but also a public repudiation in a Wisconsin recall vote that centered on the place of public sector workers. Adding to that, the Democratic Party’s choice of Charlotte as the convention was a slap in the face: North Carolina has right-to-work laws and virtually no union presence. The fact that unions couldn’t influence the Democrats’ decision on location a testament to their less-than-omnipotent position.
And while labor leaders and rank-and-file profess to support Obama as much as ever, but the cracks are showing. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told Politico that federation isn't bringing a full staff or even getting a skybox at the convention center. Battles in Ohio and Wisconsin have badly sapped union resources, a labor operative said. Other unions are focused down-ballot, labor operatives said, focused on saving the seats of true labor allies than of fighting for the national Democratic Party.
At the Ohio breakfast, in a large conference room fifteen minutes outside central Charlotte filled with people in AFSCME shirts and Obama buttons, delegates listened to Ohio Democrats and representatives from the Ironworkers, Steelworkers, and other unions pump them up.
“The Democratic Party is the party of labor,” said Tim Burga, president of the Ohio AFL-CIO. “The Democratic Party and its goals are aligned with the labor movement — social and economic justice.”
Burga exhorted the listeners to do everything they could to re-ensure Obama’s reelection: “We must leave everything out on the field this year to re-elect President Obama and re-elect senator Sherrod Brown.”
“They’re afraid of our power,” Saunders told the crowd in his blistering speech.
Martin O’Malley, the governor of Maryland and Democratic Governors’ Association chief, tailored his remarks to the labor crowd (he was also hitting less union-heavy Tennessee that morning).
“Unions have made our country better,” O’Malley said. “You all play a critical role. An absolutely critical role.”
O’Malley put the focus on Congressional races as well as Obama’s re-election, telling the audience that the president needed to be “given a better Congress.”
Later, O’Malley raised an eyebrow at BuzzFeed’s question about labor enthusiasm at the convention.
“The excitement-meter question?” he said. “We’re a big party and we are a national party and we need to reach out to voters all over the country, and that includes the people of North Carolina.”
“I’m not sure when the last time was, if ever, we had a Democratic Convention in North Carolina,” O’Malley said. “I certainly understand the perspective of the men and women of the labor movement, but at the same time this was a decision made as part of a national effort.”
“There will be other events I’m sure that happen in states where labor leaders feel more excited about going. But look, the bottom line is we’re a big country and North Carolina is an important state for us.”
Saunders doesn’t hide his disappointment with the selection of North Carolina as the convention state.
“Charlotte wouldn’t have been our choice as a city,” Saunders told reporters after his Ohio delegation breakfast speech. “It’s in a right to work state, it’s tough to organize down here for private and public sector unions. “
“But we’re beyond that now,” Saunders said. “I mean, it’s over. Charlotte was selected and we’ve got to keep our eyes on the prize and that’s to win in November, and we can’t get caught up in B.S. to be quite honest with you.”
Saunders struck a hopeful note. “We’re going to continue to move forward, we’re going to continue to organize. We’re going to be just fine.”
One of labor’s biggest problems, from the point of view of this election, is that its traditional organizing methods aren’t as useful as they once were in the era of super PACs, mega-rich conservative donors, and technologically advanced campaign techniques.
“Labor can be a significant factor, but what will be its value-added in this presidential election?” asked one labor operative, noting that conservative groups have caught up with labor’s field expertise. “’Boots on the ground’ has always been
labor's claim to fame.”
So the Democrats know that labor won’t be the most significant factor in this presidential election. The labor movement, for its part, is still charged with drumming up enthusiasm for a party that has slighted it.
George Tucker, the AFSCME regional director for the Toledo, Ohio area, has been a union member since 1966. He was resigned to the task at hand.
“We’re here, and we’ve got a job to do, and that’s to get the president and the vice-president elected,” Tucker said. “The people here have treated us well.”
Tucker said he thinks the enthusiasm among regular union members — most of whom at the breakfast were wearing Obama paraphernalia — was more pronounced in Charlotte than at home. “I think they are [excited] here at the convention. I think we need to go back and help the excitement build up with our members.”
“We’ve got to get out and get out the message out to the people,” Tucker said. “About what it means to the middle class to have a union.”
For the labor movement, no matter who the Democratic candidate is, the alternative will always be worse.
Romney “doesn’t have a clue what the average working person has to go through,” Tucker said. “Not only to get a job, but to keep a job. He doesn’t have a clue on that.”
“Charlotte wouldn’t have been our choice as a city.” Lee Saunders beats the hell out of a chair.
Rosie Gray
BuzzFeed Staff
Posted Sep 3, 2012 4:25pm EDT
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The newly-elected president of the giant public workers’ union AFSCME, Lee Saunders, took a page out of Clint Eastwood's book at an Ohio delegation Labor Day breakfast on Monday, speaking to an empty chair that he pretended was occupied by Eastwood. At first it was just a lark.
"He's been sitting here listening to all the speakers before me, he's been listening to me, I want you to give Clint Eastwood a round of applause," Saunders said. "I brought him with me to learn some things, OK? To teach him, to educate him." The audience murmured and laughed.
Saunders asked the chair questions, then joked, "He doesn't have anything to say."
"Mitt Romney doesn't have anything to say," Saunders continued. "Paul Ryan doesn't have anything to say."
Suddenly, the tone changed: Saunders, finishing his speech, began to kick the chair, threw it, and yelled "Dirty Harry, make my day! We're gonna kick ass in November!"
The crowd was cheering, and the humor had gained a palpable edge.
"We wanted to respond to the nonsense that he did last week," Saunders said later. "We're here to have fun but we're here to work, too, so we thought we were sending a message."
Saunders isn’t the only frustrated labor leader at the Democratic National Convention this year. American unions, in the throes of a long slide, have had perhaps their worst run ever facing not only the usual declining membership rolls, but also a public repudiation in a Wisconsin recall vote that centered on the place of public sector workers. Adding to that, the Democratic Party’s choice of Charlotte as the convention was a slap in the face: North Carolina has right-to-work laws and virtually no union presence. The fact that unions couldn’t influence the Democrats’ decision on location a testament to their less-than-omnipotent position.
And while labor leaders and rank-and-file profess to support Obama as much as ever, but the cracks are showing. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka told Politico that federation isn't bringing a full staff or even getting a skybox at the convention center. Battles in Ohio and Wisconsin have badly sapped union resources, a labor operative said. Other unions are focused down-ballot, labor operatives said, focused on saving the seats of true labor allies than of fighting for the national Democratic Party.
At the Ohio breakfast, in a large conference room fifteen minutes outside central Charlotte filled with people in AFSCME shirts and Obama buttons, delegates listened to Ohio Democrats and representatives from the Ironworkers, Steelworkers, and other unions pump them up.
“The Democratic Party is the party of labor,” said Tim Burga, president of the Ohio AFL-CIO. “The Democratic Party and its goals are aligned with the labor movement — social and economic justice.”
Burga exhorted the listeners to do everything they could to re-ensure Obama’s reelection: “We must leave everything out on the field this year to re-elect President Obama and re-elect senator Sherrod Brown.”
“They’re afraid of our power,” Saunders told the crowd in his blistering speech.
Martin O’Malley, the governor of Maryland and Democratic Governors’ Association chief, tailored his remarks to the labor crowd (he was also hitting less union-heavy Tennessee that morning).
“Unions have made our country better,” O’Malley said. “You all play a critical role. An absolutely critical role.”
O’Malley put the focus on Congressional races as well as Obama’s re-election, telling the audience that the president needed to be “given a better Congress.”
Later, O’Malley raised an eyebrow at BuzzFeed’s question about labor enthusiasm at the convention.
“The excitement-meter question?” he said. “We’re a big party and we are a national party and we need to reach out to voters all over the country, and that includes the people of North Carolina.”
“I’m not sure when the last time was, if ever, we had a Democratic Convention in North Carolina,” O’Malley said. “I certainly understand the perspective of the men and women of the labor movement, but at the same time this was a decision made as part of a national effort.”
“There will be other events I’m sure that happen in states where labor leaders feel more excited about going. But look, the bottom line is we’re a big country and North Carolina is an important state for us.”
Saunders doesn’t hide his disappointment with the selection of North Carolina as the convention state.
“Charlotte wouldn’t have been our choice as a city,” Saunders told reporters after his Ohio delegation breakfast speech. “It’s in a right to work state, it’s tough to organize down here for private and public sector unions. “
“But we’re beyond that now,” Saunders said. “I mean, it’s over. Charlotte was selected and we’ve got to keep our eyes on the prize and that’s to win in November, and we can’t get caught up in B.S. to be quite honest with you.”
Saunders struck a hopeful note. “We’re going to continue to move forward, we’re going to continue to organize. We’re going to be just fine.”
One of labor’s biggest problems, from the point of view of this election, is that its traditional organizing methods aren’t as useful as they once were in the era of super PACs, mega-rich conservative donors, and technologically advanced campaign techniques.
“Labor can be a significant factor, but what will be its value-added in this presidential election?” asked one labor operative, noting that conservative groups have caught up with labor’s field expertise. “’Boots on the ground’ has always been
labor's claim to fame.”
So the Democrats know that labor won’t be the most significant factor in this presidential election. The labor movement, for its part, is still charged with drumming up enthusiasm for a party that has slighted it.
George Tucker, the AFSCME regional director for the Toledo, Ohio area, has been a union member since 1966. He was resigned to the task at hand.
“We’re here, and we’ve got a job to do, and that’s to get the president and the vice-president elected,” Tucker said. “The people here have treated us well.”
Tucker said he thinks the enthusiasm among regular union members — most of whom at the breakfast were wearing Obama paraphernalia — was more pronounced in Charlotte than at home. “I think they are [excited] here at the convention. I think we need to go back and help the excitement build up with our members.”
“We’ve got to get out and get out the message out to the people,” Tucker said. “About what it means to the middle class to have a union.”
For the labor movement, no matter who the Democratic candidate is, the alternative will always be worse.
Romney “doesn’t have a clue what the average working person has to go through,” Tucker said. “Not only to get a job, but to keep a job. He doesn’t have a clue on that.”
FREEZE THIS! Video Shows TSA’s Bizarre New Security Policy
Federal agency tests drinks purchased inside airport
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, September 3, 2012
(InfoWars) A video clip shot yesterday at Columbus Ohio Airport illustrates how the Transportation Security Administration has dreamed up a bizarre new way to waste time and taxpayer dollars – by testing drinks purchased by travelers for explosives inside the airport long after they have already passed security.
The footage shows TSA agents walking around a departure lounge asking to test passengers’ drinks for explosive residue with a swab they hold over the liquid.
“Now remember that this is inside the terminal, well beyond the security check and purchased inside the terminal…just people waiting to get on the plane,” writes the You Tube user who uploaded the video.
“My wife and son came back from a coffee shop just around the corner, then we were approached. I asked them what they were doing. One of the TSA ladies said that they were checking for explosive chemicals (as we are drinking them). I said “really – inside the terminal? You have got to be kidding me.” I asked them if they wanted to swab us all. She responded with something like, ‘yes sometimes we need to do that’. I then asked if she wanted a urine sample…nonetheless, the TSA is way out of control,” he adds, joking that the TSA’s next move could be to visit people’s homes before they even leave for the airport (they’re already in the parking lot demanding to search people who aren’t even flying!)
As we have previously highlighted, the drinks policy was recently introduced with virtually no explanation from the TSA whatsoever. The much vaunted 2006 liquid bomb plot on which this nonsense is all based completely collapsed in court and was revealed to be farcical at best.
Experts have savaged rules relating to liquids being carried through security as pointless and unnecessary and yet they still remain in place six years later, with ludicrous cases routinely popping up of mothers having to drink their own breast milk or even pump it into empty bottles.
But this new rule applies to drinks purchased within the airport after travelers have already passed airport security, items that have presumably already had to pass some form of security check to be brought inside the airport in the first place.
The drinks testing farce has been accompanied by other harebrained TSA schemes which have virtually nothing to do with genuine security and everything to do with subjecting the public to intimidation and obedience training.
The federal agency recently brought in a similarly asinine new policy in which travelers are ordered to “freeze” on command by TSA screeners while passing through security – for no apparent reason other than to check they will obey orders without question.
Perhaps the TSA should concentrate on real security threats and cleaning up the behavior of their own criminally-prone employees instead of harassing travelers who have already been through the ordeal of a grope down or a radiation body scan.
Given the fact that TSA agents now festoon political events, highways and even prom nights, how long is it before we have blue-shirted goons in fast food restaurants checking whether or not our Diet Cokes are weapons of mass destruction?
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, September 3, 2012
(InfoWars) A video clip shot yesterday at Columbus Ohio Airport illustrates how the Transportation Security Administration has dreamed up a bizarre new way to waste time and taxpayer dollars – by testing drinks purchased by travelers for explosives inside the airport long after they have already passed security.
The footage shows TSA agents walking around a departure lounge asking to test passengers’ drinks for explosive residue with a swab they hold over the liquid.
“Now remember that this is inside the terminal, well beyond the security check and purchased inside the terminal…just people waiting to get on the plane,” writes the You Tube user who uploaded the video.
“My wife and son came back from a coffee shop just around the corner, then we were approached. I asked them what they were doing. One of the TSA ladies said that they were checking for explosive chemicals (as we are drinking them). I said “really – inside the terminal? You have got to be kidding me.” I asked them if they wanted to swab us all. She responded with something like, ‘yes sometimes we need to do that’. I then asked if she wanted a urine sample…nonetheless, the TSA is way out of control,” he adds, joking that the TSA’s next move could be to visit people’s homes before they even leave for the airport (they’re already in the parking lot demanding to search people who aren’t even flying!)
As we have previously highlighted, the drinks policy was recently introduced with virtually no explanation from the TSA whatsoever. The much vaunted 2006 liquid bomb plot on which this nonsense is all based completely collapsed in court and was revealed to be farcical at best.
Experts have savaged rules relating to liquids being carried through security as pointless and unnecessary and yet they still remain in place six years later, with ludicrous cases routinely popping up of mothers having to drink their own breast milk or even pump it into empty bottles.
But this new rule applies to drinks purchased within the airport after travelers have already passed airport security, items that have presumably already had to pass some form of security check to be brought inside the airport in the first place.
The drinks testing farce has been accompanied by other harebrained TSA schemes which have virtually nothing to do with genuine security and everything to do with subjecting the public to intimidation and obedience training.
The federal agency recently brought in a similarly asinine new policy in which travelers are ordered to “freeze” on command by TSA screeners while passing through security – for no apparent reason other than to check they will obey orders without question.
Perhaps the TSA should concentrate on real security threats and cleaning up the behavior of their own criminally-prone employees instead of harassing travelers who have already been through the ordeal of a grope down or a radiation body scan.
Given the fact that TSA agents now festoon political events, highways and even prom nights, how long is it before we have blue-shirted goons in fast food restaurants checking whether or not our Diet Cokes are weapons of mass destruction?
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
Attention Sheeple: Hot on the Spot Action! TSA To Conduct Grope Downs at DNC
Federal agency running security checkpoints at public events becoming normalized
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, September 3, 2012
(Infowars) - The Transportation Security Administration will be conducting grope downs and bag searches at three different locations in Charlotte this week at the Democratic National Convention, illustrating the fact that the TSA has expanded well beyond its remit of transportation and into public venues.
The DNC will be held at three separate sites this week, all of which will have security checkpoints staffed by TSA officers.
55 TSA screeners “Will help the Secret Service with screening at Time Warner Cable Arena, the Convention Center and Bank of America stadium,” reports WSOCTV.com.
The first two days of the DNC will take place at the Time Warner Cable Arena, with the final day taking place at the Bank of America Stadium where Obama will deliver his acceptance speech. Events will concurrently be staged at the Charlotte Convention Center.
Attendees will be forced to undergo invasive pat downs and have their personal items scanned if they wish to enter any of these venues.
The agency is also increasing its footprint of TSA agents at the Charlotte Douglas Airport, adding a whopping 161 extra TSA screeners including 20 “behavior detection” officers who will watch for suspicious activity and conduct “chat downs” with travelers. More than 700 TSA officers in the airport alone will be present for the duration of the convention.
As we reported last week, TSA agents were also in attendance at the Republican National Convention in Tampa.
Despite the fact that hundreds of journalists passed through TSA security to enter the Tampa Bay Convention Center, not a single one reported on it.
This illustrates how the TSA’s presence at public events which have nothing to do with transportation is becoming normalized as the federal agency’s bloated budget greases the skids for thousands upon thousands of unannounced checkpoints across the country.
Ron Paul and his family were detained and interrogated by TSA agents after the RNC last week as TSA officials ludicrously insinuated that Paul, his family and his campaign staff could be a threat to Mitt Romney, who “might be nearby.”
TSA workers were also present at a recent Paul Ryan political event in The Villages, Florida, where the screeners conducted invasive bag searches as well as pat downs.
Last week the TSA also launched a staggering 18 new Twitter accounts as part of a PR drive in response to numerous scandals and embarrassments to plague the federal agency in recent months.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, September 3, 2012
The DNC will be held at three separate sites this week, all of which will have security checkpoints staffed by TSA officers.
55 TSA screeners “Will help the Secret Service with screening at Time Warner Cable Arena, the Convention Center and Bank of America stadium,” reports WSOCTV.com.
The first two days of the DNC will take place at the Time Warner Cable Arena, with the final day taking place at the Bank of America Stadium where Obama will deliver his acceptance speech. Events will concurrently be staged at the Charlotte Convention Center.
Attendees will be forced to undergo invasive pat downs and have their personal items scanned if they wish to enter any of these venues.
The agency is also increasing its footprint of TSA agents at the Charlotte Douglas Airport, adding a whopping 161 extra TSA screeners including 20 “behavior detection” officers who will watch for suspicious activity and conduct “chat downs” with travelers. More than 700 TSA officers in the airport alone will be present for the duration of the convention.
As we reported last week, TSA agents were also in attendance at the Republican National Convention in Tampa.
Despite the fact that hundreds of journalists passed through TSA security to enter the Tampa Bay Convention Center, not a single one reported on it.
This illustrates how the TSA’s presence at public events which have nothing to do with transportation is becoming normalized as the federal agency’s bloated budget greases the skids for thousands upon thousands of unannounced checkpoints across the country.
Ron Paul and his family were detained and interrogated by TSA agents after the RNC last week as TSA officials ludicrously insinuated that Paul, his family and his campaign staff could be a threat to Mitt Romney, who “might be nearby.”
TSA workers were also present at a recent Paul Ryan political event in The Villages, Florida, where the screeners conducted invasive bag searches as well as pat downs.
Last week the TSA also launched a staggering 18 new Twitter accounts as part of a PR drive in response to numerous scandals and embarrassments to plague the federal agency in recent months.
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Maxine Waters: World Hated Racist America Until Obama Was Elected
Breitbart.Com:
Congresswoman Maxine Waters speech in Albany, Ga at the Greater 2nd Mt. Olive Sports Complex
Congresswoman Maxine Waters speech in Albany, Ga at the Greater 2nd Mt. Olive Sports Complex
Democrats Call for Lawmaker "Diversity" Training
Updated: Sep 02, 2012 8:54 PM
Jim Summerville
(NewsChannel5.Com)NASHVILLE, Tenn.- Tennessee Democrats believe it's time for lawmakers to re-take diversity and sensitivity training.
The push comes after recent comments made by two Republican lawmakers. The first - Senator Jim Summerville sent an email using crude language saying he didn't care what the black caucus thought about an issue.
The email read, "I don't give a rat's (expletive) what the Black Caucus thinks."
It was sent to state Representative Barbara Cooper, D-Memphis, and was then forwarded to members of the Black Caucus. It was referring to a report from black lawmakers on the recent grading controversy at Tennessee State University.
"It was unprofessional, completely unnecessary, and it shows disregard for the Tennessee Black Caucus and the work we do," said state Representative Brenda Gilmore, D-Nashville.
State Senator Jim Summerville resigned from the Senate Education Committee after being stripped of his subcommittee chairmanship. Earlier Summerville told reporters in a brief interview that perhaps he should have said he didn't give a "rat's posterior" about the black caucus concerns, rather than the cruder word he used in his one-line email.
His colleague, Stacey Campfield, has supported the comment and even called the Black Caucus a "segregationist organization" that should be ignored.
Three years ago - Democrat John Deberry held diversity training after a staffer sent a racist e-mail about President Obama. He says it's time for lawmakers to go through additional training.
Jim Summerville
(NewsChannel5.Com)NASHVILLE, Tenn.- Tennessee Democrats believe it's time for lawmakers to re-take diversity and sensitivity training.
The push comes after recent comments made by two Republican lawmakers. The first - Senator Jim Summerville sent an email using crude language saying he didn't care what the black caucus thought about an issue.
The email read, "I don't give a rat's (expletive) what the Black Caucus thinks."
It was sent to state Representative Barbara Cooper, D-Memphis, and was then forwarded to members of the Black Caucus. It was referring to a report from black lawmakers on the recent grading controversy at Tennessee State University.
"It was unprofessional, completely unnecessary, and it shows disregard for the Tennessee Black Caucus and the work we do," said state Representative Brenda Gilmore, D-Nashville.
State Senator Jim Summerville resigned from the Senate Education Committee after being stripped of his subcommittee chairmanship. Earlier Summerville told reporters in a brief interview that perhaps he should have said he didn't give a "rat's posterior" about the black caucus concerns, rather than the cruder word he used in his one-line email.
His colleague, Stacey Campfield, has supported the comment and even called the Black Caucus a "segregationist organization" that should be ignored.
Three years ago - Democrat John Deberry held diversity training after a staffer sent a racist e-mail about President Obama. He says it's time for lawmakers to go through additional training.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)