I am getting a lot of use out of the “I reject your reality” motif when I talk about Dems.
Former Obama economic advisor, Clinton Secretary of Labor, and Berkely Prof. Robert Reich claimed yesterday in his column at Salon.com that Fox News played a role in the conservative resurgence of 1994:
In December 1994, Bill Clinton proposed a so-called middle-class bill of rights including more tax credits for families with children, expanded retirement accounts, and tax-deductible college tuition. Clinton had lost his battle for healthcare reform. Even worse, by that time the Dems had lost the House and Senate. Washington was riding a huge anti-incumbent wave. Right-wing populists were the ascendancy, with Newt Gingrich and Fox News leading the charge. Bill Clinton thought it desperately important to assure Americans he was on their side.
But Prof. Reich overlooked one minor detail: Fox News Channel’s first broadcast wasn’t until October 7, 1996.
The plan for FNC wasn’t even outlined until January of 1996, so what could explain such a patently false claim? Is the professor suggesting that even in 1994, Fox News’ imminence did in fact play a role in the political upheaval of that year? Or is this a moment where Fox Derangement Syndrome enters the realm of full-blown paranoia?
» Fact Check: Reich Claims Non-Existent Fox News Led Conservative Charge in 1994 – Big Journalism
By 10 points, people trust Fox News more than CNN “The Most Trusted Name In News” and beats ABC by 16%! I am sure the liberals are screaming that the PPP is now a Republican tool now, just like Rasmussen and anyone else who disagrees with them.
Americans do not trust the major tv news operations in the country- except for Fox News.
Our newest survey looking at perceptions of ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News finds Fox as the only one that more people say they trust than distrust. 49% say they trust it to 37% who do not.
CNN does next best at a 39/41 spread, followed by NBC at 35/44, CBS at 32/46, and ABC at 31/46.
Public Policy Polling: Fox leads for trust
What more needs to be said?
And in case you are curious, this is actually a picture from the White House Flickr page
I HIGHLY recommend going there just to read the comments and see just how much they fawn over this self loving fool.
If you thought President Obama’s jobs speech was going to be all about the American people and reviving up the economy you’d be wrong…
Obama referred to himself 132 times in last week’s Ohio speech
Gateway Pundit
Ok, James. Videotaping ACORN in a public place of business is one thing. Wiretapping is a COMPLETELY different story. You have gone so over the top, there is no defense of this… AT ALL.
The Dems will use this to smear all the good work you did. Congrats, bud. Not only did you destroy every bit of good you did but you also get to enjoy 5-10 in the federal pen.
Moron.
Here’s a PDF of the FBI affidavit. According to paragraph 10, O’Keefe’s already admitted to assisting in the the plan to enter the office under false pretenses. Ohhhh boy:
According to the FBI affidavit, Flanagan and Basel entered the federal building at 500 Poydras Street about 11 a.m. Monday, dressed as telephone company employees, wearing jeans, fluorescent green vests, tool belts, and hard hats. When they arrived at Landrieu’s 10th floor office, O’Keefe was already in the office and had told a staffer he was waiting for someone to arrive.
When Flanagan and Basel entered the office, they told the staffer they were there to fix phone problems. At that time, the staffer, referred to only as Witness 1 in the affadavit, observed O’Keefe positioning his cell phone in his hand to videotape the operation. O’Keefe later admitted to agents that he recorded the event.
After being asked, the staffer gave Basel access to the main phone at the reception desk. The staffer told investigators that Basel manipulated the handset. He also tried to call the main office phone using his cell phone, and said the main line wasn’t working. Flanagan did the same.
They then told the staffer they needed to perform repair work on the main phone system and asked where the telephone closet was located. The staffer showed the men to the main General Services Administration office on the 10th floor, and both went in. There, a GSA employee asked for the men’s credentials, after which they stated they left them in their vehicle.
“Flanagan” is actually Robert Flanagan, son of William Flanagan, the current … acting U.S. Attorney for western Louisiana. Ohhhhhhhh boy.
The editors of Big Government claim they knew nothing about it, which is almost certainly true: No way would Breitbart be so stupid as to sign off on tapping a senator’s phone. What makes this doubly bizarre, of course, is that O’Keefe was already threatened with legal action by ACORN for surreptitiously videotaping inside their offices. You’d think if he was planning to try something as insanely underhanded as this, he might have done, say, a Wikipedia search about whether it’s illegal to, um, tamper with government phone lines.
Hot Air » Blog Archive » James O’Keefe arrested for trying to tap Mary Landrieu’s phones
Does ANYONE other than Obama still believe these lies?
The UN’s team on climate change, the IPCC, has had a rather bad few months. First came the uncovered e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, a key research organization for the IPCC, that showed deception and professional character assassination by so-called scientists attempting to block data and analyses that contradicted the CRU conclusions on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Next, a scandal hit closer to home when the IPCC’s reliance on a theory of dissipating Himalyan glaciers turned out to be unscientific speculation — that the IPCC badly misquoted anyway. Now the Telegraph’s James Delingpole reports that another key claim by the IPCC also comes from non-peer-reviewed work by scientists operating out of their field of work:
Here’s the latest development, courtesy of Dr Richard North – and it’s a cracker. It seems that, not content with having lied to us about shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, and rising sea levels, the IPCC’s latest assessment report also told us a complete load of porkies about the danger posed by climate change to the Amazon rainforest.
This is to be found in Chapter 13 of the Working Group II report, the same part of the IPCC fourth assessment report in which the “Glaciergate” claims are made. There, is the startling claim that:
“Up to 40%of theAmazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000). It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas.”
At first sight, the reference looks kosher enough but, following it through, one sees:
Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications
/files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf.
This, then appears to be another WWF report, carried out in conjunction with the IUCN – The International Union for Conservation of Nature.
Hot Air » Blog Archive » More bogus AGW information in IPCC report?
What a shock. More feel-good handouts hurt people. Who would have guessed? Oh yeah. The Republicans.
Interesting story today in Reuters about youth unemployment hitting an all-time high – particularly among black youths:
CHICAGO (Reuters) – The U.S. economic recession has taken a particularly heavy toll on young Americans, with a record one out five black men aged 20 to 24 neither working nor in school, according to research released on Tuesday.
Now what could have caused, or at least exacerbated, such a development? Was it eeeevil GOP policy? Oil companies? Bankers? "Wall Street?"
Sadly, no. If you want to look for the culprit, look no further than the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007. Here’s the Wikipedia rundown of the wage increases mandated by law in the Act (passed in 2007)
The act raises the federal minimum wage in 3 increments: to $5.85 per hour 60 days after enactment (2007-07-24), to $6.55 per hour 12 months after that (2008-07-24), and finally to $7.25 per hour 12 months after that (2009-07-24).
Remember that? It was unfortunately (like most bipartisan legislation) signed by Bush and written by the Democrats. Bush, as we will remember, was a lame duck by this time, so he had nothing to lose in a gesture of "bipartisanship."
The Jawa Report: Milton Friedman, Supply-Siders Vindicated
HotAir has even more on this fiasco. I mean, Charlie Rangel went? What the hell for?
I also want answers from the 6 Republicans that when to this eco-farce.
Don’t worry about any of this. As of tomorrow night we’ll be entering the new era of fiscal responsibility or something by lopping off 37 cents in federal spending now that Obama will pretend to be a fiscal conservative or populist after a year of bankrupting us.
Thanks to a recently filed Congressional expense reports there’s new light shed on the Copenhagen Climate Summit in Denmark and how much it cost taxpayers.
CBS News Investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports official filings and our own investigation show at least 106 people from the House and Senate attended – spouses, a doctor, a protocol expert and even a photographer.
For 15 Democratic and 6 Republican Congressmen, food and rooms for two nights cost $4,406 tax dollars each. That’s $2,200 a day – more than most Americans spend on their monthly mortgage payment.
JammieWearingFool
Obama puts the US at risk and NYC at direct risk because of this.
- He didn’t consult the mayor of NYC
- He didn’t consult the NYPD
- He knows NYC cannot afford the increased security
- He knows it puts NYC at increased risk for a terror attack.
Dear god I hope nothing happens, but if there is a terror attack because of this, Obama will be the one who should go on trial.
Mike Bloomberg’s Chief of Police spoke to the New York Young Republican Club last week, and he told the stunned audience that the Obama White House never consulted with the NYPD or Mayor Bloomberg before announcing a decision to try Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in lower Manhattan:
“We were not consulted,” Kelly said tersely of the decision. He stated that the trial “will raise the threat level of this city,” a threat that “will not fade any time soon.” And it affects more than lower Manhattan, we learned. “We will have to look at the entire city as a potential target.”
Via the Water Cooler
Kelly went on to tell the crowd that it is possible the trial(s) will be stopped before it starts. He reportedly cited a recent item from Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff, who suggests Congress might block the trials before they get underway. Given the changed political climate in the wake of Scott Brown’s Massachusetts win however, it’s also possible that the White House could change course before Congress requires it.
Commissioner Kelly says that there’s no question these trials put New York at much greater risk for terrorist attack. That’s intuitive, but the White House denies it. Furthermore, even the Democrats in New York’s Congressional delegation agree that the city is currently unable to pay the security costs associated with the trial.
NYC Police Commissioner: We Were Never Consulted on Terror Trials – BrianFaughnan’s blog – RedState
None of this surprises me. Anytime you actually LOOK at the global warming data, it all falls apart. Every single time.
(CNSNews.com) – The U.N. climate report that contains an erroneous claim on the rate of glacier retreat also includes references to studies not originating from peer-reviewed scientific literature, some of them linked to environmental activists.
A review of references listed in the four-volume 2007 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report shows that it includes reports linked to various green groups, including WWF and Greenpeace.
The IPCC has now admitted that the report contains a “poorly substantiated” prediction that Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035.
The glacier claim originated from a 1999 news report that apparently misrepresented one non peer-reviewed study, was reproduced in a 2005 report by the WWF advocacy group, and then – despite a supposedly exhaustive drafting the reviewing process – found its way into the IPCC report.
IPCC defenders have accused critics of blowing out of proportion a single small mistake in a huge document. IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri also noted that it was just “one” error in a 938-page report.
But researchers digging into the document have begun to find other questionable assertions too, again attributed to non-peer-reviewed sources.
– British investigative researcher Dr. Richard North found a claim in the report that “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation.”
The reference cited by IPCC for this claim was a 2000 report produced by WWF in conjunction with another advocacy group, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The two authors are a policy analyst and “forest fire management specialist” who works for IUCN and WWF, and an investigative journalist.
– Ben Pile, co-author of Climate Resistance, noted that an assertion in the same IPCC report that climate change could contribute to reducing rain-based crop yield in Africa by 50 percent by 2020 had originated from a report by another advocacy organization, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).
CNSNews.com – More Questionable Material Found in U.N. Climate Report
Shhh. Don’t tell him that. He might actually figure it out. Nah. Who am I kidding? That would mean that he would actually have to take the blame for something.
One year into his administration, President Obama might want to consider dropping the "blame Bush" page from his playbook.
Whether it’s the economy, national security or America’s reputation abroad, the president and his top advisers have been pinning the blame on the prior administration, directly or obliquely, ever since Obama’s inauguration a full year ago. They’ve done so, in fact, at least seven times since last Tuesday’s stunning upset in the Massachusetts Senate election.
While the loss of the late Ted Kennedy’s longtime seat forced Democrats to acknowledge shortcomings in persuading Americans to support their health care reform plan, it didn’t stop them from continuing to invoke the failings of the George W. Bush administration — though Obama had just completed his first year in office.
Some Republicans, and even some Democrats, say it’s time to choose a different strategy in selling and defending the Obama agenda, noting that the anti-Bush demographic just isn’t as energized now as it was when Bush was in office.
"What you have the last two cycles is the angry voters, the ones most motivated to turn out, were Democrats, who did not like Bush. They didn’t like his policies … You saw it, what we call the surge voters," said former Rep. Tom Davis, former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
FOXNews.com – ‘Blame Bush’ Strategy Wears Thin as Obama Enters Second Year
