Wednesday, February 27, 2013

FOXNews.com: ABC claims Michelle Obama's remarks about 'automatic weapons' cut for time

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
ABC claims Michelle Obama's remarks about 'automatic weapons' cut for time
Feb 27th 2013, 18:37

Editor's note: the following commentary originally appeared on the NewsBusters blog.

Tuesday ABC's "Good Morning America" edited out an inaccurate assertion by First Lady Michelle Obama that the gunman in a Chicago killing used an "automatic weapon."

Regarding the death of teenager Hadiya Pendelton, Mrs. Obama asserted, "And she was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn't need." This quote appeared online, but not in the February 26 interview with Robin Roberts that aired on the network.

The Chicago Tribune explained, "...a day after her homicide on Jan. 29, Chicago police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said the gunman possibly used a revolver because no bullet casings were found at the shooting scene — as there would be if a semi-automatic or automatic weapon had been used."

No ABC show on Tuesday or Wednesday, offered an explanation as to why the network helpfully covered up for the first lady's error.

On "World News," a snippet of the interview was played, but only Mrs. Obama talking about when her teenage daughters might start dating.

"Nightline" skipped the interview completely.

On Wednesday, GMA made no mention of the controversy.

The media website Mediaite reached out to the network for comment. According to the website ABC "responded to the charge on Tuesday saying the cuts were made 'solely for time.'"

The Washington Times's Emily Miller explained how ABC deceptively edited the segment:

The transcript of the interview shows that Mrs. Obama said this of Miss Pendleton (italics mine):

"She was standing out in a park with her friends in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids grew up, where our house is. She had just taken a chemistry test. And she was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn't need," she said. "I just don't want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first."

However, when the interview aired on "Good Morning America" on Tuesday, viewers heard the first lady said this:

"She was absolutely right. She did everything she was supposed to do. She was standing in a park, with her friends, in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids grew up, where our house is. And she was caught in the line of fire. I just don't want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first."

ABC edited the response visually by using a cutaway in the middle of the answer of Ms. Roberts listening.

Instead of at least allowing viewers to see Obama's remarks, the GMA segment that aired focused on hyping her secret appearance at the Oscars as something "straight out of 'Argo.'" The eight and a half minute segment featured no tough questions.

It's not as though Roberts is incapable of asking tough questions when interviewing a first lady. On October 22, 2007, the journalist wondered in an interview with First Lady Laura Bush if the United States should be exporting generosity and not "our bombs."

Scott Whitlock is the senior news analyst for the Media Research Center. You can find him on Twitter @ScottJW.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Is Ann Coulter right -- are Libertarians wimps ...or worse?

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Is Ann Coulter right -- are Libertarians wimps ...or worse?
Feb 27th 2013, 14:00

Last week, Conservative pundit Ann Coulter told me and a thousand young libertarians that we libertarians are puss*** -- well, she used slang for a female body part.

We were in Washington, D.C., at the Students for Liberty conference, taping my Fox Business show, and she didn't like my questions about her opposition to gay marriage and drug legalization.

"We're living in a country that is 70 percent socialist," she says. "The government takes 60 percent of your money. They take care of your health care, your pensions ... who you can hire ... and you (libertarians) want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, oh, we want to legalize pot? ... If you were a little more manly, you'd tell liberals what your position on employment discrimination is."

If Republicans were smart, they'd listen to that rising generation of young people who want government to stay not just out of the economy, but out of our personal lives, too.

We do, actually. We say employers ought to get to choose whom they hire. They created the business, so they should be allowed to discriminate against stutterers, TV hosts, old people -- anyone they don't want.

But Coulter has a point.

Government rarely makes a dent in people's drug use or their ability to partner with people of their own gender.

"Seventy percent socialism" does much more harm. It kills opportunity and wrecks lives.    

But Coulter doesn't just want to downplay "liberal" parts of the libertarian agenda. She opposes them.

When I asked why gays can't marry, she said, "They can -- they have to marry a member of the opposite sex."

I see why the students were annoyed by Coulter's shtick.

If Republicans were smart, they'd listen to that rising generation of young people who want government to stay not just out of the economy, but out of our personal lives, too.

Fortunately, some Republicans are onboard with that. Another of my guests was Justin Amash, congressman from Michigan.

The young libertarians admire him, in much the same way they admire Republicans like Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Jeff Flake; Gov. Gary Johnson; and new Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie.

Amash focuses on government spending. He has pictures of libertarian economists like Murray Rothbard in his office, and he warns that big government -- including military spending -- will bankrupt America. He's not afraid to call for cuts in popular programs like Medicare, Head Start and food stamps.

After Amash's complaints about government spending, establishment Republicans in Congress kicked him off the budget committee. One said it was because of the "a**hole factor ... inability to work with other members."

I asked Amash about that.

"It might be because I wanted to balance the budget," says Amash. "The level of government spending is so insane."

It is. Even if the sequester cuts happen -- cuts the left calls "brutal" -- in eight years the feds will still spend $5.3 trillion annually ... just a little less than the $5.4 trillion they will spend if no cuts are made.

The "brutal" sequester is anything but. Even the much-feared Paul Ryan budget plan would only reduce the federal debt in 2021 from the $26 trillion President Obama projects to ... $23 trillion.

So with our economic house in such disarray, Coulter is right to avoid getting bogged down in fights over drugs and homosexuality. But I prefer the way Amash handled the libertarian-conservative conflict.

Michelle Montalvo of Temple University asked him to "comment on your faith and how you reconcile that with your libertarian beliefs? There are stereotypes about libertarian students, that we're Republicans who love to do drugs, [but] we're not all godless."

Amash answered, "I'm an Orthodox Christian ... and I believe that the government is a hindrance, a lot of times, to our religious liberty." But he doesn't want government to promote Christianity. "Get government out of the way, allow people to make choices. We can't legislate morality and force everyone to agree with us."

The young people at the conference worry about the economy. They worry less about drug use and gay sex -- most have come to see those as socially acceptable.

Instead of insulting libertarians or kicking them off congressional committees, it's time for Coulter -- and other Republicans -- to stop suggesting that those who want the government out of their personal lives are morally suspect.

Then we can concentrate on the important things.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of  "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals Succeed," "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his website at johnstossel.com.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Selling access to President Obama for a mere $500,000

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Selling access to President Obama for a mere $500,000
Feb 27th 2013, 15:23

Talk about a bargain. Organizing for Action, the new name of the Obama campaign team, is selling access to the president for $500,000. Donors who give or raise that amount get a seat on an advisory board and four meetings a year with Dear Leader.

That's big bucks, but I think the White House is selling its man cheap — think million-dollar package. For that, donors should get dinner with the president and first lady and, as a bonus, a stern lecture on the evils of wealth.

To continue reading Michael Goodwin's column in the New York Post on other topics, including Secretary of State John Kerry, click here.

Michael Goodwin is a Fox News contributor and New York Post columnist.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: President Obama spammed my Inbox

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
President Obama spammed my Inbox
Feb 27th 2013, 12:30

We all receive junk mail on a daily basis touting a miracle weight loss vitamin or promising everlasting good fortune if we forward the message on to 13 friends, but I never imagined that the most annoying spam would come to me from the president of the United States. 

This past summer, while logged on to Facebook, I clicked on an icon that offered to confirm if I was officially registered to vote in the presidential election. (I had voted for Obama in 2008 but decided to vote for Romney in 2012)

After confirming I was registered, I was automatically added to an email list for Organizing for Action, a self-described grassroots movement with the following credo: "Organizing for Action will support the legislative agenda we voted on, train the next generation of grassroots organizers and leaders, and organize around local issues in our communities." According to a video of Michelle Obama on the website, it's up to us to define how the OFA will develop.

We all receive junk mail but I never imagined that the most annoying email spam would come to me from President Obama.

I receive as many as three OFA emails a week from either President Obama, Jim Messina (Chair) or Jon Carson (Executive Director) that repeat the same platitudes and bromides used in all of Obama's speeches: We must move forward by working together and ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. 

The OFA may be well intentioned, but is also highly partisan, so I don't see how it can be anything other than completely ineffective in terms of implementing policy. With the OFA Obama is once again preaching to the choir rather than attempting to do his actual job by persuading legislators from both parties to work together.

In his State of the Union address, the president mentioned that "It's not bigger government we need, but a smarter government." A smarter government requires fiscal responsibility achieved through bipartisanship, and this is something I don't believe Obama is either interested in or capable of accomplishing. In all of their emails the OFA refers to itself as a grassroots movement despite being the exact opposite. 

Sincere grassroots movements start at a local community level but OFA was launched on a national level from Washington and is attempting to galvanize voters through Obama's standard use of class warfare. 

The president has proposed many wonderful initiatives for the poor and middle class but offers no realistic way to pay for any of them. While this type of action may work effectively for a community organizer, it is nothing but political obstructionism and time wasting behavior on the part of a president.

The OFA is also used to raise money for the democratic party, and it reminds me of the vague requests from television preachers who ask for contributions without ever explaining where or how that money will be spent. 

This cheap hucksterism is anything but presidential and as someone believed in and voted for Obama in 2008, its a great disappointment. At that time I believed Obama was a Washington outsider who wanted to change American politics for the better. Boy was I wrong.

Rob Taub is a writer and comedian. He is host of Tech Hub on WOR AM radio.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

FOXNews.com: 7 items that must be at the top of Hagel's 'to do' list

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
7 items that must be at the top of Hagel's 'to do' list
Feb 26th 2013, 18:00

It's official. Former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel is our new Secretary of Defense. What challenges does he face as he takes over the Defense Department? Here's the truth: a broken Pentagon is in desperate need of an overhaul.

Let's start with the draconian budget reductions facing DoD as the "sequester" looms. If the sequester happens this week it will, for better or worse, have a direct impact on a full spectrum of Pentagon operations. For starters, the sequester will cut about $1 trillion dollars out of the Pentagon budget. That money will disappear without any considerations regarding either national security threats or defense strategy.

Former Secretary of Defense Panetta, despite having had more than a year to plan for a possible sequester, has admitted that he conducted no study nor gave any serious thought to how to manage the cuts until several weeks ago. 

As recently as December 18, 2012 he said, "For more than a year, this department has been operating under the shadow of sequestration." Instead of complying with the law, Panetta pretended that the sequestration did not apply and therefore did nothing to identify and target cuts that could be taken without inflicting damage to our national security. Now Secretary of Defense Hagel will be left holding the proverbial bag of "sequestration" – and it ain't a pretty bag.  

Faced with this challenge what should Hagel do from day one? His strategy should be to begin with the end in mind. Here are 7 things Hagel should put at the top of his "to do" list:

1. Establish a strategy grounded in 21st Century reality. Our new secretary of defense needs to harness and shape the U.S. national security infrastructure so that it is based on the real threats we face -- today. It can't be self-referential. It can't constantly look back to the legacy and structure that was established to fight (and win) the Cold War. He must act now, with an eye on the horizon to shape, attenuate and create an effective force structure.  

2. Bring in a fresh set of eyes. Washington has become an echo chamber for mindless Pentagon spending.  SecDef Hagel's advisers should be a mix of operational experts, planners and budget experts – pragmatic and, ideally, unattached to the current "stakeholders" of defense contractors and lobbyists.

3. Create the National Security Act of 2013 to replace the National Security Act of 1947 and the Goldwater/Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986. The entire national security infrastructure has remained unchanged except for Goldwater/Nichols which, arguably, created even more bureaucracy and bloat at the Department of Defense. We can and should re-think the foundation of the Pentagon. We need to do a thorough assessment of  its structure and function. And it must be streamlined to eliminate bureaucracy and redundancy.

4. The Pentagon must be prepared to adapt to the 21st century threats. The current DoD budget is loaded with spending on items that have more to do with the Cold War than modern security challenges like cyber war or terrorism. Spending hundreds of billions on an overly large and totally redundant nuclear force and billions more defending Europe from the Soviets adds nothing to our bottom line security.

5. Change the way the Pentagon spends money. This is a tall order but many defense programs have "use or lose" incentives; if you don't spend all your money, you may get less money to spend next year. This system creates incentives for waste. Instead, Hagel and his team should create incentives for thrift and innovation and implement the same best practices that work in the private sector.

6. Reform defense contracting practices to prioritize "effectiveness" over "fairness." One egregious example of "fairness" run amok is the USMC's acquisition of new Rugged All Terrain (RAT) boots for its marines. USMC split the initial production between two vendors – Bates and Danner.  One manufacture has a superior record of quality, the other a less than stellar track record. In the end, 8,000 of the Bates manufactured boots were recalled based on their failures in combat conditions in Afghanistan. By attempting to be "fair" the lives of marines were put in jeopardy, also resulting in a huge expense for the U.S. government to fix the problem.  

7. Implement "smart" spending.  The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) uses a smart system for paying its officers when they travel -- they receive a flat fee.  Everyone gets the same amount – and they can use it to stay in a nice hotel, or pick a cheaper hotel and pocket the difference – it eliminates fraud and the "nickel and diming" of employees under the current system. It's no secret that excessive bureaucracy leads to unnecessary waste.

There are additional steps we need to take to reinforce our national defense while eliminating bloat, but these 7 initial, structural changes could ensure Pentagon stability and strength at the same time.

Our new Secretary of Defense can and should use his influence to make the Pentagon into what it can and should be: the pinnacle of strength for protecting the American people and our interests, not a bottomless pit of spending that, like a muscle bound giant, is unable to act with agility and effectiveness.

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer (ret.) is a former senior intelligence officer and the New York Times bestselling author of Operation "DARK HEART: Spycraft an Special Operations on the Frontlines of Afghanistan – And The Path to Victory."  He is the Director of External Communications for the Center for Advanced Defense Studies (CADS) and Senior Advisor on the Congressional Task Force on National and Homeland Security. The opinions reflected here are those solely of Lt. Col. Shaffer -- and are not the opinion of the Center for Advanced Defense Studies (CADS) or of any other group or organization with which Lt. Col. Shaffer is affiliated.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Sequester fears take mainstream media hysteria to new heights

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Sequester fears take mainstream media hysteria to new heights
Feb 26th 2013, 19:07

R.E.M. sang, "It's the end of the world as we know it." If ever there were a theme song for the liberal media's coverage of the sequester the band's iconic song would be it. 

The "broad and sweeping federal budget cuts" being debated on the Hill are being reported breathlessly in the news media. NBC's Brian Williams called it "high anxiety" and a "Good Morning America" graphic sounded the alarm: "Seven Days to Fiscal Emergency." ABC's David Kerley said the sequester "sounds like a disaster movie." He didn't scream, but he still has time.

In one of the best examples of political theater, famed Washington Post editor and reporter Bob Woodward reminded the world recently that the sequester was Obama's idea. That set in motion a bizarre circumstance where Republicans were relying on Woodward and Democrats were trying to discredit him as a tool of the right. Yes, this was the same Bob Woodward who helped destroy Republican President Richard Nixon.

Turn on almost any network newscast and there's one theme. The federal budget might be cut! The horror!

The New York Times warned the $85 billion in budget cuts – just 2.4 percent of the budget – were ushering in an era of "federal austerity." The story began in a typically apocalyptic manner: "Fear of U.S. Cuts Grows In States Where Aid Flows – Recovery Seen At Risk – Wide Impact Looms on Jobs, Tax Revenue, and Schools." Even the Times' pretend conservative David Brooks blasted Republicans as "mindless anti-government fanatics."

The Huffington Post screamed with predictable hyperbole "AUSTERITY COUNTDOWN: 4 DAYS TIL PAIN" across its front page like Mr. T had taken over headline writing. It was followed by subtle subheads like: "'Prepare To Suffer'" and "'The Road To A Lawless Society Is Being Paved.'"  Who knows, tomorrow's headline may lament "dogs and cats living together."

Every major old-school news outlet has shouted about the "worst-case scenario for government spending cuts," as if they were deliberately doing the bidding of the liberal Democrats who couldn't find a way to cut in a Ginsu factory. We've been told about cuts in research, cuts in jobs, defense-crippling cuts at the Pentagon that keep carriers in port and even vaccines that won't ever get made.

CBS's Wyatt Andrews warned on February 25, about NIH research that "will one day find a drug to diminish the impact of old age." As if prescription drug firms wouldn't pay for that research … if they thought it potentially viable. 

Yet the sad truth is that in the eyes of the news media, every government program is perfect. It's those evil Republicans who won't raise taxes, after just raising them only two months ago.

Turn on almost any network newscast and there's one theme. The federal budget might be cut! The horror! By March 1, when the cuts start taking effect, the broadcast networks could well be using Hindenburg graphics with desperate government workers bailing out of jobs in mid-air to avoid the explosion.

Not all journalists have been bad on this – just most. 

Surprisingly, CNN's presidential debate star seems to have grasped some basic economics or reporting. (Maybe even both!) Crowley called out one of the administration's many liars, er, department heads, pretending the cuts will end the world as we know it – in this case air travel. Crowley had the audacity to tell Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood that "your post-sequester total at FAA ops and facilities and equipment is going to be about $500 million more than 2008 and the planes were running just fine."

When LaHood responded by talking about the dreaded "furlough of air traffic controllers," Crowley came right back. "Is it true that domestic flights are down 27 percent from pre-9/11 levels and the budget at the FAA is up 41 percent?"

That is the essence of the sequester. Federal budgets seldom really drop and any cut is seen as a crime against nature. Journalists, meanwhile, regurgitate talking points from their statist buddies who think the taxes should take every dollar out of your wallet, and then sell your wallet for good measure.

Almost no one in the press is pointing out that all this budget cutting is just a drop in the bucket compared to what's really needed to rein in trillion dollar deficits and our $16.5 trillion national debt. Any attempt to do that will require true cuts to our bloated government and its No. 1 fans in the media will again scream the sky is falling and the world is about to end.

Dan Gainor is the Boone Pickens Fellow and the Media Research Center's Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

FOXNews.com: Does 'working from home' affect your performance?

FOXNews.com
FOX News Network - We Report. You Decide. // via fulltextrssfeed.com
Does 'working from home' affect your performance?
Feb 26th 2013, 13:00

You Decide

Published February 26, 2013

FoxNews.com

Yahoo recently told its 14,500 employees that they must stop working from home. In a memo from the company's Human Resources department declared, "We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together." Do you perform better when you are physically at work?

Does 'working from home' affect your performance?

Have more to say on this topic? Join our LIVE CHAT from 11am - 1pm ET.

This is a non-scientific viewer question.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions
Read more »

 
Great HTML Templates from easytemplates.com.