◼ Rob Lowe made waves this past weekend when he told the New York Times Magazine that he "want[s] the government out of almost everything."Â (Photo by Chris Pizzello/Invision/AP) - Washington Examiner
Monday, April 7, 2014
'I want the government out of almost everything'
◼ Rob Lowe made waves this past weekend when he told the New York Times Magazine that he "want[s] the government out of almost everything."Â (Photo by Chris Pizzello/Invision/AP) - Washington Examiner
Labels:
Big Government
Monday Meme
◼ Washington Examiner
◼ ‘Hit the jackpot!’ This Mozilla truth-boom puts it all in crushing perspective - Twitchy
A company that doesn't care about the information privacy of its own CEO sure the hell doesn't care about yours.
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) April 6, 2014I've taken to calling them Mozilla FuhrerFox @iowahawkblog
— Han Yolo (@MCHblazer) April 6, 2014Al Sharpton's Secret Work As FBI Informant
◼ Untold story of how activist once aided probes of NYC wiseguys - The Smoking Gun
A lengthy investigation by The Smoking Gun has uncovered remarkable details about Sharpton’s past work as an informant for a joint organized crime task force comprised of FBI agents and NYPD detectives, as well as his dealings with an assortment of wiseguys....
In a “60 Minutes” profile aired three months before the August 2011 launch of Sharpton’s MSNBC show, correspondent Lesley Stahl reported on the “tame” Sharpton’s metamorphosis from “loud mouth activist” to “trusted White House advisor who’s become the president’s go-to black leader.” As for prior underworld entanglements, those were quickly dispatched: “There were allegations of mob ties, never proved,” Stahl flatly declared....
So why did Sharpton agree to become an FBI informant? And why was he willing to risk the dangers inherent in such cooperation?
“He thought he didn’t have a choice,” one Genovese squad agent recalled....
Near the conclusion of the 12-minute piece, correspondent Lesley Stahl introduced investigative reporter Wayne Barrett, who began covering Sharpton’s exploits more than 30 years earlier, when the activist was involved in Brooklyn political campaigns. Sharpton, Barrett said, was “in the civil rights business. I don’t think he’s a civil rights leader.”
Barrett then wondered, considering Sharpton’s tawdry history, “Would anybody else be able to transcend that and be this larger than life figure?”
“He has,” Stahl chirped.
“Only because we let him,” replied Barrett. An interesting read, at the link.
◼ Now we know why he never paid for anything. - Discussion at Lucianne
A lengthy investigation by The Smoking Gun has uncovered remarkable details about Sharpton’s past work as an informant for a joint organized crime task force comprised of FBI agents and NYPD detectives, as well as his dealings with an assortment of wiseguys....
In a “60 Minutes” profile aired three months before the August 2011 launch of Sharpton’s MSNBC show, correspondent Lesley Stahl reported on the “tame” Sharpton’s metamorphosis from “loud mouth activist” to “trusted White House advisor who’s become the president’s go-to black leader.” As for prior underworld entanglements, those were quickly dispatched: “There were allegations of mob ties, never proved,” Stahl flatly declared....
So why did Sharpton agree to become an FBI informant? And why was he willing to risk the dangers inherent in such cooperation?
“He thought he didn’t have a choice,” one Genovese squad agent recalled....
Near the conclusion of the 12-minute piece, correspondent Lesley Stahl introduced investigative reporter Wayne Barrett, who began covering Sharpton’s exploits more than 30 years earlier, when the activist was involved in Brooklyn political campaigns. Sharpton, Barrett said, was “in the civil rights business. I don’t think he’s a civil rights leader.”
Barrett then wondered, considering Sharpton’s tawdry history, “Would anybody else be able to transcend that and be this larger than life figure?”
“He has,” Stahl chirped.
“Only because we let him,” replied Barrett. An interesting read, at the link.
◼ Now we know why he never paid for anything. - Discussion at Lucianne
Labels:
Al Sharpton,
FBI
Joel Kotkin: The spread of ‘debate is over’ syndrome
◼ On climate and other issues, many in academia, media, government insist their viewpoint is unassailable and won’t tolerate dissent. - Orange County Register
The Mark Steyn case is a test run. If they succeed, more of us (and possibly you) will be next…
For those unfamiliar with the case, Mark Steyn and National Review (among others) are being sued, according to the DC Superior Court which refused to throw out the case, for daring to question Mann’s “intellect and reasoning.”
The ongoing trial involving journalist Mark Steyn – accused of defaming climate change theorist Michael Mann – reflects an increasingly dangerous tendency among our intellectual classes to embrace homogeneity of viewpoint. Steyn, whose column has appeared for years on these pages, may be alternatingly entertaining or over-the-top obnoxious, but the slander lawsuit against him marks a milestone in what has become a dangerously authoritarian worldview being adopted in academia, the media and large sections of the government bureaucracy.◼ Mark Steyn Strikes Back Against the Empire - John Hinderaker/Powerline
Let’s call it “the debate is over” syndrome, referring to a term used most often in relationship with climate change but also by President Barack Obama last week in reference to what remains his contentious, and theoretically reformable, health care plan. Ironically, this shift to certainty now comes increasingly from what passes for the Left in America.
These are the same people who historically have identified themselves with open-mindedness and the defense of free speech, while conservatives, with some justification, were associated more often with such traits as criminalizing unpopular views – as seen in the 1950s McCarthy era – and embracing canonical bans on all sorts of personal behavior, a tendency still more evident than necessary among some socially minded conservatives.
But when it comes to authoritarian expression of “true” beliefs, it’s the progressive Left that increasingly seeks to impose orthodoxy. In this rising intellectual order, those who dissent on everything from climate change, the causes of poverty and the definition of marriage, to opposition to abortion are increasingly marginalized and, in some cases, as in the Steyn trial, legally attacked.
As all the world knows, climate buffoon Michael Mann is suing Mark Steyn, National Review and others for disagreeing with him about global warming–not just disagreeing, but doing so in colorful language. As happens so often on the Left, Mann found himself losing the debate on a public issue of great importance. Rather than admit that he was wrong about the hockey stick–one of the most notorious errors, or frauds, in the history of science–he is trying to shut his opponents up through litigation....◼ http://theulstermanreport.com/2014/04/07/conservative-columnist-sued-by-progressive-debate-is-over-collective/ - The Ulsterman Report
There is zero chance that Mann’s lawsuit will ever result in a verdict in his favor. He can’t possibly satisfy the actual malice standard, even if you assume that the statements Steyn and others have made about Mann’s role in the global warming scam are potentially actionable. But that was never Mann’s purpose: his lawsuit was a political act, intended to suppress political debate. Steyn’s counterclaim, and his future conduct of his own defense, will join the battle where it counts.
The Mark Steyn case is a test run. If they succeed, more of us (and possibly you) will be next…
For those unfamiliar with the case, Mark Steyn and National Review (among others) are being sued, according to the DC Superior Court which refused to throw out the case, for daring to question Mann’s “intellect and reasoning.”
UPDATED - It is unclear how many members of the House rank and file knew of it because the legislation was passed by a highly unusual voice vote without debate.
◼ DRUDGE HEADLINE: REPUBLICANS EXPAND OBAMACARE? - AP
At the prodding of business organizations, House Republicans quietly secured a recent change in President Barack Obama's health law to expand coverage choices, a striking, one-of-a-kind departure from dozens of high-decibel attempts to repeal or dismember it.
Democrats describe the change involving small-business coverage options as a straightforward improvement of the type they are eager to make, and Obama signed it into law. Republicans are loath to agree, given the strong sentiment among the rank and file that the only fix the law deserves is a burial.
"Maybe you say it helps (Obamacare), but it really helps the small businessman," said Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., one of several physician-lawmakers among Republicans and an advocate of repeal.
No member of the House GOP leadership has publicly hailed the fix, which was tucked, at Republicans' request, into legislation preventing a cut in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients.
It is unclear how many members of the House rank and file knew of it because the legislation was passed by a highly unusual voice vote without debate.
◼ Team Boehner to Drudge: We didn't 'expand' Obamacare, we repealed a piece - Joel Gehrke/Washington Examiner @joelmentum
Hours after the Drudge Report suggested on Sunday that "Republicans expand[ed] Obamacare" in the headline for the site's lead story, an "alert" from the office of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, countered that they had actually "chip[ped] away another piece" of the law.
The recent change "eliminated a cap on deductibles for small group policies offered inside the law's health care exchanges as well as outside," the Associated Press explained....
"Successfully repealing this Obamacare provision is just one part of Republicans' larger effort to repeal the full law and replace it with better solutions focused on lowering health care costs for families and small businesses," Boehner aide Kevin Smith wrote in the blog post.
At the prodding of business organizations, House Republicans quietly secured a recent change in President Barack Obama's health law to expand coverage choices, a striking, one-of-a-kind departure from dozens of high-decibel attempts to repeal or dismember it.
Democrats describe the change involving small-business coverage options as a straightforward improvement of the type they are eager to make, and Obama signed it into law. Republicans are loath to agree, given the strong sentiment among the rank and file that the only fix the law deserves is a burial.
"Maybe you say it helps (Obamacare), but it really helps the small businessman," said Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., one of several physician-lawmakers among Republicans and an advocate of repeal.
No member of the House GOP leadership has publicly hailed the fix, which was tucked, at Republicans' request, into legislation preventing a cut in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients.
It is unclear how many members of the House rank and file knew of it because the legislation was passed by a highly unusual voice vote without debate.
◼ Team Boehner to Drudge: We didn't 'expand' Obamacare, we repealed a piece - Joel Gehrke/Washington Examiner @joelmentum
Hours after the Drudge Report suggested on Sunday that "Republicans expand[ed] Obamacare" in the headline for the site's lead story, an "alert" from the office of House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, countered that they had actually "chip[ped] away another piece" of the law.
The recent change "eliminated a cap on deductibles for small group policies offered inside the law's health care exchanges as well as outside," the Associated Press explained....
"Successfully repealing this Obamacare provision is just one part of Republicans' larger effort to repeal the full law and replace it with better solutions focused on lowering health care costs for families and small businesses," Boehner aide Kevin Smith wrote in the blog post.
Labels:
Congress,
Obamacare,
Republicans
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)