This video may seem unimportant or slow… but the ending is key. Good advice. Here are the rules for California public requests.
A Jacksonville city hall receptionist was so sure of herself that she not only felt the need to “invite security” after PINAC crew member Jeff Gray made a verbal public records request for a document on her desk, she accused him of yanking the document off her desk, stating that he “flipped through the entire document” without her permission.
And when Gray insisted he did not yank the document off her desk, she smugly told him that surveillance cameras would back up her assertions.
So Gray made a public records request for the surveillance video and proved her to be a liar.
Megadeth’s Dave Mustaine was caught on video by a fan at their April 19 concert in Tucson, Arizona mocking President Obama’s penchant for wearing “mom jeans.” And he used some rather colorful language in doing so!
“Imagine if I was your president… Oh boy! I’ll tell you what – there would be no f**king mom jeans on this guy!”
“I think that I’m very different from the Koch brothers in the sense that I have absolutely no personal interest in what happens except as a citizen of the United States. So whereas they’re representing points of view that are in their personal monetary interests, I’m actually representing the citizens of the whole country in terms of their diffuse interests against concentrated economic interests that the Koch brothers represent.” ~ POWERLINE
(A response to this quote is at bottom)
Some great information about Democratic billionaire activist, Tom Steyer has been added to the collective mind called the blogosphere, via Powerline! If one is not familiar with the issue at hand, you should read a previous post on this issue. A quick recap however, also comes from Powerline who explains the reason behind a bunch of old, outdated politicians doing an all-nighter:
…Tom Steyer, a billionaire who has made a great deal of money on government-subsidized “green” energy projects, has become one of the Democratic Party’s most important donors. On February 18, he hosted a fundraiser at his home that netted $400,000. Harry Reid and six other Senators attended, along with Al Gore and a number of rich environmentalists. At that meeting, plans for last night’s talk-a-thon were already being laid.
The connection is simple: Steyer has pledged to contribute $50 million and raise another $50 million to help Democrats in the 2014 elections. The catch is that they have to emphasize global warming as an issue:
✦ Steyer’s advocacy group, NextGen Political Action, plans to spend at least $50 million of the former hedge-fund manager’s money, plus another $50 million raised from other donors. The group will refuse to spend money on behalf of Democrats who oppose climate regulation, but will not spend money against them either, according to Chris Lehane, a Steyer consultant.
So the Democrats are trying to walk a narrow line. They need to make noise about global warming to keep the cash flowing from Tom Steyer and other deep-pocketed environmental activists (some of whom, of course, are also “green” energy cronies)….
The newest installment in regards to the biggest story lately in Democratic [billionaire] hypocrisy is the recent piece by John Hinderaker on Tom Steyer. Below is part of that article by John as well as an interview of John by Hugh Hewitt:
But Steyer’s hypocrisy goes still deeper. Today, he is a bitter opponent of fossil fuels, especially coal. That fits with his current economic interests: banning coal-fired power plants will boost the value of his solar projects. But it was not always thus. In fact, Steyer owes his fortune in large part to the fact that he has been one of the world’s largest financers of coal projects. Tom Steyer was for coal before he was against it.
A reader with first-hand knowledge of the relevant Asian and Australian markets sent us this detailed report on how Steyer got rich on coal. He titled his report “Hypocrisy & Hedge Funds: Climate Change Warrior Tom Steyer’s Secret Life as Coal Investment Kingpin.” Here it is, in full:
Tom Steyer founded Farallon Capital Management L.L.C. (“Farallon”) in 1986. Farallon has grown to become one of the largest and most successful hedge funds in the United States with over $20bn in funds under management.1 Mr. Steyer’s net worth is reported to be $1.6bn.2
Mr. Steyer left Farallon in 2012 to focus on political and environmental causes and potentially to position himself for public office. He has been described in the press as the “liberals’ answer to the Koch Brothers”3 due to his wealth and his opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline and carbon-based energy in general. He has dedicated some $50 million of his personal fortune to back political candidates who support his position on climate change – and punish those who don’t. Mr. Steyer has led recent campaigns with Bill McKibben to encourage university endowments to divest coal equities.
The facts, summarized below, might lead one to conclude that:
Mr. Steyer has had a direct, personal involvement in assembling, through Farallon, a portfolio of strategic investments in overseas coal miners and coal fired power plants which is unprecedented in scale. The total quantum of Farallon’s investments in these transactions is not publicly disclosed, but reasonable estimates suggest that it could be between US$1 and $2 billion in total.6 Taken collectively, the coal producers in which his fund has amassed these investment interests represent one of the largest sources of thermal coal in the world;
The financing provided by Mr. Steyer’s fund enabled these coal producers to restructure and recapitalize thereby freeing them to grow rapidly during a period of rapidly rising coal prices, leading to one of the largest expansions of thermal coal production in modern times7;
Made during a period of ever rising coal prices, these investments were almost certainly extremely profitable for Mr. Steyer’s fund overall, and my extension Mr. Steyer personally. It stands to reason that few people in American history have made more money from investment in thermal coal than Mr. Steyer.
Hypocrisy is not in short supply in the political world, but Tom Steyer is in a class by himself. Now that he is enriching himself through “green” cronyism, coal is evil. Sure: like all hydrocarbons, it competes with the solar energy boondoggles on which he is making millions, with the aid of the Obama administration. But where was Steyer’s alleged social conscience when he was one of the world’s biggest investors in coal? And how substantial are his current holdings in coal projects? Is Steyer financing his anti-fossil fuel campaign on profits from past or, perhaps, ongoing investments in Asian and Australian coal? Inquiring minds want to know! Tom Steyer appears to have elevated political hypocrisy to an entirely new level.
Jake Tapper of CNN, one of the few truly fair guys in the legacy media, was also asked by Hugh Hewitt about Tom Steyer and the hypocrisy uncovered by John at Powerline. Hugh also played an American Commitment ad for Jake to get his comment on the topic at hand. Here is THAT interview with the description from my YouTube channel:
Hugh Hewitt interviews Jake Tapper of CNN, the topic? John Hinderaker’s recent piece, “The Epic Hypocrisy of Tom Steyer” (http://tinyurl.com/lro2wow). Tapper is hopeful for a braoder media attention to stories like John broke in regards to rich — hypocritical — millionaires and billionaires that give to the Democratic party. LIKE, the legacy media does, in regards to the Koch brothers and others.
My posts on the Koch brothers and Tom Steyer are as follows:
PolitiBrewoffers a response to the quote I chose to start this post with, “I think that I’m very different from the Koch brothers…” (top). I will include an upload of Michael Medved speaking about the generosity of the Koch Brothers as well, enjoy:
Tom Steyer is most certainly not the Koch Brothers. Steyer’s hedge fund is tied to a $67 million ponzi scheme that siphoned millions of dollars from foreign investors.
Steyer has also promised to spend $100 million to get democrats elected in 2014.
Meanwhile, the “evil” Koch Brothers donate billions of dollars to many deserving causes but generally give to conservative ones, you know, like all the money they give to M.D. Anderson for cancer research. How conservative is that? I guess they’d like to help conserve lives. How about that they “underwrite research and teaching at Brown, Mount Holyoke, Sarah Lawrence, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Vassar, and some 245 other colleges”? Is that conservative?
Think nothing of the Millions to MIT for cancer research, that’s conservative too, right? Right.
Yes Tom. We can’t deny that you are not the Koch Brothers. You may be able to hold a candle, just not to these Men. May as well blow it out….
These leftists are making it too easy! It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
“Barbra Streisand she took her Gulfstream to fly into Washington to chew over climate change with the president. And that’s fine if Barbra Streisand and Al Gore does it,” Steyn said. “But the rest of us — we are supposed to be beating our clothes with the native women down by the river … and again there’s a nonsense about this. The Obama administration now wants to regulate bovine flatulence because they claim that is destroying the planet. And again it’s the greatest excuse for big government ever. At their Monday night poker game in hell, Hitler and Stalin and Mao must be sitting around, laughing their heads off, saying, ‘Oh it’s for the future of all our children. If only we thought of that.’ From bovine flatulence, you know, if you went to an 11th century medieval peasant in his barnyard and said, ‘Sorry, peasant. I come from the king. You have to pay a bovine flatulence tax,’ he would say, ‘Get out of here.’ A medieval peasant would know that’s nonsense. Now, we take it seriously.”
Joel Kotkin writes about the spread of “debate is over” syndrome. It’s a good article, but marred by the author’s surprise that this “embrace homogeneity of viewpoint” finds expression by the American left, “the same people who historically have identified themselves with open-mindedness and the defense of free speech.”
Actually, “debate is over” syndrome expresses a core tenet of American progressivism, and one that has been present from the beginning. It stems from the historicism of the German philosopher Hegel.
Hegel maintained that history unfolds through a “dialectical” process, in which each stage is the product of the contradictions inherent in the ideas that defined the preceding one. Within these tensions and contradictions, Hegel believed, the philosopher can discern a comprehensive, evolving, rational unity. He called that unity “the absolute idea.”
History consists of an inevitable and progressive march to that idea. The modern State is the final fruit of that progressive march.
It is natural for a Hegelian to pronounce a debate “over” even as it continues to rage. Having discerned the comprehensive rational unity — the absolute idea — positions contrary to that idea can be written off as things of the past.
Hegel’s place in Marxist thought is well known. But if anything, the German holds an even more central position in American Progressive thought, thanks mainly to Woodrow Wilson, the intellectual father of American Progressivism. (Theodore Roosevelt was also influenced by the German philosophy of Hegel’s day, as Jean Yarbrough has shown).
Wilson took Hegel so much to heart that, in a love letter to his future wife, he observed that “Hegel used to search for–and in most cases find, it seems to me–the fundamental psychological facts of society.” And Wilson’s writing about the State, about administration, and about the U.S. Constitution all are founded in Hegel’s historicism.
As Scott and I argued, one can draw a straight line from Wilson’s Hegelianism to liberal constitutional theory. Wilson endorsed the emerging, Darwinian-inspired theory of a “living Constitution” under which that document’s original meaning must take a back seat whenever it stands in the way of the march of History.
U.S. Republicans beat Africans, Asians, Latin Americans, Euros and even U.S. Democrats. Muslim Middle Easterners the most intolerant of alcohol by far
From Eric Dondero:
Pew surveyed views on hot button social issues, like abortion, divorce, homosexuality, gambling and alcohol. Overall, Americans, both Democrats and Republicans were far more open and tolerant than virtually all other cultures around the world.
A couple of exceptions: Republicans were less respecting of divorce than Europeans, and more pro-life on abortion, and opposed to gay marriage. And the GOP is not as tolerant as it could be on legalized gambling.
….the gap between Dems and Repubs was significant, a full 5%…
Bottom line from the libertarian perspective: The Republican Party is consistently the home of anti-prohibitionism and anti-Islamism. Which makes all the sense in the world considering Dems today favor hugely expansive taxes on alcohol, nanny-state regs on bars, opposes lowering the drinking age to 18, and are the party that caters to Muslims.
Protests have been made and threats issued over recent months against Christian-run shops that sell alcoholic beverages in the South of Lebanon, a ‘feudal’ territory ‘belonging’ to the Shiite Islamic Hezbollah movement and its militias….
….If the OLCC gives the city the green light, stores would not be able to sell single containers of malt liquor or domestic beer over 22 ounces, or malt liquor or domestic beer with more than 5.75 percent alcohol. They also wouldn’t be able to sell wine with more than 14 percent.
Originally, the target area included Old Town, Goose Hollow and the downtown core but now the OLCC is now looking at adding the Pearl District and Northwest 23rd Avenue to the roster
Note – The Portland city council is entirely Democrat. Additionally, the Mayor Sam Adams (yes, that’s his real name) is also a Democrat.
During the Middle ages, from about 800 to 1300, the world went through five centuries of higher temperatures than average…yes, even higher than today.
During this era, the Vikings traveled around the known world–over land to the East, and by sea to the West. Warmer weather in the North meant less difference in temperature between the North and the Equator, hence fewer and less severe storms on the oceans. The higher temperatures also made it possible to grow grain and other food products in more Northern regions, including Greenland. There was a reason why they called it ‘green’ land: it actually was very green during that period. Since Vikings were ale drinkers, they had ale on their ships, rather high alcohol ale. Because of the warmer global climate, they were able to brew it with local grains from many of the territories to which they traveled. They spread their brewing techniques far and wide, even to Newfoundland (Canada), which the Vikings called Vin-land, since they found grapes over there.
Speaking of grapes, the warmer weather permitted grapes to grow in vineyards as far North as Northern England, the Low-Lands (today’s Belgium and the Netherlands) and vast territories in the East. The consumption of wine and beer mingled amongst the classes. Wine had always been reserved for the wealthy, but its new found abundance allowed it to spread down the hierarchical ladder of society. The line between wine and beer drinkers had also been geographically defined, since locals drank alcoholic beverages made from what was locally available, grapes or grains. That changed: brewers and vintners lived on the same lands now.
Thanks to the abundance of food produced during the constant good weather in that era, the population doubled or even tripled in some places, where it had been constant during the colder era (300-800 a.d.). The abbeys, who were so important in spreading the brewing technique and the cultivation of yeast-strings, became very rich and powerful. Less flooding (less strong storms) allowed them, for example, to create “new land” in vast quantities on the sea in today’s Flanders (Belgium) by building dikes. The cities emerged because each harvest produced more food, and more children stayed alive to become adults thanks to better weather and better food. International trade flourished over land (roads were not washed away as often as in the past) and over sea (less intense storms, more predictable weather). Thanks to the global warming in that era the brewing and consumption of good beer multiplied. More people, more successful people (cities, abbeys), more thirsty people, better grains cultivated in more territories were all factors that contributed in the creation of many new and diverse styles of beer. Wine making and beer brewing techniques influenced each other, especially in today’s Belgium, where rich cities, free from Royal rule, took advantage of the abundance and the freedom to trade.
The overall wealth was so great, optimism so high, food growing so easily, that nobility of the era in Western Europe could look beyond their borders. They were able to take a large number of their men, much of their treasure, and travel to the Middle East in an attempt to liberate the region from the Muslims, who had invaded and enslaved all the Christian lands. Indeed, this was the beginning of the Crusades, and there were many of these organized mass summer trips.
Wannabe celebrity Josie Cunningham last night confessed the chance of appearing on TV’s Big Brother was worth more than her unborn child’s life.
Puffing on a cigarette and rubbing her baby bump, the controversial model and call girl – who will have her abortion at a clinic this week – said: “I’m finally on the verge of becoming famous and I’m not going to ruin it now.
“An abortion will further my career. This time next year I won’t have a baby. Instead, I’ll be famous, driving a bright pink Range Rover and buying a big house. Nothing will get in my way.”
Josie, 23, is already 18 weeks pregnant by either an escort agency client or a Premier League footballer. But she claims her late life-or-death decision has nothing to do with who the father is.
She says it is based on the breakdown of negotiations with Channel 5 to appear on the reality show.
Gay Patriot says this about the issue: “I guess she’s just taking Obama’s advice and not letting herself be ‘punished with a baby’.” Hear O say a baby is an STD:
The Daily Mail talks more about this “wannabe,” pointing out the entitlement attitude that overrides sensibility and morals:
…Having already become notorious thanks to the NHS-funded breast enhancement she underwent last year as she attempted to launch her modelling career, the single mother-of-two has sunk to new depths in her bid to snatch a place in the limelight.
Yesterday, she shockingly announced that she will abort her latest pregnancy in the hope of securing a place on the next series of the reality TV show Big Brother.
‘I’m finally on the verge of becoming famous and I’m not going to ruin it now,’ said Cunningham, whose 18-week pregnancy is already clearly visible.
‘Channel 5 were keen to shortlist me, then they found out I was pregnant,’ she said. ‘They went cold on me. That was when I started considering an abortion.
‘After the operation I will be going back to them and asking if they will still consider me.’….
The Daily Mail continues, “Recently she decided she wants her breast implants removed – again paid for by the NHS.” OMG!
Obviously she is not — or the last — girl to have had an abortion to further their career, education, love-life, and the like. But his case is merely showing the sickness in our society, that’s all.
One blog, Eternity Matters, concentrated this story on “nationalized healthcare,” who may pay for the abortion as well?
Why are capitalist countries wealthy and socialist countries poor? Because the free market allocates resources more wisely than bureaucrats. This is how healthcare resources are allocated under Britain’s regime of socialized medicine:
Britain’s National Health Service, the NHS, recently spent £4,800 — about $7,200 — on enormous breast implants for an aspiring model while nearly 1,200 patients starved to death in hospitals over the past four years. Critics say the deaths were caused by neglect due to understaffing.
The NHS provided Josie Cunningham with 36DD implants in January after she told her doctor that being flat-chested was causing emotional distress.
It gets worse:
In addition to the breast implants, the NHS has also spent £25,000 — about $37,000 — on a sex-change operation for a 19-year-old male diagnosed with “gender identity disorder.”
Contrast the above 36DD payed for by tax-payers because of a story about bullies, to, a life saving procedure that could have saved the life of Sophie Thomlinson (pictured to the right), two-years old… who was denied a life changing operation at Leeds General Infirmary. Obama-Care is headed to this end-result:
This comes via The Blaze, and is merely a confirmation of what many fair minded people already know, these are some quotes from Sharyl Attkisson during an interview on CNN. I think that CNN was a bit late to the party, maybe, feeling the hit to their ratings for not doing what Fox had already done with Miss Attkisson, that is, interview her:
Attkisson added in her interview with CNN’s “Reliable Sources” host Brian Stelter that while she never was discouraged from hard-hitting reports on the George W. Bush administration, when it came to her critical coverage of the Obama White House, CBS regularly balked.
“There are very sophisticated efforts to manipulate the images and the information that you see every day, in ways that you won’t recognize,” she said. “And I think we can all be a little more savvy about that.”
As for the differences between how CBS News brass treated and covered the Bush compared to the Obama administration, Attkisson noted that she “didn’t sense any resistance to doing stories that were perceived to be negative to the Bush administration by anybody ever.” But as for the Obama White House, she said “I have done stories that were not received well because people thought they would reflect poorly upon this administration.”
Attkisson went further, noting a “fairly well-discussed” topic inside CBS News “that there are some managers recently who have been so ideologically entrenched that there is a feeling and discussion that some of them, certainly not all of them, have a difficult time viewing a story that may reflect negatively upon government or the administration as a story of value.”
“So you’re saying they are liberal or Democrats?” Stelter asked.
“I don’t know what their registered party is, I just know that the tendency on the part of some of these managers who have key influences has been they never mind the stories that seem to, for example — and I did plenty of them — go against the grain of the Republican Party, but they do often seem to feel defensive about, almost, personally defensive about stories that could make the government look bad. Even if it’s something as simple as a government waste story that doesn’t pinpoint anybody in particularly and it takes on both parties. It seems as though some of them were sensitive about any story that might appear as though it criticizes the government.”
The Blaze continues the story with the video interview:
This brings us back to some older news, but refreshing it in our minds helps us remember the uphill battle we face. Lets compare the first 100-days of each of our recent presidents. And as you will see, the media was most fair (down the middle, so-to-speak) with Clinton. But as the Left gets more entrenched due to brainwashing at the university, you see a slide to one end:
Overall, roughly four out of ten stories, editorials and op ed columns about Obama have been clearly positive in tone, compared with 22% for Bush and 27% for Clinton in the same mix of seven national media outlets during the same first two months in office, according to a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism. HotAir mentioned the Pew Poll a while back, noting: “In their 100-day look released last week, Pew notes that Obama got twice as much good press as Bush and 50% more than Clinton.” They continue by quoting Pew:
The study found positive stories about Obama have outweighed negative by two-to-one (42% vs. 20%) while 38% of stories have been neutral or mixed.
When a broader universe of media—one that includes 49 outlets and reflects the more modern media culture of 2009, is examined, the numbers for Obama’s coverage are similar, though somewhat less positive and somewhat more negative. In this expanded universe of media—which includes news websites, additional regional and local newspapers, plus cable news, network morning news, and National Public Radio, 37% of Obama’s coverage has been positive, 40% neutral and 23% negative.
Pew also notes that the types of coverage Obama receives seems designed to cast a halo on him. Unlike Bush (22%) and Clinton (26%), almost half of all news stories on Obama (44%) focus on his personal and leadership qualities. Those are the kinds of stories that usually take a soft focus, work in generalities, and put public figures in the best possible light.
Obama’s coverage differs in another key way. Much of the Obama coverage (31%) reports on what can only be called Obama’s campaign mode, in which Obama communicates directly with the American people. Only 8% of Bush’s coverage focused on those efforts. The media focused much more on Bush’s relationship with Congress and his legislative agenda.
In other words, the media has given us a heapin’ helping of fluff in the first 100 days, and very little in specifics. They’re allowing Obama to manipulate them into campaign coverage rather than shine a light on his governance….
Well, Sharyl Attkisson, a 21-year vet at CBS confirms to us what Bernie Goldberg years ago already did. That CBS (obviously not the only network) has sold its soul to the gods of progressivism. While Fox should remain center-right, they should always allow the other voice an opportunity to speak. Scott Whitlock at NewsBusters, for instance, noted that “as of April 3, 2014, it’s been 140 days since the once-vaunted Nightline covered ObamaCare or any of the problems associated with it. Instead, the ABC News program has mostly avoided hard news, focusing on tabloid-heavy topics such as a city in Brazil that has become known as the “model factory.” So it isn’t just WHAT you report as it is what you choose to ignore that affects the public’s perception. Sad.
…with Gateway Pundit’s erudite fishing into what was just revealed (that I missed):
What has not been widely known until today was the Democratic Party front group’s role in actually producing the news.
Attkisson: “Media Matters, as my understanding, is a far left blog group that I think holds itself out to be sort of an independent watchdog group. And yes, they clearly targeted me at some point. They used to work with me on stories and tried to help me produce my stories, and at some point…”
After Sunday’s broadcast, CNN posted a follow-up story that included a response from Media Matters. The response does not mention previous collaborations with Attkisson and CBS News in producing news reports for the network.
“We also sought comment from Media Matters; Attkisson said she thought it was possible that the liberal media monitoring group had been paid to discredit her. Media Matters responded:
‘Sharyl Attkisson is continuing a pattern of evidence-free speculation that started at the end of her tenure at CBS. We have never taken contributions to target her or any other reporter. Our decision to post any research on Attkisson is based only on her shoddy reporting’.”
There was no mention of Media Matters working with Attkisson to produce news reports for CBS News in the recent hit piece by David Brock’s Senior Fellow attack poodle Eric Boehlert posted at Media Matters on April 17th with the laughably dishonest headline (if Attkisson is to be believed):
CBS News should disclose which reports by the network were done in collaboration with the Democratic Party front group Media Matters. Attkisson should also disclose on which stories she collaborated with Media Matters.
Breitbart adds a little to this from the transcript:
On Thursday’s broadcast of Fox News Channel’s “The Five,” co-panelist Greg Gutfeld, author of “Not Cool: The Hipster Elite and Their War on You,” used his monologue segment to the hypocrisy in taking a $25,000 a month payout to point out income inequality at the City University of New York, which is a salary eight times what other professors make at the same institution.
“Today the award goes to New York Times blogger and Obama’s favorite economist Paul Krugman, who just got hired by the City University of New York to drop by once in a while,” Gutfeld said. “Apparently the school is going to pay the Krugster 25 grand a month to play a modest role at events dealing with inequality. Let’s recap – Krugs will yack about inequality for 25Gs a month. This is genius for is there no better way to point out the absurd extremes of inequality than getting paid eight times what other professors get? And no teaching. This is pure performance art — a stroke of masterful self-perpetuating employment. It’s like a fireman get paid for arson, a doctor spreading the flu so he can treat it. He creates the problem and arrives on the scene to provide the solution. He’s like alcohol”….
The Blaze points out that “CUNY is a publicly funded school… [and] according to Gawker pays its adjunct professors roughly $3,000 per course. Meanwhile, tenured professors make approximately $116,364 per year. Tenured professors are expected to teach, hold seminars and publish.” The Blaze continues:
The City University of New York will pay economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman an estimated $225,000 over the course of nine months to participate in certain activities involving the school’s Graduate Center and Luxembourg Income Study Center.
And people wonder why tuition is sooo high. Because they have to pay elite scumbags like Krugman.