A daily compilation edited by Brent H. Baker, CyberAlert items are drawn from daily BiasAlert posts and distributed by the Media Research Center's News Analysis Division, the leader since 1987 in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias.
Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996
Thursday May 13, 2010 @ 09:22 AM EDT1. NBC Astonished Poll Finds Most Support Arizona Law and Anti-Terror Profiling; Skip GOP Surge
NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd seemed astonished by how a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll confirmed solid agreement with Arizona's immigration enforcement law – "a whopping 64 percent support the law," Todd marveled, "and we read them the law verbatim exactly as it's been written" and still, he repeated, "64 percent approve of it." NBC also treated as surprising the majority backing for racial profiling to prevent terrorism, while Todd didn't mention what NBC's polling partner, the Wall Street Journal, found most newsworthy. Lead of the WSJ.com post: "Republicans have solidified support among voters who had drifted from the party in recent elections, putting the GOP in position for a strong comeback in November's elections."
2. Lead Prosecutor Chris Matthews Pins Blame for Oil Spill on Dick Cheney
Chris Matthews simply can't get Dick Cheney out of his mind. On Tuesday's Hardball, the MSNBC host once again attempted to pin the blame of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on the former vice president, as he sinisterly questioned "What role did Dick Cheney play in all of this?" Matthews, going after one of his favorite punching bags, brought on Democratic Congressman John Garamendi and an attorney suing BP, Mike Papantonio, to prosecute his case as he accused Cheney and Halliburton of weakening regulations, which in turn led to the oil spill. Matthews even went as far to liken government in the Bush/Cheney years as reminiscent of "a third world banana republic."
3. On NBC, Vieira Sputters at Laura Ingraham's Charge That Kagan Was 'Anti-Military'
NBC's Today offered a conservative counterpoint on the Elena Kagan nomination on Wednesday: conservative radio talker and author Laura Ingraham. Co-host Meredith Vieira suggested Republicans were hypocrites to suggest Kagan was inexperienced: "The top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, has said that her lack of experience to him is troubling. Yet when Harriet Miers was put up for consideration by President Bush five years ago he had no problem with the fact she had never served as a judge. So are Republicans not satisfied with these nominees, their lack of judicial experience only when they're not a Republican nominee?"
4. Under Painting of Lincoln Peering Down at Obama, USA Today Explores Obama's Underappreciated 'Historic' Greatness
"Will doing 'big things' wind up costing Obama?" a Wednesday USA Today front page article worried, accompanied by a photo of contemplative President Barack Obama with Abraham Lincoln in a painting peering down at him. The caption: "History book bound?" The subhead for the story by Susan Page and Mimi Hall: "Voters' anxiety clouds his historic successes." The effusive lead presumed Obama deserves credit for great achievements the public has been slow to recognize and the duo later declared: "Historians call Obama's record incomparable." And they meant that as a glowing positive.
5. Network Double Standard: Elena Kagan vs. Samuel Alito
In the 36 hours after President Bush nominated Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court in 2005, network reporters explicitly labeled him "conservative" ten times in their morning and evening newscasts. Over the same period this time, Obama nominee Elena Kagan has been called "liberal" just once, on CBS.
6. CBS's Rodriguez Urges John Kerry to Denounce Offshore Oil Drilling
In an interview with Senator John Kerry on Wednesday's CBS Early Show on the Gulf Coast oil spill, co-host Maggie Rodriguez hit from the left on new energy legislation proposed by the Massachusetts Democrat: "correct me if I'm wrong, your legislation calls for expanding offshore drilling at a time when polls show most Americans no longer support it. Why do you believe it's necessary to do that?" Kerry responded by pointing out that his bill would "actually restrict the current plan of the President" to expand offshore drilling. Rodriguez pressed further: "Are you saying it does not call for expanded offshore drilling?"
7. CBS Review of Russell Crowe Film: 'Robin Hood Meets Che Guevara'
On CBS's Sunday Morning, correspondent Dean Reynolds described the latest adaptation of the Robin Hood legend by director Ridley Scott and starring Russell Crowe: "And so here is an evil King John, squeezing his subjects for more taxes....And here is Robin. Not as a thief, but as a revolutionary figure trying to limit the King's power. Robin Hood meets Che Guevara." Reynolds further explained the plot of the new film: "This Robin joins the fight to get the English king to sign the Magna Carta in the year 1215, the document establishing the first rights on which modern democracies are based."
NBC Astonished Poll Finds Most Support Arizona Law and Anti-Terror Profiling; Skip GOP Surge
NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd seemed astonished by how a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll confirmed solid agreement with Arizona's immigration enforcement law – "a whopping 64 percent support the law," Todd marveled, "and we read them the law verbatim exactly as it's been written" and still, he repeated, "64 percent approve of it." NBC also treated as surprising the majority backing for racial profiling to prevent terrorism, while Todd didn't mention what NBC's polling partner, the Wall Street Journal, found most newsworthy. Lead of the WSJ.com post:
Republicans have solidified support among voters who had drifted from the party in recent elections, putting the GOP in position for a strong comeback in November's elections, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.In his limited air time, Todd used the video wall at 30 Rock to highlight the public's belief the government and BP haven't done enough to address the Gulf oil spill, but he didn't note another finding which counters the media's preferences and narrative, that despite the accident, 60 percent support "more drilling for oil off the coast of the United States."
MSNBC.com, however, headlined its poll summary, "Poll: Despite spill, support for oil drilling high"
Brian Williams cued up Todd on profiling, suggesting it has, or at least should have been, a topic of hot debate: "I know after this attempted bombing in Times Square, you asked a question every family has debated about racial profiling." Todd recounted what the survey determined:
On the attitude toward the two parties and the Tea Party movement, Todd conveyed:We did, and we asked it specifically on the issue of: Would you be in favor of racial profiling when it comes to combating terrorism? And guess what: A majority said yes. It's a slim majority, but a majority nonetheless: 51 percent would approve of it; 43 percent disapprove of it. Clearly, this issue of terrorism is something that people, they're willing to give up some of their own personal rights, and they're willing to see some racial profiling, Brian.
Both political parties viewed negatively. The Democrats, 37 percent positive rating, 42 percent negative. Republicans, a lesser positive rating [30%]. But check this out. The Tea Party – it's not an official political party – but there are more people have a positive view [31%] of the Tea Party than of the Republican Party. And fewer people have a negative view of the Tea Party than either of the two major parties [30%].The Wall Street Journal saw a lot more positive for Republicans. From the story posted Wednesday night, presumably what will run in Thursday's newspaper, by Peter Wallsten, Naftali Bendavid and Jean Spencer:
Republicans have solidified support among voters who had drifted from the party in recent elections, putting the GOP in position for a strong comeback in November's elections, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. The findings suggest that public opinion has hardened in advance of the 2010 elections, making it harder for Democrats to translate their legislative successes or a tentatively improving U.S. economy into gains among voters.As noted above, Todd pointed out that on Arizona "we read them the law verbatim exactly as it's been written." Here's that question, #34:
Republicans have reassembled their coalition by reconnecting with independents, seniors, blue-collar voters, suburban women and small town and rural voters—all of whom had moved away from the party in the 2006 elections, in which Republicans lost control of the House. Those voter groups now favor GOP control of Congress.
"This data is what it looks like when Republicans assemble what for them is a winning coalition," said GOP pollster Bill McInturff, who conducts the survey with Democratic pollster Peter Hart. He said the Republican alliance appeared to be "firmer and more substantial" than earlier in the year....
A big shift is evident among independents, who at this point in the 2006 campaign favored Democratic control of Congress rather than Republican control, 40% to 24%. Now, independents favor the GOP, 38% to 30%.
Suburban women favored Democratic control four years ago by a 24-point margin. Now, they narrowly favor Republicans winning the House. A similar turnaround has happened among voters 65 and older....
The Arizona law makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally. It requires local and state law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status if they have reason to suspect a person is in the country illegally, making it a crime for them to lack registration documents. Do you support or oppose this law? (IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE, THEN ASK) And, do you strongly (support/oppose) or just somewhat (support/oppose) this law?(46 percent "strongly support," nearly double the 24 percent who "strongly oppose.")
In fact, the statute requires a prerequisite lawful reason for stopping someone before the law enforcement officer can check their immigration status:
For any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.PDF of the full results, as posted by MSNBC.com and WSJ.com
The poll rundown provided on the Wednesday, May 12 NBC Nightly News, transcript provided by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth who corrected the closed-captioning against the video:
BRIAN WILLIAMS: We have new numbers tonight, a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. And it's a revealing one – everything from politics to oil to racial profiling. Our chief White House correspondent and NBC News political director Chuck Todd is with us here at the board with the numbers. And, Chuck, we asked about a lot of subjects this time.— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
CHUCK TODD: We did. A lot's happened since the last time we went into the field. And let's begin with the oil spill and what folks think of the federal government's response so far. And it's a mixed bag: 45 percent believe the government is not doing enough; 43 percent believe they are doing enough. Of course, BP is the one that a lot of people blame a lot more right now than the federal government.
How about that new immigration law in Arizona? Well, a whopping 64 percent support the law. And we read them the law verbatim exactly as it's been written – 64 percent approve of it; 34 percent oppose it. But look at this number among Hispanics: It's reversed – 70 percent of Hispanics oppose it; 27 percent support it. It is something that is going to be a political hot potato for probably the next couple of years.
How about the President? Well, look at this. There's sort of a polarizing view of the President these days – 51 percent, a majority, actually now disapprove of his policies. And yet he's still well liked: 69 percent like him personally. So this polarized view, he's sort of Teflon personally, but he's having a hard time selling his agenda.
How's this translating to the political parties? Well, look at that. We know there's an anti-incumbent atmosphere out there. Both political parties viewed negatively. The Democrats, 37 percent positive rating, 42 percent negative. Republicans, a lesser positive rating. But check this out. The Tea Party – it's not an official political party – but there are more people have a positive view of the Tea Party than of the Republican party. And fewer people have a negative view of the Tea Party than either of the two major parties. It's a conservative movement for now, but it is something that seems to be catching on.
So what is this anti-incumbent atmosphere all about? Why is it that everybody is so angry? Well, look at these numbers. We'll start with this. Large majorities, 56 percent, say the country's heading the wrong direction. It's been that way for six months; 58 percent, for instance, believe the stock market is not a fair and open process to them. Look at this one: 75 percent believe that they don't trust anything that comes out of Washington; 81 percent are dissatisfied with the economy. And now you have 83 percent that believe the two-party system has real problems, and a large chunk of those voters would like to see an actual creation of a third party, the largest we've seen yet. And, Brian, this explains why Republican Bob Bennett lost in Utah, a Democratic Congressman lost last night in a primary. We may have two Senators this Tuesday both lose. It's an angry and pessimistic public.
WILLIAMS: And I know after this attempted bombing in Times Square, you asked a question every family has debated about racial profiling.
TODD: We did, and we asked it specifically on the issue of: Would you be in favor of racial profiling when it comes to combating terrorism? And guess what: A majority said yes. It's a slim majority, but a majority nonetheless: 51 percent would approve of it; 43 percent disapprove of it. Clearly, this issue of terrorism is something that people, they're willing to give up some of their own personal rights, and they're willing to see some racial profiling, Brian.
Lead Prosecutor Chris Matthews Pins Blame for Oil Spill on Dick Cheney
Chris Matthews simply can't get Dick Cheney out of his mind. On Tuesday's Hardball, the MSNBC host once again attempted to pin the blame of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on the former vice president, a theory he first broached last week, as he sinisterly questioned "What role did Dick Cheney play in all of this?" Matthews, going after one of his favorite punching bags, brought on Democratic Congressman John Garamendi and an attorney suing BP, Mike Papantonio, to prosecute his case as he accused Cheney and Halliburton of weakening regulations, which in turn led to the oil spill. Matthews even went as far to liken government in the Bush/Cheney years as reminiscent of "a third world banana republic." [audio available here]
MATTHEWS: And I look at this situation, the President of the United States is allowed to have a vice president who in many ways looks more powerful than he does. And Dick Cheney, of his own volition, says, "I'm bringing all the oil industry tycoons into the office with me. Absolute secrecy. We're gonna set energy policy for a democratic country." We're supposed to be a democracy. Yet the policies made in the secrecy of the White House, no press allowed, no records kept. Absolute secrecy. And then we find out that these guys at Halliburton, one of these companies, in fact the company that paid him $34 million into the vice presidency, has gotten their pick of the regulators to regulate Halliburton. How do we stop this?! It seems like a third-world banana republic would do it this way.The following teaser and exchanges were aired on the May 11 Hardball:
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Good evening, I'm Chris Matthews out in Los Angeles. Leading off tonight oil slicks. BP says Transocean and Halliburton did it. Transocean says BP and Halliburton did it. Haliburton says BP and Transocean did it. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. So who did cause the Gulf oil spill and who's going to hold them responsible? Are we talking poltergeist? Who is that enemy below that caused the spill? And what role did Dick Cheney play in all of this?—Geoffrey Dickens is the Senior News Analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here
...
MATTHEWS: Let's start with the politics of the oil spill. U.S. Congressman John Garamendi is a Democrat from California. And Michael Papantonio is a lawyer whose firm has filed a class-action lawsuit in three states against the oil companies. I want to start with Mr. Papantonio. Sir, you brought a lawsuit, is there a case to be made here against Dick Cheney, as head of Halliburton?
MIKE PAPANTONIO, ATTORNEY FOR FAMILIES SUING BP: I think, I think it's a systemic problem. Look, influence pattern emerged after Dick Cheney's 100-day meeting that he had behind closed doors with the American Petroleum Institute, Exxon, Shell, Conoco. Look Congress needs to be asking these questions right now, Chris. Right now, they're not asking the tough questions. What happened in that closed-door meeting? What was discussed, what promises were made? What quid quo pro took place? And why was there this sudden change that took place after that meeting. More importantly, Chris, why is it we can't even get the minutes from that meeting.
MATTHEWS: Okay.
PAPANTONIO: Bobby Kennedy and I had sued this, sued this department to try to get, we can't get them.
MATTHEWS: Well let me help you with this, Mr. Papantonio, since it's your lawsuit. Consider this amicus information. The Vice President got $24 million, I'm sorry, $34 million from Halliburton after he joined the ticket in 2000. He was leaving the company. This wasn't for services, this was what, goodwill? $34 million. Then the two top regulators on MMS who were supposedly responsible for managing the oil industry and making sure there's safety in their own operations, both Halliburton people. So isn't that interesting? What do you make of that? Before we move on. The Halliburton factor here, the Cheney factor. Please answer my question, what role did Dick Cheney play, coming into the vice presidency and two top Halliburton people taking over responsibility for get this, regulating Halliburton?
PAPANTONIO: We know this, we know this Chris, what did happen is the whole, the whole mineral management department changed. New people showed up. New regulations showed up.
MATTHEWS: Halliburton people!
PAPANTONIO: Halliburton. Well, well, here, here it is. Here it is. It goes beyond that. It goes beyond, all you have to do is look at the fact that it wasn't just a meeting where nothing happened for Halliburton. After this meeting, a 300 percent increase took place in their business on things like off-shore drilling. It's about access. It's about access. Clearly about access, Chris.
Look here's, here's where this thing should go. There, there's a statute, it's clear, it's called the Honest Service Fraud statute. It's called 18 U.S. Code 1346. Prosecutors all over America use this statute to put, to put cronies, political cronies in prison for the type of thing that they should be asking questions about right now. It's real simple to follow.
MATTHEWS: Okay.
PAPANTONIO: When there's a government official and a third party that have an agreement and it doesn't look right, we need to investigate...
MATTHEWS: Okay let me, let me go to an office holder-
PAPANTONIO: That's what needs to happen here.
MATTHEWS: -a good government guy. John Garamendi, I 've known you a long time. You're a good government guy. What is the role of Halliburton here? This amazing relationship where the Vice President gets $34 million on his way into the vice presidency, as these regulators are being named and they're being named from the very company they're supposed to be regulating. I don't see how you can trust that kind of a relationship.
GARAMENDI: You can't, we used to say fox guarding the henhouse, now we shave the skunks guarding the henhouse. No doubt about it and it's not just the oil industry. We're talking about a war, we're talking about $1 trillion of American taxpayers' money for an unnecessary war in Iraq. Dick Cheney and the oil boys really screwed up this country to a fare-thee-well.
MATTHEWS: Well they wanted the war too.
...
MATTHEWS: I've talked to people in the oil industry, Congressman Garamendi and they tell me that no mistake is ever new. No accident is ever new. Everything that ever goes wrong has happened before. And when it happened before -- this is just a fact -- they established safety management procedures from making sure it doesn't happen again. They don't want this to happen. Why didn't they follow those procedures in this case so it wouldn't happen, what happened before? They're acting like this is an act of God, all the right-wingers are saying, "Act of God, oh we can't believe it. It's poltergeist! Weird spirits did this! God did this!" But at some point we take responsibility for money-making when money-making goes bad. Your thoughts Congressman. Can we have safe offshore oil drilling or not?
GARAMENDI: I don't think that it'll ever be safe. There's always going to be an inherent danger and when it occurs it's going to be a real troublesome thing because you're in a marine, ocean environment. I have a bill in to ban, permanently, new leases off the west coast of America. We just don't need to go there. We need to shift. We need to shift away from oil. We need to move to the renewable energy policies. As long as we continue to drill we're gonna find ourselves with these kinds of problems. Not every year, not every drill rig but it's going to happen. And when it does, keep this in mind Chris. Last year, within the last 12 months there have been two massive blowouts on offshore oil rigs. One off the west coast of Australia and another one in the Gulf of Mexico. This is not unheard of. In fact it's all too common. So enough already. Move away from our dependance on oil and let's get on with that renewable energy, which everybody says is our future and has to be our future.
...
MATTHEWS: Let me go to the government end of this. Mr. Garamendi, Congressman, congratulations on being a congressman and it's a wonderful opportunity to make law now. And I look at this situation, the President of the United States is allowed to have a vice president who in many ways looks more powerful than he does. And Dick Cheney, of his own volition, says, "I'm bringing all the oil industry tycoons into the office with me. Absolute secrecy. We're gonna set energy policy for a democratic country." We're supposed to be a democracy. Yet the policies made in the secrecy of the White House, no press allowed, no records kept. Absolute secrecy. And then we find out that these guys at Halliburton, one of these companies, in fact the company that paid him $34 million into the vice presidency, has gotten their pick of the regulators to regulate Halliburton. How do we stop this?! It seems like a third-world banana republic would do it this way.
GARAMENDI: Well first of all you better elect the right people We knew when George W. Bush came in that he was an oil man. And we knew that when he chose Cheney that we were in for an oil economy. And we got exactly what the people voted for. You got to be aware that elections matter. They make a big difference. There ought to be laws, in fact there are laws. Congress did it's very best to try to get that information but Executive Privilege was pulled to shield all of that information. Wrongly done. We're gonna have to hammer away at this. And these kinds of problems should not be allowed. It really depends upon who you choose to elect as a president. If you're choosing an insider from the oil industry, you better expect the oil industry is going to call the shots. And they did. But it's only part of the puzzle.
Halliburton has been on the edge of the law, if not an outlaw, for this entire last decade. Take a look at what you just talked about. The establishment of the oil policy. Look what they did in Iraq. There's been extraordinary scandals that involved Halliburton in Iraq. Hundreds of millions of dollars disappeared when it was sent off to Halliburton. There are problems after problems after problems. But it goes back to whose president? Take a look, who does that person serve? Do they serve the interest of the general public, the environment, or do they serve the interests of the oil industry? No doubt about where George Bush was coming from and then when he chose Cheney and Halliburton, hey the dye was cast, the problems were created.
MATTHEWS: Okay thank you very much. I think you put it together. Mr. Papantonio we'll have you back on. I think we have the facts. $34 million bucks in the pocket of Dick Cheney. His regulators and the regulating positions of his own company! Nice deal they got there Dick! Anyway Congressman John Garamendi thank you sir. Thank you Mike Papantonio. Good luck with the suit.
On NBC, Vieira Sputters at Laura Ingraham's Charge That Kagan Was 'Anti-Military'
NBC's Today offered a conservative counterpoint on the Elena Kagan nomination on Wednesday: conservative radio talker and author Laura Ingraham. Co-host Meredith Vieira suggested Republicans were hypocrites to suggest Kagan was inexperienced.
The top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, has said that her lack of experience to him is troubling. Yet when Harriet Miers was put up for consideration by President Bush five years ago he had no problem with the fact she had never served as a judge. So are Republicans not satisfied with these nominees, their lack of judicial experience only when they're not a Republican nominee? [audio available here]Vieira seemed to be borrowing from the New York Daily News, which tracked down a Sessions statement on Miers from 2005 (but was given no credit by NBC). Vieira didn't seem to consider that the Miers nomination went belly-up, so if Kagan was as qualified as Miers, then perhaps she shouldn't make it to the high court, either. Ingraham answered that Kagan is out of the mainstream:
INGRAHAM: Well I, first of all, I vehemently opposed Harriet Miers for a whole host of reasons. The main thing here is, Barack Obama said he wanted to pick someone who would reflect the values of ordinary Americans. Now all the people watching the Today show across this country, the academic elite, the left wing elite at Harvard University, at Princeton University, they do believe it's okay to kick military recruiters off the Harvard or Princeton campus if, if that was the set of facts. That, that is the mainstream for them but that's not the mainstream for the way most of us value our military, believe in our military and think that they should have access to recruiting students at a place like Harvard, that could serve the country proudly and have served the country proudly over the years. That's not the mainstream and that's not America.Vieira responded in disbelief that Kagan could be classified as "anti-military," and start dragging out the technicalities, that the military wasn't "kicked off campus," just banned from the career office:
VIEIRA: But, Laura in fairness to Kagan, she didn't kick them off the campus.On her radio show later on Wednesday morning, Ingraham revised and extended her remarks. She suggested she could have made her separate-but-equal point another way. If Harvard Law School had decided to deny the NAACP an official space to recruit at their school, would it be criticized as anti-black? If so, how is it not anti-military to ban the military recruiters?
INGRAHAM: Oh, come on.
VIEIRA: She barred them from using the career office for recruiting.
INGRAHAM: Okay, Meredith, remember separate but equal? That was reviled when people were trying to use the separate but equal to say, "Oh as long as black kids are they're, they're taught in a school that, you know, has, is kind of equal to the white kids." That doesn't apply. The military should get preeminent, I think, position at a place like Harvard or any institution.
VIEIRA: Do you believe that she's anti-military Laura? Do you believe she's-
INGRAHAM: I'm sorry?
VIEIRA: Do you believe she's anti-military?
INGRAHAM: I believe that she is of a mindset where individuals believe that it's absolutely okay to diss military recruiters coming on campus. The last time I checked, our military defended the rights of left wing, loopy, [or] conservative, scholars, any one on these campuses to say what ever they want. And to say that somehow they have to be in this other office and they have to play by these other set of rules, when they recruit.
That's just insulting and I think the more people think of that incident, I think the more questions are gonna be raised by, you know, by people that just say, "Look, how is she going to judge on the Court?" If you believe that the Court should be an engine of social, transformational, and radical change, then Elena Kagan is the justice for you.
Now back to where we left off on the Today interview, where it gets a little weird. The Jeff Sessions complaint about Kagan – her very thin record of opinions and writings – then is employed against Ingraham and the Republicans by Vieira:
VIEIRA: You brought up one criticism that you have of her and that raises a problem for the Republicans. She does not have a long history of court opinions or legal briefs. As Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein put it, "There isn't a lot out there to shoot at." Isn't that the biggest problem that Republicans have in dealing with her?Ingraham heard that from former reporter Stuart Taylor on her radio show on Tuesday: he said that if Kagan had failed to ban the military from official buildings over the gay agenda, then she wouldn't have lasted long at Harvard. So then why is Harvard seen as the gold standard of higher education, instead of as a leftist preserve of political correctness? If Harvard won't show respect for the military, why should the country show any respect for Harvard?
INGRAHAM: No I disagree. I think that just because she doesn't have a long paper trail doesn't mean that we don't know who Elena Kagan is. I mean I'm sure she's very affable, she's kind of fun, she's, you know, all those things. Put that aside. Doesn't matter. But we do know-
VIEIRA: She's also very smart, highly educated, considered to be a consensus builder.
INGRAHAM: There are a lot of people who are highly educated who shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. I can name about 15 sitting right on this seat. But look the main thing that we know is that she was picked by Barack Obama to be solicitor general. She'd never argued a case before an appellate court. Suddenly she's solicitor general of the United States and she's dean of Harvard Law School. You don't get picked for those things unless people know that you are going to be consistently liberal on major social issues. And that's just the case.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Under Painting of Lincoln Peering Down at Obama, USA Today Explores Obama's Underappreciated 'Historic' Greatness
"Will doing 'big things' wind up costing Obama?" a Wednesday USA Today front page article worried, accompanied by a photo of contemplative President Barack Obama with Abraham Lincoln in a painting peering down at him. The caption: "History book bound?" The subhead for the story by Susan Page and Mimi Hall: "Voters' anxiety clouds his historic successes."
The effusive lead presumed Obama deserves credit for great achievements the public has been slow to recognize:
Big problems. Big achievements. Big costs.The duo later declared: "Historians call Obama's record incomparable." And they meant that as a glowing positive. (Larger jpg of the front page headline and photo)
Historians say President Obama's legislative record during a crisis-ridden presidency already puts him in a league with such consequential presidents as Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt. But polls show voters aren't totally on board with his achievements, at least not yet, and the White House acknowledges that his victories have carried huge financial and political costs.
"There are always costs in doing big things," Obama told USA Today.
A sidebar featured "Obama's legislative achievements" (hard copy title. In e-Edition: "Achievements for the president."):
- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
- Affordable Health Care for America Act
- The HIRE Act
- Auto companies bailout
- Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor
- Omnibus Public Land Management Act
- New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia
- Education overhaul
The May 12 article continued:
Obama's ambitions are on display again this week as he prods the Senate toward passage of the most sweeping financial regulatory change since the aftermath of the Great Depression, a bill that aims to curtail the Wall Street risk-taking that fed the meltdown in 2008. The bill follows a string of laws and regulations that have reshaped the American landscape in fundamental ways: overhauling the health care system, rescuing U.S. automakers, imposing stricter rules on credit card companies, designating more than 2 million acres of public land as protected wilderness, expanding equal-pay protection for women and more.Only after all of that did Page and Hall get to "reaction from the administration's critics" and how "resistance to an expanding government has fueled the conservative 'Tea Party' movement."
"Even if he wasn't African-American, he'd have a considerable entry in the history books," says Princeton professor Fred Greenstein, author of The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to Barack Obama.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel says Obama, whose campaign promised big changes after the eight-year tenure of Republican George W. Bush, came into office faced with a crippled economy and two wars. Obama put in place "a set of initiatives and accomplishments that are ... at the scale of the challenges that the country faced," Emanuel said in an interview....
But those people are just confused:
Obama says he understands why many Americans are restless, and why his administration doesn't get more credit.One more bit of gushing:
"There is no doubt there is a mismatch between our accomplishments and the perception, but I think that makes perfect sense because we're going through a very tough time," Obama said in a brief interview. When people are jobless or worried about layoffs, they "aren't interested in abstract comparisons with other presidents."
Historians call Obama's record incomparable.As if that's a good thing. It is, if you are liberal and define success by how much you expand government.
With passage of the $940 billion, 10-year health care bill in March, Obama has pushed through more substantial domestic-policy initiatives in 15 months than most presidents do during their entire tenures, they say.
Earlier:
From November: USA Today Defines Sycophantic Media in Front Page Homage to Obamas— Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.
From August: USA Today on Obama's Book List: 'Smart' Choices Display His 'Exquisite Taste'
Network Double Standard: Elena Kagan vs. Samuel Alito
As the MRC's Tim Graham documented yesterday, ABC and NBC's morning and evening newscasts have so far refused to tag Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as a "liberal," with CBS's Jan Crawford offering the sole ideological label of the nominee on Monday's Evening News: "Her career has put her solidly on the left."
In contrast, all three networks made a major deal out of the last person nominated by a Republican President for a slot on the Court, Justice Samuel Alito. Out of the first 21 stories on the ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news shows after Justice Alito's selection, correspondents conveyed ten explicit "conservative" labels during the first 36 hours of coverage. In contrast, Graham documented just one "liberal" label in 14 Kagan stories during the equivalent time period after her selection.
In Alito's case, the networks began trumpeting ideology from the moment he was picked. Anchor Charles Gibson opened ABC's Special Report announcing Alito's nomination: "He is very conservative. This is a liberal appellate court, but he is the most conservative member on it....The President has picked someone very conservative, but a very accomplished jurist as well."
Over on CBS, correspondent Thalia Assuras began: "Well, this nominee is a conservative that should make conservative Republicans very happy...." After the announcement, correspondent Gloria Borger tweaked: "He may be called 'Scalito' because he's quite conservative, but the conservatives say he is not bombastic like Justice Scalia can sometimes be."
On NBC, Matt Lauer began his network's live coverage: "In just a minute or so, President Bush will nominate conservative appeals court Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court." Co-anchor Katie Couric agreed: "Alito is a favorite on the right, and he would replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor."
Nearly all of the early coverage made Alito's ideology the centerpiece: "This is the candidate conservatives wanted and Democrats feared," ABC's George Stephanopoulos opined on the October 31, 2005 World News Tonight, a few hours after Alito was selected. "Conservatives love him, but some Democrats are already lining up to fight his nomination," NBC's Matt Lauer announced the next morning on Today.
But reporters did more than just note which ideological camps liked and disliked Alito — they saw no problem with affixing the "conservative" label on him themselves:
# ABC World News Tonight, October 31: Anchor Elizabeth Vargas: "He is said to be brilliant and A STAUNCH CONSERVATIVE."—Rich Noyes is Rich Noyes is Research Director at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.
Reporter Terry Moran: "He quickly established a reputation on the bench as brilliant and deeply CONSERVATIVE."
# CBS Evening News, October 31: Anchor Bob Schieffer: "Conservatives wanted a CONSERVATIVE on the Supreme Court, and said the President ought to risk a fight in the Senate to get one. Their wishes have been fulfilled."
Correspondent John Roberts: "If confirmed, Alito would wipe out the swing seat now occupied by Sandra Day O'Connor, tilting the Supreme Court in a SOLIDLY CONSERVATIVE direction for years to come."
# NBC Nightly News, October 31: Correspondent Pete Williams: "Alito is considered dependably CONSERVATIVE, though with an independent streak."
Williams, later in the same story: "Perhaps because he and Justice Scalia are both Italian American, Catholic and CONSERVATIVE, he's been nicknamed 'Scalito.'"
# CBS's The Early Show, November 1: Co-host Harry Smith: "A bitter partisan confirmation battle is brewing over President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito. We'll speak with members of the Judiciary Committee and take a closer look at the CONSERVATIVE judge."
Reporter Thalia Assuras: "Alito's CONSERVATIVE stance would eliminate the swing vote of outgoing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor...."
# NBC's Today, November 1: Co-host Katie Couric: "President Bush's latest Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito, is known for his solid CONSERVATIVE record and a well-developed sense of humor...."
CBS's Rodriguez Urges John Kerry to Denounce Offshore Oil Drilling
In an interview with Senator John Kerry on Wednesday's CBS Early Show on the Gulf Coast oil spill, co-host Maggie Rodriguez hit from the left on new energy legislation proposed by the Massachusetts Democrat: "correct me if I'm wrong, your legislation calls for expanding offshore drilling at a time when polls show most Americans no longer support it. Why do you believe it's necessary to do that?"
A CBS News poll flashed on screen showing that only 46% Americans now support offshore oil drilling in the wake of the spill, as opposed to 62% supporting it in 2008. Kerry responded by pointing out that his bill would "actually restrict the current plan of the President" to expand offshore drilling. Rodriguez pressed further: "Are you saying it does not call for expanded offshore drilling?" Kerry reiterated: "I'm saying that it restricts the current law and it restricts the President's current plan."
Kerry began the interview by touting his desire to restrict oil production: "we have to really take the steps that we've been talking about for 30 years, for too long now, to move away from our energy dependence on fossil fuels, and particularly on imported fuel....The importance is now to move to the new economy." Apparently anything short of an all out ban on offshore drilling was not enough for Rodriguez.
Later in the segment, spurred by Rodriguez, Kerry proclaimed: "we're not going to stop drilling all of a sudden....it isn't going to disappear until we put our bill in place."
On the April 1 Early Show, after the Obama administration first outlined a plan to expand offshore drilling, Rodriguez warned: "President Obama's controversial offshore drilling proposal is making big waves. Critics say the risks are obvious, but not the rewards." She later fretted that Obama was enacting the policy "at the risk of alienating his Democratic base."
Here is a full transcript of the interview:
MAGGIE RODRIGUEZ: Joining us from Washington, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Senator Kerry, good morning. JOHN KERRY: Good morning to you.—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.
RODRIGUEZ: As we've just heard, BP keeps trying, and so far failing, to contain all these oil leaks. How can our government, how can you assure the American people that everything necessary will be done to make sure this doesn't happen again?
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Blame Game; Sen. Kerry on Oil Spill Finger-Pointing]
KERRY: Well, it's going to be. We're – Senator Lieberman and I – are introducing legislation today called the American Power Act, which is a major shift in America's energy policy. What this spill in the Gulf tells us, above all, is that we have to really take the steps that we've been talking about for 30 years, for too long now, to move away from our energy dependence on fossil fuels, and particularly on imported fuel.
The importance is now to move to the new economy, the new – the new energy economy, if you will, where we're producing our energy at home. We're producing green energy. We're producing clean energy. Energy which can't ultimately have the kind of problem that we had in the Gulf. But we also, we know we're going to continue to drill for some period of time, so we have to make certain we know exactly what happened in the Gulf, and that we have the ability to prevent that from ever happening again.
Most importantly, we need to get in to the global marketplace and compete with China, with India, with Mexico, Brazil, other countries. America's falling behind. We want America to be number one in clean energy power production. We can reduce pollution, create jobs, and restore our energy independence, and that's the direction we have to move in.
RODRIGUEZ: But Senator Kerry, correct me if I'm wrong, your legislation calls for expanding offshore drilling at a time when polls show most Americans no longer support it. Why do you believe it's necessary to do that?
[ON-SCREEN GRAPHIC OF CBS NEWS POLL: Increase Offshore Drilling; Now: 46%; 2008: 62%]
KERRY: That's not what we do. We actually restrict the current plan of the President. We give states greater power, and say, over their future, we give them a choice-
RODRIGUEZ: Are you saying it does not-
KERRY: -as to what will happen.
RODRIGUEZ: -call for expanded offshore drilling?
KERRY: I'm saying that it restricts – I'm saying that it restricts the current law and it restricts the President's current plan. That is exactly what I am saying. It gives states greater power to be able to make a choice about what will happen in the future in terms of drilling. And in addition to that, it places a moratorium on current drilling until we know what happened in the Gulf, and then we proceed forward.
But, look, we're not going to stop drilling all of a sudden. Americans drive their cars every day. We heat our homes. We do things with this oil. And it isn't going to disappear until we put our bill in place. The American Power Act, which will move us to a new energy economy, where we're producing clean energy, a broader array of energy options for the country, so we could have clean energy produced in one part of the country, transferred to another part of the country. All of that is going to take time. And we are putting in place the mechanism so we can reduce pollution, clean up our air and our water, create jobs here at home, and increase America's energy independence, thereby strengthening our national security. That's exactly what our bill does today.
RODRIGUEZ: Alright. Senator John Kerry, thank you so much for your time.
KERRY: Thank you.
CBS Review of Russell Crowe Film: 'Robin Hood Meets Che Guevara'
On CBS's Sunday Morning, correspondent Dean Reynolds described the latest adaptation of the Robin Hood legend by director Ridley Scott and starring Russell Crowe: "And so here is an evil King John, squeezing his subjects for more taxes....And here is Robin. Not as a thief, but as a revolutionary figure trying to limit the King's power. Robin Hood meets Che Guevara." [Audio available here]
Protesting high taxes and wanting to limit government power is the equivalent of a communist revolution? Sounds more like the tea party movement.
After making that bizarre comparison, Reynolds further explained the plot of the new film: "This Robin joins the fight to get the English king to sign the Magna Carta in the year 1215, the document establishing the first rights on which modern democracies are based." Guevara, of course, was the ruthless henchman of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, hardly an advocate for democracy.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Fwd: MRC Alert: NBC Astonished Poll Finds Most Support Arizona Law and Anti-Terror Profiling; Skip GOP Surge
Fwd: Morning Bell: Can We Avoid Becoming Europe?
05/13/2010
The Treasury Department announced yesterday that the federal deficit for April soared to $82.69 billion, more than twice the $40 billion deficit that Wall Street economists had predicted. An April deficit is rare for the federal government (there has been a surplus in 43 out of the past 56 years) and the announcement marked a record 19th consecutive month that the Treasury has posted a shortfall. Like those who said there was no housing bubble, some on the left who crave an ever larger federal government are still saying that Americans have nothing to worry about. That we can borrow and spend forever. But many in the center left are beginning to wonder if emulating Europe, as President Barack Obama's policies are pushing us to today, is such a wise policy.
The Washington Post reported on its front page that the bailout of Greece was forcing "European governments [to] rewrite a post-World War II social contract that has been generous to workers and retirees but has become increasingly unaffordable for an aging population." And a New York Times headline blared In Greek Debt Crisis, Some See Parallels to U.S. with David Leonhardt reporting: "The numbers on our federal debt are becoming frighteningly familiar. The debt is projected to equal 140 percent of gross domestic product within two decades. Add in the budget troubles of state governments, and the true shortfall grows even larger. Greece's debt, by comparison, equals about 115 percent of its G.D.P. today."
Fwd: Don't Swallow the Skin Lotion: FDA Trying to Save People From Themselves
Today's Headlines Thursday, May 13, 2010
Advertisement - Better Than GOLD!
We're telling folks right now to hang on for gold bullion trading 198% higher than today's already high levels, within the next 12-24 months ...
But one investment should rocket even faster than gold over the next 12-24 months ... yielding at least 3-to-1 gains on every dollar invested. In fact, we're so sure of this, we won't charge you a penny to show you how.
Get the details here ...
Don't Swallow the Skin Lotion: FDA Trying to Save People From Themselves
(CNSNews.com) – The Food and Drug Administration finds it necessary to warn the American public that swallowing an over-the-counter medication meant to be rubbed on the skin can have harmful effects. The FDA says it has received reports of serious side effects -- including unconsciousness, hallucinations, and confusion -- in people who "mistakenly" swallowed Benadryl Extra Strength Itch Stopping Gel.
Democrats Noncommittal on Whether White House Should Release Kagan's Written Record
(CNSNews.com) - Senate Democrats so far are dodging questions on whether the Obama administration should release records of Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan dating back to her days in the Clinton White House. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) cited the same attorney-client concerns over Kagan's records as Bush did with Roberts.
Kagan 'Decided Not to Follow the Law' When She Barred JAG Recruiters from Harvard, Former Gitmo Prosecutor Says
(CNSNews.com) - A former Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer, who prosecuted terrorists in front of military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, says Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan displayed poor judgment as dean of Harvard Law School. "Her decision to keep JAG recruiters off of Harvard Law School grounds, and to not allow them to come to Harvard and talk to law students about joining the JAG Corps, was wrong," said Prof. Kyndra Rotunda, author of the book "Honor Bound: Inside the Guantanamo Trials."
Republican Amendment Would Bar U.S. Bailouts of Foreign Nations
(CNSNews.com) – A growing number of Republicans say Americans have seen enough bailouts at home, and their tax dollars should not be going to rescue foreign governments. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) on Wednesday introduced an amendment to the financial regulatory reform bill that would bar American taxpayers from bailing out "irresponsible" foreign governments.
Lebanon, As U.N. Security Council President, Walks Tightrope Between West and Hezbollah
(CNSNews.com) – Lebanon's presidency of the U.N. Security Council this month shines a spotlight on a government that is both backed by the U.S. and a partner of a terrorist organization that has killed hundreds of Americans and is stockpiling arms in violation of U.N. resolutions. Lebanon, as one of 10 non-permanent Security Council members, holds the body's presidency this month for the first time since December 1954.
Palestinian Official Criticizes Israeli Prime Minister for Invoking Bible in Comments on Jerusalem
(CNSNews.com) – Palestinian Authority chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said Wednesday he found "distasteful" Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's invoking of the Bible to highlight the longstanding Jewish claim to Jerusalem. Netanyahu noted during a special parliamentary session marking "Jerusalem Day" that the words "Jerusalem" and "Zion" appeared in the Old Testament 850 times. The Palestinians says East Jerusalem cannot continue to be "occupied" if there is to be peace.
Good Relations Between Afghanistan and Iran Important, Karzai Says
Washington (CNSNews.com) – Afghan President Hamid Karzai, speaking at the White House on Wednesday, said a friendly relationship with Iran is important to his country.
Britain's New PM Committed to Helping U.S. in Afghanistan, Obama Says
Washington (CNSNews.com) – New British Prime Minister David Cameron is committed to continuing Britain's assistance to the United States in the battle against terrorism in Afghanistan for the long term, President Barack Obama said on Wednesday. "I find him to be a smart, dedicated, effective leader and somebody who we are going to be able to work with very effectively," Obama said of Cameron.
CNSNEWS.COM VIDEO
Pelosi Tells Catholic Bishops to Speak 'From the Pulpit' About Immigration Reform; This Is 'Living the Gospels'
(CNSNews.com) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she has advised some Catholic bishops who want her to pass immigration reform to "speak about it from the pulpit," and for those who oppose reform, "to tell them that this is a 'manifestation of our living the gospels.'"
OTHER CNSNEWS.COM HEADLINES
Poll Shows Broad Support for Arizona Immigration Law
Los Angeles City Council Approves Boycott of Arizona
U.S. Notes 'Worrisome Increase' in al-Qaida Activity in Iran
Times Square Car Bomb Probe Leads FBI to Massachusetts, Long Island
Ford CEO Says 2010 Will Be 'Solidly' Profitable
Poll: Oil Spill Not 'Obama's Katrina,' Oil Drilling Still OK With Americans
Offshore Natural Gas Platform Sinks off Venezuela
Oil Rig Equipment Failures Point to 'Lack of Regulation'
Obama Heading Out Again, Discussing Small-Business Agenda in Buffalo
Senate Votes to Rein in Mortgage Lenders
Afghan President Karzai Wraps Up Fence-Mending Visit to Washington
U.S., China Begin Human Rights Talks
'Street Surfing' Teen Rides Atop Car on California Freeway
New Law Allows Hawaii to Ignore Requests for Obama's Birth Certificate
Donate Today!
Please help CNSNews.com keep bringing you 'The Right News - Right Now!'
Make a contribution to CNSNews.com today. It's fast, simple and secure.
Help CNSNews.com and Donate Today!
NEWSPAPER ROUNDUP:
Massachusetts forcing stores to post graphic anti-tobacco signs
Maryland is first state to bar schools from giving student test scores to military recruiters
Small New York town makes English the law
DHS cuts N.Y. anti-terror funds before Obama visit
Distrust of Afghan leaders threatens U.S. war strategy
Schwarzenegger's revised budget plan is expected to eliminate health programs
Court rules Los Angeles schools cannot lay off teachers for budgetary reasons
Drug prosecutions in Arizona have jumped 202 percent since 2008
Archdiocese distances itself from school that refused to admit lesbians' son
Regulators fear ban on BPA in bottles would make matters worse
Higher unemployment rate expected as 'missing' workers return to labor market
Durbin: Immigration bill 'unlikely' in 2010, says GOP spooked by Bennett loss
Display meant to draw attention to crimes against Muslims defaced
GOP says Obama's choice to run health agency would ration care
Mark Sanford, 'soul mate' rekindling flame
COMMENTARY
Free Markets: Pro-Rich or Pro-Poor
By Walter E. Williams
Listening to America's liberals, one would think that free markets benefit the rich and harm the poor, but little can be further from the truth. Let's look at it.
Arizona or San Francisco: Which Path Will America Take on Immigration?
By Russell Pearce
I am State Senator Russell Pearce, the author of SB 1070, which was signed by Governor Jan Brewer. Fear mongering and misinformation is the tool of the left against this common-sense legislation. SB 1070 simply codifies federal law into state law and removes excuses and concerns about states' inherent authority to enforce these laws and removes all illegal "sanctuary" policies.
Fwd: Obamacare: A Hard Pill to Swallow for Physicians
The negative effects of Obamacare will impact every American. However, it is those who are the very backbone of the United States' high-quality health care system who will be most severely affected: physicians.
In a recent paper, Heritage's health policy expert Robert Moffit, Ph.D., details the changes American doctors can expect to see in the way they practice medicine as a result of the recently-passed law.
Moffit outlines the following as being most detrimental to the practice of medicine:
The Scoop
Medicaid Expansion and Payment. As it is, doctors receive heavily reduced pay for treating Medicare patients, and reimbursement for Medicaid is even lower. In many areas, doctors who accept Medicaid do so at their own loss, as reimbursement rates do not even cover the expense of seeing the patient.
Writes Moffit, "Medicare payment has resulted in sporadic access problems for Medicare patients, and the lower Medicaid payments have already contributed to serious access problems for low-income persons and worsened hospital emergency room overcrowding." By adding an estimated 18 million people to this system, Obamacare will aggravate these existing dilemmas.
The Sustainable Growth Formula. Physician payment formulas under Medicare are tied to growth in the general economy, rather than medical inflation. This means every year, the law requires cuts in doctors' reimbursement rates. However, each year Congress votes to suspend these cuts to avoid the unquestionable impact they would have on access to physicians for Medicare beneficiaries.
According to Moffit, "The new law provides no SGR fix. Moreover, Congress has shown no inclination to fix the broken SGR formula without adding to the federal deficit rather than embracing fiscal discipline and embarking upon a genuine reform of the Medicare program." Under Obamacare, doctors will continue to face the threat of this broken payment system undermining their ability to treat senior citizens.
More Bureaucracy. Government regulation and oversight of medicine will reach new levels. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute will conduct comparative clinical effectiveness research on treatments—the way in which this information is used will determine its effect on the practice of medicine.
The new Independent Payment Advisory Board will be charged with reducing growth in spending in Medicare—though their options are limited mainly to imposing further price controls. And the extension of the Physician Quality Reporting Program will mean more time-consuming paperwork for doctors.
The effects of these provisions on the practice of medicine are serious. Writes Moffit, "…ominously, with America already facing a shortage of physicians, particularly in geriatrics and primary care, many physicians also say they would leave the profession."
To protect the quality of the U.S. health care system and access to its physicians, Congress should repeal Obamacare and start again with health care reform that strengthens—not dissipates—the doctor-patient relationship.
forward message or visit our website
The White House has launched a taxpayer-funded Web site to "reality check" credible criticisms and arguments. Problem is the Obama administration's videos "debunking" each "myth" are low on facts. Click here to see our response. The Heritage Foundation - 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC
Call us at 202 546 4400
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)