‘What a Crock of Crap’: Beck Parses WH Press Sec’s Response on Paris Rally and Notices Something You Might Have Missed
Glenn Beck said the White House’s explanation of President Barack Obama’s absence from the historic anti-terrorism rally in Paris over the weekend is a “crock of crap.” Beck parsed the entire conversation between White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest and Fox News’ Ed Henry about the matter on his radio program Tuesday, and noticed something you might have missed.Henry asked Earnest why the White House didn’t send someone with a higher profile to the rally, since they openly admit they should have. Earnest’s response began: “We’re talking about a march that came together with essentially 36 hours notice.”
Beck interjected: “I want you to know that the United States is not able to respond within 36 hours. We know we couldn’t do that in Benghazi. We know we couldn’t, in a 15-hour period, fly a jet off the side of an aircraft carrier and take care of some militants. But now we’re not able to put a person on the ground for a march within a 36-hour window. That’s how meaningless our security and our capabilities really are now. We’re the ones that put a man on the moon … when everyone said we couldn’t do it. Now we can’t put a man on the streets of Paris within 36 hours.”
World
leaders including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Malian
President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, French President Francois Hollande,
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, EU president Donald Tusk, Queen Rania
of Jordan, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and Swiss President
Simonetta Sommaruga march arm-in-arm in Paris, France, Sunday, Jan. 11,
2015. Thousands of people began filling France’s iconic Republique
plaza, and world leaders converged on Paris in a rally of defiance and
sorrow on Sunday to honor the 17 victims of three days of bloodshed that
left France on alert for more violence. (AP Photo/Michel Euler)
“Stop. OK, so we’re now outdoors and there’s a lot of French people around,” Beck remarked. “Think about how insulting this answer is. If we were all gathered in the streets after 9/11 and the French president said, ‘It was only a 36-hour window, and I didn’t know if we could send anybody because it was outdoors and there were a lot of Americans on the streets,’ imagine how insulted we would have been.”
Beck noted that there were dozens of world leaders at the event, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“May I ask you a question: Is the Mossad sloppy?” Beck asked, referring to the Israeli intelligence service. “Does the Mossad allow people to open the front door of the prime minister’s house? Is the Mossad going out and getting exotic massages? Is that the problem with France? You were going to bring the Secret Service, but within 36 hours, you weren’t sure that they could sober up in time?”
Earnest’s response continued: “We are mindful any time the president goes to a public place, or the vice president for that matter, that we don’t want to — or at least we want to try to mitigate the impact that the security precautions would have on those who are participating in this public event.”
“Stop,” Beck said. “[The president] was only making this decision because he wanted everybody else to enjoy themselves. When the president goes, he can’t always enjoy himself because he has so much security around him. Let’s say — I’m just making something up here — let’s say he has to go to a funeral. He can’t just sit there with some other world leader laughing and yukking it up at the funeral and maybe taking selfies. He can’t do that because the security is far too tight for the president. He will destroy everybody else’s time. For instance, when he went to Nelson Mandela’s funeral, I’m sure it was security that wrecked the event for Mrs. Obama. Because I remember her being pissed off about something…”
President
Barack Obama, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron and an unidentified
woman pose together for a “selfie” at the memorial service for former
South African President Nelson Mandela. (AFP/Getty Images)
Beck continued to parse the conversation, asking why the White House referred to the rally as one against “violent extremism” instead of one against Islamic extremism.
“Could you please name other violent extremist movements?” Beck asked. “I can give you two — Ferguson [is one]. Would you consider that a violent extremist movement? Would you consider the march where they’re calling for the killing of cops, and then the actual execution of cops, would you consider that a violent extremist movement? . … And may I ask, when they were trying to blow up the bridges in Ohio through Occupy Wall Street, would you consider that a violent extremist movement? … Who are you talking about?”
“I can’t take the lies,” Beck continued heatedly. “What is the difference, honestly, between the magazine printing this about Muhammad and the guy making the really bad film about Muhammad [before Benghazi]? The press cheered when we put that guy in jail! The press cheered when the president said, ‘The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet [of Islam].’ He said that in front of the UN. What’s the difference? Why is the press all up in arms on this one, and they cheered in the opposite direction last time?”
Beck noted that Attorney General Eric Holder was in Paris at the time of the rally, but chose not to go. He also said that if the president couldn’t make it for security reasons — which Beck made clear he did not accept — the president could have done something in America to show “the Americans are standing with the French.”
“Are you done being lied to? Because I really want to know: what is the difference between this and what the president lectured the UN against?” Beck concluded. “I wonder if the press will ask the question: Did the president not attend because, maybe, he still is standing by ‘the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet [of Islam]?’ Because that’s the only thing that makes sense here. Where was the change of heart?”
Veteran journalist Laurie Dhue joins TheBlaze
Tuesday, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:21 AM PST
Glenn Beckannounced this morning that Laurie Dhue is officially joining TheBlaze as anchor for TheBlaze TV News. Dhue will will continue to host “For the Record”, TheBlaze’s original documentary series and anchor prime time news updates and breaking news coverage throughout the network.“I relish this rare opportunity to be on the ground floor of an organization that could change the industry as we know it. The Blaze, a truly independent network, is ever-expanding, and an exciting phenomenon in this time of cutbacks and uncertainty,” Dhue said.
Dhue is the only anchor to have hosted shows on the three primary cable news networks: CNN, MSNBC and Fox News Channel. Dhue spent nearly eight years at Fox News, where she hosted “Fox Report” weekend edition and appeared weekly on “The O’Reilly Factor” and “Geraldo at Large”. She also served as the voice of the official launch of Fox News Radio and anchored evening news updates for several years.
Before joining Fox News Channel, Dhue hosted several shows on MSNBC and served as substitute news anchor on NBC’s “Weekend Today Show.” Dhue began her broadcasting career at CNN, working her way from entry-level to anchor in just six years, becoming one of the youngest full-time anchors in the network’s history.
Throughout her 22-year career, Dhue has interviewed countless international leaders as well as politicians, celebrities and newsmakers. She has covered every major news event since the early 1990s as a writer, producer, reporter and anchor.
Joel Cheatwood, President and Chief Content Officer, said, “Laurie is an incredibly talented journalist who has done amazing work both throughout her career and as host of “For the Record.” We are thrilled to have her join TheBlaze full time as we continue to expand our original programming.”
In addition to her TV work, Dhue travels from coast-to-coast as a recovery advocate, giving speeches, moderating discussions and emceeing recovery-related events. Dhue is a surrogate for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).
By JOANNA STERN (@joannastern)
Nov. 26, 2012
You may have seen that very message pop up -- perhaps time and time again -- in your Facebook feed. The message has been making the rounds on the social network. It encourages people to copy and paste the text and post it on their own walls if they want to be placed "under protection of copyright laws."
It's a frightful message and those worried that Facebook will own their photos or other media are posting it -- unaware that it is a hoax. Here's the truth: Facebook doesn't own your media and there is no such thing as the Berner Convention. (There is a Berne Convention!)
FB has a intern Jobs right now and FB has a lack of security and allowing people who are on death Row come into fb Where is the FBI on this and why is KFYI 550, KVI 570 Talk, Radio 1350, freedom 970, Talk Radio 640, Talk Radio 880. Nobody want to talk about this news story. only Patcnews and Mike Gallagher is only to people talking about this you can't find this on Mark Levin show, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck. Patcnews found out there is no News report on Facebook.
Not even the Blaze or Daily Caller or Town Hall.com has return my phone calls. The Hil WSJ is getting founds from facbook and so is Fox News BBC ABC CBS NBC MTV CNBC MSNBC. This news report on Mike Gallagher and Patcnews exclusively Read More.... (https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms/fake)
Joanna Stern/ABC News
A false message spread on Facebook about... View Full Size
Mark Zuckerberg on Facebook and Privacy Watch Video
Facebook, Linkedin Face Privacy Concerns Watch Video
Brad Shear, a Washington-area attorney and blogger who is an expert on social media, said the message was "misleading and not true." He said that when you agree to Facebook's terms of use you provide Facebook a "non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any content you post. You do not need to make any declarations about copyright issues since the law already protects you. The privacy declaration [in this message] is worthless and does not mean anything."
Snopes.com, a site dedicated to clearing up fallacies on the Internet, reminds Facebook users of that same thing. "Facebook users cannot retroactively negate any of the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they signed up for their Facebook accounts nor can they unilaterally alter or contradict terms instituted by Facebook simply by posting a contrary legal notice on their Facebook walls."
This isn't the first time a message like this has popped up on Facebook. A similar message made the rounds in June and a few years ago as well.
Bottom line? Don't bother copying, pasting, and posting. It was a hoax before and is still a hoax now.
Facebook poised to roll out more privacy controls
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Facebook
is trying to make its privacy controls easier to find and understand in
an effort to turn the world's largest social network in to a more
discreet place.
The fine-tuning announced Wednesday will include several revisions that will start rolling out to Facebook's more than 1 billion users during the next few weeks and continue into early next year.
The most visible, and perhaps most appreciated, change will be a new "privacy shortcuts" section that appears as a tiny lock on the right-hand side at the top of people's news feeds. This feature offers a drop-down box where users can get answers to common questions such as "Who can see my stuff?" and "How do I stop someone from bothering me?"
Other updates will include a tool that enables individuals to review all the publicly available pictures identifying them on Facebook and suggestions on how to request that an embarrassing or unflattering photograph be removed. Facebook also plans to plant a privacy education page at the top of its users' news feeds within the next month or so to help them better manage their online identities.
This marks the most extensive overhaul of Facebook's privacy controls in about 15 months.
The new controls are an implicit acknowledgement by Facebook that the nearly 9-year-old service hasn't always done the best job providing its users with easily accessible ways to corral the information and photos being posted on the website.
Facebook's critics suspect the social network deliberately obfuscated its privacy controls as part of a scheme to expose as much personal information as possible to help the company attract more advertisers.
But that has never been the case, according to Samuel Lessin, Facebook's director of product management. "Our number one priority is to not surprise users with our controls," he said.
Facebook Inc., which is based in Menlo Park, Calif., began paying more attention to its privacy controls and reputation as it matured into one of the world's best-known companies. The scrutiny has intensified since Facebook became a publicly traded company seven months ago.
Some of the upcoming changes reflect Facebook's ambition to establish its website as a digital scrapbook that will contain key moments spanning many decades of its users' lives.
The new photo-reviewing tool is designed to make it easier for someone to flag old pictures that might not seem as cool as they once did. For instance, a Facebook user who didn't mind being shown quaffing beer from a keg as an 18-year-old in college might not feel comfortable having that image publicly available as a 30-year-old looking for a job or starting a family.
Facebook rarely will remove a photo on its own, but one of its new features helps users ask a friend who posted the image to take it down.
Facebook is reshuffling its privacy controls the same week that it revoked its users' right to vote on changes to the social network's privacy policies. Lessin said the timing is purely coincidental.
The fine-tuning announced Wednesday will include several revisions that will start rolling out to Facebook's more than 1 billion users during the next few weeks and continue into early next year.
The most visible, and perhaps most appreciated, change will be a new "privacy shortcuts" section that appears as a tiny lock on the right-hand side at the top of people's news feeds. This feature offers a drop-down box where users can get answers to common questions such as "Who can see my stuff?" and "How do I stop someone from bothering me?"
Other updates will include a tool that enables individuals to review all the publicly available pictures identifying them on Facebook and suggestions on how to request that an embarrassing or unflattering photograph be removed. Facebook also plans to plant a privacy education page at the top of its users' news feeds within the next month or so to help them better manage their online identities.
This marks the most extensive overhaul of Facebook's privacy controls in about 15 months.
The new controls are an implicit acknowledgement by Facebook that the nearly 9-year-old service hasn't always done the best job providing its users with easily accessible ways to corral the information and photos being posted on the website.
Facebook's critics suspect the social network deliberately obfuscated its privacy controls as part of a scheme to expose as much personal information as possible to help the company attract more advertisers.
But that has never been the case, according to Samuel Lessin, Facebook's director of product management. "Our number one priority is to not surprise users with our controls," he said.
Facebook Inc., which is based in Menlo Park, Calif., began paying more attention to its privacy controls and reputation as it matured into one of the world's best-known companies. The scrutiny has intensified since Facebook became a publicly traded company seven months ago.
Some of the upcoming changes reflect Facebook's ambition to establish its website as a digital scrapbook that will contain key moments spanning many decades of its users' lives.
The new photo-reviewing tool is designed to make it easier for someone to flag old pictures that might not seem as cool as they once did. For instance, a Facebook user who didn't mind being shown quaffing beer from a keg as an 18-year-old in college might not feel comfortable having that image publicly available as a 30-year-old looking for a job or starting a family.
Facebook rarely will remove a photo on its own, but one of its new features helps users ask a friend who posted the image to take it down.
Facebook is reshuffling its privacy controls the same week that it revoked its users' right to vote on changes to the social network's privacy policies. Lessin said the timing is purely coincidental.
- Login with Facebook to see what your friends are reading
- i
GET UPDATES FROM Kevin Price
Why Both Sides Might Want to Go Off the Fiscal Cliff
Posted: 12/13/2012 2:07 pmThe so-called "fiscal cliff" has dominated the news ever since the election ended, but it has hung over heads as a threat to the economy for much longer. The "cliff" is a combination of tax increases (created by not extending tax cuts that currently exist) and several deep spending cuts (passed by the Congress and signed into law by President Obama last year). The tax increases will be over $500 billion and the cuts in spending will be in the billions and will potentially affect every area of government. Most economists on the left and right believe they could be a cause of economic ruin, but both the president and Speaker Boehner, oddly, have their own reasons why they might like to see it happen.
During the debates, the president told the audience flatly that the "fiscal cliff would not happen." In the last few weeks, he has begun playing a bold game of chicken and has made it clear he is ready to jump. Meanwhile, House Speaker Boehner has consistently said such a thing cannot happen. He has offered several counter proposals, including one endorsed by moderate Democrat Erskine Bowles, the former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton and best known recently as the co-chair (with former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY)) of Barack Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform that was formed to provide a serious attack against the problem of government spending. That proposal by Boehner -- as well as all the others -- was rejected by President Obama. Obama is committed to making sure the most affluent have a tax increase and seems willing to do it regardless of the consequences.
So Obama has shown his willingness to face the cliff, but why would Boehner want to do it? It is certainly contrarian for the GOP to acquiesce on such tax increases, but one of the biggest complaints Republicans have had in recent years and particularly in the last election is the huge number of voters who do not pay federal taxes directly (although they certainly do in the costs of goods and services they buy from companies that pay taxes). If the problem is a lack of "skin in the game" by many voters, what better way of accomplishing that than tax increases that not only will affect the most affluent, but even the middle class? With the fiscal cliff, individuals making as little as $33,000 and couples making around $50,000 could find themselves subject to the Annual Minimum Tax, which has only been for the most affluent in recent years. Sure, this increase would also be on the wealthy and could, as Republicans have argued, have a negative impact on job creation and could lead to an exodus of revenue from the country; but it would also get the attention of all voters when it comes to taxes and might translate into electoral success.
The problem with this is the role of public perception. The president is winning both the traditional and social media battles. The GOP almost seems decades behind in its deployment of Facebook, Twitter and other social media (I know such isn't possible, but it seems that way). The jury is out on the impact of social media when it comes to changing the debate, but organizations of all sizes are investing substantially in such efforts. The president himself has his own hash tag specifically for the Fiscal cliff debate with #My2k. You can use that one too or #fiscalcliff in your Twitter conversations.
Kevin Price is Publisher and Editor in Chief of US Daily Review and Host of the Price of Business on 1110 AM KTEK in Houston, Texas. He is the author of Empowerment to the People and has twice received the George Washington Honor Medal in Communications from the Freedom Foundation at Valley Forge. His column is nationally syndicated and he is a frequent guest on major media around the country, being found on Fox News, Fox Business, and other networks. For more see at http://KevinPriceCentral.
This post is part of a series co-produced by The Huffington Post and Blogworld, in conjunction with the latter's NMX BusinessNext Social 2013. That event will feature some of the world's leading social-business luminaries and influencers, each of whom will be speaking at the event to provide an up-close look at how the world's most successful businesses harness the power of social.
Business
Call in 1-888-321-9158
Soros Now Owns Facebook Why is That ???
- Posted on August 14, 2012 at 10:59pm by
Becket Adams
- Print »
- Email »
Currency speculator and billionaire philanthropist George Soros’ most recent 13-F report reveals two very intriguing facts:
He also ditched tech stocks: “He got rid of minor stakes in Dell (3,100) and Intel (10,600).”
And as for his position in Facebook, Soros owns 341,000 shares.
Considering the fact that Facebook’s stock has been struggling ever since its disastrous initial public offering, and the fact that he’s ordinarily a savvy investor, one can’t help but wonder what’s driving Soros’ interest in the seemingly unprofitable social network.
Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter
Click here to view the 13-F report.
Content and Programming Copyright 2014 By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network © LLC UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE All copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. © All Copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network
1) He has abandoned his stake in major financials“Soros completely dumped his stakes in Citigroup (420,000 shares), JP Morgan (701,400 shares) and Goldman Sachs (120,000 shares), leaving him with no position in any major financials at all,” writes Business Insider’s Linette Lopez.
2) He holds thousands of shares of Facebook stock
He also ditched tech stocks: “He got rid of minor stakes in Dell (3,100) and Intel (10,600).”
And as for his position in Facebook, Soros owns 341,000 shares.
Considering the fact that Facebook’s stock has been struggling ever since its disastrous initial public offering, and the fact that he’s ordinarily a savvy investor, one can’t help but wonder what’s driving Soros’ interest in the seemingly unprofitable social network.
Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter
Click here to view the 13-F report.
LLC 501C- 4 UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Content and Programming Copyright 2014 By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network © LLC UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE All copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network Copyright 2014 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content. © All Copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative News Tea Party Network
No comments:
Post a Comment