'You Can Suck My A**': Chelsea Handler And Piers Morgan Trade Barbs Over Her TV Skills

After Piers Morgan jokingly insulted Chelsea Handler's interviewing skills on Chelsea Lately, Handler told him to suck on her behind, eliciting riotous laughter from the studio audience.

Handler noted that this month is the second anniversary of Morgan's program on CNN, asking him if he'd realized the two of them had spent his first anniversary together as well.

'You interviewed me last year on my anniversary, which just proves one thing really,' Morgan said. 'Well, it proves two things.'

'Let me guess: that you're a better interviewer then I am,' Handler responded in characteristic sarcasm.

'That's where I was going, yes,' Morgan jokingly suggested.

'I'm not pretending to be a great interviewer,' the E! host said. 'I'm not even pretending to be good at my job.'

'Both things clearly apparent today,' the CNN host said with a chuckle. 'But I can help you,' he quipped.

'You can suck my ass,' Handler shot back, sending the room into laughter.

After a brief pause for applause, Morgan joked: 'Funny now, that was exactly what I was going to suggest.'

Watch the exchange below, via E! Entertainment:

[h/t NewsBusters]

' '
>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter

Hide Your Bibles, Hide Your Kids, Because Muslims Are Coming! Or So Suggests Fox News' Todd Starnes

Fox News radio host Todd Starnes visited Fox & Friends this morning to remind everyone that his Sharia law alert level is still at full-blown code red, and you should probably clutch your pearls as hard as possible.

Starnes is a frequent guest on Bryan Fischer's AFA radio show, which should give you at least a little clue of where the Fox reporter comes from on issues of religion, homosexuality, science, etc.

With blaring sirens literally signaling his appearance this morning, Starnes said:

'There is a disturbing trend in the country where Muslim students are being given accommodations that Christian students are not receiving.'

Disturbing! No, this is not just another round of Starnes picking nits and twisting stories to fulfill some belief in a nefarious plot among Muslims to overtake America through ho hum feel-good public school P.C.-ness. Move along, people.

His first example of this disturbing trend:

'Rocky Mountain High School in Fort Collins, Colorado, they had a cultural club in the school. They led the entire student body in the Pledge of Allegiance on Monday said entirely in Arabic. And that included a portion of the pledge where we normally say in English, 'One nation under God.' Instead of 'God,' they used the word 'Allah.' They say they were doing this not to promote the Muslim Brotherhood or the Islamic faith but as an effort to be culturally diverse.'

The horror! They used the word Allah! Which' umm' is literally the Arabic word for 'God.' Just like the Jews would say 'Yahweh' or 'Hashem' in Hebrew. Ugh' languages and stuff.

Also hilarious is the fact that he actually threw in the consideration that the cultural club could have ever thought to do this to 'promote the Muslim Brotherhood.' I guess you never know with those 14-to-17-year-old Honor students and their dedication to the teachings of Hasan al-Banna.

- RELATED: GOP Rep. Gohmert: Obama Admin Has 'A Bunch of Muslim Brotherhood Members Giving Them Advice'

Starnes also forgot to note that this insidious Sharia-loving club has also performed the pledge in French (remember when they were enemy number one?) and Spanish. Also: did you know the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a self-described SOCIALIST?!?!

But such nuance is not an important factor in Starnes' quest to eradicate the Muslim plot, and so he took to FoxNews.com with the perfectly reasonable headline: 'School Recites Pledge in Arabic, One Nation Under Allah?'

Moving along to Starnes' next discovery in the Plot to Destroy America:

'A district in Illinois dropping Veterans Day as a holiday ' so they can celebrate an Islamic holiday. This is in Skokie, Illinois. Boys and girls are going to get the day off but the teachers are not. The reason is they're only allowed a certain number of days off. They are getting rid of Veterans Day for teachers and replacing it as an Islamic holiday.'

Or' maybe that school district is experiencing a demographic shift, resulting in more Islamic students and thus, perhaps, the demand for accommodations similar to how the district gives everyone off for the Jewish holiday Rosh Hashanah and the Christian holiday Good Friday? Or' let's just go with 'this is another plot to destroy America and replace the Constitution with Sharia law.'

Furthermore, kudos to Starnes for twisting this story to fit his narrative. Yes, Skokie District 68 has added Eid ul Adha as a day off, but it didn't 'drop' Veterans Day to accommodate that. As some districts might do, Veterans Day is being used by for 'Teachers Institute Day,' which is the common practice of having teachers gather for a workshop of sorts. The kids still get off.

You could blame some treacherous Muslim plot for this egregious shake-up' or you could just whine to the State of Illinois, which gives local districts permission to schedule 'Teachers Institute Days' on Veterans Day, Presidents Day and Casimir Pulaski Day.

Another story in Starnes' bank of fear:

'[A district in Massachusetts took] middle school students to a mosque for an architectural observation and tour. Instead, when they got there they separated the boys and girls. They took the boys to do Muslim prayers and the girls were set aside and had their own private discussions. The school later apologized and said, 'Oops, sorry.' But we're hearing a lot of these apologies after the fact.'

Okay, that does seem like a boneheaded mistake sure to offend some people. Outrage happened just as it would if the students were taken to a church and asked to perform the eucharist.

But wait a second: if we want our children to be especially vigilant for when the Muslim plot takes hold, wouldn't we want them to have knowledge of the prayer practices? You know, to blend in until Christian revolution forces fight back?

And then there were more horror stories:

'A teacher, a member of the Gideons, a child asked for a copy of the Bible. The teacher gave him a copy. The teacher was fired just a few weeks ago. What's interesting, in Russia you can give kids bibles in schools. here in the United States, teachers can't do that anymore.'

Yeah! I bet you can't find a single instance of an American teacher giving their student a Bible anymore. According to reports, the teacher broke two of the NJ districts' needlessly ridiculous rules: one that prohibits employees from distributing religious literature on school grounds; and another that requires educators remain neutral while discussing religious materials.

- RELATED: Hannity Guest: Obama 'Steadfast In Promoting Islam' But 'Puts Down' Christians

In other words, this wasn't part of some ongoing WAR ON CHRISTIANITY; it was part of what's known as 'public school bureaucracy is ugly.' Silly rules like these are not a reason to fear some religious war, but rather, a great reason to argue for more school choice, so as to give parents the opportunity to find schools that match their values.

His final story:

'A little girl wrote a Veterans Day poem in honor of her grandfather who served in the war. She had a passing reference to God. The school district ordered her to remove that word.

Yeah, this one is pretty indefensible. But one can't help but wonder: if that child were Muslim and the poem were about a father in the military who loves his dogs and 'Allah,' would Starnes be so quick to defend the child? Who knows.

But again, the solution to this problem ' which no one ever mentions ' would be to allow more 'school choice,' but I digress. Let's just chalk this up to 'schools making accommodations for Muslims where they wouldn't for Christians,' as Starnes would have it.

Hide your Bibles quickly, and then watch the segment below, via Fox:

[h/t Ian Schwartz]

' '
>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter

Letterman Counts Down Hilarious List Of Top Ten Changes At CNN

Jeff Zucker has started to make his presence known at CNN, getting rid of some old friends and adding some new faces. So last night on the Late Show, David Letterman decided to take a look at some of the other changes we can expect from the ratings-challenged cable news network.

Letterman's list contains big news for Sanjay Gupta, Wolf Blitzer, Piers Morgan and more.

Watch video below, via CBS, to find out what you can expect to see on CNN in the coming months:

'

>> Follow Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) on Twitter

Jimmy Kimmel Asks 'Did You Watch The Super Bowl?' Before It Airs, Hilarity Ensues

Jimmy Kimmel has tricked pedestrians on Hollywood Boulevard into thinking they missed the 'First Lady Debate,' which doesn't exist and President Obama's second inauguration, which hadn't happened yet. But could he really get people to lie about having seen the most-watched television event of the year? Apparently, the answer is yes.

For his latest version of 'Lie Witness News' Kimmel sent his correspondent out onto the street in front of his studio to ask people what they thought about various aspects of Super Bowl XLVII' five days before the Ravens and 49ers are set to face-off in New Orleans.

The people they talked to weighed in on everything from Ray Lewis' MVP win to Beyoncé's lip-synching performance with husband Jay-Z and daughter Blue Ivy Carter. One man even congratulated the '79ers' on their historic victory.

Watch video below, via ABC:

'

>> Follow Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) on Twitter

Female Gun Advocate Lays Into Democratic Senator Over Women's Second Amendment Rights

During this morning's Senate hearings on gun violence, Independent Women's Forum fellow Gayle Trotter tore into Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), scolding him for what she believes was his argument against a woman's right to defend her family with whatever firearm she so chooses.

Sen. Whitehouse pointed out to Trotter that 18-year-old Oklahoma mother Sarah McKinley shot dead a home intruder using a 12-gauge Remington shotgun, which would not be banned under Sen. Dianne Feinstein's proposed statutes.

Trotter expressed uncertainty over the exact weapon used, prompting the senator to respond: 'Trust me. That's what it was and it would not be banned under the statute. It proves the point that with ordinary firearms, not 100-magazine, peculiar types of artifacts ' people are quite capable of defending themselves.'

The gun advocate replied:

'I respectfully disagree. I understand your also a graduate from the University of Virginia School of Law and you were close to Monticello where Thomas Jefferson penned our Declaration of Independence and close to Montpelier where James Madison was instrumental in drafting the Bill of Rights. I think you can understand that, as a woman, it is very important not to place undue burdens on our Second Amendment right to choose to defend ourself.'

Whitehouse defended himself, saying that he simply brought up the McKinley story as an example of 'one that would not bear an argument against the proposal' to ban certain weapons, 'because that Remington Express is a weapon that would be perfectly allowed.'

An incredulous Trotter responded by asking, 'Would it have been unreasonable for her to use a different gun to protect her child?'

'I think if she was using a '100 weapon,'' Whitehouse said before correcting himself: 'Let me put it another way. She would clearly have an adequate ability to protect her family without the need for a 100-round piece of weaponry.'

At this point, Trotter became irritated, asking, 'How can you say that?' She pointed out that Whitehouse is 'a large man,' eliciting laughter from the crowd. 'You are a tall man,' she clarified before scolding the senator:

'You are not a young mother who has a young child with her. And I am passionate about this position because you cannot understand, you are not a woman stuck in her house, having to defend her children, not able to leave her child, not able to seek safety, on the phone with 9-1-1, and she cannot get the police there fast enough to protect her child, and she is not used to being in a fire fight.'

Whitehouse concluded the allotted time by saying, 'My point is that she did it adequately and safely with lawful firearms.'

Watch the exchange below, via C-SPAN:

' '
>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter

Wayne LaPierre On Whether NRA Supports Universal Background Checks At Gun Shows: 'We Do Not'

At Wednesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on preventing gun violence, Senator Patrick Leahy pressed National Rifle Association executive Wayne LaPierre on his organization's opposition to universal background checks. LaPierre's responses didn't so much explain opposition to background checks on all firearms purchases at gun shows, as much as it demonstrated the need for background checks on all firearms purchases at gun shows. Like many of the most extreme arguments against sensible gun regulations, LaPierre's testimony just didn't make sense.

Sen. Leahy began by asking LaPierre, 'In 1999, you testified before the House Judiciary Committee, and you testified 'Nobody is more committed than we are and to keeping guns out of criminal hands. that is in our best interest.' I assume you are still committed to that endeavor, correct?'

'Correct,' LaPierre responded.

'And do you agree that we should prosecute and help get those criminals to get done?' Leahy asked.

'If you're talking straw-man sales, we have said they should be prosecuted ' straw man sales, we have said they should be prosecuted for years.' LaPierre replied. Stick a pin in that. LaPierre is saying that anyone who purchases a firearm, then sells it to a criminal, should be prosecuted.

Ïf they are doing a straw man sale, they should be prosecuted. absolutely.' LaPierre said.

Sen. Leahy went on to ask whether actual criminals should be allowed to purchase firearms at gun shows. 'Do you still, as you did in 1999, still support mandatory background checks at gun shows? Yes or no?' Leahy asked.

LaPierre replied. 'We supported the national background check system on dealers. We were here when one of your colleagues held the hearings in terms of who would be a dealer and who would be required to have a license''

'Let's make this easy,' Leahy interrupted. 'I'm talking about gun shows. Should we have mandatory background checks at gun shows for all sales of weapons?'

'If you are a dealer, that is already the law,' LaPierre dodged.

'That is not my question,' Sen. Leahy interjected. 'Please, I'm not trying to play games. If you could, just answer my question.'

'I do not believe the way the law is working now, unfortunately, that it does any good to extend the law to private sales between hobbyists and collectors,' LaPierre responded.

'You do not support background checks in all instances at gun shows?' Leahy asked.

'We do not.'

So, Wayne LaPierre favors prosecuting anyone who purchases a firearm, then sells it to a criminal, but also favors allowing the actual criminals to purchase firearms from private sellers at gun shows, which eliminates the need for straw-purchasers.

LaPierre wasn't done making anti-sense, though. He went on to explain that he opposes more background checks because less background checks aren't working. 'The fact is, the law right now is a failure, the way it is working.'

He went on to quote statistics on prosecutions of attempted purchases by prohibited individuals, which has nothing to do with the system's main function, which is preventing purchases by prohibited individuals.

'My time is up,' concluded a frustrated Sen. Leahy. 'With all due respect, that is not a question I asked, nor did you answer it.'

That's true, nor did LaPierre's testimony explain why he deserves a seat anywhere but in a corner, wearing a pointy hat.

Here's the clip, via C-Span:

Follow Tommy Christopher (@TommyXtopher) on Twitter.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn Challenges Obama To Skeet-Shooting Contest: 'I Bet I'll Beat Him'

With President Obama recently mentioning that he goes skeet shooting, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) challenged him to a contest. And predicted he'd lose.

RELATED: CNN's Erin Burnett Says President Obama May Be 'Making Up' Camp David Skeet-Shooting Pastime

Blackburn spoke to CNN's Erin Burnett on Monday night, alongside contributor Roland Martin. While some have been skeptical of Obama's saying he goes skeet shooting at Camp David, Martin said he'd had enough of people questioning everything from Obama's religion and race, to his hobbies. This specifically doesn't matter, he argued.

Au contraire, Blackburn said it was relevant. Asked if he has ever fired a gun, Obama told The New Republic, 'Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.'

'If he is a skeet shooter, why have we not heard of this?' she asked. 'Why have we not seen photos? Why has he not referenced it at any point in time as we have had this gun debate that is ongoing? You would have thought it would have been a point of reference.'

She went on to offer the president an invitation. 'I'll tell you what I do think,' Blackburn said. 'I think he should invite me to Camp David, and I'll go skeet shooting with him, and I bet I'll beat him.'

Martin quipped that he's yet to be able to play golf with the president ' and Blackburn again said she'd welcome the chance. 'It's a great hobby, and I would hope that the president does enjoy it,' she said.

The segment below, via CNN:

WATCH: President Obama Immigration Reform Announcement Live Stream

President Obama will be detailing the White House immigration reform plan in a speech at Del Sol High School in Las Vegas, Nevada, today, Tuesday, January 29th beginning at 2:55pm EST.

The president's announcement comes after a bipartisan group of senators unveiled their own immigration reform plan yesterday. According to The Washington Post, Obama plans to praise the senators' approach, but also lay out the differences, perhaps with the intention of pushing the Senate plan to the left.

Watch live stream below:

'

>> Follow Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) on Twitter

Red Eye Panel Battles Over 'Amnesty' For Illegal Immigrants

This morning's Red Eye panel got heated over the topic du jour: the bipartisan proposal of immigration reform via what many have deemed 'amnesty' for illegal immigrants currently in the United States.

Daily Caller senior editor Jamie Weinstein expressed support for the Gang of Eight's plan, explaining that 'you can't force [illegal immigrants] back,' echoing the legislators' belief that naturalizing the existing immigrants is more reasonable than trying to deport all 11 million people here illegally.

'I know you hate this whole idea,' host Greg Gutfeld then said to a cringing Gavin McInnes. 'But what it does is removes the race card. This is going to help the Republicans because they are no longer going to be called racist because they are introducing immigration reform,' Gutfeld explained.

'George W. Bush tried that. He said let's open the borders. It didn't work. It just meant more illegal immigration,' McInnes replied before offering his own colorful suggestion for ending illegal immigration: 'It's easy. They are not like the Chinese who can hide in little nooks and crannies ' they are a worthy adversary. The Mexican illegal immigrants, all you have to do is do a little tweak. It is called attrition. Make it slightly harder for corporations to hire illegals, and they run home with their tails between their legs.'

McInnes clarified that he wasn't suggesting we should deport all illegal immigrants, but rather that his idea would force employers to realize 'we can't survive' unless they hire legally. 'I come from Canada,' he added. 'We have a group of people who do our work; they are called teenagers.'

Gutfeld expressed his belief that some of the proposals 'sound pretty good,' adding that the illegal immigrants will just get on the back of a proverbial naturalization line anyway.

'There already is a line, it is called following the rules,' McInnes shot back. 'You have a bunch of visas and you pay your dues there and you are sponsored for four years and then you get a green card and then you have citizenship. We have more legal immigrants than all other countries combined. What's the matter with that system?'

After lawyer Remy Spencer said, 'I have an immigration practice in my law firm and I see firsthand what happens.' McInnes interrupted: 'Immigration lawyers like it. Oh, I see.'

'What I am saying is it is different when you talk about it in the abstract,' Spencer said. 'When you meet a family who has been here for 20 years who paid taxes and who worked hard, these are not the people who should be shipped back to a place where they are either going to be at poverty level.'

'How many immigration lawyers were here in 1975 and how many immigration lawyers are there now?' McInnes challenged. 'It is a huge business naturalizing these people. They have this huge lobby.'

After Bill Schulz pointed out that immigration has been on the decline, and so this is a 'non-issue,' McInnes said, 'Look, we have entire cities that have complete amnesty. What kind of country is that? What other country in the world goes 'You have your own Mexican congress, you have your own Mexican president, and you can have your own Mexican laws in this little amnesty town?'

Watch below, via Fox News:

' '
>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter

Sarah Palin Reportedly Cost Fox News $15 Per Word Spoken On Air

During her tenure as a Fox News contributor, Sarah Palin reportedly cost the network around $15 per word spoken on air.

University of Minnesota's Smart Politics blog dissected the numbers behind Palin's now-expired three-year contract, rumored to be worth $1 million per year. They found that from 2010 through 2012, she spoke 189,221 words on air, averaging a pay rate of $15.85 per word.

The media blog also broke down statistics about her many appearances, for those so inclined:

Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren both interviewed Palin 55 times, combining for nearly three-quarters of her appearances on the network over the last 36 months. (Note: the latter total includes interviews by Griff Jenkins and guest host Martha MacCallum on Van Susteren's On the Record program).

[...] Overall, 74.4 percent of the words Palin delivered during her political analysis occurred on these two programs.

Palin generally avoided the more hard-edged interviewers on the network with less than 20 appearances before Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday (13,970 words) and Bill O'Reilly's O'Reilly Factor (10,169) combined.

Palin also logged in another 5,768 words during the network's various election, primary, or caucus night coverage ' usually interviewed by Bret Baier and Megyn Kelly.

And, for those still interested, the blog also broke down her use of catch phrases on air:

She only uttered her patented 'you betcha' line twice as a Fox employee, and both during her first month as a paid analyst.

[...] Religion was frequently peppered into Palin's commentary and the former governor uttered 'Amen' 111 times across her 151 appearances.

She also mentioned 'God' 57 times, Christians and Christianity 16 times, Moses three times, and Jesus once.

This isn't to say Palin didn't occasionally dance with the devil ' delivering the PG-13 'heck' 28 times, 'darn' nine times, 'hell' seven times, and 'damn' twice.

Palin mentioned 'Muslim' 13 times and 'Islam' on six occasions.

[h/t Smart Politics]

' '
>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter

The President, Fox News And Rush: How Obama Contradicts Himself On The State Of Media Today

Say what you will about George W. Bush'

He never complained about the media coverage he received.

But here is President Obama, riding high off victories in the general election (first Democratic to receive a majority vote in two straight contests since FDR) and the fiscal cliff (marginalizing John Boehner and fracturing the Republican Party in the process) inexplicably talking about Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and lamenting how the poor state of discourse in political media today is affecting compromise in Washington.

Obama to The New Republic:

'One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates. If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you'll see more of them doing it.

'I think John Boehner genuinely wanted to get a deal done, but it was hard to do in part because his caucus is more conservative probably than most Republican leaders are, and partly because he is vulnerable to attack for compromising Republican principles and working with Obama.

'The same dynamic happens on the Democratic side. I think the difference is just that the more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word. And I think at least leaders like myself'and I include Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in this'are willing to buck the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done.'

It is odd, and small, and disappointing to hear the President broach Fox News publicly (again) without mentioning its polar opposite, MSNBC. It was the latter that, on the week before the election, had 51% of stores about President Obama positive, with no negative stories' all while 68% of its stories about Mitt Romney were negative, with zero positive stories. At Fox it wasn't much better; with 42 percent of its stories about Romney positive with 11 percent negative (Pew Research).

And that's the point: BOTH networks engage in providing varying level red meat for its audience on a daily basis. But to call out one network and not the other squarely places Mr. Obama's credibility on the issue into question. The President does mention the same dynamic happens on the Democratic side, but adds a disclaimer that those outlets 'recognize compromise is not a dirty word.'

This commentary is troubling because:

(A)Why is the President watching so much cable news to have even the ability to formulate an opinion on this?

(B)How can he say (with a straight face) that he's willing to buck the absolutist-wing elements of his party ' along 'with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi' ' when Reid and Pelosi ARE the absolutist-wing elements of his party?

As for compromise, it was Boehner who led off negotiations with an offer that likely wasn't approved by 90 percent of the audience at Fox News. From a 'behind the scenes' story/recording at fiscal cliff talks via The Wall Street Journal:

Boehner: 'I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?'

Obama: 'You get nothing. I get that for free.'

The President has many talents: Connecting with an audience through tremendous oratory skills is near the top. But his negotiation skills are in need of some serious work (if the above exchange and Bob Woodward's scathing portrayal of the President's inability to compromise in The Price of Politics is any indication).

To that end, failure to find common ground has absolutely nothing to do with Boehner being held hostage by producers, anchors or the audience at Fox News. Boehner's initial outreach during the beginning of fiscal cliff negotiations only underscores that.

More importantly, it should also be noted that The New Republic interview in amongst itself was a contradiction to the President's argument.

Why?

The interview was conducted (in part) by Chris Hughes, who had such a major role in Mr. Obama's 2008 campaign that he earned a cover story in Fast Company magazine titled 'The Kid Who Made Obama President.'

So to review, we have a President complaining about media bias from one outlet and one commentator making American politics toxic'during an interview to a former key member of his campaign'who now owns a progressive outlet that almost never criticizes Administration policy.

If that isn't hypocrisy, then' (insert joke here).

So here's an easy prediction:

MSNBC will use the President's comments on Monday to justify their view that Fox is untruthful, hopelessly biased, and ultimately responsible for destroying the country.

Fox viewers will get the reverse, with debate over how thin-skinned the President is or isn't, how there are bigger problems to worry about than their network, and why it is crucial to offer a fair and balanced perspective to counter what the liberal mainstream media is otherwise offering.

If the President believes that serving up a one-sided analysis on the state of media will help break the gridlock he has greatly contributed to'

Well, he's simply been watching too much TV to truly be paying attention.

' '
>> Follow Joe Concha on Twitter @ConchSports

Barbara Walters Recovering From Chicken Pox

After having fallen and injured herself at last week's presidential inauguration ceremonies, it was revealed on Monday that ABC News' Barbara Walters is recovering from a case of chicken pox. Walter's co-host on The View, Whoopi Goldberg revealed Walter's condition on Monday and said that the ABC News journalist is recovering.

RELATED: Barbara Walters Falls, Cuts Forehead And Is Hospitalized

'We want to give you an update on Barbara. You all know that she fell and cut her head 10 days ago, and then was running a temperature, but it turns out it is all the result of a delayed childhood. Barbara has the chicken pox,' Goldberg said.

'She'd never had it as a child. So now she's been told to rest, she's not allowed any visitors. and we're telling you, Barbara, no scratching,' added Goldberg.

Walters was transferred to a New York City hospital last week but is expected to be home soon.

Watch the report from The View below:

h/t ABC News

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) on Twitter

Sen. John McCain On Benghazi: 'There's Two Movies Been Made About Getting Bin Laden'

During a wide-ranging interview with This Week fill-in host Martha Raddatz, Senator John McCain made, arguably, the most revealing statement about Republican outrage over the September 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic personnel in Benghazi, Libya that claimed the lives of four Americans. Asked what the recent hearings were supposed to accomplish, given that many of the questions surrounding the attack have already been answered, Sen. McCain complained 'What did the President do during this period of time?  There's two movies been made about getting bin Laden with every tick-tock of every minute.  We still don't know what the President was doing.'

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spent her Wednesday this week fending off attacks from Republican lawmakers, including Sen. McCain, but to many outside observers, the focus of the Benghazi hearings appeared to be political grandstanding, and political payback against President Obama, via proxy. On Sunday morning's This Week, Martha Raddatz zeroed in on the phenomenon.

'What were you really trying to accomplish in that?' Raddadtz asked, adding, 'You knew a lot of the answers. All the senators knew a lot of the answers because of the Accountability Review Board. So what were you looking for there?'

Sen. McCain responded that 'we don't know a lot of the answers,' and gave several examples.

'We don't know why the president and the secretary of state ignored the warnings,' Sen. McCain began.

According to the Accountability Review Board, 'The Board found that intelligence provided no immediate, specific tactical warning of the September 11 attacks. Known gaps existed in the intelligence community's understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known to exist.'

'Why didn't the secretary of state, who said she was, quote, 'clear-eyed' about it, not see the ' the cable that came on August 15th that said the consulate cannot stand a sustained attack on the consulate?' Sen. McCain continued.

According to the Accountability Review Board, 'Communication, cooperation, and coordination among Washington, Tripoli, and Benghazi functioned collegially at the working-level but were constrained by a lack of transparency, responsiveness, and leadership at the senior levels. Among various Department bureaus and personnel in the field, there appeared to be very real confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security considerations.'

'Why wasn't Department of Defense assets there? Seven hours that went on?' Sen. McCain asked.

According to the Accountability Review Board, 'The Board determined that U.S. personnel on the ground in Benghazi performed with courage and readiness to risk their lives to protect their colleagues, in a near impossible situation. The Board members believe every possible effort was made to rescue and recover Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith.'

'The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.'

Raddatz pointed out that many of these questions, indeed, were answered already, to which Sen. McCain replied 'Not satisfactorily.'

What would satisfy Sen. McCain?

'There's two movies been made about getting bin Laden with every tick-tock of every minute,' Sen. McCain said. 'We still don't know what the President was doing.'

There are legitimate questions to be asked about the attacks in Benghazi, but Sen. McCain's remark demonstrates that Republican outrage is less about getting a clear picture of the security situation in Libya, and more about replacing this picture in the public's mind.

Here's the clip, from ABC News' This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

Transcript via ABC News 'This Week with George Stephanopoulos':

RADDATZ: I want to move to Benghazi, obviously, the hearings this week. Some very contentious part of those hearings. What were you really trying to accomplish in that? You knew a lot of the answers. All the senators knew a lot of the answers because of the Accountability Review Board. So what were you looking for there?

MCCAIN: Well, first of all, we don't know a lot of the answers. We don't know why the president and the secretary of state ignored the warnings. Why didn't the secretary of state, who said she was, quote, 'clear-eyed' about it, not see the ' the cable that came on August 15th that said the consulate cannot stand a sustained attack on the consulate? Why wasn't Department of Defense assets there? Seven hours that went on? Two of these people who were killed'

RADDATZ: Some of those questions were answered in the'

MCCAIN: What's that?

RADDATZ: Some of the questions have come out of the Pentagon and have been answered about why it took so long.

MCCAIN: Actually ' actually, not satisfactorily.

RADDATZ: How do you think ' how do you'

MCCAIN: Why in the world, on September 11th of all days, with all these warnings, didn't we have assets there for seven hours to ' there are so many questions that ' that are unanswered.

RADDATZ: So this is not over in your mind at all? Not over?

MCCAIN: What did the president do during this period of time? There's two movies been made about getting bin Laden with every tick-tock of every minute. We still don't know what the president was doing.

But more importantly, Martha'

RADDATZ: Did Secretary'

MCCAIN: More importantly than that ' very quickly ' is what's happening all over North Africa? What's happening in the Middle East? Things are deteriorating in a rapid fashion, and it's because of a lack of American leadership.

Greta Van Susteren Goes After Obama For 'One-Sided' Slam On Fox News

Earlier this morning, we reported that President Obama lamented to The New Republic that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh have a hand in upholding partisan gridlock by attacking Republicans who work with the other side. Fox's Greta Van Susteren took issue with the comments, and wrote a blog post decrying the president's 'one-sided' view of the media.

'President Obama names Fox? And what does President Obama think happens when Democrat works with Republicans? What happens to that Democrat in the left leaning press?' Van Susteren named the post.

In his TNR interview, Obama blamed Fox and Limbaugh for Republican reluctance to work with Democrats; but, conversely, he said that 'left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word.'

Van Susteren called the president out for what she sees as a one-sided analysis. 'Some Democrats have told me that they want to come on Fox to discuss issues but they get heat from their Leadership for appearing on Fox. Does President Obama know that? So which Party is intimidating its members?' she wrote.

The On the Record host continued: 'And to say Senator Harry Reid is willing to compromise is just wrong. He has not allowed a budget to get to the Senate Floor for years to even begin a discussion. The budget process is where all compromise begins and ends and ended it before it even got started.'

'Apparently President Obama wants his usual media pass and Fox challenges his policies ' which happens to be the media's job,' she added.

' '
>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter

President Obama Laments Rush Limbaugh And Fox News' Influence On Public Debate

In a soon-to-be-released interview with The New Republic, President Obama reportedly laments the negative influence Fox News and Rush Limbaugh can have on the congressional debate over various pieces of legislation.

The president told TNR editor Frank Foer and owner Chris Hughes that 'One of the biggest factors is going to be how the media shapes debates.'

The media can either help break or uphold partisan gridlock, the president said, adding that 'If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News or by Rush Limbaugh for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you'll see more of them doing it.'

The president also conceded that '[t]he same dynamic happens on the Democratic side,' but in his mind, 'the difference is just that the more left-leaning media outlets recognize that compromise is not a dirty word.'

He claimed that 'leaders like myself'and I include Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in this'are willing to buck the more absolutist-wing elements in our party to try to get stuff done,' as opposed to the opposing party which he views as obstructionist.

'[T]hat's one of the biggest problems we've got in how folks report about Washington right now, because I think journalists rightly value the appearance of impartiality and objectivity,' Obama said. 'And so the default position for reporting is to say, 'A plague on both their houses.' On almost every issue, it's, 'Well, Democrats and Republicans can't agree''as opposed to looking at why is it that they can't agree. Who exactly is preventing us from agreeing?'

Obama also donned his media criticism hat and said that the cable news obsession with confrontation contributes to the gridlock environment in Washington: 'Nobody gets on TV saying, 'I agree with my colleague from the other party.' People get on TV for calling each other names and saying the most outlandish thing,' he lamented.

h/t TNR

' '
>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter

Maddow: GOP Expunging Any Trace Of Romney Campaign, Ignoring Larger Problems With Party

Remember Mitt Romney? Well, it appears the Republican party is doing its best to move past the failed campaign of their last presidential nominee. Rachel Maddow noticed how much the GOP is trying to move past Romney and looking to the future, but according to Maddow, they have not learned any other lessons from past losses in Senate races, continuing to kick out solidly conservative candidates for ones even further-right.

RELATED: Maddow On 'Insane' And 'Mindless' GOP: They Loved Obama's Gun Proposals' Until He Started Proposing Them

Maddow opened with the news that Georgia senator Saxby Chambliss announced he will not be seeking re-election in 2014, possibly because he risked facing a primary challenge from the right. Maddow ran through a list of potential successors to Chambliss, including Herman Cain, the pizza magnate-turned-presidential candidate; Congressman Paul Broun, a member of the House Science Committee who thinks evolution and the Big Bang are 'lies from the pit of hell'; and Congressman Phil Gingrey, who recently attempted to defend the rape language used by former colleague Todd Akin.

Maddow read the tea leaves to conclude that the GOP has not learned its lessons about replacing solidly conservative members with even more conservative members so far to the right they end up losing easy elections, citing races from Akin to Richard Mourdock to even Christine O'Donnell in 2010.

Turning to Romney, Maddow found it striking that the presidential candidate did not come to D.C. for the inauguration, but did come to the district today for an event in his honor. But not that many people are interested in honoring him, for, as Maddow noticed, the Republican party appears to be doing all it can to distance itself from the Romney campaign. She highlighted a quote saying that there is no 'Romney faction' of the GOP and no one feels the need to be 'loyal to the Romney position.' In fact, many Republicans are unhappy that the Romney campaign took too much control over the RNC in the 2012 race.

Maddow said that while it's one thing for the Republicans to purge itself of 'anything Romney,' the party remains in denial about the rest of its problems and its more extreme candidates. But now that they've moved on past Romney, Maddow dryly remarked, 'now they can go back to all the winning.'

Watch the video below, courtesy of MSNBC:

''

Follow Josh Feldman on Twitter: @feldmaniac

Bill Maher And Howard Dean Clash With GOP Panelists Over Obama's Inaugural, 'Crazy Crap On The Right Wing'

Bill Maher opened the panel discussion on his show tonight talking about President Obama's inaugural address. Maher admitted that it was a strikingly partisan speech, but felt it was warranted given how much Obama has tried to reach out to Republicans and failed. Maher and panelist Howard Dean clashed with the two Republican panelists over how much Obama has done to work with Republicans and how much the GOP is obsessed with ridiculous controversies and conspiracies.

RELATED: Maher's Advice For Obama's 2nd Term: 'Become An Angry Black Man Who's Pushing A Liberal Agenda'

GOPAC president David Avella allowed that Obama did some reaching out in his inaugural, but considered his language about civil discourse to be hollow given how he has personally insulted Republicans. Maher pushed Avella to explain exactly how Obama has insulted the opposition, to which Avella said that Obama has referred to his opponents as 'right-wing Republicans.' Republican pollster Kristen Soltis thought that Obama's speech seemed to hammer home the same 'you didn't built that' theme the Republicans jumped on him for last year.

Dean dissented, saying the clear theme of the speech was equal rights, and praised Obama for standing up 'against all this crazy crap on the right wing.' Maher used this as a jumping-off point to bring the conversation to how big a deal the Republicans have made about the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi last September. Maher said that the GOP is going down the rabbit hole when no one actually cares about the scandal.

Maher found it remarkable that Republican senators were actually 'screaming' at Hillary Clinton during her testimony earlier this week. Soltis pointed out that it was no better than Democrats fawning over Clinton. Maher continued on the 'crazy crap' train with a clip of Senator Rand Paul going after Clinton on something Maher said he clearly based on 'horseshit' he heard on TV, which explains Clinton's bewildered reaction to his question.

Maher marveled at how Republicans appear to be making a bigger deal over Benghazi than over 9/11. Amidst some talk about crazy conspiracies over the Sandy Hook shooting, Avella and Dean squared off over which political party has more insane conspiracists. Dean said the GOP is blatantly trying to 'undermine democracy' by changing election laws in order to help them win in the future, and said the country should be talking about issues beyond the simple social differences on abortion and guns.

Watch the video below, courtesy of HBO:

''

Follow Josh Feldman on Twitter: @feldmaniac

Maher Likens Defense Spending To Declining Manhood: When Did We Become 'Dickless Armchair Warriors'?

Bill Maher closed out his show by declaring that America needs to stop saying it's the home of the brave and start acting like it. He cited the nation's huge defense budget and compared the United States to a paranoid crazy man who keeps spending money on alarms and guns and cameras but doesn't have enough left over to take care of his house or send his kids to college. Maher asked, 'would you call him brave?' before comparing the nation' emphasis on defense to American manhood.

Maher bemoaned how the United States now seems to be full of 'dickless armchair warriors,' starting with Manti Te'o. He joked that despite Te'o's numerous head injuries, he still answered Katie Couric's questions better than Sarah Palin. But Maher mostly saw Te'o as a symbol of American manhood, that this big football player never had sex with his 'girlfriend' and they instead played out an entire 'relationship' online.

Maher said that Te'o's attachment to this fake girlfriend is just as 'weird' as the attachment football fans have to their favorite players, suggestively insinuating there is something creepy and obsessive about it. Maher highlighted how there are now pills to deal with low testosterone, declaring that 'men are in trouble when you have to juice like Lance Armstrong just to get through your anniversary.'

Maher said that all the hunting and gathering is now done by the women, and 'the most masculine thing we doo all day is pee standing up.' Maher brought it right back to the Pentagon, saying it has more weapons than it need, but not more than it wants. And as Maher asked, when you own that much weaponry, aren't you trying to compensate for something?

Watch the video below, courtesy of HBO:

''

Follow Josh Feldman on Twitter: @feldmaniac

President Obama Calls Ellen DeGeneres 'Gift From God' In 'Birthday Greeting'

Tomorrow is Ellen DeGeneres' birthday, so today she dedicated The Ellen DeGeneres Show to celebrating herself. The talk show host had some of her favorite people deliver personal birthday messages to her during the show, but this one from President Obama really stood out for its over-the-top adulation.

The president must really be feeling guilty after his wife beat DeGeneres in that infamous push-up contest.

Watch video below, via The Ellen DeGeneres Show:

'

>> Follow Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) on Twitter

MSNBC's Goldie Taylor Asks Tucker Carlson, Via Retweet, 'Have You Ever Owned A Black?'

On the heels of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's lift of the ban on women serving in combat, The Daily Caller publisher Tucker Carlson posted several regressive tweets lamenting the decision, alternately comparing voluntary military service with domestic violence and rape, and 'congratulating' feminism for allowing women 'the right to get your limbs blown off in war.'

MSNBC's Goldie Taylor was not amused by Carlton's retro-'edgy' musings, but she was amused with an Old Hoss Radbourn parody Twitter account, and retweeted this question to Carlson: 'Your natty attire and insightful attitude towards women mark you as a man of my generation. Have you ever owned a black?'

Tucker Carlson was likely just trolling for reactions when he greeted the news of the Pentagon's decision by tweeting 'The administration boasts about sending women to the front lines on the same day Democrats push the Violence Against Women Act,' and following that up by tweeting 'Feminism's latest victory: the right to get your limbs blown off in war. Congratulations.'

Still, it's worth noting that women serving voluntarily in combat, which they were already doing, is not exactly the same thing as being assaulted and/or raped, and although some women who serve do get their 'limbs blown off,' they also contribute much more to our nation's security than many of the pundits commenting on this ever will. MSNBC contributor Goldie Taylor quickly pointed out Carlson's lack of standing to fire his piehole on the issue:

Oh my goodness. Tucker Carlson, who never once considered enlisting, now chastising women who do'#MarinesDontWearBowties

I didn't know Dancing with the Stars qualified Tucker for battle pay and VA benefits'

Then, Goldie hit him with the Old Hoss retweet, which she called 'the delight of my life!':

@TuckerCarlson Your natty attire and insightful attitude towards women mark you as a man of my generation. Have you ever owned a black?

Now, I know what you're thinking. Old Hoss Radbourn was born in 1854, and wouldn't have been old enough to own slaves, but that wasn't really the point. Old Hoss was simply pointing out the absurd retrograde bigotry of Carlson's tweets by placing them in their proper historical chronology.

This is the best part, though. Along comes Tucker fan-fish FishbowlDC to defend Carlson's honor (via Wonkette):

Goldie Taylor, MSNBC contributor and self-described 'social critic,' which just reeks of self-important bullshit, went off. She was very upset and tweeted, 'Oh my goodness. Tucker Carlson, who never once considered enlisting, now chastising women who do' #MarinesDontWearBowties.' How she, who never served herself, knows whether Tucker ever thought of enlisting, seems based on the bowtie or the cha cha he once performed on 'Dancing With the Stars.'

As it turns out, of course, Goldie is a former active-duty Marine, who not only 'served herself,' but apparently just served Tucker Carlson and FishbowlDC, which later corrected the item. The Fishbowl item went on to slam Taylor for, as they put it, 'charg(ing) racism at the drop of a hat.'

No one has accused Tucker Carlson of being a racist; catering to racists, maybe, but not of being one himself. The remark was simply an acknowledgement of what I believe is the broken Flux Capacitor that is Carlson's ostensible attitude toward women.

I say 'ostensible' because there's every reason to believe that Carlson's tweets were less-than-genuine, and simply designed to cause a poo-flinging riot among those who read his site. Tucker Carlson is supposed to be a libertarian, and there's nothing remotely libertarian about a ban on women in combat.

Obama's Recess Appointments To Labor Board Are Unconstitutional, Court Rules

On Friday, a federal appeals court panel ruled that President Obama made an unconstitutional move when he bypassed the Senate to make appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. The decision was unanimous.

A 'three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama didn't have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board,' according to the Associated Press. The president appointed Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn.

Per the report:

The unanimous decision is a setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.
[...]
The court's decision is a victory for Republicans and business groups that have been attacking the labor board for issuing a series of decisions and rules that make it easier for the nation's labor unions to organize new members.

For his part, Obama argued he filled the vacancies during a Senate recess, but the panel ruled otherwise, saying they were technically in session.

(h/t AP via WSJ)

Mark Zuckerberg To Host Fundraiser For Gov. Chris Christie

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who is seeking a second term, has a supporter in Mark Zuckerberg. The Facebook CEO plans to host a fundraiser for the governor next month, according to the Wall Street Journal, 'as part of Christie's first out-of-state campaign trip.'

'Mark and [his wife] Priscilla have worked closely with Governor Christie on education reform in the Newark school system,' Facebook spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg said. 'They admire his leadership on education reform and other issues and look forward to continuing their important work together on behalf of Newark's school children.'

The event is planned for Feb. 13 at Zuckerberg's home in Palo Alto, Calif. Further details per the WSJ:

The event is believed to be the first time the billionaire has hosted a campaign event at his home, and the guests will draw from the couple's circle of friends and colleagues. Donations are a maximum of $3,800, New Jersey's legal limit per election.
[...]
Christie has mixed with technology leaders during stops at the Allen & Company conference in Sun Valley in 2011 and 2012, but DuHaime said his relationship with Zuckerberg was 'unique.'

In 2010, Zuckerberg met with Christie and Newark Mayor Cory Booker when he made a $100 million donation to Newark's public schools. The report said they pair have since kept in touch. Zuckerberg's registration, according to Santa Clara County's registrar of voters, indicates no party preference.

(h/t WSJ)

MSNBC Panel: Hillary's 'What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make' Moment Was Her 'At Her Very Best'

On Thursday, a panel segment on MSNBC featured nearly unanimous agreement: Republicans questioning Secretary of State Hillary Clinton forcefully during her testimony before Congress did themselves no favors. The panelists agreed that Clinton gave those Republicans criticizing her handling of the deadly 2012 attack in Benghazi a 'spanking,' and those GOP lawmakers inadvertently provided Clinton with a 'highlight reel' for a potential 2016 presidential bid. The Benghazi hearing was 'Hillary Clinton at her very best,' observed one MSNBC panel guest.

RELATED: NY Post's Totally Uncontroversial Benghazi Cover: 'Hillary Explodes With Rage,' 'No Wonder Bill's Afraid'

MSNBC anchor Thomas Roberts asked his panel guests what their opinions were of several Republican lawmakers criticizing Clinton's leadership forcefully during the Wednesday's Benghazi hearings.

MSNBC contributor Ron Reagan said that the Republicans who were most vocally critical of Clinton were probably thinking of their political prospects ahead of the 2016 presidential race. 'Instead, Hillary Clinton gave herself a highlight reel by spanking those senators pretty forcefully there,' Reagan said. 'They came off as unserious; she came off as very serious.'

Roberts played a clip of the heated exchange between Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Clinton where she replied to his repeated inquiries about the administration's citing a YouTube video as the impetus for the Benghazi attacks by saying, 'what difference, at this point, does it make?' Roberts also featured today's cover of the New York Post featuring an image of Clinton testifying with the caption, 'no wonder Bill's afraid.'

'You would not see a man put in that position on the front page of the New York Post,' Roberts opined.

'It just goes to show you the core problem on the right at this moment,' said The Grio editor Joy-Ann Reid.

'The fact that Republicans thought it wisdom to sit there and attack ' in a really, I would say, almost undignified fashion ' a former first lady, a very popular Secretary of State, and the most political figure, let's face it, in the country, I think that Ron Reagan is right,' Reid continued. 'They were thinking ahead to 2016 and hoping for a Condoleezza Rice, 'bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States' moment.'

'Instead, what they got was Hillary Clinton at her very best,' Reid concluded. 'She really did spank the Republicans who were attempting to attack her.'

Reid said that some Republicans cited 'Breitbart.com conspiracy theories' that Clinton was watching the attack unfold live. Reid was referring to Republicans who cited testimony by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb who told lawmakers that, once tactical operations was alerted to the ongoing attack in Benghazi, 'I could follow what was happening in almost real-time.'

Republican strategist Susan Del Percio agreed that it was a politically foolish move for Republicans to so forcefully question Clinton's handling of the Benghazi attack.

'It wasn't very smart behavior,' Del Percio said of Congressional Republicans. 'It made absolutely no sense to go after Hillary Clinton on her last day. There are legitimate concerns and they could have brought them up. But, instead, they chose to basically whack her around like a piñata and it was a huge mistake.'

She concluded that Republicans seeking accountability for the Benghazi attack will set the Republican party back in its mission to appeal to women voters.

Watch the panel segment below via MSNBC:

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) on Twitter

Sen. Dianne Feinstein Holds Press Conference To Introduces New Assault Weapons Ban

At a press conference in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Thursday morning, Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced an assault weapons ban that figures to improve on the 1994 ban that she co-authored, and which expired in 2004. In her remarks to reporters, part of an extensive program that included lawmakers and others, Senator Feinstein explained the improvements in the new law, while attempting  to assuage the concerns of gun owners by explaining that the measure protects hunting and sporting firearms, 2,200 of them by name.

Sen. Feinstein began by saying 'Like all of you here today, I remain horrified by the mass murder committed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and am particularly grateful that we have both Senators here, and the House member representing that community.'

'I'm also incensed that our weak gun laws allow these mass killings to be carried out again, and again, and again in our country,' Feinstein continued. 'Weapons designed originally for the military to kill large numbers of people in close combat are replicated for civilian use.'

She went on to invoke the horrific mass shootings at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, an Aurora movie theater, a shopping center in Tucson, and a house of worship in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. 'The common thread in these shootings,' Sen. Feinstein explained, 'is that each gunman used a semi-automatic assault weapon or large capacity ammunition magazine.'

Sen. Feinstein then explained the differences between the new assault weapons ban, and the one that expired in 2004. 'We prohibit 158 specifically named military-style firearms' our bill also prohibits other semi-automatic rifles, hand guns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine, and have one military characteristic,' whereas the expired law only banned weapons with two such characteristics, as does the current, supposedly 'strict' Connecticut assault weapons ban.

'The bill prevents and prohibits such specific loopholes as the slide iron stock, 'thumb hole stocks and bullet buttons,' Feinstein continued. 'These are all modifications that make it easy for manufacturers to evade the law. The bill prohibits semi-automatic rifles and hand guns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than ten rounds. A ban on importation of assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Elimination of the ten-year sunset.'

Sen. Feinstein also explained that the proposed ban will not have an effect on legitimate gun ownership. 'Let me tell you what the bill will not do,' she said. 'It will not affect hunting or sporting firearms. Instead, the bill protects hunters and sportsmen by protecting 2,200 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes,' versus only 375 weapons that were protected under the expired ban.

'Finally, the bill subjects existing or grandfathered weapons to a background check in the event the weapon is sold or transferred,' Feinsrtein concluded, 'so we have tried to learn from the bill. We have tried to recognize legal hunting rights. We have tried to recognize legal defense rights. We have tried to recognize the right of a citizen to legally possess a weapon. no weapon is taken from anyone. the purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.'

Here's the clip via C-Span 3, followed by a summary of the new measure, from Sen. Feinstein's website:

Summary of 2013 legislation

WATCH LIVE: Hillary Clinton Testifies Before U.S. House About Benghazi Attacks

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton already testified before the Senate this morning about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi today. That hearing resulted in several tense moments which we've covered here at Mediaite.

But there will be a round two: Clinton is set to appear before the House Foreign Affairs Committee at 2:00 ET.

Check back here closer to 2 p.m. ET for live streaming video'

Jake Tapper: Stress Of Benghazi Attack Has Contributed To 'Exhaustion We've Seen [Clinton's] Been Suffering From'

Immediately following Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's testimony before members of the Senate regarding her knowledge of the security situation in Libya leading up to the Benghazi attacks, CNN's Chief Washington D.C. correspondent Jake Tapper was asked for his analysis of Clinton's testimony. When CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked Tapper what he felt moved Clinton to tears while describing her experience calling the families of the victims of the Benghazi attacks, Tapper attributed Clinton's breakdown to the exhaustion that many reports have suggested she has been suffering from.

RELATED: Hillary Clinton Chokes Up Speaking About Benghazi Victims During Testimony

'For me, this is not just a matter of policy, it's personal. I stood next to President [Barack] Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews,' Clinton said during her testimony as her voice cracked with emotion. 'I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, the sisters and brothers, the sons and daughters, and the wives left alone to raise their children.'

'A lot of diplomatic people ' we don't perceive them in this country as necessarily putting their lives at risk,' Tapper observed. 'We think, 'oh, they work for the State Department. Their lives are not as dangerous.' And it's not true, and people like Secretary Clinton have now learned that firsthand.'

'From sources close to her, this really did take a very strong emotional toll on her,' Tapper said. 'And, in addition to an exhausting job, I think probably it's all part and parcel of the exhaustion we've seen that she's been suffering from.'

Watch this clip below via CNN:

This post has been edited since it's original posting.

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) on Twitter

GOP Rep: 'The Only Constitution That Barack Obama Upholds Is The Soviet Constitution'

President Obama has 'no concept' of the U.S. Constitution, despite his previously being a constitutional law professor, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Rather, he said, the president upholds the constitution of our old Cold War foe.

'I think my role is to uphold support and defend our Constitution,' Broun said. 'The Constitution I uphold and defend is the one I carry in my pocket all the time, the U.S. Constitution.'

Obama on the other hand? Not so much.

'I don't know what Constitution that other members of Congress uphold, but it's not this one,' he added. 'I think the only Constitution that Barack Obama upholds is the Soviet constitution, not this one. He has no concept of this one, though he claimed to be a constitutional lawyer.'

In the post, the Journal-Constitution's Jim Galloway included a few lines from the preamble of the most recent constitution of the Soviet Union (which of course is no longer the Soviet Union). It reads: 'The Great October Socialist Revolution'overthrew capitalist and landowner rule, broke the fetters of oppression, established the dictatorship of the proletariat, and created the Soviet state, a new type of state, the basic instrument for defending the gains of the revolution and for building socialism and communism.'

Doesn't sound like Obama's inaugural address, he noted.

(h/t AJC)

Beyoncé Lip-Synched 'The Star-Spangled Banner' At Obama's Inauguration

The New York Post confirms everyone's worst nightmare: Beyoncé lip-synched her way through 'The Star-Spangled Banner' during yesterday's inauguration ceremony for President Obama.

According to a rep for the United States Marine Band, the pop diva decided at last minute to use a pre-recorded track of the performance.

'All music is pre-recorded for the ceremony because there are so many eventualities and conditions that day,' Kristin DuBois, the band's rep, told Page Six. 'We performed, live, the band. But we received last-minute word that Beyonce was going to use the pre-recorded vocal track. Those were the instructions we were given. We don't know what the reason why.'

The news may come as a stunner, as most reviewers raved about Beyoncé's emotionally-charged performance. As the Post points out, 'At one point, Beyonce even dramatically removed her earpiece ' which now seems even more ludicrous, as she wasn't even making any noise.'

This is not the first time inaugural artists have pre-recorded their performance for one reason or another. In 2009, cellist Yo-Yo Ma and violinist Itzhak Perlman lip-synched (technically finger-synched) their performance of a special John Williams composition because the day's extreme cold weather caused fears of broken strings and bad intonations.

Also important to remember is the fact that the pre-recorded track is Beyoncé's voice. She recorded the track the night before in a studio with the Marine Corps Band, as her own Instagram photo seems to confirm:

While many Americans might be heartbroken, perhaps we should all be thankful the backing track didn't fail and Beyoncé wasn't reduced to pulling an Ashlee Simpson before millions of viewers. A reminder of what that entails:

And now that you know this information, re-watch the performance and see for yourself:

' '
>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter

Mitt Romney Receives Dubious Honor Of Having His Portrait Placed In A Gallery Of Presidential Losers

Yesterday, an aide to Mitt Romney said it was 'doubtful' the former presidential hopeful would be watching the inauguration. Instead, he planned to spend the day just hanging out in La Jolla, California, potentially, being upset. Well, Romney might have a reason to celebrate now: he's being awarded the dubious honor of placement in a gallery for presidential election losers. The apt and awesome title? 'They Also Ran Gallery.'

RELATED: Chris Matthews: Republicans Will Have To 'Rig The Elections' In Order To Win From Now On

The gallery, in Norton, Kansas describes their goal of studying the past: 'Over our shoulders, we look down the long political vista of the years. We wonder about those rejected'the defeated. Was ours a wise choice?'

The 'They Also Ran Gallery' has been around for 48 years and Lee Ann Shearer, the curator, told the Salina Journal she tries to make each new loser's portrait placement in the gallery special.

'I've tried to make it a party and a little inauguration,' Shearer said. 'After a welcome, I will have a little talk about the rejected candidate.'

Romney will be the 60th portrait to be placed. The gallery also holds a portrait and history of Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who lost to President Obama in 2008.

h/t HuffPost

A Tale Of Two Inaugurals: In 2005, Media Sneers; In 2013, Media Cheers

From substance to style, most are aware that the nation's political press has imposed wildly divergent standards on themselves in their coverage of the administration of President Barack Obama and that of his predecessor, President George W. Bush. This lamentable condition has been well documented, so it may seem unsurprising that the press would cover Obama's second inaugural far differently than they did Bush's. But one's ability to experience surprise is regularly challenged by the political press and their staggering disregard for consistency. A glance at how the media covered yesterday's festivities and those of eight years ago might reinvigorate even the most jaded media watcher's capacity for wonderment.

In January of 2005, media outlets were aghast over the pomp and tone of Bush's second inauguration festivities ' before they had even occurred. 'Some critics say spending so much on these parties seems ill-timed both because of the Iraq war and the tsunami catastrophe in Asia,' wrote New York Times reporter John Tierney on January 16, 2005. He examined a history of muted 20th century inaugural celebrations that seek to acknowledge political or national crises amid which they occur by striking a staid tone.

'To some extent, the criticism of inaugural extravagance reflects the longstanding concern about turning the president into royalty,' Tierney wrote. This seems a quaint concern in the Obama era.

The narrative that Bush's inaugural parade and parties were to be garish and tone-deaf having been established, the press went to work making this self-fulfilling prophesy manifest.

'Some Now Question Cost of Inauguration,' wrote the Associated Press' Will Lester in 2005. He observed that the $140 million cost ($40 million of which was covered by private donations) of the ceremonies could purchase '200 armored Humvees with the best armor for troops in Iraq' or 'vaccinations and preventive health care for 22 million children in regions devastated by the tsunami.'

ABC's anchor of World News Tonight, Terry Moran, followed suit. 'In a time of war and natural disaster, is it time for a lavish celebration?' Moran asked. 'The total cost associated with all the parties and ceremonies are expected to exceed $140 million. And some people are asking whether it's the right time for a celebration like this.' ABC reporter Geoff Morrell proceeded to interview anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan who agreed that 'It's exactly the wrong time to be celebrating.' Presidential historian Michael Beschloss provided context and precedent, observing that President Franklin D. Roosevelt chose to scale down the wartime inauguration ceremonies in 1944.

Could all of these observations have been made today? When America faces a persistent economic crisis with near-systemic unemployment above 7 percent and a debt crisis cripples the nation's politics ' not to mention the tens of thousands of American soldiers who are presently serving in combat zones in Asia and North Africa? Of course they could have. When the costs of Obama's second inaugural was raised by CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson, the focus was on the access granted to private donors who contribute to the event and not the appropriateness of the event itself.

Even though the president did not even acknowledge the economic crisis or the nation's debilitating unemployment ' the preeminent concern of most Americans ' in his inaugural address, the nation's media focused almost exclusively on Obama's vocal defense of progressivism and personal identity politics.

'Party time,' the NBC News headline exclaimed, 'Obamas attend inaugural balls.' 'Obama honors military, dances at inaugural balls,' CBS News echoed. While these festivities most assuredly carried a price tag similar to Bush's 2005 celebration, the notion that this celebration at a time of such hardship for so many Americans could be inappropriate did not merit any attention.

But the press also revealed their biases on substance as well as style ' at least, those so unmoved by the pomp of it all that they could focus on substance. For this critique, we turn to New York Times conservative columnist David Brooks.

In 2005, with the war in Iraq raging and the global war on terror barely out of its infancy, Bush's inaugural address focused extensively on the threat of militant Islam and the West's role in combatting this ideological force. Bush's speech detailed an extensive defense of the principle of shared security and the notion that spreading freedom abroad was, ultimately, the most effective way to secure the homeland.

'If one had to quarrel with the speech, one would say it overemphasized freedom,' Brooks said of Bush's second inaugural address in 2005. 'In a place like Iraq, the problem is order and authority. And you have to reassert order and authority and balance it with freedom.'

Brooks was friendlier to Bush's speech in his column in the Times on January 22, 2005. He chronicled the griping among Washingtonians about the 'gross materialism' of the inauguration pageant and the derision of Bush's 'vagueness' and 'supposed detachment from the concrete realities' in his speech. But Brooks also found the speech to be a sound defense of the American policy of fostering the conditions abroad where freedom can spread.

Contrast this with Brooks' reaction to Obama's second inaugural address, 'which surely has to rank among the best of the past half-century, makes an argument for a pragmatic and patriotic progressivism.' While he cautioned the president that the mood of the country is not necessarily amenable to a reshaping of the American social contract in the mold of progressive, utopian ideals, Brooks felt that Obama 'came across as a prudent, nonpopulist progressive.'

'America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe,' Obama said in his second inaugural address. 'And we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation. We will support democracy from Asia to Africa, from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom.'

Those very words could have been uttered by America's 43rd president just eight years ago ' had they been, they would have inspired garment rending among the nation's handwringers the likes of which has been unseen for at least a decade. Though it was just one paragraph in Obama's address, it spells out a foreign policy doctrine that would impose far less self-restraint on America's interventionism than Bush. His 2005 address advanced only a policy of 'encouraging,' not imposing, freedom in the globe's darkest corners. One would presume that Brooks would find Obama's embrace of a more muscular Bush doctrine problematic.

Observing 'media bias' where it exists has become a clichéd and hackneyed enterprise. Bias is now almost an expected feature of America's journalistic landscape. But this condition's familiarity does not mean that it should go unmentioned ' particularly when it is on glaringly obvious display as it was on Monday.

The obsequiousness and servility with which so many in the media approach the coverage of this administration is and remains a mark of shame. It is a noble mission to enforce honesty and accountability from America's elected and unelected opinion leaders. In fact, it is a mission the political press once shared.

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) on Twitter

MSNBC Hosts React To Obama's Address: 'Most Forthrightly Liberal,' 'Lincoln-Esque' Speech He's Given

Following the completion of President Barack Obama's second inaugural address, the hosts of MSNBC praised the president for delivering a 'Lincoln-esque,' 'progressive,' 'forthrightly liberal' speech. In fact, two of MSNBC's hosts expressed their surprise at the unabashedly liberal tone struck by President Obama in his address to the assembled crowd in Washington D.C.

RELATED: MSNBC Looks To Battle Pro-Obama Reputation During Second Term

'So much of Lincoln in that speech,' observed Chris Matthews. 'He talked about the government that we want, which was education, infrastructure, regulation ' all the good things. And then recognized that government can't solve all the problems. I thought that was a reaching out, if you will. A shout at, eventually, the tea party-right that's rejectionist.'

Matthews praised Obama for what he believed was the centerpiece of his speech ' the declaration that Obama will do all he can to avoid a war with Iran over their accelerating nuclear program. Matthews said he thought that represented a dismissal of the neoconservative movement. 'They hated what they just heard him say,' Matthews opined.

'I think this is one of the most progressive speeches President Obama has ever given,' Ed Schultz said in praise of the president. 'I thought there was a real air of confidence brought forth by the president today when he said 'we are made for this moment.' He's ready to move this country forward. It was really one of tremendous vision.'

Rachel Maddow praised the poets and performers who entertained the audience at the inauguration ceremony. 'It feels like a very fresh, modern, patriotic moment,' Maddow said, specifically of Kelly Clarkson's performance.

'I think it was as forthrightly liberal, progressive speech as we've seen from the president,' Chris Hayes said. He said he found Obama's 'invocation of Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall,' representing a diverse, multiracial coalition that propelled Obama to the presidency twice, to be powerful.

'It's not just a demographic shout out, in a way, it's a representation of how he got to be the nation's first African-American president,' Maddow said in agreement.

Watch the clip below via MSNBC:

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@Noah_C_Rothman) on Twitter

Video And Transcript: President Obama's Second Inaugural Address

Vice President Biden, Mr. Chief Justice, Members of the United States Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow citizens:

Each time we gather to inaugurate a president, we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. We affirm the promise of our democracy. We recall that what binds this nation together is not the colors of our skin or the tenets of our faith or the origins of our names. What makes us exceptional ' what makes us American ' is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.'

Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

For more than two hundred years, we have.

Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.

Together, we determined that a modern economy requires railroads and highways to speed travel and commerce; schools and colleges to train our workers.

Together, we discovered that a free market only thrives when there are rules to ensure competition and fair play.

Together, we resolved that a great nation must care for the vulnerable, and protect its people from life's worst hazards and misfortune.

Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society's ills can be cured through government alone. Our celebration of initiative and enterprise; our insistence on hard work and personal responsibility, are constants in our character.

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today's world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we'll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

This generation of Americans has been tested by crises that steeled our resolve and proved our resilience. A decade of war is now ending. An economic recovery has begun. America's possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: youth and drive; diversity and openness; an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention. My fellow Americans, we are made for this moment, and we will seize it ' so long as we seize it together.

For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America's prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class. We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work; when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship. We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.

We understand that outworn programs are inadequate to the needs of our time. We must harness new ideas and technology to remake our government, revamp our tax code, reform our schools, and empower our citizens with the skills they need to work harder, learn more, and reach higher. But while the means will change, our purpose endures: a nation that rewards the effort and determination of every single American. That is what this moment requires. That is what will give real meaning to our creed.

We, the people, still believe that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity. We must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit. But we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future. For we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn. We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any time, may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other ' through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security ' these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great.

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries ' we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure ' our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That's what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war. Our brave men and women in uniform, tempered by the flames of battle, are unmatched in skill and courage. Our citizens, seared by the memory of those we have lost, know too well the price that is paid for liberty. The knowledge of their sacrifice will keep us forever vigilant against those who would do us harm. But we are also heirs to those who won the peace and not just the war, who turned sworn enemies into the surest of friends, and we must carry those lessons into this time as well.

We will defend our people and uphold our values through strength of arms and rule of law. We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully ' not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear. America will remain the anchor of strong alliances in every corner of the globe; and we will renew those institutions that extend our capacity to manage crisis abroad, for no one has a greater stake in a peaceful world than its most powerful nation. We will support democracy from Asia to Africa; from the Americas to the Middle East, because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom. And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice ' not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths ' that all of us are created equal ' is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher say that we cannot walk alone; to hear a King proclaim that our individual freedom is inextricably bound to the freedom of every soul on Earth.

It is now our generation's task to carry on what those pioneers began. For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law ' for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well. Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote. Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity; until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country. Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.

That is our generation's task ' to make these words, these rights, these values ' of Life, and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ' real for every American. Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way, or follow the same precise path to happiness. Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time ' but it does require us to act in our time.

For now decisions are upon us, and we cannot afford delay. We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect. We must act, knowing that today's victories will be only partial, and that it will be up to those who stand here in four years, and forty years, and four hundred years hence to advance the timeless spirit once conferred to us in a spare Philadelphia hall.

My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction ' and we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service. But the words I spoke today are not so different from the oath that is taken each time a soldier signs up for duty, or an immigrant realizes her dream. My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride.

They are the words of citizens, and they represent our greatest hope.

You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country's course.

You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time ' not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals.

Let each of us now embrace, with solemn duty and awesome joy, what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history, and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.

Thank you, God Bless you, and may He forever bless these United States of America.