SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Jim McMannis who wrote (304992)3/21/2011 3:07:02 PM
From: joseffyRespond to of 306849
 
Jake Sinderbrand, son of (WI) Judge Maryann Sumi, poses a bit of a problem for his mother

March 21, 2011
freedomeden.blogspot.com

Jake Sinderbrand, son of Judge Maryann Sumi, poses a bit of a problem for his mother.

Son of Sumi touts his work for the AFL-CIO and SEIU.

He has developed his professional political experience serving as a lead field manager with the AFL-CIO and as data manager for the SEIU State Council through the 2008 election cycle.



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (304992)3/21/2011 11:19:00 PM
From: joseffyRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
Claire McCaskill admits to $287,000 in unpaid taxes on private plane

By Rachel Weiner 03/21/2011
washingtonpost.com

Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill admitted Monday that she had failed to pay about $287,000 in back taxes and will sell a private plane that has created considerable controversy as she prepares to run for a second term in 2012.

“I have convinced my husband to sell the damn plane,” McCaskill told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon. “I will not be setting foot on the plane ever again.”
McCaskill and her husband, Joe Shepard, co-own the eight-seat, two-engine plane with other investors. They bought it in July of 2006 through Sunset Cove Associates, an LLC her husband incorporated in 2002.
The tax revelations are the only the latest problem for McCaskill involving the plane,however.
In the wake of a Politico report that she had billed the government for her travel on the aircraft, she quickly reimbursed taxpayers for the trips, hoping to avoid a protracted political problem.
But, it was then revealed that she had billed taxpayers for a purely political trip — deepening her potential exposure on the issue.
On the conference call, McCaskill said that after she discovered the political trip on the plane she conducted an extensive audit of all the times she used it. That search turned up the fact that she had not paid personal property taxes on the aircraft totaling $287,273. (Not all states charge these taxes, and because planes are not registered with the state or the county, she was never billed.) The senator said she understood that Missourians would be confused about how this happened, but insisted it was an honest mistake. “I’m being held accountable, like I should be,” she said. “I made this mistake.”
Republicans, not surprisingly, have had a field day with McCaskill’s plane problems. The Missouri Republican Party has filed an ethics complaint against her while the National Republican Senatorial Committee is demanding she release tax records for the company that leases the plane, along with more information on each of the flights she took.
“This raises very serious questions for Senator McCaskill’s re-election bid because if there are two things voters don’t like, it’s a hypocrite and a tax cheat, and Senator McCaskill just admitted to being both,” said NRSC executive director Rob Jesmer. The NRSC is also circulating a web video that features the incumbent saying: “If my walk doesn’t match my talk, then shame on me and don’t ever vote for me again.”
McCaskill, herself, acknowledged the trouble the plane issue has caused her on today’s call. “It sounded like a good idea, but it’s very expensive and its very complicated,” she said. “I think it does complicate things for the public.”



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (304992)3/22/2011 11:24:28 AM
From: joseffyRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 306849
 
Libya was not a threat to us. Yet, we took sides with the rebels.

But, what about Castro? What about Kim Jong Il? What about Iran?

They ARE threats to us.



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (304992)3/23/2011 11:27:27 AM
From: joseffyRespond to of 306849
 
FLASHBACK-Senator Clinton Says Bush Must Ask Congress Before Using Force Against Iran

Wednesday, February 14, 2007
foxnews.com

WASHINGTON — Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton warned President Bush on Wednesday not to take any military action against Iran without getting congressional approval first.
"If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority," Clinton said in a Senate speech.

Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee, voted in 2002 to give Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq — a vote that has prompted some Democrats to demand that she repudiate.
Since then, the New York senator has become an outspoken critic of Bush's handling of the war. She said the new Democratic Congress must not let him make similar mistakes in the increasingly tense relationship with Iran.
"It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization," Clinton said.
She also insisted the resolution authorizing force against those responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks did not allow for U.S. action now against Iran.
Clinton, who has come under fire from anti-war Democrats, excoriated the previous Republican-controlled Congress for not questioning the administration over the past six years.
"We continue to experience the consequences of unchecked presidential action," she said, later adding: "This president was allowed for too long to commit blunder after blunder under cover of darkness provided by an allied Republican Congress."
Clinton spoke shortly after Bush said he was certain the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons used by fighters in Iraq against U.S. troops, even if he can't prove that the orders came from top Iranian leaders.
"I'm going to do something about it," Bush pledged, displaying apparent irritation at being repeatedly asked about mixed administration signals on who was behind the weaponry.
U.S. officials have said that Iran is behind attacks against troops in Iraq, an assertion denied by Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (304992)3/23/2011 11:32:48 AM
From: joseffyRespond to of 306849
 
BIDEN FLASHBACK: 'If Bush gives authorization to war... without Congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him!'

youtube.com



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (304992)3/23/2011 12:07:06 PM
From: joseffyRespond to of 306849
 
Military indoctrinated on gays kissing, behavior
Materials offer scenarios on gays

By Rowan Scarborough Wednesday, March 23, 2011
washingtontimes.com

Four branches of the military have begun sending training material to 2.2 million active and reserve troops as a prelude to opening the ranks to gays, with instructions on, for example, what to do if an officer sees two male Marines kissing in a shopping mall.
Key themes are that sexual orientation will no longer be a bar to service, that all service members must respect each other, and that the partners of gay troops will not receive the benefits of heterosexual spouses.
“We are going to make [gay ban] repeal training expeditiously,” said Maj. Joel Harper, an Air Force spokesman at the Pentagon. “It’s great training.”
The briefings first target commanders, who will have to enforce the new law and deal with disputes, and then the entire force. The slides, vignettes and talking points by the Air Force, Army, Navy and Marine Corps are similar.
The Marine Corps, which a Pentagon survey found holds deep opposition to lifting the ban, plans to publicly release its training material April 1. A Marine source provided copies to The Washington Times.
Joint Chief Vice Chairman Gen. James E. Cartwright, right, accompanied by Defense Undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley, conduct a media briefing at the Pentagon to discuss the progress of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal implementation effort. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
The vignette about seeing two male Marines kissing is part of a list of scenarios to help instructors prepare commanders for incidents likely to arise.
“Situation,” it begins. “You are the Executive Officer of your unit. While shopping at the local mall over the weekend, you observe two junior male Marines in appropriate civilian attire assigned to your unit kissing and hugging in the food court.
“Issue: Standards of Conduct. Is this within standards of personal and professional conduct?”
The answer to Marines: “If the observed behavior crosses acceptable boundaries as defined in the standards of conduct for your unit and the Marine Corps, then an appropriate correction should be made. Your assessment should be made without regard to sexual orientation.”
The vignettes’ talking point states that commanders cannot rule a bar off limits simply because it caters to gays. Nor can commanders bar an off-duty homosexual from marching in civilian clothes in a gay-pride parade.
A Marine recruiter may not refuse to induct a gay civilian even though he views it as violating his religious beliefs.
Commanders may honor a request not to shower with known gay service members.
“Marines are expected to obey lawful orders and could be subject to discipline or adverse administrative action if they refuse orders, even if such refusal is based on strong, sincerely held, moral or religious beliefs,” the briefing states.
The briefings were dispatched to service members worldwide, including to combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan, as part of a major indoctrination program ordered by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to ensure that gays and heterosexuals will serve and fight together.
President Obama signed legislation to repeal the military’s ban on open gays. Once training is completed this summer, Mr. Gates must certify to Congress that repeal will not hurt readiness before the ban officially ends.
The Service members Legal Defense Network, which led a long effort in Washington to kill the ban, said the military is taking too long to finish the training.
“By and large, the materials are on target,” said Aubrey Sarvis, the group’s executive director. “Where we take exception is with the timeline that the Army has articulated for completing training as late as August. We believe training can be wrapped up by the end of next month, especially given the fact that there will be an additional 60 days for training that may take place after certification.”
In another scenario outlined in the Marine material, a lesbian Marine approaches her platoon sergeant and states “she can no longer tolerate her heterosexual roommate.”
The answer: “The Platoon Sergeant must take a very active and positive leadership approach with a focus on conflict resolution and professional obligations to uphold the policy.”
A separate training guide answers 23 frequently asked questions, such as “is consensual sodomy still a punishable offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice?”
Answer: “The U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces found that private, consensual sexual activity, to include consensual sodomy, regardless of sexual orientation, is a protected liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment.”
On the question of whether transgender or transsexual individuals may join the military, the answer: “No. Transgender and transsexual individuals are not permitted to join the Military Services. The repeal of DADT has no effect on these policies.”
The main slide presentations emphasize that chaplains will be free to express their views on homosexuality.
“Free exercise of religious expression, with law and policy, remains unchanged,” says one Army slide.
Soldiers may not seek an early discharge because they do not want to live or serve with gays. Same-sex partners of service members do not qualify for medical, housing or travel benefits.
A “speaker’s note” accompanying the Army slides states, “This brief is NOT an attempt to change anyone’s opinion or beliefs about the subject of homosexuality. However, we as an Army must always remember our Army values and respect each other’s beliefs in order to accomplish the mission.”
George Wright, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said the service is posting on an internal website a variety of training aids on the end of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” as the ban is known.
“Training on the repeal of DADT began last month with ‘chain-teaching’ at the senior levels, and the materials have been made available to Army commanders worldwide, to include those in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
At a Pentagon teleconference from Kabul last month, the top U.S. enlisted man there said training will take place during combat operations.
“Our goal is to not allow a unit to return to home station and have the unit responsible for that,” said Army Command Sgt. Maj. Marvin Hill. “While we own those soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, we’re going to execute that training on the ground. We hope that it will have little impact on their combat and security operations here.”



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (304992)3/24/2011 9:30:20 PM
From: joseffyRespond to of 306849
 
Justice Department sues on behalf of Muslim teacher, triggering debate

By Jerry Markon, Tuesday, March 22, 2011
washingtonpost.com

BERKELEY, Ill. — Safoorah Khan had taught middle school math for only nine months in this tiny Chicago suburb when she made an unusual request. She wanted three weeks off for a pilgrimage to Mecca.
The school district, faced with losing its only math lab instructor during the critical end-of-semester marking period, said no. Khan, a devout Muslim, resigned and made the trip anyway.
Justice Department lawyers examined the same set of facts and reached a different conclusion: that the school district’s decision amounted to outright discrimination against Khan. They filed an unusual lawsuit, accusing the district of violating her civil rights by forcing her to choose between her job and her faith.
As the case moves forward in federal court in Chicago, it has triggered debate over whether the Justice Department was following a purely legal path or whether suing on Khan’s behalf was part of a broader Obama administration campaign to reach out to Muslims.
The decision to take on a small-town school board has drawn criticism from conservatives and Berkeley officials, who say the government should not be standing behind a teacher who wanted to leave her students.
The lawsuit, filed in December, may well test the boundaries of how far employers must go to accommodate workers’ religious practices — a key issue as the nation grows more multicultural and the Muslim population increases. But it is also raising legal questions. Experts say the government might have difficulty prevailing because the 19-day leave Khan requested goes beyond what courts have considered.
“It sounds like a very dubious judgment and a real legal reach,” said Michael B. Mukasey, who was attorney general in the George W. Bush administration. “The upper reaches of the Justice Department should be calling people to account for this.”
His successors in the Obama administration counter that they are upholding a sacred principle: the right of every American to be free of religious bias in the workplace. “This was a profoundly personal request by a person of faith,” said Thomas E. Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, who compared the case to protecting “the religious liberty that our forefathers came to this country for.”
The Obama administration has gone to great lengths to maintain good relations with Muslims — while endorsing tough anti-terrorism tactics. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has called protecting the civil rights of Muslims a “top priority,” and his department has filed other legal actions on behalf of Muslims, including a corrections officer in New Jersey not allowed to wear a head scarf at work.
Perez denied any political motive in the Berkeley lawsuit, saying it was pursued in part to fight “a real head wind of intolerance against Muslim communities.” People in the rapidly growing Muslim community in Chicago’s western suburbs praised the Justice Department’s involvement.
“It rings the bell of justice that they will fight for a Muslim wanting to perform a religious act,” said Shaykh Abdool Rahman Khan, resident scholar at the Islamic Foundation mosque near Berkeley. “That certainly can win the hearts of many people in the Muslim world.”
Although the Justice Department, including during the Bush administration, and private plaintiffs have filed civil rights lawsuits on religious grounds, they have tended to be over issues such as whether employees can take off on the Sabbath or wear religious head coverings.
Cases involving the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, or hajj, are exceedingly rare, said Christina Abraham, civil rights director for the Chicago office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
19-day request
Khan arrived in November 2007 at Berkeley’s MacArthur Middle School, a faded brown brick building across from the public works department. She supplemented the math curriculum for sixth through eighth grades and helped prepare students for state tests.
Berkeley is a virtual speck on the map, a blue-collar village of about 5,000 people, rail yards, strip malls and ranch-style homes. The community, about 15 miles west of Chicago, is majority African American and Hispanic, and about 75 percent of its voters cast their ballots for Barack Obama.
The support for Obama’s Justice Department is much more mixed. Government lawyers, said longtime village President Michael A. Esposito, are “targeting a small community.”
“The school district just wanted a teacher in the room for those three weeks. They didn’t care if she was a Martian, a Muslim or a Catholic,” said Esposito, a political independent. “How come we bow down to certain religious groups? Why don’t we go out of our way for the Baptists or the Jehovah’s Witnesses?”
Khan, 29, who grew up in North Carolina and Arkansas, was happy in the job, said her lawyer, Kamran A. Memon. But she longed to make the hajj, one of the five pillars of the Islamic faith, which Muslims are obligated to do once. It would not have fallen on her summer break for about nine years.
“This was the first year she was financially able to do it,” Memon said. “It’s her religious belief that a Muslim must go for hajj quickly . . . that it’s a sin to delay.” Khan declined to comment.
In August 2008, Khan requested an unpaid leave for the first three weeks of December that year. The district said the leave was unrelated to Khan’s job and not authorized by the teacher union contract, according to court documents. Khan resigned in a letter to the school board.
“They put her in a position where she had to choose,” Memon said. “Berkeley has qualified subs. She didn’t feel her absence would cause any problem at all.”



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (304992)3/26/2011 10:22:32 AM
From: joseffyRead Replies (2) | Respond to of 306849
 
Media Matters' War Against Fox (Democrat Front Group Goes Soviet on 1st Amendment)

Politico ^ | Saturday, March 26, 2011 | Ben Smith
dyn.politico.com

The liberal group Media Matters has quietly transformed itself in preparation for what its founder, David Brock, described in an interview as an all-out campaign of “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” aimed at the Fox News Channel.
The group, launched as a more traditional media critic, has all but abandoned its monitoring of newspapers and other television networks and is narrowing its focus to Fox and a handful of conservative websites, which its leaders view as a political organizations and the “nerve center” of the conservative movement. The shift reflects the centrality of the cable channel to the contemporary conservative movement, as well as the loathing it inspires among liberals — not least among the donors who fund Media Matters’ staff of about 90, who are arrayed in neat rows in a giant war room above Massachusetts Avenue.
“The strategy that we had had toward Fox was basically a strategy of containment,” said Brock, Media Matters’ chairman and founder and a former conservative journalist, adding that the group’s main aim had been to challenge the factual claims of the channel and to attempt to prevent them from reaching the mainstream media.
The new strategy, he said, is a “war on Fox.”
In an interview and a 2010 planning memo shared with POLITICO, Brock listed the fronts on which Media Matters – which he said is operating on a $10 million-plus annual budget — is working to chip away at Fox and its parent company, News Corp. They include its bread-and-butter distribution of embarrassing clips and attempts to rebut Fox points but also a series of under-the-radar tactics.
Media Matters, Brock said, is assembling opposition research files not only on Fox’s top executives but on a series of midlevel officials. It has hired an activist who has led a successful campaign to press advertisers to avoid Glenn Beck’s show. The group is assembling a legal team to help people who have clashed with Fox file lawsuits for defamation, invasion of privacy or other causes. And it has hired two experienced reporters, Joe Strupp and Alexander Zaitchik, to dig into Fox’s operation and to help assemble a book on the network, due out in 2012 from Vintage/Anchor. (In the interest of full disclosure, Media Matters last month also issued a report criticizing “Fox and Friends” co-host Steve Doocy’s criticism of this reporter’s blog.)
Brock said Media Matters also plans to run a broad campaign against Fox’s parent company, News Corp., an effort which will most likely involve opening a United Kingdom arm in London to attack the company’s interests there. The group hired an executive from MoveOn.org to work on developing campaigns among News Corp. shareholders and is also looking for ways to turn regulators in the U.S., U.K., and elsewhere against the network.
The group will “focus on [News Corp. CEO Rupert] Murdoch and trying to disrupt his commercial interests — whether that be here or looking at what’s going on in London right now,” Brock said, referring to News Corp.’s — apparently successful — move to take a majority stake in the satellite broadcaster BSkyB.
SNIP
But Media Matters says its digging has begun to pay off. The group has trickled out a series of emails from Washington Bureau Chief Bill Sammon, leaks from inside the network, which show him, for instance, circulating a memo on “Obama’s references to socialism, liberalism, Marxism and Marxists.”
The leaks are part of a broader project to take advantage of internal dissent, Media Matters Executive Vice President Ari Rabin-Havt said.
“We made a list of every single person who works for Fox and tried to figure out who might be disgruntled and why, and we went out to try to meet them,” he said. “Clearly, somebody in that organization is giving us primary source documents.”
Media Matters, he said, is also conducting “opposition research” on a dozen or so “mid- and senior-level execs and producers,” a campaign style move that he and Brock said would simply involve recording their public appearances and digging into public records associated with them.
And Brock’s 2010 planning memo offers a glimpse at Media Matters’ shift from media critic to a new species of political animal.
“Criticizing Fox News has nothing to do with criticizing the press,” its memo says. “Fox News is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public.”



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (304992)3/27/2011 11:54:40 AM
From: John VosillaRead Replies (3) | Respond to of 306849
 
When the GOP had complete control at least you were here with me in 2006 warning of what the house of cards economy had become. Can't say any of your right wing buddies anywhere were giving any 'warning' signs back then. Geez anyone would be bankrupt if they listened to right wingers playbook the past five years. Get in before it's too late, leverage to the hilt with those option ARM's mortgages, stock market to the moon in Kudlow's free market, no regulation, no tax utopia that had already robbed the middle class blind with funny money by the end and put our entire financial system to their knees.

Then fast forward to two years ago we were suppossed to cash out of everything that was already in ruins and run to the hills as the evil Marxist/socialist/wealth redistributors took us to a horrible place.. yeah thanks for the heads up FOX and Rush..even Joseffy and his friends for their impecible 'timing'...lol

You and I both know this was already the lost decade but if credit was very loose the fake economy of the Bush years would again be 'booming' soon and folks would be happy buying junk on credit and speculating on new home construction to stimulate another house of cards economy..



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (304992)3/28/2011 6:34:07 PM
From: tejekRespond to of 306849
 
Media always wants to go with the flow, the poor, the downtrodden, the working stiff...for the david goliath story.

Unfortunately the working man is now on unemployment and food stamps...now looking for jobs Americans supposedly don't want but may already be taken....


Do you really care?



To: Jim McMannis who wrote (304992)3/29/2011 12:17:53 PM
From: joseffyRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 306849
 
Admiral: U.S. studying Libyan rebels -- after going to war on their behalf

By: Byron York 03/29/11
washingtonexaminer.com

Admiral James Stavridis, commander of NATO and overall chief of U.S. and coalition forces in the Libyan war, says American intelligence agents are "examining very closely" the rebel forces for whom U.S. forces have gone to war. So far, Stavridis says, the U.S. has discovered "flickers" of the presence of al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, although Stavridis calls the opposition leadership "responsible."
Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Stavridis was asked by Republican Sen. James Inhofe to comment on "reports about the presence of al Qaeda among the rebels, among those with whom we are associated." "As you can imagine, we are examining very closely the content, composition, the personalities, who are the leaders in these opposition forces," Stavridis responded. "The intelligence that I am receiving at this point makes me feel that the leadership I am seeing are responsible men and women who are struggling against Colonel Gadhafi. We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al Qaeda, Hezbollah, we've seen different things, but at this point I don't have detail sufficient to say that there is a significant al Qaeda presence or any other terrorist presence in and among these folks. We'll continue to look at that very closely. It's part of doing due diligence as we move forward on any kind of relationship."
Stavridis' testimony raises two questions. One is the extent of al Qaeda and other terrorist presence; what is a flicker? The second question is why the United States did not complete its "due diligence" before, and not after, going to war. "I don't say this critically of you, because you didn't make this decision," Inhofe said to Stavridis, "but wouldn't that have been a good idea to find out before we took the steps we are taking?"
"I think that from the moment this crisis unfolded, there has been a great deal of intelligence applied to this," Stavridis responded.
The lack of knowledge about the Libyan opposition has become a major question in the Libya conflict. At Monday's Pentagon briefing, Fox News reporter Jennifer Griffin asked another top official, Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, a very simple question: "Do you know who the opposition is, and does it matter to you?" "We're not talking with the opposition," Gortney responded. "We have -- we would like a much better understanding of the opposition. We don't have it. So yes, it does matter to us, and we're trying to fill in those gaps, knowledge gaps." Gortney's answer was another suggestion that the U.S. is doing critical due diligence on the fly in Libya.
Finally, some of the war's most vocal supporters outside the government are having a hard time clearly portraying the nature of the opposition. In a panel discussion at the American Enterprise Institute Monday, former Bush deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, who recently wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal entitled "The Case for Backing Libya's Rebels," was asked to name some potential post-Gadhafi leaders of Libya. "I don't have the names off the top of my head," Wolfowitz answered, "but in fact you can Google them."