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.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: d[-_-]b who wrote (649254)3/28/2012 11:20:16 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1579860
 
"supported by the justice dept and obama himself."

They work in tandem.

Holder and Obama are black race baiters ---using the US presidency and the US "Justice" Department for their own insane race baiting purposes.



To: d[-_-]b who wrote (649254)3/28/2012 11:29:26 AM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations  Respond to of 1579860
 
What Will Obama Give Russia If He's Re-elected?

March 28, 2012 by Terry Jeffrey
townhall.com


President Barack Obama would like to do some things for Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and President-elect Vladimir Putin that he does not want American voters to know about before they decide whether to re-elect him in November.

That was the intended-to-be-secret message Obama gave Medvedev in South Korea on Monday. But Obama was caught delivering the message on tape -- and, no matter how the liberal media try to spin it, the moment is destined to become emblematic of Obama as a man and as a president.

"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved. But it's important for him to give me space,' Obama told Medvedev -- the "him" being Putin.

"Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space," said Medvedev. "Space for you --"

"'This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility," said Obama.

"Yeah. Yeah. I understand," said Medvedev. "I will transmit this information to Vladimir. I understand."

A little context is needed here.

The last time Obama ran for president, the incumbent, George W. Bush, was advancing a plan to place a ballistic missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland. The system would include a radar system in the Czech Republic and 10 advanced interceptor missiles in Poland. The Bush administration intended the system to give the United States the ability to knock down missiles Iran might fire at U.S. allies and U.S. forces in Europe.

Obama, ever mindful of voters -- including those of Eastern European ancestry -- clinging to their guns, their religion, and their belief that defending yourself and your friends against a missile attack is morally superior to launching a missile attack, was wary of flat-out opposing a defense against Iranian missiles.

On June 16, 2007, when the president of the Poland visited the United States, Obama sounded a mildly hawkish note.

"Since joining NATO in 1997," Obama said, "Poland has become one of America's most important strategic partners, dedicating troops and resources to our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"We now have an opportunity to build on this long and deep relationship," Obama continued. "Here is how we can. ... The Bush administration has been developing plans to deploy interceptors and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic as part of a missile defense system designed to protect against the potential threat of Iranian nuclear armed missiles. If we can responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies we should, but only when the system works."

Obama said nothing then about not deploying the missile defense because he wanted to appease the Russians -- who opposed it. But then Obama was elected president.

In September 2009, more than three full years before his next election, but just a week before he was scheduled to meet with Russian President Medvedev, Obama announced he was scrapping the plan to deploy the anti-Iranian missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. He would replace it, he said, with a partially mobile missile-defense system that could be more quickly deployed.

Medvedev instantly hailed the "good conditions" Obama had created. "I am ready to continue our dialogue," he said.

Obama and Medvedev then negotiated the "New START," a treaty calling for modest reductions in deployed U.S. and Russian nuclear warheads and missiles.

Two years have passed, another election looms. Obama's administration is now advancing its own plan for a missile defense in Europe to protect against Iranian missiles.

In November, Medvedev announced that if the U.S. deployed this missile defense in Europe, the Russians would target it with offensive missiles deployed in Europe.

Earlier this month, Medvedev's ally, Putin, who has served as prime minister for the last four years, was elected to a third, non-consecutive term as Russia's president. Putin ran on a platform of naming Medvedev his prime minister. Medvedev had stepped aside to let Put lead the ticket.

In some ways, the Putin-Medvedev campaign sounded like a liberal campaign in the United States.

The Congressional Research Service reported that according to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which monitored the Russian elections, "Prime Minister Putin received an advantage in media coverage, and authorities mobilized local officials and resources to garner support for Putin."

"Besides these efforts," said CRS, "Putin boosted or promised large increases in military and government pay, pensions and student stipends."

Putin outlined his "election manifesto" in a series of seven newspaper articles, including one about what he understood "democracy" to mean.

"He defined this democracy in terms of the rights of Russians to employment, free health care and education, although he admitted that civil society recently had demanded more political participation," CRS reported.

It was to this once-and-future Russian president that outgoing Russian President and future Prime Minister Medvedev promised to bring Obama's message.

"After my election, I have more flexibility," Obama said.

"Yeah. Yeah. I understand," said an apparently sympathetic Medvedev. "I will transmit this information to Vladimir."

In his domestic politics, Obama is often profoundly disingenuous. But in his meeting with Medvedev, we may have caught a rare glimpse of our president expressing unfeigned empathy.




To: d[-_-]b who wrote (649254)3/28/2012 12:40:14 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1579860
 
Conservatives Ban Guns At Their Own Conferences To ‘Keep It Safe’

By Scott Keyes on Mar 27, 2012



Sign outside Americans For Prosperity convention last weekend in Milwaukee, WI

There are a few staples at nearly any conservative conference, whether in Des Moines or Dallas or Denver. Americana songs, often written by liberal musicians, roar as speakers enter and exit the stage. When asked why they are there, attendees explain that they “want their country back.” And “no weapons allowed” signs are plastered on the outside doors.

This last element is surprising, considering the conservative philosophy on guns. This thinking holds that the public is actually safer if everyone is allowed to carry guns because armed, law-abiding citizens would dissuade criminals from committing violence. Yet in conservative events across the country, from the Americans For Prosperity (AFP) convention in Milwaukee last weekend to Allen West town halls in south Florida, attendees are instructed to leave their weapons at home.



To: d[-_-]b who wrote (649254)3/28/2012 2:53:11 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1579860
 
Repeal the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law

By Eugene Robinson,

Published: March 26

The “ Stand Your Ground” laws in Florida and other states should all be repealed. At best, they are redundant. At worst, as in the Trayvon Martin killing, they are nothing but a license to kill.

Police in Sanford, Fla., cited the statute as grounds for their decision not to file charges against Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman. Martin, 17, was strolling home from a convenience store, armed with an iced tea and a bag of Skittles, when Zimmerman — a neighborhood watch volunteer and wannabe police officer — spotted him and decided he looked suspicious.

Zimmerman, who is 28, happened to be armed with a handgun. He followed Martin, despite instructions from a 911 operator not to do so. They had an encounter that left Zimmerman suffering from minor injuries and Martin dead on the ground from a gunshot wound. While we don’t know exactly what happened, we know that Zimmerman initiated the contact by stalking a young man who had done nothing more sinister than walk down the street wearing a hooded sweatshirt.

Police decided to release Zimmerman without charges because of the Stand Your Ground law. The relevant part of the statute says that “a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked .?.?. has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm.”

Zimmerman claimed self-defense, was given the benefit of the doubt required by law and released.

This was a shocking travesty, as we now know. The “person who [was] not engaged in an unlawful activity and who [was] attacked” was Martin. Under the Florida law, as I read it, he had every right to feel he was in “imminent peril of death or great bodily harm” from the stranger who was following him. He had every right to confront Zimmerman — to stand his ground — and even to use deadly force, if necessary, to defend himself.

Imagine that Martin, not Zimmerman, had been carrying a legal handgun — and that it was Zimmerman who ended up dead. The law should have compelled police to release Martin, a young African American in a hoodie, without charges.

Somehow, I doubt that would have happened.

The consensus view, which I’ve heard expressed by supporters of Stand Your Ground, is that police were wrong to extend the law’s self-defense immunity to Zimmerman so quickly without a more thorough investigation — and that, given what we have learned about Zimmerman’s pursuit of Martin, the law does not seem to apply.

But why does Florida, or any other state, need this statute? State laws already allowed the use of deadly force in self-defense. By making explicit that the person who feels threatened has no obligation to retreat, all the state Legislature accomplished was to lessen the odds that a hot-tempered confrontation would be allowed to cool down without violence.

The Florida law took effect in 2005. Five years later, the Tampa Bay Times said that reports of justifiable homicide across the state had tripled. The newspaper found cases in which the protection of Stand Your Ground had been invoked by persons who felt — perhaps with good reason, perhaps not — that they faced imminent attack in their homes. Those incidents were at least in keeping with the intent of the legislation. But the newspaper also found the law being used to excuse violence committed during fights at house parties, disputes between neighbors and disagreements in public parks.

“Gangsters are using this law to have gunfights,” state’s attorney Willie Meggs told the Times.

Following Florida’s lead, about 20 states have enacted similar legislation. I doubt you will be surprised to hear that the National Rifle Association has lobbied hard to get these dangerous and unnecessary statutes approved.

These laws encourage hotheads to go into potential confrontations with loaded firearms. They give permission to shoot first and ask questions later. This may be good for gun manufacturers, funeral homes and the NRA, but it’s tragic for justice in America.