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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (87040)4/10/2012 7:51:37 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 89467
 
A COMMIE IN THE WHITE HOUSE Obama – Saul Alinsky's star student

Exclusive: Mychal Massie sees BHO's hand in delay of Trayvon Martin outrage

by Mychal Massie 4/9/2012
wnd.com

Mychal Massie is chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in Washington, D.C.

Many say Barack Obama is the most divisive, egocentric megalomaniac ever to hold his office. Others say he is the most ruthless and defiantly determined Marxist-Leninist ever to become president. I say he is, by definition and actions, both. I do not believe he misspeaks or stumbles legislatively, and I certainly do not believe he misspoke or was misunderstood pursuant to his statements against the justices of Supreme Court of the United States.

His attacks against the court were not simply reflexive, they were instinctive, calculated components of his training by his mentor, Saul Alinsky. In 2008, Alinsky’s son, David, said: “Barack Obama’s training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness. It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board. When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen. Obama learned his lessons [from my father] well.” (“Saul Alinsky’s Son: Obama Learned His Lesson Well,” Sept. 2, 2008, Judi McLeod, Canada Free Press)

Alinsky continued, saying that he was “proud to see” his communist father’s model for Marxist takeover successfully impacting “the [Democratic] campaign in 2008,” adding, it was “a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky.”

That is precisely why I argue that his SCOTUS attack was just that – an attack – and he meant every word he said. His attacks were not pulled out of thin air.

People asked why it took a month for the Trayvon Martin incident to become an issue. I submit it was because his minions were waiting for the high court to begin hearing his health-care legislation. Using tragedy as a means to foment rage, and then using that rage as a match to ignite dried grass, is what communists like Alinsky taught.

Obama honed this skill by following Alinsky’s teachings to the letter as he helped build the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) while in Chicago. As McLeod reminded us, both of those groups were built following Alinksy’s model of community agitation, or as Alinsky taught, by “rubbing raw the sores of discontent.”

That is what Obama did – he helped fan the flames of controversy in Florida and then took that contempt and turned it toward the courts. In military terms, he was softening the ground, i.e., heavy bombing runs, before sending in the ground troops. He knew full well the things he was saying were outright lies, and he knew that he would be criticized for his intentional dishonesty.

But he also knew that it wouldn’t matter to those who will follow anyone preaching discontent and immiseration – his objective being to use this seething undercurrent of rage to ignite national unrest if the high court doesn’t vote as he wants. And have no doubt that when I say “as he wants,” I am saying “as he demands.” He has already selected and framed those justices he intends to blame and attack, which is why we are hearing that the court’s vote will be 6-3 in favor of retaining Obamacare. It is why he’s talking about unelected justices and calling them judicial activists.

Last November, I wrote: “If the high court rules Obama does not have the constitutional authority to force us to purchase health insurance, will Obama abide by the ruling, or will he pull a Franklin D. Roosevelt and attempt to overrule the court’s decision?”

I am prepared to say he will find a way not to obey the SCOTUS if he doesn’t like its ruling. He’s already arbitrarily decided which laws he won’t enforce. And acting like a tin fuehrer, he has traveled around the country telling people he was going to take executive actions on a regular basis, with or without Congress. In other words, spit on the Constitution, he’ll do as he pleases.

Obama is a hardcore Marxist-Leninist. He was one of Alinksy’s best disciples and, as Alinsky’s son proudly boasted, he learned his lessons well. We cannot give this Erebusic evil another term. The question is, what do we replace him with? This is why the tea-party movement is so important – we must vet candidates and replace the vapid and feckless in Congress with trusted patriots.

Obama has no respect for our institutions, the Constitution, or the people of this country. Every time he arrogantly tilts his head back with his nose in the air, he’s telling us he’s better than we are. He has alienated our allies, he detests Israel, and by all indications, he is selling her out on Iran. And when he was caught red-handed (pun intended), promising Russia our secrets when, not if, he is re-elected – the following day he made light of it, wanting us to believe he was just joking about giving away our secrets.

Obama is a communist and we had better understand that because this Alinskyite is not just destroying our way of life, he is betraying us to our enemies.






To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (87040)4/11/2012 9:44:39 AM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation  Read Replies (6) | Respond to of 89467
 
School covers mural for depicting a man, woman & child

Blue state values. Note the offensive marriage rings over the couple. Yes, there is a culture war going on.

Posted: 4/5/2012 5:12:14 PM
Updated: 4/6/2012 9:31:30 AM

Warwick School Superintendent Peter Horoschak is stepping in after a student mural at Pilgrim High School was deemed inappropriate and painted over because it depicted a man holding the hand of a woman and child.

A parent of a Pilgrim High School student who first reported the incident to WPRO's John DePetro Show. The mural was meant to depict the life of a man and it ended with the scene with the man, woman and a child. The student artist, 17-year-old Liz Bierendy, said that she depicted the man and woman as married with wedding rings. According to Horoshack’s press release the scene was painted over because “some of the members of the Pilgrim High Schoolcommunity suggested that the depiction of a young man’s development from boyhood through adulthood as displayed may not represent the life experiences of many of the students at Pilgrim High School.”

According to the release, the assistant principal approached the Bierendy after the concern was raised from the school and “asked her to look at other ways to show the outcome of the subject’s progression to adulthood.”

After consulting other administrators, Superintendent Horoschak asked the assistant principal to meet with the student again and discuss her views on the proposed changes to the mural. The assistant principal reported that the student “preferred the original idea” however she “would take the weekend to think about any changes to the original sketch.” Horoschak asked that the Bierendy’s ideas be respected and “that she be allowed to finish the mural as she visualized it.”

http://630wpro.com/goout.asp?u=http://www.630wpro.com/Article.asp?id=2429898&spid=38785



To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (87040)4/11/2012 10:22:58 AM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation  Read Replies (7) | Respond to of 89467
 
Why I called George Zimmerman a Murderer, and Why I was wrong


I won't get fooled by media again.

by
Bob Owens

April 11, 2012 - 12:00 am

On March 17, I thought I had it all figured out. I wrote a post on my blog in which I pronounced America’s most famous neighborhood watch captain guilty:

Martin, a wispy 17-year-old-black teen, was walking to the home he was staying in after going to the convenience store for a bag of candy and a Coke. George Zimmerman, a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain, stalked Martin from his car, and then well, you can read the rest.

It seems self-evident from the 911 tapes that he was psyching himself up to justify a confrontation. Zimmerman initiated the confrontation by leaving his vehicle. He then asks us to believe — absent any living witness to conflict with him — that a teen some 100 lbs. lighter than him started a fight, and that Zimmerman “had” to shoot the kid in self-defense. Does anyone but Zimmerman’s father — and an apparently incompetent Sanford PD — buy Zimmerman’s claim this was a justifiable case of self-defense?

I’ll admit that I do not know the idiosyncrasies of Florida law, but if an armed person initiates a conflict, then uses that conflict as an excuse to draw his weapon and kill the person he confronted, that sounds a lot like murder in my book. No wonder Martin’s parents are furious that the Sanford PD hasn’t filed charges against Zimmerman.

In light of the just released 911 tapes, which suggest Martin plead for his life before Zimmerman fired a second, killing shot, both Zimmerman and the Sanford PD better prepare for very expensive civil rights cases, and hope that a vigilante doesn’t act to correct a perceived injustice as some have already threatened.

How naive that post now seems. The narrative created by the media at that time was one of an innocent life taken for no reason at all, by a much older, heavier, and racist man itching for a confrontation.

That was before we found out there was only one gunshot and no coup de grâce. That was before we found out that George Zimmerman had not deluged the local police with 46 paranoid 911 calls in one year, but 46 calls over a period of eight years, which isn’t unreasonable for a community watch volunteer. The media had either lied about how often he called, or purposefully compressed the timeline.

That was before we learned that Zimmerman didn’t know Martin’s race when he made the call, and that race didn’t play a roll in any of the 911 calls the local police had on file.

That was before we discovered that George Zimmerman wasn’t the 240-plus pound bruiser in the five-year-old picture the media used as much as possible, but was listed at a much smaller 170 pounds by none other than the New York Times. That’s a nominal 20 pounds heavier than a teen that stood four inches over him.

That was before we found out that two eyewitnesses placed Martin on top of Zimmerman as the aggressor, and that at least one of them claims it was Zimmerman crying for help.

That was before ABC News attempted to claim police surveillance video disproved Zimmerman’s claim of being injured in what may have been a purposeful deception. The very same news organization was forced to later admit the presence of two lacerations on the back of George Zimmerman’s skull consistent with his claim of self-defense. In the end, details of the beating Zimmerman suffered at Trayvon Martin’s hands were only given a brief mention in the local news.

That was before NBC News was forced to fire a senior producer for selectively editing audio of Zimmerman’s 911 call in a deliberate effort to make him sound racist.

And of course, almost no one knows that on the night he took Trayvon Martin’s life, George Zimmerman willingly consented to take a voice stress analyzer test, a kind of lie detector test used by the Sanford police. He passed it.

The narrative has changed in the wake of new details, eyewitnesses, and embarrassing retreats. The actual story may in fact have been a textbook example of the proper use of deadly force.

The revised narrative is that George Zimmerman wasn’t even actively volunteering as a neighborhood watchman, but was in the process of going to the store when he happened to see a hoodie-covered figure acting oddly in the rain, in a way that Zimmerman apparently interpreted as a burglar “casing” the gated community. He called 911 and kept the dispatcher apprised of his current position as best he could, in order to try to bring the police to the scene so that they could talk with the suspicious figure. It wasn’t until partway through the call that Zimmerman was able to tell the dispatcher that he thought the suspect may be black, in a direct answer to the dispatcher’s question about the suspect’s race.

During the course of the 911 call, the dispatcher asks several times for an exact street address, which an apparently frustrated Zimmerman is unable to provide. At one point, Martin notices Zimmerman shadowing him, and disappears between buildings.

Zimmerman chooses to leave his vehicle, either to track Martin or get a street address of Martin’s current location for the responding officers. At this point, Zimmerman is no longer on the phone with the 911 operator. Trayvon Martin is allegedly on the phone with his girlfriend, right up until when the physical confrontation apparently takes place.

By piecing together the 911 call and the series of events as alleged by Martin’s still anonymous girlfriend, we can see that a man is following a teenager, and the teenager notices he is being followed. We see Zimmerman’s apparent frustration at being unable to get the police guided to the suspect — his frustrated cry of “these assholes always get away” — and see two reasons Zimmerman would have left the car after first telling the dispatcher he didn’t want to because he didn’t know where Martin was at the time.

It is at this point that the confrontation between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman takes place. We have no living witnesses to the start of the confrontation, other than Mr. Zimmerman. He claims Trayvon Martin assaulted him by punching him in the face (breaking his nose), and then jumped on top of him and started pounding his head into the the pavement.

At this point, apparently two witnesses responded to cries for help. One witness, named “John,” identified the man on the bottom wearing red (George Zimmerman) as the person crying for help in 911 calls as the other person (Trayvon Martin) was on top of him. “John” moved to get a better view out another window when he heard the gunshot and then saw Martin on the ground.

A second eyewitness also identified George Zimmerman as the man on the ground crying for help.

Not one witness had a start-to-finish view of the confrontation, and even if they did, eyewitness accounts are notoriously inaccurate. But when the various aspects of the case are weaved together from what is publicly known, a more plausible and tighter narrative seems to coalesce.

Shortly after getting off the phone with the 911 dispatcher, George Zimmerman left his vehicle. He and Trayvon Martin engaged in some sort of a conversation, which is agreed upon (in a larger context) by both Martin’s girlfriend, who was on the phone with him at the time, and Zimmerman’s account.

At that point, the call between Martin and his girlfriend terminated, and her testimony is of no further value.

Zimmerman alleges that Martin punched him in the face, breaking his nose and knocking him down with one punch. Basic forensic details, such as the grass stains on Zimmerman’s back and the injuries to his face reported by police and the resulting swelling and bruising reported by the neighbor the next day, make this at least plausible.

Zimmerman claims that Martin then jumped on top of him and began bashing his head against the sidewalk, and he began crying for help. Again, this part of Zimmerman’s story is at least partially corroborated by the eyewitness testimony, police reports, the enhanced police department video that shows two substantial lacerations on the back of Zimmerman’s head, and the reported bandages and swelling the neighbor confirmed the next day.

Zimmerman claims that Martin then saw and went for his gun. There were no eyewitnesses to this portion of the confrontation, and the next eyewitness view (from “John”) tells us what we already know: George Zimmerman fired a single shot from a 9mm pistol that hit Trayvon Martin, killing him. The rest of the actions from this point on are contained in police reports, but the confrontation was over, and Trayvon Martin lay dead or dying.

The Sanford police are being heavily condemned for mismanaging the investigation, but they did manage to do two things that may shed light on the whole story. They managed to get Zimmerman to the police station, where video surveillance confirmed his head injuries, and Zimmerman passed the voice stress analyzer they administered, which suggests he believes the story he gave to police.

When all these publicly known bits of evidence are combined, it suggests that a series of miscalculations and escalations by both men led to Trayvon Martin’s death.

George Zimmerman used questionable judgment in leaving his vehicle. But if the evidence and testimony publicly known are to be believed, it was an angry young Trayvon Martin who committed the first crime of the evening when he threw a punch that knocked George Zimmerman down. At this point, Trayvon Martin became the aggressor.

Eyewitnesses and forensics suggest that Martin continued his assault, escalating it to assault with a deadly weapon when he began trying to smash Zimmerman’s skull on the pavement. If this is accurate, and Zimmerman was on his back crying for help while Martin pressed his attack, then Zimmerman had reason to believe he was under the threat of serious injury, maiming, or death at the hands of Trayvon Martin.

At that moment, in reasonable fear for his life, and apparently after a struggle for his gun if Zimmerman’s lie detector-cleared testimony can be believed, he fired a single shot at Trayvon Martin.

Ultimately, the forensics the public has not seen may be the ultimate arbiter of truth. If the ballistic trajectory is consistent with Zimmerman’s story, then Trayvon Martin was killed in a textbook case of self-defense. Florida’s “stand your ground” law is utterly immaterial and Zimmerman committed no crime whatsoever.

Ultimately, the special prosecutor will have to weigh the evidence in this case and make her own determination, but she would have to find some very compelling evidence countermanding the testimony and forensics shows thus far, which seem to support Zimmerman’s claim of legal self-defense.

I took the media’s claims at face value and erroneously labeled George Zimmerman a murderer based upon false information that was designed to arrange a lynching.

I won’t get fooled again, and I hope that prosecutor Angela Corey, who dismissed the grand jury this week, won’t fall into the same trap of trying to pursue a narrative instead of true justice.

pjmedia.com



To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (87040)4/11/2012 10:23:35 AM
From: longnshort  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
NASA Scientists Rebel Against Global Warming Hysteria
from Power Line by John Hinderaker
(John Hinderaker) One of the world’s four or five leading global warming alarmists is James Hansen, who heads NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. We have written about Mr. Hansen a number of times, including this post, which almost has to be read to be believed: Hansen, traveling in China, denounced the United States and hailed China as the world’s “best hope” to stave off global warming. Hansen described Americans as “barbarians” with a fake democracy, and urged China’s rulers to lead a boycott of the United States in the hope that it would bring our economy to its knees. One can only wonder what China’s autocrats made of this barely-sane proposal. One also wonders how NASA, which is supposed to be responsible for space travel, got into the business of trying to subvert our economy through unscientific hysteria.

A lot of NASA scientists and other employees are wondering the same thing. On March 28, fifty former NASA employees signed this letter to Charles Bolden, NASA’s Administrator:

  • Dear Charlie,

  • We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

  • The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

  • As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

  • For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

  • Thank you for considering this request.

  • Sincerely,

  • (Attached signatures)
Hansen’s unscientific yammering about global warming has ruined the reputation of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and gravely damaged the image of NASA. Most recently, he has compared global warming to slavery:

  • Dealing with climate change is a moral issue on a par with ending slavery, the world’s most celebrated climate scientist, James Hansen, of Nasa, believes.

  • Dr Hansen, who heads Nasa’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, will be making the slavery comparison in his acceptance speech for the Edinburgh Medal next Tuesday, when he will also be calling for a global tax on all carbon emissions. Nothing less will do, he will argue, so urgent is the challenge which climate change presents for future generations.
One thing about slavery, as opposed to anthropogenic global warming, is that it actually exists, to a significant degree. In fact, by some estimates there is more slavery in the world today than in the 19th century. So if Hansen actually cared about slavery as a moral evil as opposed to a rhetorical device, he could devote what remains of his career to combating it, instead of stirring up hysteria in an effort to destroy the world’s economy.



To: Cautious_Optimist who wrote (87040)4/11/2012 10:31:48 AM
From: longnshort  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Alfonzo Rachel video on the Trayvon(s) tragedy - a must listen:


The Wonderful Wizard of Zo!

April 4th, 2012 - 4:18 pm

If I had a son, he would look like Alfonzo Rachel… if, you know, I were married to a strange-looking bald black woman with a beard. Which actually has always been a fantasy of mine. But maybe that’s too much information.

Actually, I do have a son, and he doesn’t look anything like Zo, but somehow, strange to tell, I can relate to Alfonzo’s amazing talent all the same. I’ll have to write the White House and find out if this is still legal.

I remember when Zo first started doing his startling and funny home videos, ranting against the atheist left from what looked like a basement somewhere. Sometimes the vids would show up in my inbox from three different people at once, usually with the heading “You’ve got to see this guy!” Soon, Zo’s videos were being featured on the Breitbart sites – and soon after that, they were a staple on PJTV under the title Zonation. Just one of those phenomena that was so good everyone discovered it at the same time.

Now, I’m delighted to relate, you can take Zo home with you in the form of his audiobook Weapons of A.S.S. (American Socialist States) Destruction. I’ve been listening to this in my car the last few weeks, and it’s a genuine riot. I have an ironclad rule about audiobooks. I listen to them in my car and if I fall asleep and crash into a wall and kill myself, I stop listening. This happens more often than you would think. Most authors reading their own material put me out like Lunesta. Zo’s Weapons, on the other hand, had me wide awake and laughing the whole long way home.

What’s always kind of fascinated me about Zo is the fact that he’s funny without ever making jokes. Most of the time he’s just disassembling the opposition with a sort of good-natured logic. I don’t even know why it’s amusing, but it is. Maybe because the left’s reasoning is so silly that, when Zo exposes it, its natural absurdity comes out. In any case, the guy is just a pleasure to spend time with.

Zo’s unabashedly — even ferociously — Christian perspective is also a powerful weapon in Weapons. Once you even admit the possibility of the existence of God — or even the sacredness of the individual — statism collapses into the ruinous philosophy it is. Zo just doesn’t pull any punches about this — and I know that’s not always easy for him. I think Zo is socially to the right of libertarian me, but his honesty is so refreshing, it makes you sit up and take notice, makes you rethink your position, think it all the way through.

Anyway, really, get this. It’s just terrific entertainment for your car or MP3 Player or wherever you listen to terrific entertainment.
pjmedia.com