Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greatplains_guy who wrote (51555)	5/18/2012 11:25:11 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

Maybe he is just confusing this VanderSloot with the murderer... This administration is not known for its brains.

To: greatplains_guy who wrote (51555)	5/18/2012 7:07:35 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

a former Democratic Senate staffer called the courthouse in Mr. VanderSloot's home town of Idaho Falls seeking his divorce records

To: greatplains_guy who wrote (51555)	5/18/2012 7:08:36 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

Does Mr. Obama think the lifestyles and divorce records of campaign donors should be fair political game?

To: greatplains_guy who wrote (51555)	5/18/2012 7:09:25 PM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

After California voters approved Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage in 2008, opponents published the names of donors, who were later linked with zip codes and Google Maps. Donors reported getting death threats. Boycotts were set against businesses, and activists encouraged customers to call and harass business owners.

To: greatplains_guy who wrote (51555)	5/18/2012 7:10:12 PM
From: joseffy	2 Recommendations Respond to of 71588

Democrats and their left-wing allies should understand that Republicans and Mormons will not be the only targets. If Democrats think it is "legitimate" to prowl and publish the divorce records of Romney donors, no one should feign shock if some right-wing investigator is soon doing the same to Mr. Obama's bundlers and super PAC donors.

To: greatplains_guy who wrote (51555)	5/19/2012 1:55:36 AM
From: calgal	Respond to of 71588

By Greg McDonald Herman Cain says he believes President Barack Obama’s relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is still “fair game,” despite Mitt Romney’s denunciation of a plan to attack the president’s ties to the controversial minister. Cain, a former GOP presidential candidate who endorsed Romney on Wednesday for the Republican nomination, said he thought the plan put forward by a super political action committee with ties to Chicago Cubs owner Joe Ricketts was designed to “muddy the water” around Obama. Ricketts never approved the plan, which reportedly would have involved running negative ads in late August around the time of the Democratic National Convention. But Cain told Fox News’s Greta Van Susteren Thursday night, “I think it is fair if someone wants to highlight the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his relationship with Barack Obama because, quite frankly, it wasn’t highlighted enough in 2008 when he was running for president the first time. “The proposal didn’t go anywhere, but I think it is fair game,” Cain said, stressing again that he believes the relationship should not be “off limits” in the election. Cain also rejected criticism of the proposal as racist. “The reason that the liberals are going to call it racist is because President Obama is black and Jeremiah Wright is black. . . . It is not racist,” Cain said. “They hide behind the race card any time that someone wants to attack the president on grounds that he would freely and liberally attack somebody else.” Asked about his endorsement of Romney, Cain said he did it to promote unity within the party and to remove any speculation about a potential fight over the nomination at the convention. “I just wanted to clear the table and make sure that everybody understood that, as I have stated all along, I will support the eventual nominee, and that nominee is going to be [former Massachusetts] Gov. Romney,” he said. Cain listed Romney’s views on the economy, energy independence, and Obamacare, as the three main reasons he decided to publicly back the Massachusetts governor. “It’s real simple: Gov. Romney gets it right on the big issues; President Obama gets it wrong on the big issues,” he said. Cain also said he plans to help Romney on the campaign trail by working to attract young and African-American voters. “The mere fact that I’m out here promoting conservative values and I’m promoting fiscal responsibility, enforcing the Constitution, and I’m promoting the free market system, that’s causing a lot of African-Americans to think about and look at what the Republican Party has to offer,” Cain said. Read more on Newsmax.com: Herman Cain: Obama's Ties to Rev. Wright 'Fair Game' Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

To: greatplains_guy who wrote (51555)	5/19/2012 9:03:34 PM
From: joseffy	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Obama acts as agent for the muslim brotherhood Two Obama Administration Scandals on Syria? May 17, 2012 - by Barry Rubin pjmedia.com When a delegation of Syrian Kurdish rebels recently visited Washington, D.C., the State Department met them to ask for a favor. What was it? The Obama administration urged them to join the Syrian National Council (SNC), the organization created by the U.S. government through Turkey to lead the opposition movement and receive Western aid for all Syrian opposition groups. But the Turkish Islamist regime, which Obama put in charge of forming the SNC, put the Muslim Brotherhood in control, a fact I pointed out within hours of the announcement of the SNC leadership’s names. Now that several SNC leaders have resigned complaining about Brotherhood domination, followed by some Arab journalists pointing out the obvious Brotherhood domination at the SNC’s last meeting, that reality is clear. But the implications of such an incredibly foolish policy—America putting an anti-American, antisemitic group into the “official” leadership of Syria’s rebels — have never been properly examined as a case study for Obama’s disastrous Middle East policy. The Kurds had walked out of the talks that formed the SNC last year when they saw how Islamists would be in control. Not only do they oppose Islamism itself but they also see the Brotherhood as an Arabizing and centralizing group that would impose a regime oppressing the non-Arab Kurds. The new U.S. effort so backfired that, with the Obama administration ignoring their concerns, the enraged Kurds in the delegation spoke for the first time of breaking up Syria altogether! To sum up, Obama policy has strengthened the Islamist forces in the opposition and fragmented the rebels, thus helping preserve a radical anti-American Syrian regime that is an ally of Iran or helping make any revolution more likely to produce a radical anti-American Syrian Islamist regime that will be an ally of an Islamist Egypt. Now comes a very peculiar story in the Washington Post with the headline, “Syrian rebels get influx of arms with Gulf Neighbors’ Money, U.S. coordination.” Let’s break this down logically: –The Saudis and Qataris have been providing arms already. –They know how to buy weapons, how to get them to the Syrian border, and how to give them to Syrian rebels. What do they need American “coordination” for? What does the word “coordination” mean? I presume it means that the Obama administration, absolutely clueless about what to do regarding Syria, simply wants to take credit for others’ actions. It is part of the pre-election spin about what a great job Obama is doing. Yet there is another problem here, a potentially devastating one. Who is getting the weapons? There are different people and groups in the Syrian opposition. Some are Salafists who feel comfortable with al-Qaida; some are Brotherhood men; some are ex-Syrian army officers, professionals and relatively apolitical; and some are liberals who really want democracy. Whoever gets these weapons will be tremendously empowered. So what’s to say that the arms being “coordinated” by the United States aren’t going to revolutionary Islamists? While this is a complex subject, there is information that these arms supplies up until now have not been sufficiently discriminatory toward moderates and away from Islamist radicals. We will know more in the weeks to come if we can see and identify which opposition groups in what parts of Syria have become better armed. And if it comes out that the U.S. government is “coordinating” the arming of such people with weapons — as it is already helping their political counterparts in the SNC — wouldn’t that be a tremendous scandal? Let’s be clear here: A proper U.S. policy would help moderate Syrians overthrow the Assad dictatorship and make sure weapons went to the best elements in the Free Syrian Army’s decentralized forces. Such a policy would make sure to deny money, weapons, and power to the Islamists and Salafists, who are proportionately far weaker in Syria than in Egypt. Obama policy follows the worst possible course. It minimizes U.S. help to the revolution while at the same time ensuring that a disproportionately large amount goes to Islamists.