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 : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Honey_Bee who wrote (597)12/22/2012 8:41:16 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 16547
 
Obama threatened Boehner that he’ll use Inauguration & SOTU speches to blame GOP

December 22, 2012 by
Philip Klein The Washington Examiner
twitter.com

President Obama has threatened House Speaker John Boehner that if no deal is struck on the “fiscal cliff,” he will use his Inaugural address and State of the Union speech next month to blame Republicans, according to the Wall Street Journal.

In the Journal’s behind the scenes account of how fiscal cliff talks between Obama and Boehner hit a wall, what comes across is that the president is emboldened by his reelection and eager to extract more concessions from Boehner than he was willing to accept during last summer’s debt limit talks.

This excerpt from the piece is revealing:

Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn’t reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.

At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, “I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?”

“You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”

The whole article is well worth the read (subscription is required).





To: Honey_Bee who wrote (597)12/22/2012 10:10:39 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 16547
 
Slate to Obama: Enough about you, already


Hotair ^ | 12/22/2012 | Ed Morrissey


Barack Obama flew to Hawaii this week after fiscal-cliff negotiations stalled, in part for a by Text-Enhance">Christmas vacation, and in part to attend the memorial service for the late Senator Daniel Inouye. Obama offered a eulogy for Inouye, which usually means offering insights into the deceased’s life and character. Instead, as is Obama’s wont, he talked more about himself than the man whose life was supposed to be the center of attention.

Even Slate noticed the problem, and blasted Obama for his narcissistic streak:


Someone needs to tell Barack Obama—it must get particularly confusing this time of year—that his own birth is not Year One, the date around which all other events are understood. His much-noted, self-referential tic was on cringe-worthy display Friday when the president gave his eulogy for the late Sen. Daniel Inouye, who served in Congress for half a century representing Obama’s birth state of Hawaii.


Inouye was a Japanese-American war hero (he lost an arm in World War II, destroying his dream of becoming a surgeon), and as a senator he served on the Watergate committee, helped rewrite our intelligence charter after scandals, and was chairman of the Senate committee that investigated the Iran-Contra affair. It’s the kind of material any eulogist could use to give a moving sense of the man and his accomplishment. But President Barack Obama’s remarks at Inouye’s funeral service were a bizarre twirl around his own personal Kodak carousel.

This comes as no surprise to readers of Hot Air; it was a recurring theme in the Obamateurism series. For that matter, so is Obama’s odd concept of math:

Obama likes to see events through the lens of his own life’s chronology. Thus we learn that Inouye was elected to the Senate when Obama was 2 years old.

Er, that’s not true. Obama was born in August 1961, and Inouye won election to the Senate in November 1962, taking office in January 1963. Obama wasn’t two years old, not even when rounding the numbers; he was one year old when Inouye won his Senate election. (At least this isn’t as bad as Obama’s Selma math.)

Emily Yoffe continues:

Obama acknowledges that as a young person he was unaware of politics, and thus Inouye. But then something important happened that made young Obama pay attention to the first man to be elected to Congress from Hawaii after it joined the union. When Obama was 11 years old he went on vacation with his family, and those paying their respects to Inouye got to hear a long description of this amazing trip, from Seattle to Kansas, from Disneyland to Yellowstone. They heard of the young Obama’s happiness whenever the motel had a pool or an by Text-Enhance">ice machine. And finally, as the people must have been twitching in the pews wondering where this was all going, we get back to the late senator.


It turns out the Watergate hearings were taking place at that time, too, and Obama’s mother watched them in their various by Text-Enhance">hotel rooms. It surprised young Obama to see that a man of Japanese descent was a senator. Little did most people know that the most important thing to come out of the Watergate hearings was that Obama, with his mixed-race background, saw in Inouye a hint of “what might be possible in my own life.” That Obama in some way may have been inspired to a political career by a man who overcame prejudice and later became Obama’s colleague is a fine point to make. But it is an incidental one to the life being celebrated.

It’s fine to relate personal stories during eulogies, but they should have the deceased as the focal point, not the eulogist. As Yoffe notes, this is a constant theme for Obama, whose speeches contain more self-referential pronouns than any of his predecessors of recent memory. Even the President who earned the monicker “The Big Me,” Bill Clinton, looks positively humble in comparison.

We’ll include this one in the OOTY polls next week, to be sure.



To: Honey_Bee who wrote (597)12/23/2012 9:49:09 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 16547
 
Homeowner: UPS employee caught red-handed stealing Christmas gift





by Jeff McShan / KHOU 11 News December 20, 2012
khou.com

HOUSTON -- Sitting in front of his computer, Al Alverson said he couldn't believe what he saw when went back to look at surveillance video recorded from a camera he had installed above his front door three years ago.

Wednesday, he and his wife Sandra Alverson were expecting two Christmas gifts that they had purchased online to be delivered, but when they got home, one of them -- delivered by Federal Express -- wasn't there. They thought it was strange because the delivery company emailed them a notification by Text-Enhance">confirming the package had been dropped off earlier that morning.

"It said it was delivered at 9:29 a.m.,” Al Alverson said. “So I go up and I have a DVR with all the cameras on it to take a look."

And sure enough at 9:29 a.m. he clearly saw his by Text-Enhance">iPad Mini being delivered. He continued to search the video and at 1:15 p.m. he saw the family's second holiday gift delivered by UPS, but two minutes later, the UPS employee returns.

"I said, ‘oh my god,’ it is the UPS guy," Alverson said.

And he was right. Dressed in the familiar brown uniform, the video showed the driver returning and taking the FedEx package sitting by the front door with the iPad Mini inside.

The Alversons told KHOU 11 News they contacted UPS and felt they were getting the run around until they posted their video on YouTube.

"I got a call this morning and they were very helpful. They promised they would get me a replacement iPad today," said Alverson.

And they did. UPS told KHOU 11 News it was also able to identify its employee and he was fired. The company said he was a seasonal worker who was hired just to deliver packages during the holidays. UPS also said the Harris County Sheriff's Office arrested him Thursday. He was charged with theft.

The Alversons wonder if they were the only victim of the suspect.

khou.com



To: Honey_Bee who wrote (597)12/24/2012 12:56:46 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
NPR's Nina Totenberg Dumps on Bork's Death:

'Embittered' Man Opposed 'Civil Rights', Trashed 'Working Mothers'

By Tim Graham | December 23, 2012


National Public Radio was quite good at historical re-enactment on Thursday night's All Things Considered. The Nina Totenberg obituary on Reagan's defeated Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork carried almost all the original liberal invective.

She included then-Washington Post TV critic Tom Shales, who wrote "He looked and talked like a man who would throw the book at you, and maybe the whole country."

There were glaring exceptions. Totenberg had no soundbite of Sen. Ted Kennedy's vicious, smearing "Robert Bork's America" speech and no clip of the People for the American Way "campaign ad" against Bork narrated by the actor Gregory Peck, as if Bork were a candidate for president. (Video below)

The choice of Peck even carried the overtones of Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird.
Bork could subtly be linked to Deep South racial injustice.

Notice how much Totenberg's summary of Bork's record neatly matches the liberal indictment about everything he allegedly opposed:

TOTENBERG: By the time President Reagan appointed him to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987, Bork had spent five years as a federal appeals court judge and had in both his judicial and academic roles amassed a long paper trail of controversial legal writings. He opposed the Supreme Court's one man, one vote decision on legislative apportionment. He wrote an article opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Law that required by Text-Enhance">hotels, restaurants and other businesses to serve people of all races. He opposed a 1965 Supreme Court decision that made contraceptives available to married couples. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution, he said. And he opposed Supreme Court decisions on gender equality, too.

That record prompted liberals and civil rights activists to launch an all-out campaign to defeat him, including mass mailings, lobbying and TV ads. Nonetheless, two months later, when the confirmation hearings began, public opinion was still on Bork's side. The hearings, however, would not work to his advantage. Known as a charming and witty man in private, Bork was dour and humorless in public. And his answers seemed to play into the stereotype liberals were painting of a man who cared little for the public. When Republican Alan Simpson pitched a softball to Bork asking him why he wanted to be a justice, here is how the nominee replied.

ROBERT BORK (1987 hearings): I think it would be an intellectual feast just to be there and to read the briefs and discuss things with counsel and discuss things with my colleagues.

NINA TOTENBERG: TV critic Tom Shales would write of the testimony: He looked and talked like a man who would throw the book at you and maybe the whole country. In the end, Bork was defeated by a vote of 58-42, the largest margin in history. The whole episode, however, enraged many Republicans. Bork's name became a symbol of conservative grievance, and a new verb was born: to Bork, defined in the dictionary as to defame or vilify a person systematically.

This was the natural spot in the story for Teddy and Gregory Peck, to illustrate the conservative grievance. But there was nothing for conservatives, including no pro-Bork soundbite. Instead, Totenberg turned to her former intern, Tom Goldstein, as she often does, without letting people in on their working relationship:

TOM GOLDSTEIN: The nomination changed everything, maybe forever.

NINA TOTENBERG: Tom Goldstein is publisher of the leading Supreme Court blog.

TOM GOLDSTEIN: Republicans nominated this brilliant guy to move the law in a dramatically more conservative direction. Liberal groups turned around and blocked him precisely because of those views. Their fight legitimized scorched-earth ideological wars over nominations at the Supreme Court. The upshot is that we have this ridiculous system now where nominees shut up and don't say anything that might signal what they really think.

NINA TOTENBERG: The whole experience embittered Bork and hardened his conservative positions. He resigned his lower court judgeship and soon became a popular author, speaker and culture warrior. In "Slouching Towards Gomorrah," he inveighed against liberals, premarital sex and working mothers. A decline runs across our entire culture, he wrote, and the rot is spreading. Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.

The Bork fight certainly set the table for Totenberg's most infamous attempts to derail GOP Supreme Court nominees -- her successful takedown of Douglas Ginsburg on charges of marijuana use (he withdrew) and her failed character assassination of Clarence Thomas on unsubstantiated sexual harassment charges in 1991 (confirmed 52-48).

But a conservative rebuttal of Goldstein might have asked how there was "scorched earth" warfare over Clinton nominees Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 (Senate vote 89-3) or Stephen Breyer in 1994 (87-9). After Democrats like Barack Obama voted against Bush's nominees (22 votes against Roberts, 42 against Alito), the Republican vote count was 31 against both Sotomayor and Kagan.

None of these nominations have been as rough as the ones Bork and Thomas suffered. NPR and Totenberg never apologize for being an eager and willing participant in "scorched earth" liberal warfare.



Read more: newsbusters.org



To: Honey_Bee who wrote (597)12/26/2012 11:14:01 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Obama Dines at Morimoto On Your DIme While We Go Over the Fiscal Cliff!

Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 12-26-2012



To: Honey_Bee who wrote (597)12/26/2012 11:45:19 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation  Respond to of 16547
 
Did Obama skip church on Christmas?

washingtonexaminer.com