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

To: Rock_nj who wrote (698877)	2/14/2013 6:47:28 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1576378

Just list me some examples of conservatives sympathizing with McVeigh.

To: Rock_nj who wrote (698877)	2/14/2013 7:23:28 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576378

Mish on Obama's plan to destroy jobs: Hot Air and No Substance; Obama's Plan to Destroy Jobs "Won't Cost a Dime" When it comes to political lies that cannot and will not be met "It won't cost a dime" is right at the top of the list. Not unexpectedly, that was the central thesis of numerous Fantasyland projections in Obama's State of the Union Address Tuesday Evening. Here are a few ideas from his state of the union address and my comments on them. On Health Care Quality In reference to health care costs, the president claims "medical bills shouldn't be based on the number of tests ordered or days spent in the hospital – they should be based on the quality of care that our seniors receive." Mish says good luck with charging healthcare based on quality, because quality is impossible to define. On Closing Loopholes Obama says we can hit deficit targets and "save hundreds of billions of dollars by getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions". Mathematically speaking, one cannot save a dime by closing loopholes. Closing loopholes may be more fair, but that has nothing to do with "saving money". Rather, closing loopholes simply spreads costs around in a different fashion. On Tax Code Changes Obama says "The American people deserve a tax code that helps small businesses spend less time filling out complicated forms, and more time expanding and hiring." I certainly agree with that, and a flat tax with no deductions would do just that. Would Obama be willing to implement a flat tax structure and close "loopholes" like the mortgage interest rate deduction? Of course not. The Real Estate industry would scream bloody murder. Obama is not really interested in closing loopholes per se, just the selected ones that he wants. Hot Air and No Substance Obama says "The greatest nation on Earth cannot keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next." I certainly agree with that. The solution is to get rid of the Fed, end fractional reserve lending, and implement a balanced budget. Unfortunately, the president did not mention any of those action items. He is all hot air and no substance. It Won't Cost a Dime Obama wants "Congress to help create a network of fifteen [manufacturing] hubs and guarantee that the next revolution in manufacturing is Made in America. He says "nothing I'm proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime." That certainly would be excellent news (if only it was true). In reality, new manufacturing hubs in one city will come at the expense of existing manufacturing somewhere else unless more money is thrown at the problem. Yet, if more money is thrown at the problem, why should anyone expect results different from Obama's disastrous entry in various clean energy schemes that went bankrupt? Climate Change Nonsense Obama says "For the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change." I suggest that if we want to do something for the sake of our kids, we should eliminate the deficit, get rid of the Fed, and back the dollar with gold. Regardless of whether or not anyone believes the hype over global warming, the notion that governments will do anything sensible about it is complete nonsense. Certainly every cap-and-trade proposal to date has been preposterous. Obama's speech got downright scary when he said "If Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy." And somehow that will "not cost a dime". "The states with the best ideas to create jobs and lower energy bills by constructing more efficient buildings will receive federal support to help make it happen." Apparently, federal support to construct more buildings will "not cost a dime" either. "Fix-It-First" President Obama proposes a "Fix-It-First program to put people to work as soon as possible on our most urgent repairs, like the nearly 70,000 structurally deficient bridges across the country." Supposedly that will not "cost a dime either". Wait a second on that. His next sentence was "And to make sure taxpayers don't shoulder the whole burden, I'm also proposing a Partnership to Rebuild America that attracts private capital to upgrade what our businesses need most: modern ports to move our goods; modern pipelines to withstand a storm; modern schools worthy of our children". I have a simple question: What part of the burden will taxpayers shoulder? This "partnership" sounds suspiciously like a plea for tax hikes with the money going to overpaid public union workers. If the president really wanted to insure we rebuild America at a reasonable cost, he would scrap Davis-Bacon and all prevailing wage laws, implement national Right-to-Work laws, and end collective bargaining of public union workers. Instead, the president appears willing to tax the rest of the county to death to help the unions who elected him. Still More Tax Hikes The tax hikes don't stop with "Fix-It-First" either. Obama says "Right now, there's a bill in this Congress that would give every responsible homeowner in America the chance to save $3,000 a year by refinancing at today's rates." If that does not add to the deficit, then it must be achieved by tax hikes. Preschool The president's free money ideas roll on and on. Obama proposes "working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every child in America". Supposedly that pays for itself. Job Destruction The surest way to destroy jobs is for government to mandate businesses pay labor costs in excess of a natural rate. Yet, Obama pledges to do just that. Specifically, Obama wants to "raise the federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour". He claims "This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank; rent or eviction; scraping by or finally getting ahead." Minimum Wage Seen and Unseen The president ignores the "unseen" effect of those who do not get a job because companies choose to hire a software or hardware robot instead of an overpriced human. The problem is not a minimum wage, but rather how much the dollar buys. If Congress did not debase the dollar with massive deficits, the dollar would buy much more than it does. The irony is Obama complains of "Factory towns decimated from years of plants packing up. Inescapable pockets of poverty, urban and rural, where young adults are still fighting for their first job." The US lost jobs because US wages were too high. Manufacturing is now returning, but to robots, not humans. The president concluded "Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America." I conclude the president's entire speech was one proposal after another that will destroy jobs, add to the deficit, and increase taxes. Mike "Mish" Shedlock globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/02/hot-air-and-no-substance-obamas-plans.html#9h463Wq5Q1qX1pRl.99

To: Rock_nj who wrote (698877)	2/14/2013 7:29:52 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1576378

Dorner sympathy goes mainstream: “Like watching ‘Django Unchained.’ It’s kind of exciting!” posted at 9:36 pm on February 13, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham A liberal critic of my comments on “The O’Reilly Factor” this week tweeted his displeasure with my assertion that factions of the “Left” and “some liberals” sympathized with Chris Dorner and even made him into a folk hero. He asked for examples. Here’s one: [iframe height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/v-uuGdxLZtE" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen][/iframe] It’s hard to imagine how Marc Lamont Hill could have put this more appallingly. One member of the panel starts by rather sensibly bemoaning the waste of life, manpower, and ink in this chase. Hill responds: “There’s no waste here, though. I mean, this has been an important public conversation that we’ve had about police brutality, about police corruption, about state violence. I mean, there were even talks about making him the first domestic drone target. I mean, this is serious business here. I don’t think it’s been a waste of time at all. And, as far as Dorner himself goes, he’s been like a real-life superhero to many people. Now, don’t get me wrong, what he did was awful, killing innocent people is bad. But when you read his manifesto, you read the message that he left, he wasn’t entirely crazy. He had a plan and a mission, here. And, many people aren’t rooting for him to kill innocent people; they’re rooting for someone who was wronged to get a kind of revenge against the system. It’s almost like watching ‘Django Unchained’ in real life. It’s kind of exciting.” Hill and I have been on many of the same TV shows. We have been paired as sparring partners. We have been in TV doing commentary for approximately the same amount of time. Please imagine a scenario in which there is a fugitive who killed four people, two of them police officers, wounded four others, taunted the families of his innocent victims, held a couple hostage for days, and led one of the largest manhunts in recent history because he felt the government was too overbearing a force, spending too much money, and taking too much freedom from its citizens. Imagine his manifesto referenced issues about which I care deeply, such as the need for entitlement reforms and the need for charter schools and school choice, and name-checked Bill O’Reilly and Tucker Carlson as admired figures. And, I went on TV and said this: “There’s no waste here, though. I mean, this has been an important public conversation that we’ve had about entitlement reform, about some of endangered liberties, and about school choice. I mean, this is serious business here. I don’t think it’s been a waste of time at all. And, as far as [Quadruple Murderer] himself goes, he’s been like a real-life superhero to many people. Now, don’t get me wrong, what he did was awful, killing innocent people is bad. But when you read his manifesto, you read the message that he left, he wasn’t entirely crazy. He had a plan and a mission, here. And, many people aren’t rooting for him to kill innocent people; they’re rooting for someone who was wronged to get a kind of revenge against the system. It’s almost like watching ‘Red Dawn’ in real life. It’s kind of exciting.” First of all, we’d never be having this conversation on TV, because it’s a warped and deeply insensitive conversation to have. Quite the opposite: as a conservative, I would have been forced to carefully distance and denounce for a week straight (and, by the way, would be required to do this even if there were no evidence the murderer shared my belief system, as in the case of Jared Loughner). Never would there be a discussion of whether we should consider whether the murderer had a legitimate grievance, nor should there be. You have lost the privilege of a “national conversation” about your grievances once you have killed four fellow citizens. If anything, I would curse the perpetrator not just for his murders but for making it nearly impossible for me to speak publicly about the concerns he, regrettably, shared with me. Second, I would never, ever, ever say this because it is morally deranged. I believe many of the country’s problems are immediate, moral concerns. I believe there are government policies that are actively hurting people at this very moment, and I’d like to have a spotlight on them. I even believe that far too often, police investigations are faulty and police tactics can hurt innocent people, as they did in this manhunt. (Update: Come to think of it, I actually did on “O’Reilly” this week exactly what Hill failed to do—made clear that Dorner deserves no sympathy while also holding LAPD accountable for injuries to civilians.) Standing in the spotlight afforded you by the murderer of four fellow citizens, however, while broadly smiling and comparing it to watching a really sweet revenge fantasy flick is not the way to solve these issues. If I tried to pull this crap on Marc on TV, I daresay he’d find it disgusting. Hill’s not the only one, either. As Buzzfeed notes, Dorner support is going mainstream. Alternet, the leftist online magazine, ran a story by Chauncey DeVega arguing that Dorner could “be transformed through popular culture and storytelling into a figure talked about for decades and centuries to come, with multiple versions of his tales and exploits, shaped by the griots and bards for their respective audiences.” “Christopher Dorner dared to tell his version of the truth regarding the LAPD’s history of corruption and racism,” DeVega writes. “They do not like tattle tales and ‘snitches.’ Dorner was a particularly noxious threat to the status quo both because of his violent actions, as well as the symbolic power of his words and deeds.” Salon’s Natasha Lennard has written a couple of stories sympathetic to Dorner (“Ex-cops sympathize with Dorner’s anger,” “Were Dorner’s complaints legitimate?”). Vice, in a story about whether or not Anonymous will retaliate after Dorner’s death, implicitly compared Dorner to anti-establishment heroes like Bradley Manning and Aaron Swartz, while acknowledging that “a murderous ex-cop is a lot harder to defend than these nonviolent liberators of information.” Hill has been defending his comment on his Twitter feed, saying he was merely speaking for “many people” who feel that way about Dorner and his rampage. If that’s the case, then he’s also obligated to make clear that he thinks this inclination is disgusting and, ahem, %^&# crazy. Sadly, the truth is, “many people” don’t think that inclination is disgusting and ^&T# crazy, and he is one of them. ..... hotair.com .... “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson,” ………………Bernadine Dorn ..speaking to the Students for a Democratic Society in 1969. Liberals embracing psychotic killers…..nothing new for the “Peace and Love” crowd. .........

To: Rock_nj who wrote (698877)	2/14/2013 7:54:15 AM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 1576378

Crazy to Everyone but the New York Times The paper bends over backward to find justification for Christopher Dorner’s murderous rampage. 12 February 2013 A homicidal maniac blames racism in the Los Angeles Police Department for his killing rampage against cops and civilians and the New York Times responds, “You know, he just may have a point.” On Monday, as fired LAPD cop Christopher Dorner eluded capture for the sixth day after killing a Riverside Police Department officer, the daughter of his departmental defense attorney, and her fiancé, the Times wrapped up three days of observations about racism in the LAPD in response to Dorner’s charge, in a lunatic manifesto, that the department was endemically biased and brutal. (Dorner may have burned to death in a cabin in the San Bernadino mountains after a shootout that killed another law enforcement officer.) The Times’s lead story in its national news section on Saturday was headlined: SHOOTING SUSPECT’S RACISM ALLEGATIONS RESOUND FOR SOME. Reporter Adam Nagourney opened his story with the LAPD’s denial of Dorner’s charges. “For the Los Angeles Police Department,” wrote Nagourney, Dorner’s accusations are “the words of a delusional man, detached from the reality of the huge improvements the force has undergone over the years.” Nagourney didn’t put the LAPD’s position in irony-signaling scare quotes, but the reader knew what was coming next: after the departmental spin, now the reality. “Yet for whatever changes the department has undergone since the days when it was notorious as an outpost of rampant racism and corruption,” continued Nagourney, “the accusations by the suspect—however disjointed and unhinged—have struck a chord. They are a reminder, many black leaders said, that some problems remain and, no less significant, that memories of abuses and mistreatment remain strong in many parts of this city.” Nagourney makes no effort to document what those alleged “problems” are. In fact, he provides not one instance of police misconduct. Instead, he simply rounds up the usual suspects, always good for a quote about the long shadow of racism in the LAPD. “It would be naïve and misguided to say that racism in any institution is entirely a thing of the past,” UC Irvine law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky told the Times, after conceding that the department had changed. Nagourney also quotes certain members of the “community,” such as Hodari Sababu, a 56-year-old tour guide: “In your community, the police is there to protect and serve; in my community, the police are there to harass and to insult and to kill if they get a chance.” A 54-year-old bus driver explains: “Black people feel like we’ve been targets for so long, we’ve always felt that the L.A.P.D. was corrupt. So for us, it’s like, O.K., they pushed him over the edge.” If the Times insists on giving any credence to the charges of a murderous madman—whose manifesto lists, among its “high value targets,” former LAPD chief William Bratton; current chief Charles Beck; their spouses and children; Caucasian, Hispanic, lesbian, and Asian officers; and black LAPD supervisors—here’s what it could have asked with regards to the Dorner case: Is there any evidence that Dorner’s firing was the product of bias? The LAPD fired Dorner in 2009 after a disciplinary panel found that he had falsely accused his training sergeant of kicking a homeless man during an arrest; his credibility, said the board’s chairman, was “damaged beyond repair.” Three witnesses testified that they did not see the sergeant kick the man. If Dorner was fired because of racism, presumably other black officers would have been unfairly treated as well. Where are they? Or did the department’s disciplinary apparatus erupt in bias in just this one case, and if so, why? Dorner had full opportunity to press his case: after his dismissal, he sued the department for wrongful termination. He lost at trial and again on appeal. The idea that bigotry or a lack of integrity tainted each of those fora strains credulity. Instead of merely recycling left-over tropes about the big, bad LAPD from his paper’s celebratory coverage of the Rodney King riots’ twentieth anniversary, Nagourney could have reported on the department’s unparalleled transparency and openness to the public and the press. For a good part of a decade, the LAPD lived under the yoke of a gratuitous federal civil rights consent decree, spending hundreds of millions complying with its insanely burdensome paperwork requirements. The decree was lifted in 2008, when a federal judge belatedly declared the department in compliance with its constitutional obligations. Since then, the department continues to bend over backward to investigate even the most patently false allegations of racial profiling or anything else related to race; an entire squad of detectives tries to substantiate every civilian complaint that comes before it, no matter how preposterous; an inspector general then looks for any further possibilities of upholding the complaint. Nagourney could have spoken to some black cops or black commanders, such as assistant chief Earl Paysinger, who oversees the department’s 7,000 patrol and detective officers. Two of the department’s last four chiefs have been black (not that skin color has anything to do with a predilection toward bias, except, of course, in the Times’s world); did they sanction racism in their department? How about riding with some cops in the city’s gang-ridden areas to see how they deal with suspects and law-abiding residents? (Nagourney does reference improvements in public opinion of the department and a decrease in the number of white officers as “evidence” of change since the days of Chief William Parker, but such a generalized statement does not outweigh the impression left by his man-on-the-street reporting.) The reality is this: few police departments today are more “progressive” than the LAPD in their internal affairs or their continuous outreach to blacks and every other self-defined victim group. The Times routinely lards its police stories with anti-cop quotes but almost never finds someone with anything positive to say about the police, though such people are out there to be found. In the Times’s universe, a black person with negative attitudes toward the police enjoys a virtually indefeasible presumption of authority. The possibility of anti-cop bias doesn’t exist for the paper; the only bias it recognizes is against certain minorities. Nor does it seem to occur to its reporters and editors that some of its anti-cop sources may have a grudge against the police for having been arrested or for the arrest of a family member or associate. The Times is willing to print outrageous statements like Sababu’s, but never asks: “Really? Do the police really go to black neighborhoods in order to ‘kill if they get a chance’?” Anyone with the slightest knowledge of how the LAPD has operated for the last decade and a half would recognize such statements as sheer fabrication—but if you’re going to print it, how about looking at what the LAPD’s civilian shooting rate is? In fact, it’s a fraction of what it was decades ago, and an infinitesimal number compared with black-on-black killings. On Sunday, the Times was at it again: “The killings and Mr. Dorner’s online manifesto have reopened old wounds for some black residents here, even as they condemned the violence. For decades, the Los Angeles Police Department was known nationwide for racism and corruption. And memories are still fresh of the riots in 1992 that followed the beating of a black man, Rodney King, by white police officers. The beating was caught on videotape and broadcast around the country.” Yes, but what about now? On Monday, the Times reiterated the charges of racism in the LAPD, in case we hadn’t gotten the point yet: “Late last week, Chief Beck said he believed that Mr. Dorner’s dismissal had been ‘thoroughly adjudicated’ and ‘reviewed at multiple levels.’ But that did little to quiet speculation in some quarters that the former officer had legitimate claims of racism.” Which “quarters” would they be, and why should they be given any credence? In contrast with the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times has done valuable reporting on the Dorner rampage, giving a good overview of the false-witness case against him, his troubled history with the department, and his unstable mental condition. If it wasn’t clear enough already from Dorner’s evil slaughter and his monomaniacal, paranoid manifesto (which announces that the killing spree is undertaken to “clear [Dorner’s] name”), the Los Angeles Times’s reporting shows that his views about racism in the LAPD are not worth building a narrative around (the paper does say that his allegations have resonated with some who criticize the department’s disciplinary system as capricious and retaliatory). Appallingly, groups supporting Dorner’s homicidal spree have sprung up on the Internet. The New York Times’s reporting on this and other police cases does little to counter such terrifying hatred. city-journal.org

To: Rock_nj who wrote (698877)	2/14/2013 9:08:47 AM
From: Bill	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576378

How about the violence perpetrated by the U.S in Iraq? Was that initiated from the left or the right of the American political spectrum? "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "It is clear that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

To: Rock_nj who wrote (698877)	2/14/2013 9:50:29 AM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576378

How about the violence perpetrated by the U.S in Iraq? Was that initiated from the left or the right of the American political spectrum? I don't think Bush has shy'd away from his responsibility in the invasion of Iraq. The right wing was solidly behind him and, at the time, the left wing was ok with it. Of course extremists can make any reasonable idea crazy but Bush was operating on a reasonable approach based on available information. Prior to Bush the left wing had a strong agenda to remove Saddam Hussein from power, (probably whey they initially supported the Invasion before condemning it) primarily by continuing sanctions until they had enough effect to cause change within Iraq. (See the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998). Also note prior to 1998 what we knew about the Sanctions. * UN Assistant Secretary General Denis Halliday, the Humanitarian Coordinator for the Oil for Food program in Iraq, resigned in 1998 to protest sanctions that he later termed "genocidal". "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide. Extremes are always corrupt and devastating. The only winners in a game like that are those who refuse to play. The only way to avoid such traps is to live a personally decent life based on reason tempered by conscience and principle. ===================================================== * The Center for Economic and Social Rights CERS study estimated 500,000 excess deaths among Iraqi children (cited in the CBS report). * The Lancet British Medical Journal - a separate detailed study (1995): 567,000 children * a 1999 UNICEF survey within Iraq reinforced the earlier studies. Based on new data, it also estimated 500,000 excess deaths among Iraqi children under 5-years old. * UN Assistant Secretary General Denis Halliday, the Humanitarian Coordinator for the Oil for Food program in Iraq, resigned in 1998 to protest sanctions that he later termed "genocidal". "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide. * "Richard Garfield, a Columbia University nursing professor ... cited the figures 345,000-530,000 for the entire 1990-2002 period" for sanctions-related excess deaths. Richard Garfield, whose major work (available at www.cam.ac.uk/societies/casi/info/garfield/dr-garfield.html) picked apart others' methodologies and freely admitted which of his data points were weakest. "Even a small number of documentable excess deaths is an expression of a humanitarian disaster, and this number is not small," he concluded. Garfield's conclusion: Between August, 1991, and March, 1998, there were between 106,000 and 227,000 excess deaths of children under five. Recently, he has estimated the latter, less conservative number at 500,000 plus between 1990 and 2002. The non-express goal of the sanctions was the removal of Saddam Hussein. For example, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 stated that U.S. policy was to "replace that regime", an outcome that was not referenced in the U.N. resolutions but frequently mentioned by its supporters. Paul Lewis wrote in the New York Times: "Ever since the trade embargo was imposed on Aug. 6, after the invasion of Kuwait, the United States has argued against any premature relaxation in the belief that by making life uncomfortable for the Iraqi people it will eventually encourage them to remove President Saddam Hussein from power." On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright, (then U.S Ambassador the United Nations appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it." guardian.co.uk superbessay.com mattwelch.com

To: Rock_nj who wrote (698877)	2/14/2013 10:51:21 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576378

Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

To: Rock_nj who wrote (698877)	2/14/2013 11:01:45 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576378

Rocknj, rejekt, silentz can move to Pakistan GALLUP: 92% of Pakistanis now dislike America...

To: Rock_nj who wrote (698877)	2/15/2013 7:21:04 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576378

Perform Criminal Background Checks at Your Peril A federal policy intended to help minorities is likely to have the opposite effect. Calling Democrats the Criminal Party is not an exaggeration. By JAMES BOVARD Should it be a federal crime for businesses to refuse to hire ex-convicts? Yes, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which recently released 20,000 convoluted words of regulatory "guidance" to direct businesses to hire more felons and other ex-offenders. In the late 1970s, the EEOC began stretching Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to sue businesses for practically any hiring practice that adversely affected minorities. In 1989, the agency sued Carolina Freight Carrier Corp. of Hollywood, Fla., for refusing to hire as a truck driver a Hispanic man who had multiple arrests and had served 18 months in prison for larceny. The EEOC argued that the only legitimate qualification for the job was the ability to operate a tractor trailer. U.S. District Judge Jose Alejandro Gonzalez Jr., in ruling against the agency, said: "EEOC's position that minorities should be held to lower standards is an insult to millions of honest Hispanics. Obviously a rule refusing honest employment to convicted applicants is going to have a disparate impact upon thieves." The EEOC ignored that judicial thrashing and pressed on. Last April, the agency unveiled its "Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions," declaring that "criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact based on race and national origin." Though blacks make up only 13% of the U.S. population, more blacks were arrested nationwide for robbery, murder and manslaughter in 2009 than whites, according to the FBI. The imprisonment rate for black men "was nearly 7 times higher than White men and almost 3 times higher than Hispanic men," notes the EEOC. These statistical disparities inspired the EEOC to rewrite the corporate hiring handbook to level the playing field between "protected groups" and the rest of the workforce. Most businesses perform criminal background checks on job applicants, but the EEOC guidance frowns on such checks and creates new legal tripwires that could spark federal lawsuits. One EEOC commissioner who opposed the new policy, Constance Barker, warned in April that "the only real impact the new Guidance will have will be to scare business owners from ever conducting criminal background checks. . . . The Guidance tells them that they are taking a tremendous risk if they do." If a background check discloses a criminal offense, the EEOC expects a company to do an intricate "individualized assessment" that will somehow prove that it has a "business necessity" not to hire the ex-offender (or that his offense disqualifies him for a specific job). Former EEOC General Counsel Donald Livingston, in testimony in December to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, warned that employers could be considered guilty of "race discrimination if they choose law abiding applicants over applicants with criminal convictions" unless they conduct a comprehensive analysis of the ex-offender's recent life history. It is difficult to overstate the EEOC's zealotry on this issue. The agency is demanding that one of Mr. Livingston's clients—the Freeman Companies, a convention and corporate events planner—pay compensation to rejected job applicants who lied about their criminal records. The biggest bombshell in the new guidelines is that businesses complying with state or local laws that require employee background checks can still be targeted for EEOC lawsuits. This is a key issue in a case the EEOC commenced in 2010 against G4S Secure Solutions after the company refused to hire a twice-convicted Pennsylvania thief as a security guard. G4S provides guards for nuclear power plants, chemical plants, government buildings and other sensitive sites, and it is prohibited by state law from hiring people with felony convictions as security officers. But, as G4S counsel Julie Payne testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights this past December, the EEOC insists "that state and local laws are pre-empted by Title VII" and is pressuring the company "to defend the use of background checks in every hiring decision we have made over a period of decades." The EEOC's new regime leaves businesses in a Catch-22. As Todd McCracken of the National Small Business Association recently warned: "State and federal courts will allow potentially devastating tort lawsuits against businesses that hire felons who commit crimes at the workplace or in customers' homes. Yet the EEOC is threatening to launch lawsuits if they do not hire those same felons." At the same time that the EEOC is practically rewriting the law to add "criminal offender" to the list of protected groups under civil-rights statutes, the agency refuses to disclose whether it uses criminal background checks for its own hiring. When EEOC Assistant Legal Counsel Carol Miaskoff was challenged on this point in a recent federal case in Maryland, the agency insisted that revealing its hiring policies would violate the "governmental deliberative process privilege." The EEOC is confident that its guidance will boost minority hiring, but studies published in the University of Chicago Legal Forum and the Journal of Law and Economics have found that businesses are much less likely to hire minority applicants when background checks are banned. As the majority of black and Hispanic job applicants have clean legal records, the new EEOC mandate may harm the very groups it purports to help. Naturally, the EEOC will have no liability for any workplace trouble that results from its new hiring policy. But Americans can treat ex-offenders humanely without giving them legal advantages over similar individuals without criminal records. The EEOC's new regulatory regime is likely to chill hiring across the board and decrease opportunities for minority applicants. Mr. Bovard is the author, most recently, of a new e-book memoir, "Public Policy Hooligan." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323701904578276491630786614.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

To: Rock_nj who wrote (698877)	2/16/2013 11:55:47 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576378

Occupy LA to Christopher Dorner: 'Rest in Power' The Democrat-endorsed #Occupy movement has racked up quite an impressive record: - More than 12 deaths, 6 found dead in tents, Two found dead after several days - 2 murders (Not counting the protester who strangled his parents and stuffed them in a car) - Tens of millions of dollars in damages, layoffs, vandalism, law breaking - Multiple Rapes - Thousands of arrests - Public masturbation - Feces - Child molestation and baby abuse Now this… The #Occupy criminal movement on the left honored cop-killer Chris Dorner this week. This was posted on the #Occupy LA Facebook page: ... thegatewaypundit.com breitbart.com

To: Rock_nj who wrote (698877)	2/16/2013 1:09:29 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576378

If liberals had any compassion they wouldn't want people to be defenseless against criminals Armed 87-Year-Old Trumps Attacker With Violent Record Handgun: The great equalizer. by Howard Nemerov A 49-year-old male was out on personal recognizance after being convicted of battery. According to the female victim, the attacker “took off his shirt” and “made sexual advances to her.” When she rebuffed him, he “got upset” and assaulted her. The victim, age 24 and pregnant, got away, took her 3-year-old daughter, and ran to her landlord’s house. The attacker pursued her, and again began assaulting her. The landlord, age 87, tried to break it up at first, to no effect. He finally got his handgun and shot the attacker twice. Lieutenant Britt Snyder of the Chaves County, New Mexico Sheriff’s Department said: “From the information that we’ve been given, we think it sounds fortunate that the landlord was armed in this case. He certainly would have been no match for a man that’s 40 years younger than him.” Here’s a law enforcement professional who understands that the laws of physics and physiology trump political correctness. Speaking about his gun control proposals, President Obama stated: “But if there’s even one thing we can do, if there’s just one life we can save, we’ve got an obligation to try.” Mr. President, one handgun just saved three people. Stop trying. pjmedia.com Everytime a citizen successfully defends himself against a criminal, a Republican wins and a Criminal Democrat loses.

To: Rock_nj who wrote (698877)

2/17/2013 12:05:48 PM

From: Brumar89

1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576378

Dozens of Cop Killer Supporters Rally Outside LAPD Headquarters (Video)

Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, February 17, 2013, 3:52 AM

Dozens of Chris Dorner supporters rallied at the Los Angeles Police Department today.
Former policeman Chris Dorner murdered four people before shooting himself in the head last week.
View more videos at: http://nbclosangeles.com.

The AP reported:

Dozens of protesters rallied outside Los Angeles police headquarters Saturday in support of Christopher Dorner, the former LAPD officer and suspected killer of four who died after a shootout and fire this week at a mountain cabin following one of the biggest manhunts in recent memory.

Protesters told the Los Angeles Times (http://lat.ms/11Ndm6i ) they didn’t support Dorner’s deadly methods, but objected to police corruption and brutality, and believed Dorner’s claims of racism and unfair treatment by the department. Many said they were angered by the conduct of the manhunt that led to Dorner’s death and injuries to innocent bystanders who were mistaken for him.

Michael Nam, 30, who held a sign with a flaming tombstone and the inscription “RIP Habeas Corpus,” said it was “pretty obvious” police had no intention of bringing Dorner in alive.

“They were the judge, the jury and the executioner,” Nam said. “As an American citizen, you have the right to a trial and due process by law.”

Pretty sick stuff. At least a few of them had the sense to cover their faces.

thegatewaypundit.com

And from the View from the Center of the Left thread:

From: Suma	2/16/2013 4:31:53 PM
	Read Replies (2) of 217212

How Law Enforcement and Media Covered Up the Plan to Burn Christopher Dorner Alive .... and WHY did he have something to reveal about the LA police that needed to be covered up ?

......
Message 28730499

To: Rock_nj who wrote (698877)	2/18/2013 6:50:18 AM
From: Brumar89	7 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576378

Let me explain how it works some more ... since one conservative believing something non-sensical about rape means every other conservative believes it (and that was the tactic of everyone on the left in the last election) ... some liberals treating Chris Dorner as a hero means every liberal thinks he's a hero. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

To: Rock_nj who wrote (698877)	2/18/2013 7:53:05 AM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 1576378

Liberal CNN Panelists Defend Murderer Dorner By Selwyn Duke "Modern liberalism is moral dysfunction." When I recently made that statement after citing leftist social-media support for murderer Christopher Dorner, some readers thought I'd gone overboard. Surely, the twisted rooting for a paranoid killer on Facebook and elsewhere is just the rambling of an odd minority; there are radicals "on both sides" and one in every bunch, right? But now more evidence has surfaced vindicating my statement that such feelings aren't at all unusual among the passionate left -- evidence provided courtesy of the "professionals" at CNN. The network's Brooke Baldwin hosted a panel discussion on Dorner's support involving MC Lyte of Café Mocha Radio; Buzzfeed sports editor Jack Moore; Lauren Ashburn, editor-in-chief at The Daily Download; and frequent O'Reilly Factor guest Marc Lamont Hill. The consensus? Dorner's actions were understandable. What follows are relevant excerpts of the conversation. When Ashburn -- the only guest shocked by the support for the murderer -- said that there has been tremendous waste (lives, police manpower, etc.) because of Dorner's actions, Hill replied, "There's no waste here, though; this has been an important public conversation we've had about police brutality, police corruption, about state violence." This is a bit like saying that wars can be beneficial because they help the economy (which is also a myth). Mr. Hill, was Sandy Hook not a waste because it sparked a conversation about guns? Perhaps it would have been good if Dorner killed 400 people instead of 4. Then we could've really had a talk. Hill then said, "As far as Dorner himself goes, he's been like a real-life superhero to people. Don't get me wrong; what he did was awful; killing innocent people is bad. But when you read his manifesto, the message he left, he wasn't entirely crazy; he had a plan and a mission here." So did Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao. Hill continued, "And many people aren't rooting for him to kill innocent people; they're rooting for somebody who was wronged to...to get some kind of revenge against the system. It's almost like watching Django Unchained in real life; it's kind of exciting." Yep, just get the popcorn and soda and sit back. You don't even have to spring for a theater ticket. What you're seeing here is The Liberal Mind Unchained. It's kind of sickening. When Baldwin then asked, "Do you think this should serve as a catalyst for a conversation, talking about 'racism' in the LAPD?" Lyte chimed in "Absolutely!" Moore then said, "But I think there's also something to it [the support] in that the narrative of Christopher Dorner doesn't... I mean, in some ways it resembles a Denzel Washington movie where someone is wronged and stands up for himself and goes down in a blaze of glory. It's hard for it not to turn into a movie." Ashburn then said that such grievances should be addressed through the law, at which point Hill interjected, "Not if the law is broken! Not if the law is broken! ...The proper channels don't work." I wonder, can conservatives apply this to Democratic politicians who violate the Constitution, the supreme law of the land? I mean, if the proper channels don't work.... Shortly thereafter Lyte lent her support, saying "Absolutely. Um, everyone's making a point that needs to be heard, I'm sure." She then took at face value Dorner's claim that he was fired from the LAPD for reporting police brutality and said, "It's [the support is] an uproar because people are being brutalized." Note here that the nonjudgmental liberals take ideological soulmate Dorner's claims at face value, including the claim that he was wronged. It doesn't matter that he was an obviously unhinged man who, according to an ex-girlfriend, was "severely emotionally and mentally disturbed," "twisted," and "super paranoid." This mentality isn't hard to recognize, either, if you've ever dealt with a paranoid individual. Such a person will imagine out of left field that you did him dirty and then make taking vengeance an all-consuming, tunnel-vision goal. You do not want to be on a paranoid's radar screen. It would be a measure of justice, however, if that's exactly where the CNN panelists would one day find themselves (though it's unlikely they'd make the connection and learn anything). We also can only imagine what Dorner might have done had he been allowed to remain on the LAPD. And had he engaged in police brutality, the same leftists now impugning the LAPD in his defense would be doing so in his condemnation. The truth, however, is that two factors are in play here. First, in the cases of Hill and Lyte, who are both black, there is the "black code"; this includes the injunction "Thou shalt not criticize another black person" -- especially in front of whites or when he can be seen an opponent of society. But then there is what's characteristic of all leftists: a pathological inability to condemn one's own. When Republican congressman Mark Foley was found to have engaged in sexual impropriety, he had to resign, and his conservative constituents were so disenchanted that a Democrat won his seat; when GOP senator Larry Craig was guilty of same, he wouldn't run again as it would only have resulted in a primary loss. Contrast this with Democrat politicians such as Gerry Studds (there's a reason his name sounds like a porn star's), Barney Frank, and Bill Clinton, all of whom could remain in office for as long as their little reprobate hearts desired. Why, Noam Chomsky even defended the Khmer Rouge while they were in the midst of killing off a third of Cambodia, and leftists generally don't even muster passionate denunciations of Joseph Stalin. But there's a reason for this. I think you'll find it interesting. It's always hard to condemn those to whom we have an emotional attachment or whose actions we find emotionally pleasing. The perfect example is a mother who is told her son committed heinous crimes and then goes into denial, saying "He's a good boy." Yet we've all witnessed this phenomenon. Just think about how it's harder to take a friend to task for a minor transgression than it would be an enemy, or how there's generally a reluctance to criticize those next to us in the phalanx of a cherished cause. But what increases the chances that you'll stifle emotion and stand on principle? You first must have principle to begin with. When you believe in Truth -- either explicitly or just in the sense of operating under the assumption that there is a transcendent "right" -- it will be your yardstick for behavior and decision-making. This is when the head can intervene and begin to compete with the seductive heart. It's when you're more likely to tell an errant friend, "Look, you know I like you, but what you did there was wrong." What, though, if you're a relativist and thus don't believe in transcendent morality? What then will be that yardstick for behavior and decision-making? There is only one thing left: emotion. Sure, the consensus "values" of the wider society may influence you -- but in a relativistic age they'll largely be the product of emotion, too -- and you certainly will see them as such absent a belief in Truth. And then why should you defer to other people's emotions? You've got your own, and other people aren't gods. This is why liberals -- who are defined by relativism -- are so emotion-driven (think of Clinton and "I feel your pain"). And it is why they will virtually never condemn those they like. After all, what is there to inform that an emotional attachment is wrong when emotion is all there is? A yardstick cannot fail to measure up to itself, and the head won't likely trump the heart when the heart is the governing part. And this is why liberals are so dangerous. To use a play on a Ben Franklin line, liberals are passion that governs, and they never govern wisely. A failure to believe in Absolute Truth is, by definition, denial of moral reality. And to tolerate people so delusional in control of government, the media, and academia is to allow the transformation of your land into a mental asylum writ large. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/02/liberal_cnn_panelists_defend_murderer_dorner.html#ixzz2LFqi5ceg Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter \| AmericanThinker on Facebook