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: Cage Rattler who wrote (2800)5/10/2013 4:11:51 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Muslim enabler Christie is an obvious Alinsky plant.



To: Cage Rattler who wrote (2800)5/10/2013 10:15:24 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
NYT still soft-pedals communists:

South Korea Led by 'Strongman' and 'Steely Conservative,' But North Korean Dictator Just a 'Young New Leader'


By Clay Waters | May 09, 2013




Soft labeling of Communist dictators (" enigmatic"?) has been a historical problem for the New York Times.

On Wednesday, reporters Mark Landler and David Sanger described the late South Korea president Park Chung-Hee as a "strongman" as his "steely conservative" daughter Park Geun-hye, current president of the country, meets President Obama for the first time.

In contrast, North Korea's new young dictator Kim Jong-un was an "erratic, often belligerent young leader in Pyongyang," the Times leaving out ideological labels and not mentioning the totalitarian nature of his regime.

The bias was even more stark in Martin Fackler and Choe Sang-Hun's March 11 dispatch. Kim Jong-un was merely "a young new leader," while South Korea's female president was described as the daughter of (that word again) "a military strongman."

Adding to South Koreans’ worries, the North and its nuclear arsenal are in the hands of a young new leader, Kim Jong-un, whose brinkmanship appears to be an effort to ensure the support of his nation’s powerful military.

The South also has a new president, Park Geun-hye, the daughter of a military strongman who stood firm against North Korea, who herself also faces pressure to stand fast against the North.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2013/05/09/south-korean-led-strongman-and-steely-conservative-north-korean-dictato#ixzz2St5Nf8Ec



To: Cage Rattler who wrote (2800)5/11/2013 10:44:40 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
I had jury duty a few days ago

The judge was in a jovial mood as he questioned the jurors before the case to determine if anyone should be disqualified as a juror..

One prospective juror said he had once taken a course in a specific type of law when he went to college.

The judge asked what it was and the guy said it had to do with income tax.

The judge laughed and said, "That's how they got Al Capone."

I said half out loud, "But they DIDN'T get Timothy Geithner---or Charles Rangel---or Tom Daschle."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The case was a higher court criminal case.

It was a against a 5'2" Chinese lady who was a lawyer.

The judge said she was being tried for refusing to give her identification and for assaulting the policeman who stopped her --for not stopping long enough at a red stop sign.

I knew at once that the whole thing stunk.


First of all--traffic cases--even more serious ones---are heard in the lower court where I live--not this higher court.

Second of all--it seemed VERY unlikely that someone who was a lawyer would jeopardize their career by "assaulting" a policeman--especially over something so simple as getting a traffic ticket.

I said out loud, "Is this an appeal of a (lower court) case?"

Her lawyer immediately jumped up with a BIG smile on his face and said, "YES."

The prosecuting attorney jumped up with an equally big scowl on his face and said he wanted to approach the bench.

He talked to the judge for a bit and then returned to his seat.

The judge then told me I was excused.

It was obvious to them that I knew too much and they wanted no part of me.





To: Cage Rattler who wrote (2800)5/11/2013 11:34:10 AM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations  Respond to of 16547
 
Obama lied, people died. What difference at this point does it make?

This sums up the left's cavalier attitude.



To: Cage Rattler who wrote (2800)5/12/2013 9:26:50 AM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations  Respond to of 16547
 
Benghazi-----What was Secretary Clinton doing that was more important? What was the president doing? Aside, that is, from resting up for his big Vegas campaign event. A real government would be scrambling furiously to see what it could do to rescue its people. It’s easy, afterwards, to say that nothing would have made any difference. But, at the time Deputy Chief Hicks was calling 9-1-1 and getting executive-branch voicemail, nobody in Washington knew how long it would last. A terrorist attack isn’t like a soccer game, over in 90 minutes. If it is a sport, it’s more like a tennis match: Whether it’s all over in three sets or goes to five depends on how hard the other guy pushes back. The government of the United States took the extremely strange decision to lose in straight sets. Not only did they not deploy out-of-area assets, they ordered even those in Libya to stand down. Lieutenant Colonel Gibson had a small team in Tripoli that twice readied to go to Benghazi to assist and twice was denied authority to do so, the latter when they were already at the airport. There weren’t many of them, not compared to the estimated 150 men assailing the compound. But they were special forces, not bozo jihadists. Back in Benghazi, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty held off numerically superior forces for hours before dying on a rooftop waiting for back-up from a government that had switched the answering machine on and gone to Vegas.

Throughout the all-night firefight in Benghazi, Washington’s priority seems to have been to do everything possible to deny that what was actually happening was happening at all. To send “soldiers” on a “mission” to “fight” the “enemy” was at odds with the entire Obama narrative of the Arab Spring and the broader post-Bush Muslim world. And so the entire U.S. military was stood down in support of the commander-in-chief’s fiction.

The grotesque parade of miscreants, reprobates, hacks, and out-and-out criminals currently misruling us aren’t fit to govern, much less rule. Nearly every last one of them should more properly be swinging from lampposts in the DC streets until quite dead, their skulls later to be emptied, cleaned, and placed permanently on the pikes of the White House fence, pour encourager les autres…or more accurately, as a warning. It’s an indictment of our own integrity that they haven’t been already. As Steyn says, they are depraved. And so, apparently, are we. Mark knows this too:

As Mr. Hicks testified, his superiors in Washington knew early that night that a well-executed terrorist attack with the possible participation of al-Qaeda elements was under way. Instead of responding, the most powerful figures in the government decided that an unseen YouTube video better served their political needs. And, in the most revealing glimpse of the administration’s depravity, the president and secretary of state peddled the lie even in their mawkish eulogies to their buddy “Chris” and three other dead Americans. They lied to the victims’ coffins and then strolled over to lie to the bereaved, Hillary telling the Woods family that “we’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video.” And she did. The government dispatched more firepower to arrest Nakoula Basseley Nakoula in Los Angeles than it did to protect its mission in Benghazi. It was such a great act of misdirection Hillary should have worn spangled tights and sawn Stevens’s casket in half.

The dying Los Angeles Times reported this story on its homepage (as a sidebar to “Thirteen Great Tacos in Southern California”) under the following headline: “Partisan Politics Dominates House Benghazi Hearing.” In fact, everyone in this story is a Democrat or a career civil servant.


Chris Stevens was the poster boy for Obama’s view of the Arab Spring; he agreed with the president on everything that mattered. The only difference is that he wasn’t in Vegas but out there on the front line, where Obama’s delusions meet reality.

Stevens believed in those illusions enough to die for them. One cannot say the same about the hollow men and women in Washington who sent him out there unprotected, declined to lift a finger when he came under attack, and in the final indignity subordinated his sacrifice to their political needs by lying over his corpse. Where’s the “partisan politics”? Obama, Clinton, Panetta, Clapper, Rice, and the rest did this to one of their own. And fawning court eunuchs, like the ranking Democrat at the hearings, Elijah Cummings, must surely know that, if they needed, they’d do it to them, too. If you believe in politics über alles, it’s impressive, in the same way that Hillary’s cocksure dismissal — “What difference, at this point, does it make?” — is impressive.

But the embassy security chief, Eric Nordstrom, had the best answer to that: It matters because “the truth matters” — not least to the Libyan president, who ever since has held the U.S. government in utter contempt. Truth matters, and character matters. For the American people to accept the Obama-Clinton lie is to be complicit in it.

There will be blood. We can only pray it’s enough to wash us clean of the stain left by our acquiescence in allowing such contemptible vermin to flout decency by ruling over us in such a profoundly despicable way.

The Libyan president had publicly condemned the terrorist attack in Benghazi, and was therefore stunned to switch on CNN International and find Susan Rice insisting that it was all to do with a movie protest – in other words, the US Government was lying to its own citizenry as shamelessly as the Gaddafi or Assad regime would. What would you do in President Magarief’s shoes? He knows the YouTube story is false, and he knows that Washington knows it’s false, and knew it on the very night of the Benghazi assault. And, quite reasonably enough, he has never trusted the Americans since.

One very immediate consequence of this is that the FBI were prevented from getting into Libya – again entirely reasonably: Magarief knows Obama, Clinton and Rice are peddling a fraud with no basis in reality, so it would seem prudent to assume that any US agents he lets in are not there to find out the truth but to prop up the fraud. So he kept them well away from Benghazi, for weeks.

The changes the State Department demanded in order not to undermine the FBI investigation wound up undermining it (and US/Libyan relations) profoundly.

No matter, as long as the Ogabe shitweasels were enabled to hang onto their illegitimate power. Elsewhere, Peter Kirsanow says this:

Shortly after the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, a local Denver television personality asked President Obama what actions he took upon learning of the assault. The president asserted, “I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure we are securing our personnel and that we are doing whatever we need to. Number two, we are going to investigate exactly what happened and make sure it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.”

As to the first directive, we now know from Greg Hicks’s testimony that special forces were ordered to stand down rather than provide assistance. Furthermore, we learned months ago from Jennifer Griffin’s reporting that former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods requested and was denied backup three times, and was told to stand down. Who, then, gave the orders that flatly rejected the president’s “very clear directive?” Was that person disciplined for flagrantly disobeying the commander in chief?

freerepublic.com



To: Cage Rattler who wrote (2800)5/12/2013 6:54:13 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Will Hawking Boycott his own Voice Generator? (Israelis invented it)
...................................................................................................

Disabled physicist’s decision to join Israel boycott may mean he will have to stop talking, since he depends on Intel to do so.


5/8/2013
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167843#.UZAczEoQPrM



British physicist Prof. Stephen Hawking’s decision to support the academic boycott of the state of Israel is “quite hypocritical for an individual who prides himself on his own intellectual accomplishment,” asserted Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, director of Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center.

“His whole computer-based communication system runs on a chip designed by Israel's Intel team. I suggest that if he truly wants to pull out of Israel he should also pull out his Intel Core i7 from his tablet," said Darshan Leitner.

On Wednesday, Hawking decided to support the academic boycott of Israel and pull out of the upcoming Israeli President's Conference in Jerusalem. The fifth annual President's Conference, Facing Tomorrow, features international personalities and attracts thousands of participants.

"He calls it an independent decision based on the unanimous advice of his own academic contacts here. I propose he first seek the advice of Intel engineers working here. He seems to have no understanding of this world," Darshan Leiner maintained.

Shurat HaDin noted that Hawking, who has ALS and is wheelchair bound, depends on a computerized voice system for communication. Since 1997, this communication system has been sponsored and provided by Intel. His latest computer is based on an Intel Core i7 Processor. The Core micro architecture was designed by Israel's Intel team that previously designed the Pentium M mobile processor.

The first mobile processor that used the Israeli designed chip was codenamed "Merom." Merom is the Hebrew word for a higher plane of existence or a level of heaven, and was a name chosen by the team in Haifa, Israel.

The Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center, which is unaffiliated with any political party or governmental body, is dedicated to enforcing basic human rights through the legal system and represents victims of terrorism in courtrooms around the world. Its clients include American, European, and Israeli citizens.