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 (3840)6/24/2013 4:53:05 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Honey_Bee

  Respond to of 16547
 
IRS chief: Inappropriate screening was broad



To: Honey_Bee who wrote (3840)6/24/2013 8:11:15 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
ICE Union President: Marco Rubio Directly Misled Law Enforcement

...........................................................................................................
The Daily Caller ^ | 06/24/2013 | Caroline May





To: Honey_Bee who wrote (3840)6/25/2013 10:59:01 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Honey_Bee

  Respond to of 16547
 
West Australia Police Commissioner promises to monitor ALL emails for "anti-Muslim content"
jihad 8 680



To: Honey_Bee who wrote (3840)6/25/2013 11:07:09 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Senate Bill Incentivizes Employers To Fire Americans and Hire Amnestied Immigrants

Under the Gang of 8’s backroom immigration deal with Senators Schumer, Corker and Hoeven, formerly illegal immigrants who are amnestied will be eligible to work, but will not be eligible for ObamaCare. Employers who would be required to pay as much as a $3,000 penalty for most employees who receive an ObamaCare healthcare “exchange” subsidy, would not have to pay the penalty if they hire amnestied immigrants. Consequently, employers would have a significant incentive to hire or retain amnestied immigrants, rather than current citizens, including those who have recently achieved citizenship via the current naturalization process.

The issue is really an “interaction effect” of the immigration proposal and ObamaCare itself.

Beginning in January, businesses with 50 or more full-time employees, that do not currently offer healthcare benefits that are considered “acceptable” by the Obama administration, must pay a penalty if at least one of their workers obtains insurance on a new government-run “exchange.” The penalty can be as much as $3,000 per employee.

Many employers have been preparing to cope with the new regulations by slashing the hours of full-timers to part-time status. Since “full-time,” in the language of ObamaCare, is averaging 30 hours per week, employers will, in general, receive the penalty if they have 50 or more employees who are working an average of 30 hours per week.

If the immigration bill becomes law, many employers could receive incentives of hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire amnestied immigrants over American citizens. In addition, these newly legalized immigrants could work “full-time,” an advantage for companies and businesses as well, while employers could lay off or diminish to “part-time” status, American workers.

Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner explains that he spoke with Alex Conant of Sen. Marco Rubio’s staff in April about the wrinkle, and was told that this was an issue that could be addressed during the legislative process.

“[T]he scenario you raise illustrates both the absurdity of ObamaCare, and why we have insisted on a lengthy process to review this legislation before any votes are taken,” Conant emailed Klein. “We always expected there might be a need for amendments to fix technical problems, and we’ll be interested in seeing what sort of amendments might be offered to improve this part of the legislation without giving ObamaCare to illegals- something Sen. Rubio has always said he will not support.”

However, as Klein said a couple of weeks ago, the issue has not been addressed and, in fact, the Schumer-Corker-Hoeven deal carries out what appears to be a major complication for American workers. Klein said that Conant did not respond to further requests for comment on this issue.

As for Conant’s comment in April about Rubio insisting on a “lengthy process to review this legislation before votes are taken,” that seems to have gone with the wind as well.

breitbart.com



To: Honey_Bee who wrote (3840)6/25/2013 11:24:20 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
'I don't think Obama is here, but I'm sure he's listening in.'---Mick Jagger

Read more: newsbusters.org



To: Honey_Bee who wrote (3840)6/26/2013 11:19:20 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Honey_Bee

  Respond to of 16547
 
DOJ Defunds At-Risk Youth Programs over "God" Reference
.............................................................
Townhall.com ^ | June 25, 2013 | Todd Starnes



A Louisiana lawman is livid over the federal government’s decision to cut off funds for two programs to help troubled young people --

all, he says, because he refused to sign a pledge to bar prayer or any mention of God at their meetings.

Julian Whittington, the sheriff of Bossier Parish, Louisiana, told Fox News that the Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights de-funded $30,000 for their Young Marines chapter as well as a youth diversion program.

Federal officials objected to a voluntary student-led prayer in the department’s youth diversion program and an oath recited by the Young Marines that mentions God, according to Whittington, who blasted what he considers the government’s “aggression and infringement of our religious freedoms.”

“We were informed that these are unacceptable inherently religious activities and the Department of Justice would not be able to fund the programs if it continued,” Whittington told Fox News.

“They wanted a letter from me stating that I would no longer have voluntary prayer and I would also have to remove 'God' from the Young Marine’s oath.”


The DOJ and the Office of Civil Rights are aware of the controversy but did not return phone calls seeking comment.

Fox News obtained an email written by an attorney for the DOJ’s Office of Civil Rights raised questions about references to God and church along with the phrase “love of God.” The attorney also raised questions about one of the five elements of the Young Marines Creed – “Keep myself clean in mind by attending the church of my faith.”

The attorney advised that DOJ rules prohibit “funding on inherently religious activities, such as prayer, religious instruction and proselytization.

“And any religious activities must be kept separate in time or location from DOJ-funded activities,” the attorney wrote.

The sheriff was told he would not be given any money unless he wrote a letter pledging not to pray or use the word “God.”

“I flat said, ‘It’s not going to happen,’” he said. “Enough is enough. This is the United States of America -- and the idea that the mere mention of God or voluntary prayer is prohibited is ridiculous.”

The sheriff said the programs have been in place for at least ten years and until now -- the prayers and the mention of God have never been an issue.

The Young Marine’s oath that the DOJ took issue with states:

“From this day forward, I sincerely promise, I will set an example for all other youth to follow and I shall never do anything that would bring disgrace or dishonor upon God, my Country and its flag, my parents, myself or the Young Marines. These I will honor and respect in a manner that will reflect credit upon them and myself. Semper Fidelis.”


Ironically, both the U.S. military’s commissioning oath and enlistment oath include the phrase, “So help me God.”

Whittington said he could not understand why the federal government would take issue with the oath or the prayers.

“Right here in good old Bossier Parish, Louisiana, in the United States of America -- something as basic as voluntary prayer and the mere mention of God is offensive and prohibited (by the government),” he said.

Both youth programs have been hailed as a successful way to reach at-risk young people. Since 2002, more than 1,000 young people have graduated from the program, directed by a Bossier Parish deputy who is a former U.S. Marine.

The federal money had been used to purchase uniforms and supplies for the kids. But Whittington said it’s not about the money.

“The money is not the issue,” he said. “It’s the principle of the matter. What is going on here? Who is dictating what can or can’t be said in Bossier Parish?”

The sheriff fired off a letter to La. Gov. Bobby Jindal defending his decision not to compromise.

“This is an appalling situation where someone at the Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights in Washington, D.C. could, would and did go to great lengths to prevent even the mere mention of God in any way to the youth in these programs,” he wrote.

While Jindal has not yet weighed in, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) told Fox News he is very concerned about the de-funding.

“There is a very wide effort coming out of the administration that seeks to stamp out freedom of expressions -- particularly religion and especially freedom of Christian expression,” Fleming said.

“They are willing to throw the youth overboard and remove the funding just in the name of making this an atheist, agnostic, secular organization.”

Fleming said his office is looking into the matter and vowed to “lock arms” with the Bossier Parish Sheriff’s Office.

“They (DOJ) don’t want anything to have any sort of religious support -- even down to prayer,” Fleming said. “It’s sad and it’s inconsistent with the intentions of the framers of the Constitution.”

The Young Marines was founded in 1958 and has more than 10,000 members in 300 chapters. The organization focuses on character-building, leadership and promotes a drug-free lifestyle.

Mike Kessler, the national executive director of Young Marines, told Fox News that he was disappointed to hear about the controversy surrounding the Bossier Parish chapter.

“I’m saddened the DOJ felt it necessary to pull whatever funding they provide because clearly when a sheriff’s office takes the kids in -- they are looking at the program as a way to help kids who might otherwise get into trouble,” he said.

Kessler said Young Marines does not promote a specific religious faith. He said he could not fathom why the DOJ would take issue with portions of their creed that mentions God and attending the church of their faith.

“That’s such a generic statement,” he said. “We’re not talking about the local Baptist church. We’re not talking about a specific religion. I don’t understand how much more generic we can be.”



To: Honey_Bee who wrote (3840)6/26/2013 12:42:32 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Honey_Bee

  Respond to of 16547
 
Fort Hood Justice, Delayed and Ignored

............................................................................................
Townhall.com ^ | June 26, 2013 | Brent Bozell





To: Honey_Bee who wrote (3840)7/5/2013 8:31:19 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Honey_Bee

  Respond to of 16547
 
Jeb Bush disqualifies himself as GOP nominee in 2016: That’s one down and a dozen or so to go



To: Honey_Bee who wrote (3840)7/8/2013 7:37:26 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Honey_Bee

  Respond to of 16547
 
The Obamas are widely regarded to be the most attractive first family in American history with Michelle gracing the covers of some of the nation's most glamorous magazines

Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...



To: Honey_Bee who wrote (3840)7/20/2013 6:31:49 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Honey_Bee

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Martin Family Attorney: Racist Zimmerman Jury Saw Trayvon as ‘Black Boogeyman’
.........................................................................................................................
The Gateway Pundit ^ | Saturday, July 20, 2013 | Kristinn Taylor


Natalie Jackson, co-counsel for the family of slain Florida teenager Trayvon Martin accused the nearly all white jury that acquitted George Zimmerman in the February 26, 2012 shooting death of Martin in Sanford, Florida of viewing Martin as “the black boogeyman everybody is afraid of.”

The jury was comprised of five white women and one mixed race woman believed to be black-Hispanic.

Jackson made the racially inflammatory charge in an interview with Bright House Networks’ CFNEws 13, a cable TV news channel serving central Florida, broadcast on Wednesday.

Jackson criticized juror B-37, who spoke out this week on CNN, for not identifying with Trayvon Martin as her own child. Jackson compared the juror’s lack of identifying with the 5’11” 158 pound athletic 17 year old black male to the universal sentiment for two year old Caylee Anthony, a central Florida white female found murdered in 2008 whose case similarly garnered obsessive national attention.

While Jackson said “everyone has to accept” the jury’s verdict, she accused the jury of racism and basing their decision on “emotional elements.” Jackson accused juror B-37 specifically of deciding the case on “other things besides the law” for stating her opinion of Zimmerman as a good person.

Asked what she thought changed the jury to vote not guilty after the initial vote of three for acquittal, two for manslaughter and one for second degree murder, and what was missing in the prosecution’s case, Jackson said, “I think there was not a real dialogue on race. I think that the fact that race played a part in this and how even when it came down to the defense putting on a witness who talked about crime at her house, being burglarized in 2011 (note: by two black males while the white woman resident hid in the house with her young child), and that was associated with Trayvon, a person George Zimmerman didn’t even know, that you know to me that, that brought it in. You have a picture of Trayvon shirtless that was shown to the jury–an upshot of a 17 year old body shirtless. You have silhouettes of a hoodie person and silhouettes of George Zimmerman. And that silhouette looked hulking over George Zimmerman. And it was, it was the black boogeyman that everybody’s afraid of.”

Jackson was asked about her expressed confidence before the trial that an all-white jury would convict Zimmerman and what she thinks about that now.

“I’ve always thought it was, I’ve always thought that (the racial make-up of the jury would matter.) The reason I wanted a white jury was because I wanted to see how far we’ve come in America. If people would base their evidence on the information that was presented in trial and base it on the common sense of this case, because I thought if they did that then surely George Zimmerman would be convicted.”

Asked what that meant about America, Jackson said, “I think we’re seeing it with the demonstrations. I think we’re seeing that people are not happy with the justice system, they’re not happy with the way that young black males are thought of in this case. And that’s why it was important to have a white jury. It was important for America to see that people who said, “Surely you can’t do this!” you know, they need to see where we are. This is not a po–we’re not in a post-racial society. Race certainly plays a part in everything that we do in life. And so now, that was to me the reason I wanted the white jury. It was the tough discussion. It was either the confirmation or the disappointment. And many people got the disappointment. And now, let’s talk about it.”

While expressing support for the prosecution in the interview, Jackson went on to reiterate her criticism of the prosecution for taking race out of the case. Jackson also made more direct her accusation that the defense engaged in race-baiting.

“The one thing that I’ve said was missing and I’ve already told you that of this case was that the element of race was taken out. And the only person that presented an element of race was the defense and they presented the ‘scary boogeyman black boy’ to the jury. So I think that if there was any tactical mistake it was that mistake.”

Jackson then went on to accuse the jurors of being liars and racists, “I will submit to you all of them will say that race played no part in this case when we all know that it did.”

Jackson’s blasting of the jury as racist follows softer attacks on the jury made by two of her co-counsels in interviews with Greta Van Susteren, host of the Fox News Channel show On the Record. As an experienced trial attorney, Van Susteren was quite upset with her guests’ attacks on the jury.

Jasmine Rand told Van Susteren she considers herself a “social engineer” more than a lawyer as her reason for seeking to overturn the verdict by rabblerousing for federal prosecution of Zimmerman.

In a subsequent interview with Van Susteren, Daryl Parks attacked juror B-37 over her statements to CNN.

Parks is co-founder of Parks & Crump, the firm representing the Martin family. Rand works for Parks & Crump. Jackson is an independent attorney based in Orlando.

(Transcription of CFNews 13 interview by Kristinn Taylor.)



To: kristinn
These people won’t be satisfied until buildings are burned and there is a white body count.



2 posted on Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:12:09 PM by Rebelbase (Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: kristinn
No, the jury saw Trayvon as an angry black youth who assaulted a Hispanic man when shouldn’t have. Responsible parents would have taught Trayvon not to assault people.



3 posted on Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:15:20 PM by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: kristinn
Hey, so-called attorney. Zimmerman was tried and acquitted. Get over it. There is no double jeopardy.



4 posted on Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:15:36 PM by beethovenfan (If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: kristinn

It’s like a clown pulling a never ending handkerchief from his pocket.

Race grievance - the gift that keeps on giving!



5 posted on Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:16:14 PM by 101stAirborneVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: kristinn
The thing is...the “boogeyman” doesn’t punch you in the face.



6 posted on Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:16:19 PM by JoeDetweiler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: kristinn
They could’ve exonerated him based on their mood, what they had for breakfast that day, something their dad once told them or throwing dice in the jury room. It doesn’t matter, it’s over, you can’t try him again, it says so in the Bill of Rights. Get over it, you sick, racist, money-hungry vultures.



7 posted on Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:16:54 PM by 2ndDivisionVet (You can't invade the mainland US There'd be a rifle behind each blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: kristinn
One (black) opinion writer referred to Trayvon Martin as a “glistening black buck” which sexually aroused, and frightened, the female jury.

I swear these Leftists are insane.



8 posted on Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:16:55 PM by PGR88


To: PGR88
In other news, St. Skittles is still dead.



10 posted on Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:18:25 PM by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: kristinn
First rule of going to trial by jury; If you can win the case, try the case. If you can’t win, try everything else. Natalie Jackson knew GZ wasn’t racist but there wasn’t any money in that. I don’t think there was as much money in a GZ conviction. They had to lose to get the money.



11 posted on Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:18:37 PM by EandH Dad (sleeping giants wake up REALLY grumpy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: Rebelbase
Just laying the groundwork for a civil suit. Insurer for Zimmerman’s homeowner association has already caved to the tune of $1 million and the Martin’s (or at least their attorneys) are looking for more. With help from Al Sharpton, the NAACP, and even President Obama, a big payout would appear to be in order.



12 posted on Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:18:47 PM by Boomer One
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: kristinn
I listen and I read. The more I listen and the more I read, the only conclusion I can draw is;

These people are like children.

If they do not get their way the will throw a temper tantrum.



13 posted on Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:19:07 PM by Tupelo (The Government lies, then the media lies to cover up the government lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: kristinn
Proof you do not need to be smart to be an attorney.



14 posted on Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:19:17 PM by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off. -786 +969)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: kristinn
I find her statement astonishingly honest, but her reasoning is flawed. A feral youth, growing up in a thug culture, a theif, drug abuser, often violent and bareley educated... yup; that’s a bogeyman!



15 posted on Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:19:17 PM by pingman (Trust a lib? Surely you jest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: kristinn
The Democrats are willfully trying to frighten the Americans who are black. They are doing this to keep them voting Democrat. The Democrat party will save the Americans who are black from the Americans who are white. What a crock. What a disgusting thing to do to Americans who are black. It is one of the saddest things I’ve ever seen. I hate to see people manipulated by fear. The slave master cracking the whip to get the slaves to do what he wanted is no different than the Democrat party telling Americans who are black that they need to be afraid of Americans who are white. The slave master and the Democrat leaders are controlling the Americans who are black with fear. It’s shameful and disgusting.



16 posted on Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:20:18 PM by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: kristinn
Why are we listening to these people? They’re clearly deranged.



17 posted on Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:20:58 PM by FrdmLvr (Qui pacem, praeparet bellum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

To: kristinn



Lots of anger in the TM race-baiting camp. All their plans for civil suits and other moneymakers don't look like such sure things anymore. In fact, just the opposite.

18 posted on Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:21:08 PM by JPG (Obama Does Egypt.)


To: kristinn
According to the Martin Family:

This is about race...

then it’s not about race...

then it was about race...

then it’s not about race...

now it’s absolutely about race.

Make up your fool minds. The prosecutor was more consistent than this family.



20 posted on Saturday, July 20, 2013 6:22:04 PM by Bogey78O



To: Honey_Bee who wrote (3840)7/20/2013 6:50:36 PM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
NPR sells Soros transgender Line
.................................................................................................

NPR Transcript
July 16, 2013

Americans are becoming more accepting of gays and lesbians and, in some cases, transgendered people.

At the same time, a new generation of young people is challenging our understanding of gender.

They're calling for more fluid categories beyond just male and female, as NPR's Margot Adler explains.

MARGOT ADLER, BYLINE: It began with a speaking event at Oberlin College in Ohio. I was at dinner with the college chaplain and 16 students on his interfaith council. I was startled when everyone introduced themselves saying their name, what year they were, what they were studying and then described their preferred gender pronouns. I wasn't taping but it sounded similar to these high school students introducing themselves to me recently in New York.

RUSSELL LASDON: I'm Russell Lasdon and I use he/him/his pronouns.

KETZEL FEASLEY: I'm Ketzel Feasley and my PGP's are she/her/hers.

ADLER: For those of you who have never heard this done, as I hadn't, this is happening on many campuses. It's a way of being supportive or an ally to those who are transgender or gender non-conforming. Those who are not cisgender - that is, their emotional gender identity does not match their biology.

<edit>

ADLER: But some students are going further. At one college that Joy Ladin visited, things were so fluid you could make up a different pronoun for a different event.

LADIN: So you can be she/her at one event and then you go to lunch and you say, OK, now I am he/him. And then one charming young woman told me, oh, yes, today, I'm just using made up pronouns.

LYNN WALKER: We encountered high school students who said, I want you to call me Tractor and use pronouns like zee, zim and zer. And, in fact, I reject the gender binary as an oppressive move by the dominant culture.

ADLER: That's Lynn Walker, a director at Housing Works, an organization that provides housing for those with HIV. About 10 percent of their clients are transgender. Walker teaches a course called Trans 101 for all new hires. When she started coming across people who were gender non-conforming in so many different ways, she began to ask new questions.

WALKER: And then part of the intake is to say, well, what pronoun do you like today? It might be just today.

ADLER: Because Walker has clients who might be Jimmy one day, and Deloris the next.

WALKER: Once you develop the habit of saying, oh, that person, that is a she, that's Delores. It doesn't matter that she looks rather like Jimmy or looks like she was called Jimmy by her parents.

ADLER: And your decision doesn't depend on gender reassignment surgery, which is expensive and is something often only a certain class of people can do. What you look like, she says, isn't always who you are.

FERNANDEZ: In a perfect world, your gender would just be what you want it to be. Gender would sort of just be an individual title, not really a male or female thing.

Article



To: Honey_Bee who wrote (3840)7/20/2013 7:56:49 PM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Honey_Bee
Woody_Nickels

  Respond to of 16547
 
Should House Judiciary probe Holder’s potential civil rights violation?