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

To: Taro who wrote (7365)	1/21/2014 3:38:08 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 16547

Mychal Massie states Obama's skin color has protected him from impeachment Mychal Massie Mychal Massie is the former chairman of the National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives-Project 21 – a conservative black think tank located in Washington, D.C. He was recognized as the 2008 Conservative Man of the Year by the Conservative Party of Suffolk County, N.Y. He is a nationally recognized political activist, pundit and columnist. He has appeared on Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, NBC, Comcast Cable and talk-radio programming nationwide. A former self-employed business owner of more than 30 years, Massie's website is mychal-massie.com. Today the idea of not being judged by the color of one’s skin but being judged by the content of one’s character is as farcical as the idea of unicorns. Judging based on color of skin is exactly the barometer race-mongers and racialists measure with today; content of character be damned. As I have said before, “Obama would never have been elected if he were white.” The color of his skin has been, and continues to be, his trump card that forgives his most egregious acts as an elected official; and the color of his skin certainly forgives his transpicuous shortcomings on a personal level. It is the color of his skin that (in large part) has protected him (thus far) from impeachment. I defy one of the voices who have, with feigned solemnity, uttered Dr. King’s now famous words to argue they would stand passionately silent if Obama were a white president. Having witnessed the negative things said about Rosalind Carter, Barbara Bush and Hillary Clinton, I’m prepared to debate that Michelle Obama doesn’t hold a candle to them pursuant to etiquette and proper positional behavior, and yet she is revered for etiquette, propriety and more, specifically because of her skin color. Color of skin is an important concern when it comes to politics. If this were not the case, tea-party groups would not be maligned by NAACP, the Urban League and the Congressional Black Caucus. If color of skin no longer mattered, there would be less gravity placed on it in the context of today where it is used as a bludgeon by blacks and liberals to foment discord and/or to have their way. The content of America’s character speaks volumes in that America has elected black officials since immediately after the signing of the Emancipation Act to every political post we have. The content of America’s character has been witnessed in her willingness to right injustice. The content of America’s character is not portrayed by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others who have engaged in racial extortion. Content of character is waived when talking about Trayvon Martin. Content of character is waived when speaking of personal responsibility as it pertains to blacks. Content of character is waived when it comes to Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the New Black Panther Party et al. Even more egregious is that invidious marplots have co-opted and misrepresented Dr. King’s message. With poisoned tongues, they are quick to use Dr. King’s forward-looking message of being judged by character juxtaposed to color of skin as it serves their evil and divisive purposes, but they conveniently dismiss the other words Dr. King uttered in his momentous “I Have A Dream” speech. Dr. King said: “There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, ‘When will you be satisfied?’ We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro’s basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: ‘For Whites Only.’ We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.” Those concerns Dr. King referenced that day are no longer the case. The signing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 ended that discrimination. Today a restaurant can very quickly become the target of a civil rights investigation if the staff takes longer to service their table than a black person feels comfortable waiting. Qualifications be damned, if a black is denied a bank loan, the primal cry is “it was because of skin color.” Most people have no clue that Dr. King also said that day, “Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends. And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’” The day Dr. King references arrived long ago, and isolated instances to the contrary are anecdotal not systemic. I personally believe Dr. King would be appalled by the behavior and infectious propensity to eschew modernity by so many blacks today. And I feel strong enough pursuant to same that I am prepared to say if I am wrong in said opinion, then I am completely wrong about Dr. King himself. What part of Dr. King’s message called for self-segregation? What part of Dr. King’s mission was dedicated toward the mass slaughter of unborn children? What part of Dr. King’s message sanctioned banausic behavior and the breakdown of the nuclear family? Based on the content of Dr. King’s character, I refuse to believe that he would have applauded the spectacle of misogynistic, anti-societal, anti-propriety rap music as representative of a so-called black culture. Dr. King said he believed in the “American dream.” The American dream is that of forward thinking and embracing modernity. It bespeaks the very “truths” that we, in fact, do hold “to be self-evident.” “All men are created equal” by God; and in America, despite what the naysayers and proponents of racial immiseration would prostitute for gain and out of ignorance, we are equal. And, in a perverse way, if any are not treated equal today, it is white conservatives and/or anyone who argues against the idea that America is mired in the antebellum past. Read more at wnd.com

To: Taro who wrote (7365)	1/21/2014 4:24:28 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 16547

Stop Giving Obama Radicals the Benefit of the Doubt January 21, 2014 by J. Christian Adams In the Spring of 2011, National Security Council staffer Samantha Power sent emails to top Pentagon officials. Her emails contained GPS coordinates in Libya. She demanded that the Pentagon launch immediate air strikes on top of these coordinates, no questions asked. Power, you see, had friends in NGOs on the ground in Libya looking to borrow American might for a moment or two. Her emails were ignored at the Pentagon. But her cavalier and hasty email demand that American airmen be launched on a dangerous mission to benefit her friends might seem incompetent and reckless. But like so much about the age of Obama, Republicans mistake leftist ideology for incompetence. In the five decades-old orthodoxy of the foreign affairs left, pilots in supersonic jets with laser guided missiles are most appropriately used in small ways, and to serve small causes. To radicals like Power, American might should be used for their political ends, and the old conventions on target selection, chains of command and strategic aims are obsolete. So admit it Republicans: you’re confused. You can’t understand why President Obama’s policies and his nominations are so radical. It doesn’t make sense, you think, for him to pick extremist nominees who would have radical skeletons that would have disqualified them in any other administration. You also can’t understand why he continues to lurch left on almost every foreign and domestic issue. Get over it. It isn’t 1990 anymore, and leftist radicalism is a prerequisite for jobs in this administration, not a disqualifier. Leftist radicalism is the administration’s reason for existence. This is why Obama chose John Kerry as Secretary of State. Kerry first distinguished himself as a stooge for America’s enemies. In his first campaign for Congress, Kerry said, “I’m an internationalist. I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.” He even traveled to Europe to hold talks with North Vietnamese Communists while American soldiers were dying in Vietnam. His views about American power didn’t moderate over the years, as he continued to aid America’s enemies. Now he is Secretary of State. Until the Republican Party understands that these extreme leftist policies and personnel choices are core deliberate features of the Obama era, they will never learn to combat them. It isn’t enough to express shock that someone like Tom Perez would be nominated as Labor Secretary with his extremist history. The Obama administration isn’t afraid of your shock and strongly worded letters. The administration is instead marching forward into a bold future without you. When they march right over you, they assume you will complain. What the Obamites are really afraid of, and haven’t seen from most in the Republican Party, are effective counter-attacks to their radicalism. They are afraid of the most radical policy units inside their government being defunded by the House. They are afraid of the impeachment of lower-level federal officials who abuse power, such as IRS or DOJ employees, by the House. They are afraid of rough power being met with rough power. But the Obamites don’t have much to worry about. One can’t stop what one can’t even recognize. Many won’t even attach a name to what we are all witnessing: leftist radicalism. So step one to effectively stopping Obama is to stop giving his radical nominees and radical policies the benefit of the doubt. How? First, purge the word “incompetence” from your lexicon. Never use it on another Fox News hit. Never write it again. The Obama administration policies, ranging from Fast and Furious, to the New Black Panther dismissal, to the debacle of Obamacare, are not incompetent follies. They are instead representative of ideological desires deliberately implemented through the mechanisms of power available to this administration. Fast and Furious emerged because of hostility to the constitutional right to bear arms. The New Black Panther dismissal happened because the civil rights industry today doesn’t think civil rights laws should be used against “people of color.” Every nutty and seemingly dumb Obama policy has a genesis in ideological radicalism. These and other seemingly dumb Obama administration decisions are features; they are not glitches. Stop treating them like glitches. Second, stop assuming we enjoy a measure of immunity from their radical policies because “they would never get away with it.” History is filled with victims who failed to act in time. Assuming that America enjoys a unique cultural ability to resist the ideological aims of the new left is a dangerous assumption. History never stops turning the soil and what seemed impossible not long ago is always possible. Had you brought up fears in 2005 that the federal government would take over General Motors, shut down coal plants, destroy secured creditor rights of Chrysler bondholders, or taken over the health care system, polite company would have moved to the other side of the room. “Couldn’t happen here,” would have been the response. Third, listen to what they plainly say they want to do. What about “fundamentally transform America” didn’t you understand? What about the numerous open public appearances together with Eric Holder and the radical race hustler Al Sharpton makes you think they are not simpatico? When radicals say they plan to transform the nation and hobnob (or pardon) the most destructive extremists in America, you better pay attention. This is not your grandfather’s Democratic Party. Right now the nomination of Debo Adegbile to run the Justice Department Civil Rights Division is before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Adegbile was the former NAACP Legal Defense Fund head. In that role, he oversaw the defense of the cop-killing Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal. The Fraternal Order of Police has demanded that President Obama withdraw the nomination. Adegbile has pushed every other crackpot racial theory popular among the civil rights industry. His career has been characterized by attacking school discipline policies and employer background checks as racially motivated. He fought to keep Abigail Fisher out of the University of Texas Law School merely because she was white. Just a decade ago, this radical racialist background would have been a disqualifier for any nominee to the Justice Department. But today, radicalism is a prerequisite for the job. Adegbile’s racial radicalism is so far from the mainstream that even Democratic senators such as Mark Pryor from Arkansas should question his nomination. Surely even some Democrats have a problem with a man who volunteered to help a black panther who killed a cop? The radicalism of the administration is on open and continuous display for anyone to see. Attorney General Holder and President Obama routinely meet with the race hustler Al Sharpton. Holder has spoken at Sharpton’s National Action Network convention. Sharpton has been invited to the White House for behind-closed-doors policy debates with top Justice Department officials. Don’t forget, Sharpton’s past would disqualify him from even obtaining a security clearance. His racially motivated lies about Tawana Brawley are just a start. He led racially motivated rallies against Jewish-owned Freddie’s Fashion Mart in New York City. Afterwards, Ronald Smith went in with a gun, told the black customers to leave, and then burned the store down killing one. Sharpton was also the primary instigator of the 1991 Crown Heights riots where Orthodox Jews were attacked randomly and Yankel Rosenbaum was murdered. Sharpton even led rallies calling Jews “diamond merchants.” No worries. Sharpton’s past has produced lots of White House invitations and plenty of high profile administration love. Sharpton is not embraced by the Obama administration in spite of his radical past. He is being embraced because of it. Yet Republicans seem unable to comprehend this central feature of the age of Obama. Consider Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. As Jonathan Tobin has noted, Hagel had two qualifications that resulted in his nomination for Secretary of Defense – his distaste for Israel and his willingness to make nice with Hamas and Iran. Nevertheless, most media outlets focused on Obama’s bipartisan willingness to nominate the former Republican senator from Nebraska. His extremist views toward Israel were largely ignored. Obama has profited by extremist actions and the radicalism of nominees being ignored throughout his administration. The extent of the radicalism places the GOP in unfamiliar territory. Many in leadership still behave and speak as if they are dealing with a president from the Democratic Party of the Kennedy era. This impotent response will complete the job for the radicals and ensure the fundamental transformation they seek. Radicals who are treated like moderates are free to implement policy without scrutiny or exposure. <snip> LINK

To: Taro who wrote (7365)	1/22/2014 11:34:07 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 16547

84 yo beaten bloody under de Blasio jaywalking crackdown Bill de Blasio Crackdown on Jaywalking Leads to Beating of 84-Year-Old Man January 21, 2014 by Daniel Greenfield 61 Comments It’s De Blasio Time Bill de Blasio just rushed into City Hall and the totalitarian antics of his administration have already claimed their first victim. An 84-year-old man.[iframe name="aswift_0" id="aswift_0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="250" scrolling="no" width="300"][/iframe] Cops bloodied an 84-year-old man and put him in the hospital Sunday when he jaywalked at an Upper West Side intersection and didn’t appear to understand their orders to stop, witnesses said. Kang Wong was strolling north on Broadway and crossing 96th Street at around 5 p.m., when an officer told him to halt because he had walked against the light. Police were targeting jaywalkers in the area following the third pedestrian fatality this month around West 96th Street. Neither the hospital nor the cops would allow him to see his dad until after 10 p.m., explaining that since he’d not been admitted, he was not a patient, but a “prisoner.’’ Early Monday, cops fingerprinted Wong and charged him with jaywalking, resisting arrest, obstructing governmental administration and disorderly conduct. ???? New York City does not ticket or arrest jaywalkers under normal circumstances. Giuliani’s administration briefly tried it and gave up. Even Bloomberg, who criminalized salt and soda, left jaywalking alone. New York is a pedestrian city and jaywalking is for places like Los Angeles that are automobile cities. Bill de Blasio came in with a Swedish plan called Vision Zero which involves a large scale crackdown on all sorts of traffic violations in order to achieve zero fatalities. “The goal,” Bill de Blasio stated in his campaign literature, “reduce serious injuries and fatalities on our streets to zero… with strong enforcement.” Traffic fatalities in New York City are never going to hit zero, but Bill de Blasio’s crackdown on jaywalking has already put one man in the hospital. While Bill de Blasio campaigned against police brutality, Wong’s case didn’t seem to bother the arrogant politician one little bit. As for Mr. Wong, Mr. de Blasio said, “I’m waiting for all the facts, and I haven’t gotten all the facts on the case, so I’m not going to comment on something until I have a better sense of it.” “There is no larger policy in terms of jaywalking, and ticketing and jaywalking. That’s not part of our plan. But it is something a local precinct commander can act on, if they perceive there to be a real danger,” he told reporters this afternoon, after speaking at Rev. Al Sharpton’s annual National Action Network Martin Luther King Day event An 84-year-old man crossing the street apparently represents a real danger. Meanwhile Bill de Blasio’s pal Al Sharpton who has led racial attacks on Jews and Asians is his best friend. The cops on the barricades understand the futility of ticketing pedestrians for jaywalking. “This is just taking hard-earned money from people who can’t afford it,” an officer told the Times during Giuliani’s jaywalking crackdown of 1998. Another adds, “I just don’t think that walking across the street is a crime, and I wouldn’t feel comfortable getting down on people for doing it.” Bill de Blasio however feels very comfortable about it. Inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/bill-de-blasio-crackdown-on-jaywalking-leads-to-beating-of-84-year-old-man/ credit brumar

To: Taro who wrote (7365)	1/22/2014 12:00:39 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 16547

Dozens freeze to death as ‘extreme cold’ grips Europe

To: Taro who wrote (7365)	1/22/2014 1:32:16 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 16547

Kanye West Threatens To Leave United States Due To Racism

To: Taro who wrote (7365)	1/23/2014 9:20:06 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 16547

Oh, the humanity! The suffering! Anthony Weiner & Huma hunt for cheaper digs Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, are looking to move out of their $12,000-a-month Park Avenue South rental to a cheaper place.... The couple toured a three-bedroom, 2¹/2 -bathroom unit at 340 E. 23rd St., the Philippe Starckdesigned building near Second Avenue dubbed Gramercy Starck. The apartment’s $8,000-per-month rent would significantly bring down Weiner and Abedin’s overhead. americandigest