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


To: koan who wrote (778329)4/3/2014 10:27:40 PM
From: steve harris1 Recommendation

Recommended By
joseffy

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1573430
 
At least SilentZ was upfront and said the worst D was still better than the best R.

I've said many times Bush should be in jail. Obama is killing Americans using drones, how sick is that? How many people are Obama killing with his destruction of the best healthcare system in the world? How sick was it when Obama told the lady that it would be better if her 100 year old mother should take a pain pill and go home and die?

Obama:"Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”



To: koan who wrote (778329)4/4/2014 3:19:13 AM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573430
 
koan, read this a few times until you understand it.
===

The Plan Behind the TransPacific Partnership to Destroy National Sovereignty

Posted: 02/25/2014 5:56 pm EST Updated: 02/25/2014 5:59 pm EST

huffingtonpost.com

The TransPacific Partnership is labelled as a "free trade" magic elixir that will cure all ills - Jobs! Prosperity! World Peace! - but in fact it's a toxic brew that weakens the American body politic and the Constitution. And when you look at how it came about you see that those are design features, not bugs.

The historical record is clear: what are misleadingly called "free trade agreements" were never really about trade. Their goal is to render independent nation states null and void, and hand power over to unaccountable, transnational corporatist authorities.

This sounds like a plot lifted from a Bond supervillain, yet it is precisely what a powerful State Department official told a Congressional hearing in 1967. And much of what he laid out nearly 50 years ago has come to pass under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

We can thank journalist and researcher Matt Stoller for uncovering the origins of the TransPacific Partnership and its predecessors, NAFTA and the World Trade Organization.

George Ball, a globalist of the first water who kept himself busy on Wall Street when he wasn't Undersecretary of State for presidents Kennedy and Johnson, had a Just Between You and Me moment with the Congressional Joint Economic Committee in 1967. Ball laid out his plan for a world managed by multinational corporations. As he described it, that meant curbing those pesky little things known as "individual national governments."

Let's go to the Congressional Record transcript of the 1967 hearing "The Future of U.S. Foreign Trade Policy." [Emphasis added] Mr. Ball?

"[T]he widespread development of the multinational corporation is one of our major accomplishments in the years since the war, though its meaning and importance have not been generally understood. For the first time in history man has at his command an instrument that enables him to employ resource flexibility to meet the needs of peoples all over the world. Today a corporate management in Detroit or New York or London or Dusseldorf may decide that it can best serve the market of country Z by combining the resources of country X with labor and plan facilities in country Y - and it may alter that decision 6 months from now if changes occur in costs or price or transport. It is the ability to look out over the world and freely survey all possible sources of production... that is enabling man to employ the world's finite stock of resources with a new degree of efficiency for the benefit of all mankind.

But to fulfill its full potential, the multinational corporation must be able to operate with little regard for national boundaries - or, in other words, for restrictions imposed by individual national governments.

To achieve such a free trading environment we must do far more than merely reduce or eliminate tariffs. We must move in the direction of common fiscal concepts, a common monetary policy, and common ideas of commercial responsibility. Already the economically advanced nations have made some progress in all of these areas through such agencies as the OECD and the committees it has sponsored, the Group of Ten, and the IMF, but we still have a long way to go. In my view, we could steer a faster and more direct course... by agreeing that what we seek at the end of the voyage is the full realization of the benefits of a world economy.

Implied in this, of course, is a considerable erosion of the rigid concepts of national sovereignty, but that erosion is taking place every day as national economies grow increasingly interdependent, and I think it desirable that this process be consciously continued. What I am recommending is nothing so unreal and idealistic as a world government, since I have spent too many years in the guerrilla warfare of practical diplomacy to be bemused by utopian visions. But it seems beyond question that modern business - sustained and reinforced by modern technology - has outgrown the constrictive limits of the antiquated political structures in which most of the world is organized, and that itself is a political fact which cannot be ignored. For the explosion of business beyond national borders will tend to create needs and pressures that can help alter political structures to fit the requirements of modern man far more adequately than the present crazy quilt of small national states. And meanwhile, commercial, monetary, and antitrust policies - and even the domiciliary supervision of earth-straddling corporations - will have to be increasingly entrusted to supranational institutions....

We will never be able to put the world's resources to use with full efficiency so long as business decisions are frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations, reflect no common philosophy, and are keyed to no common goal."

Ball told the congressmen the EU provided the roadmap to the "imagine there's no countries" borderless world. The economic integration he envisioned would make nations an empty exercise in symbolism, since all important decisions would be beyond the purview of national authorities.

If this were a James Bond film, after revealing his diabolical plan for world domination, George Ball would have activated a needlessly complicated death trap to dispatch the congressmen. However, this being Washington not Hollywood, Ball didn't unleash a congregation of alligators, but David Rockefeller, the High Priest of the Eastern Establishment.

Rockefeller made the case for merging North American economies (NAFTA anyone?), getting rid of non-tariff barriers (a fancy term for health and safety standards), and, at the prompting of a congressman named Donald Rumsfeld, advocated giving the president fast track negotiating power so Congress couldn't get in the way.

Much of what George Ball and David Rockefeller touted has come to pass and is baked into the TransPacific Partnership.

TPP is not about trade, tariffs or quotas - it's about creating 'supranational institutions' whose diktat trumps national governments, Congress and the courts.

Given this reality, why would anyone sworn to uphold the Constitution give President Obama the fast track power he and David Rockefeller want him to have?

Contact Congress and tell them to vote No on Fast track for the TransPacific Partnership.

Read the Congressional Record from 1967 for yourself. Testimony by George Ball and David Rockefeller begins on page 271 of the pdf.

Promoted Content by Taboola



To: koan who wrote (778329)4/4/2014 3:37:19 AM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573430
 
usatoday30.usatoday.com

Show me which right wing justice the Dems rejected….

show me which left wing justice the reps rejected

two parties…one boot



To: koan who wrote (778329)4/4/2014 3:58:33 AM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573430
 
why do the Dems allow this?
====

U.S. Deploys More Special Forces in Search of Kony, Africa’s Stand-in for Osama bin Laden

Wed, 04/02/2014 - 14:27 — Glen Ford

Responsibility to Protect | R2P | Invasion Somalia | humanitarian military intervention | Nick Turse AFRICOM | Joseph Kony | French colonialism | Congo genocide | AFRICOM | African Union
Printer-friendly version



by executive editor Glen FordThe latest deployment of U.S. Special Forces aircraft to central Africa is an escalation of an effective U.S. occupation of the continent, via AFRICOM and subservient indigenous armies. “AFRICOM’s mission is to lock the continent in a cage of steel, to imprison it in the imperial orbit.” President Obama casts Joseph Kony in the role of Africa’s Osama bin Laden, to justify the military buildup.



U.S. Deploys More Special Forces in Search of Kony, Africa’s Stand-in for Osama bin Ladenby executive editor Glen Ford“Many millions are at risk from the very presence of a military command whose reason-for-being is instability and war.”

The tempo of U.S. military occupation of Africa quickens by the day. Seizing every real and manufactured crisis as an opportunity, Washington has created a continental infrastructure that has already reduced most African armies to appendages of U.S. foreign policy, dependencies of the Pentagon. American armed forces operate across the length and breadth of Africa and exercise effective control over the armies of nearly all of the continent’s constituent states.

According to a study by Nick Turse, AFRICOM, the U.S. military command, last year carried out “activities” in every country on the continent except Western Sahara, Guinea Bissau, Eritrea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Madagascar and Somalia. Somalia doesn’t show up in AFRICOM’s 2013 mission schedule because the country is nominally under the auspices of African Union “peacekeeping” forces. However, the U.S. and Europe pay for every African soldier and weapon engaged in the occupation of Somalia, while the overall operation is run by the CIA. (Egypt is considered part of the Middle East, for U.S. military purposes.)

Especially in recent years, the U.S. often acts in concert with France, whose national ideology is white supremacy – no matter whether socialists or conservatives control the government – and which has never accepted decolonization in principle or practice. The Tuareg and, later, jihadist rebellion in Mali, and the destabilization of the Central African Republic – both French semi-colonies – brought France and AFRICOM into intimate operational contact, with the U.S. acting as airlift for French forces in Africa.

U.S. and Europe pay for every African soldier and weapon engaged in the occupation of Somalia, while the overall operation is run by the CIA.”

Born in the last year of George W. Bush’s presidency but thoroughly a creature of the Obama administration, AFRICOM has molded its public persona around the bogus doctrine of humanitarian military intervention, or Responsibility to Protect (R2P). AFRICOM has usurped much of the U.S. State Department’s food aid distribution duties on the continent, and provides medical care to hundreds of thousands of African military families, thus cementing a bond between the Pentagon and virtually all the continent’s armies – none of which can move effectively through Africa’s undeveloped terrain without U.S. logistical support. The African Union seeks legitimacy through “peacekeeping” missions that it is wholly incapable of executing without financing, equipment, training and every other conceivable support from AFRICOM or the U.S. clandestine services.

President Obama orchestrated the Joseph Kony hysteria of 2011 as an excuse to send at least 100 U.S. Special Forces troops to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, the Central African Republic and the new state of South Sudan. Kony had been in hiding for years, maybe dead, his Lord’s Resistance Army decimated and no danger to Uganda, which has felt safe enough to send many thousands of its troops on (well-paid) “peacekeeping” missions around the continent, at U.S. request. The Green Berets have not yet found the elusive Kony-monster – although they have been busy dealing with South Sudan’s civil war between U.S.-allied generals.

AFRICOM has molded its public persona around the bogus doctrine of humanitarian military intervention.”

Late last month, Obama used the failure to find Kony as the rationale for sending a unit of Osprey troop-carrying aircraft to Uganda, including 150 Air Force Special Operations troops to service and guard them. No matter what the Pentagon calls it, the deployment constitutes a Special Operations base, and no doubt a precursor to other bases throughout the region. (U.S. military doctrine requires such air mobility between bases.) Uganda says the Osprey deployment is temporary. However, it appears that Joseph Kony has a few more good years left as Africa’s bin Laden, the search for whom requires the movement of mountains of men, machines, money and weapons – all, of course, to save little children from capture by the boogeyman of central Africa. A humanitarian military intervention.

The Ospreys and Special Forces troops are a small part of AFRICOM’s continental theater of war. The largest U.S. unit on permanent duty in Africa, the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 1stInfantry Division, “carried out 128 separate ‘activities’ in 28 African countries” during 2013, according to Nick Turse. Those nations include Niger, Uganda, Ghana, Malawi, Burundi, Mauritania, Niger, South Africa, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Chad, Togo, Cameroon, São Tomé and Príncipe, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Lesotho, Ethiopia, Tanzania, South Sudan, and Cameroon. In previous military exercises, up to 36 African nations have participated – all of them outfitted with U.S. command-and-control communications equipment, requiring American trainers and maintenance.

Obama used the failure to find Kony as the rationale for sending a unit of Osprey troop-carrying aircraft to Uganda, including 150 Air Force Special Operations troops.”

To the extent that AFRICOM ensnares the militaries of the continent in dependence on the Pentagon, African sovereignty becomes a very bad joke. Many millions are at risk from the very presence of a military command whose reason-for-being is instability and war – and which must create such conditions to ensure its continued existence on the continent. Six million have already died in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the eastern regions of which were militarily seized by AFRICOM’s most reliable partners, Rwanda and Uganda. More than a million have died in Somalia, and who knows how many in the Somali-populated Ogaden region of Ethiopia, since the U.S.-backed 2006 Ethiopian invasion, the aftermath of which has made the Horn of Africa a bastion of AFRICOM and its proxies. AFRICOM brass are most proud of their role in the 2011 bombing and regime change in Libya, a disaster that has destabilized not only Libya but the entire tier of the continent to the south – justifying renewed French intervention and the ensuing Franco-American alliance as “humanitarian” co-protectors of Africa.

As BAR editors Ajamu Baraka and Margaret Kimberley both point out in this issue, imperialism in fatal decline manufactures a quickening cascade of global confrontation and wars in an attempt to impose a military brake on the system’s unraveling. AFRICOM’s mission is to lock the continent in a cage of steel, to imprison it in the imperial orbit, and to patrol the continental prison with dependent African armies. The scenario is well-advanced, and obvious to anyone whose vision is not deformed by a white supremacist worldview – a deformity that is not limited to people of European descent.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.





To: koan who wrote (778329)4/4/2014 3:59:13 AM
From: Broken_Clock  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573430
 
Who helped appoint Roberts, from NYT, Sept. 22, 2005:

"I know this won't be popular with many of my constituents," the senior Democrat, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, said in an interview, after praising Judge Roberts as a "man of integrity" in a speech on the Senate floor. "But I really didn't come here to win a popularity contest."



To: koan who wrote (778329)4/4/2014 6:04:34 AM
From: longnshort  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1573430
 
The Silencing of Science
First, the big picture stuff. In the United Kingdom, Spikedhas launched a campaign for Free Speech Now!:

'Every man should think what he likes and say what he thinks.' It is 350 years since Spinoza, the great Dutchman of the Enlightenment, wrote those simple but profound words. And yet every man (and woman) is still not at liberty to think what he or she likes, far less say it. It is for this reason that, today, spiked is kicking off a transatlantic liberty-loving online magazine and real-world campaign called Free Speech Now! - to put the case for unfettered freedom of thought and speech; to carry the Spinoza spirit into the modern age; to make the case anew for allowing everyone to say what he thinks, as honestly and frankly as he likes.

On the radio on Thursday, I observed to Hugh Hewitt that a generation ago most of the left felt obliged at least to pay lip service to free speech. Not anymore. They're increasingly comfortable with opposing it, and sneering at it as some sort of fringe obsession of "the haters". My own campaign against Section 13 in Canada was won with no support from the left, with the exception of a solitary principled Liberal MP, Keith Martin. A similar campaign to repeal the equivalent "hate speech" law in Oz is openly mocked as a bigots' charter:

Something drastically wrong with the moral compass of a nation when it legislates to make bigotry a right.

For the author above and many if not most of the western left, a commitment to free speech takes a distant back seat to identity group rights and the state's enforcement thereof. Spiked's Brendan O'Neill surveys the scene:

Ours is an age in which a pastor, in Sweden, can be sentenced to a month in jail for preaching to his own flock in his own church that homosexuality is a sin. In which British football fans can be arrested for referring tothemselves as Yids. In which those who too stingingly criticise the Islamic ritual slaughter of animals can be convicted of committing a hate crime. In which Britain's leading liberal writers and arts people can, sans shame, put their names to a letter calling for state regulation of the press, the very scourge their cultural forebears risked their heads fighting against. In which students in both Britain and America have become bizarrely ban-happy, censoring songs, newspapers and speakers that rile their minds. In which offence-taking has become the central organising principle of much of the political sphere, nurturing virtual gangs of the ostentatiously outraged who have successfully purged from public life articles, adverts and arguments that upset them - a modern-day version of what Spinoza called 'quarrelsome mobs', the 'real disturbers of the peace'.

Freedom of speech is in a bad way.

Yes, it is. And I'm glad to see Mr O'Neill does not neglect my own current area of interest:

We also have new forms of secular intolerance, with governmental scientists calling for 'gross intolerance' of those who promote quackery and serious magazines proposing the imprisonment of those who 'deny' climate change. Just as you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, so you shouldn't be free to ' yell "balderdash" at 10,883 scientific journal articles a year, all saying the same thing', said a hip online mag this week. In other words, thou shalt not blaspheme against the eco-gospel.

~Speaking of which, after last week's epic meltdown (since deleted), an apparently stabilized David Appell has returned to the Internet to argue that the real issue is not the silencing of free speech but " Steyn's Silencing of Science".

Mr Appell seems a harmless sort, albeit, like many who've drunk the warm-aid, somewhat overwrought and highly strung. But I don't want to precipitate another meltdown, so, instead of accusing him of attempting to silence my silencing of Mann's silencing of me, let me offer him a useful tip apropos his cry for help a week ago:

I'm just tired of all the extremists on both sides, and their lies.

You know who I miss? Billy Joel. I saw him once in Madison Square Garden. Earlier in the day we went up to the top of the World Trade Center, and I took a picture of my girlfriend Ellen in a spiffy blue hat, with Manhattan blowing in the background. And then the four of us got stoned at the concert, and then we slept in the dirty vinyl seats on the early morning train back to New Jersey.

I don't personally miss Billy Joel, but tootling down the highway the other day I was in the mood for a bit of Artie Shaw so I hit the button for Sirius XM's Forties On Four - and whaddayaknow? Sirius has changed it into the Billy Joel Channel. "Just The Way You Are." "Still Rock'n'Roll To Me." "Uptown Girl." You need never know that dark three-in-the-morning of the soul again! Not with "Piano Man", "My Life", "Only The Good Die Young" 24/7! All Mr Appell needs to do is a buy a big planet-wrecking SUV with a Sirius subscription and he'll never miss Billy Joel again!

Re "Steyn's Silencing of Science", Michael E Mann approvingly ReTweeted Mr Appell twice - the dearth of Mann defenders among those 98.7 per cent of settled scientists requiring him to rely on the support of stoned Billy Joel aficionados. As to how my "silencing of science" is going, how about this headline from The Times of London?

Crackdown Ordered on Climate-Change Sceptics

They're not kidding:

The BBC should also give less airtime to climate sceptics and its editors should seek special clearance to interview them, according to the Commons Science and Technology Committee. Andrew Miller, the committee's Labour chairman, said that appearances on radio and television by climate sceptics such as Lord Lawson of Blaby, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be accompanied by "health warnings".

What sort of science is so "settled" that anyone who disagrees with it requires "special clearance" to be permitted to speak? This sort of science:

A climate mob has descended on @RogerPielkeJr and it's ugly.

Keith Kloor is a blogger at Discover Magazine, a publication so favorable to Michael E Mann that Mann cites it in his legal complaint against me (paragraph 5). Yet Mr Kloor cannot conceal his distaste for what the mob did to Roger Pielke Jr:

This is not to say that Roger is above criticism ( He's not). Or that Roger is blameless. ( He's not.) And there's some useful context here from Dale Jamieson (ignore the headline), if you want to understand the anger that has been building against Roger since the mid to late 2000s. But I'm sorry, the torch-bearing mob that went after him after he published his first piece at Nate Silver's new site was despicable. And now it's turned into the sort of agenda-driven campaign and ideological cleansing that even Morano would grudgingly admire.

As Michael Levi, the respected energy analyst observed:

'The onslaught is disturbing. I've disagreed with Roger often, but he is genuinely well intentioned. People who care about getting good policy should want more thoughtful voices, not fewer, proposing options – and organized campaigns to run heterodox thinkers out of town are awfully ugly.'

There's a side to scientists and scholars–their arrogance, sharp elbows, and stubborn biases–that can be ugly when exposed to sunlight. What's even uglier is when one of them is tied to the whipping post in broad daylight by a mob egged on by leading climate scientists and their henchmen.

What a shame that, even in his moment of candor and courage, Mr Kloor cannot bring himself to name those "leading climate scientists" who "egged on" the "torch-bearing mob" - Michael E Mann and his fellow self-garlanded Nobel Laureate Kevin Trenberth. There's certainly a lot of "silencing of science" going on, but it's at the behest of Mann and his enforcers. This is the climate of fear that he has created. But who knows? Maybe, after they get that "crackdown" on skeptics they've urged for so long, it'll all lighten up, right?

~If you find Mann's mob as "despicable" as Keith Kloor does, and you'd like to help support my pushback against him, I hope you'll consider swinging by the Steyn store or purchasing one of our SteynOnline gift certificates. I'm preparing for discovery and deposition of Mann, and with my new lawyers, as Eli Rabett has noticed:

Mann vs. Steyn and others (the vs others has popcorn value, but not nearly as much), lurches forward as Steyn discovers that being his own lawyer has costs and has acquired some, Michael Songer, Daniel Kornstein and Mark Platt, pro bono or maybe not, but they appear to have a problem, the stuff that Steyn filed on his own. Make no mistake these lawyers are lawyers, but. . . .

No mulligans at this point, so they have to build out on Steyn's crazy in their response to counterclaims asserted by Michael Mann's attorneys, you know the ones where Mann's lawyers had to be restrained from laughing themselves to death about Steyn's filings. At the time Eli noted that all of a sudden Steyn might be getting the hint that he was in over his head, and that does appear to be the case, or, perhaps some friends took him out for drinks and explained the facts of life.

Wow, this Rabett guy is amazing! It's almost like he's inside my head!

© 2014 Mark Steyn Enterprises (US) Inc

receive the latest by email: subscribe to st



To: koan who wrote (778329)4/4/2014 3:54:28 PM
From: steve harris  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1573430
 
It would have saved a lot of time if you would have said "no".