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: slowmo who wrote (11245)6/24/2014 8:53:54 PM
From: The1Stockman  Respond to of 16547
 
I agree, ... its more like CARELESS in my opinion..



To: slowmo who wrote (11245)6/24/2014 10:29:42 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
The1Stockman

  Respond to of 16547
 
Whistleblower: VA Changed Records To Make Dead Patients Appear To Be Alive



To: slowmo who wrote (11245)6/24/2014 10:43:31 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
The1Stockman

  Respond to of 16547
 
Devastating Numbers for Obama In New York Times Poll



by John Nolte 24 Jun 2014,
breitbart.com

A week after a n NBC News poll showed that the American people had lost faith in Obama's competence and ability to lead, a new CBS News/New York Times poll has even worse news for a president embattled by his own incompetence, arrogance, and failed policies. In just one month, the president's job approval rating has shifted a full 9 points against him. Though Obama was still upside on approval by 5 points (43-48%) back in May, he now faces a 14 point deficit of 40-54%.

In just one month, disapproval of Obama's foreign policy has skyrocketed a full 10 points to a record high of 58%. With only 36% approving, that ties this poll's record low in this category.

In the run up to his re-election, when the president was triumphantly declaring the Iraq issue settled and Al Qaeda decimated, foreign policy was one of the president's strengths. At the time, the president's approval ratings on this front hovered at or near 50%.

Now that both of those boasts have been proven a lie; the infamous Russian "reset" has resulted in Putin seizing Crimea, and Obama's infamous "red line"
resulted in the use of chemical weapons against civilians becoming acceptable again as a full-blown human rights disaster unfurls in Syria, the Emperor is buck naked.

On the question of the president's handling of Iraq, Obama's standing has flipped entirely. Back in October of 2011, the last time the Times asked about Iraq, Obama stood at a healthy 60% approval, 30% disapprove.

Today, with an al Qaeda affiliated terrorist group creating its own country by seizing large parts of Iraq (and Syria), only 37% approve of the president's handling of Iraq while 52% disapprove.

This has to be especially frustrating for the White House. Though they did so prematurely and based only on wishful thinking, the Administration had deluded themselves into believing Iraq could be checked off as Mission Accomplished.

On the larger question of whether his policies have made the country more or less safe, Obama has earned his worst numbers yet. Currently 36% believe we are "less safe." The previous high in this poll was 28%. Only 29% believe we are safer under Obama, while 31%believe his policies have had "no effect."

Though time and again we have been assured by his fans in the media that Obama is the greatest orator of his time, the American people are overwhelmingly unhappy with the president's ability to communicate his goals in Iraq. Despite repeated statements made by the White House and even by the president himself, only 23% believe Obama has "clearly explained" our goals. A whopping 67% disagree.

On his handling of the economy, Obama remains in the same trouble he has been in since late last year. Currently, the president is 13 points underwater at 41 - 54%.



To: slowmo who wrote (11245)6/25/2014 12:33:19 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Executive Director in Obamas’ Lois Lerner Approved Terrorist Empire REVEALED as a U.S. Intel Agent

Shoebat.com ^ | 06-24-14 | By Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack


In a stunning discovery, the Executive Director listed on the 990-EZ for the Barack H. Obama Foundation (BHOF), which was approved by the IRS’s Lois Lerner, is Ray Baysden, a former U.S. intelligence agent.



Baysden, who knows the Obama family, is a former State Department employee who was stationed in Karachi, Pakistan at a time when President Barack Obama is said to have visited Karachi, in the 1980's. He is also a registered Republican who has worked within the Intelligence Community (IC). BHOF was founded and is run by Malik Obama, the brother of the President. Malik is also steeped in terrorist connections, as Shoebat.com has long chronicled.



The evidence is bolstered by a screen shot of BHOF’s 990-EZ, received by the IRS office in Ogden, UT on July 5, 2011, more than three years after BHOF was founded. It lists Baysden and Gwendolyn Anderson as Executive Director and Director respectively:

snip

(Excerpt) Read more at shoebat.com ...



To: slowmo who wrote (11245)6/25/2014 3:12:43 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
ISIS Suicide Bomber Blows Up in Beirut Hotel: Official (BREAKING)



To: slowmo who wrote (11245)6/25/2014 3:15:45 PM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Boy Scouts to Shamefully March Kids in N.Y. "Gay Pride" Parade [This Sunday]



To: slowmo who wrote (11245)6/27/2014 10:38:21 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Hilarious--JASON MATTERA NAILS HILLARY CLINTON




To: slowmo who wrote (11245)6/27/2014 10:42:33 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
The U.S., the U.K. and Canada in Jihad Denial
FrontPage Magazine » FrontPage
by Robert Spencer

The denial of the reality of jihad is thicker than ever, even as jihadis advance around the world. And it endangers us all.

Former CIA officer John Maguire revealed this week that the CIA was blindsided by the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), which now controls so much of Syria and Iraq and has designs on a great deal more territory. Maguire attributed the CIA’s underestimating of ISIL’s threat to The Company’s reduced presence in Iraq: “This is a glaring example of the erosion of our street craft and our tradecraft and our capability to operate in a hard place. The U.S. taxpayer is not getting their money’s worth.”

But that isn’t the whole story. Another reason why the CIA was completely surprised by ISIL’s advance was because the Obama Administration has so thoroughly deemphasized the jihad threat, and loudly and repeatedly proclaimed that al Qaeda was the only jihad group – and was, for its part, “on the ropes.” ISIL, an offshoot of al Qaeda in a country where Obama was in a hurry to declare victory and get out was unlikely to be the focus of sustained or serious analysis.

The willful ignorance is all-pervasive. It is a fundamental dogma of our age that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in Western countries are enthusiastic democratic pluralists who reject and abhor not only jihad terrorism, but the elements of Sharia that are at variance with otherwise universally held principles of human rights. This dogma keeps running up against the buzz-saw of reality, but that never seems to make a difference to authorities.

And so it was this week that the UK’s Daily Mail noted that the Metropolitan Police’s Assistant Commissioner, Cressida Dick, said of Britain’s Muslim communities that “there were many cases where ‘warning signs’ about extremists were not brought to the attention of authorities. She also indicated some Muslims were too accepting of radical views, saying it was the police’s ‘greatest challenge’ to make them ‘wholly hostile to violent extremism.’”

How could this be? After all, a core assumption of British intelligence and law enforcement officials is that Muslim communities on the Sceptered Isle unambiguously oppose “violent extremism,” except, of course, for that pesky and ever-present tiny minority of extremists. So why were Muslims sometimes not bringing potential jihadis to the attention of authorities? Of course the obvious reason for this, and for why some Muslims in Britain are “too accepting of radical views,” is because they agree with those “radical views” and consider them to be authentic Islam. But that prospect is so horrifying in its implications that British officials do not dare face it.

Indeed, it is virtually universally accepted that Islam is inherently peaceful, and that only the extremists who misunderstand it (and vicious Islamophobes) think otherwise. So it was that at the University of Calgary, university officials ignored a professor’s warnings about potential jihadists on campus – after all, such a suggestion is “Islamophobic,” is it not?

A Muslim from Calgary, Farah Mohamed Shirdon, is in Iraq waging jihad with ISIL, and a former University of Calgary professor, Aaron Hughes, is saying that he tried to warn university officials that something like this was in the offing.

Hughes said: “I was very much bothered by the conservative nature of the Muslim student body. I was definitely aware of the potential for radicalization on campus. That is another venue in which potential radicalization could occur, so not just at mosques, but also on campus.” However, “I had been mentioning the conservative nature of these students and the university; they just weren’t interested in it.”

These “conservative” students annoyed Hughes by refusing to accept his understanding of Islam: “They made teaching Islam from an objective perspective very difficult because they knew what the ‘real’ Islam was. Of course they didn’t.” Or maybe they did, but Hughes, assured of the fact that Islam was a Religion of Peace, was certain that they were actually ignorant of their own religion, no matter how dedicated to it they were.

University officials, in any case, disregarded Hughes’s warnings. Jihadis on campus? Inconceivable! Islam is a Religion of Peace!

Even terrorism may be peaceful nowadays. Mohamed Hassan Hersi, a Muslim in Toronto who has been convicted of trying to join the jihad terror group al Shabaab, was only engaged, according to his lawyer, in “non-violent terrorism.”

“Non-violent terrorism”? The phrase is as stupid and devoid of content as another popular term these days, “moderate Islamist.”

The world is in flames because of Islamic jihad. Will those flames finally burn away the all-blanketing fog of disinformation, misinformation, and willful ignorance concerning the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat? Perhaps. But there is no telling how much else will be burned away along with it.



To: slowmo who wrote (11245)6/27/2014 11:56:21 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
BREAKING: McDaniel Supporters Barred From Reviewing Voter Rolls in Three Mississippi Counties



To: slowmo who wrote (11245)6/27/2014 11:58:00 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
It’s that bad: Even Al Franken won’t be seen with Obama



To: slowmo who wrote (11245)6/27/2014 12:47:44 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Robert Redford, the Terrorist Sympathizer
................................................................................







To: slowmo who wrote (11245)6/28/2014 11:17:28 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
DO YOU SEE ANY PATTERN HERE?


..........................................................................................


1. In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male.
2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim males.
3. In 1972 a Pan Am 747 was hijacked and eventually diverted to Cairo where a fuse was lit on final approach, it was blown up shortly after landing by Muslim males
4. In 1973 a Pan Am 707 was destroyed in Rome with 33 people killed, when it was attacked with grenades by Muslim males.
5. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim males.
6. During the 1980s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim males.
7. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim males.
8. In 1985, the Cruise Ship Achilles Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim males.
9. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim males.
10. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim males.
11. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim males.
12. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim males.
13. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim males.
14. In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim males.
15. In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and beheaded by - you guessed it - a Muslim male.
16. In 2013, Boston Marathon Bombing 4 Innocent people including a child killed, 264 injured by Muslim males.




To: slowmo who wrote (11245)6/29/2014 10:58:53 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Military Bans Bibles But Forces Soldiers to Adhere to Ramadan Rules...



To: slowmo who wrote (11245)6/29/2014 11:01:37 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Confusion, costs plague Obamacare enrollees...



To: slowmo who wrote (11245)6/29/2014 11:03:40 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Man Stabbed at BET Awards Pre-Show Party...



To: slowmo who wrote (11245)6/30/2014 9:59:33 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
R2O

  Respond to of 16547
 



To: slowmo who wrote (11245)6/30/2014 9:36:47 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
NASA launches 'orbiting carbon observatory'...



To: slowmo who wrote (11245)7/2/2014 12:28:31 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
slowmo

  Respond to of 16547
 
The fix was in: Obama’s patent office got ZERO Redskins name complaints

The recent decision by an obscure administrative law board to cancel the Washington Redskins‘ trademark registrations came despite the fact the agency hadn’t received a single letter from a member of the public complaining about the team’s name, records show.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which is part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, ruled last month that the name was disparaging to American Indians. The team is appealing that decision.

Politicians, including President Obama, have waded into the team name controversy, with many saying the team should change its name. But despite widespread media attention and a legal fight that goes back more than a decade, the USPTO recently acknowledged there’s hardly been an avalanche of public complaints filed with the agency.

In fact, the agency doesn’t have any record of correspondence from the public about the Redskins‘ name — expressing sentiments one way or another — prior to the board’s June 18 ruling.

A Freedom of Information Act request from The Washington Times asking for any communications from Congress or the public produced just 13 pages of records.

Six of those pages were a handwritten, meandering letter from a man in Lubbock, Texas, whose position on the team name controversy isn’t clear. Another writer congratulated the appeals board after its decision but questioned whether the judges would “go after” the United Negro College Fund. Both letters were sent after the ruling.

In addition, there were a few pages of email correspondence between staffers for the USPTO and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia’s nonvoting member of Congress. Ms. Norton has been a vocal critic of the team name, but her staffers were mostly seeking background information on the case.

The board made its ruling last month based on a legal challenge from Amanda Blackhorse and four others, who petitioned the USPTO against the Redskins, calling the team name offensive to American Indians. After the ruling, she called the decision a “great victory for Native Americans and all Americans,” saying the team’s name was “racist and derogatory.”

Both sides in the widely publicized case introduced thousands of pages of evidence and testimony from experts. And the decision hinged, in part, on the testimony of linguistics experts.

The Redskins declined to comment through an attorney Monday, but an attorney for Ms. Blackhorse said the paucity of public input isn’t entirely unexpected despite the intense media coverage.

“There are regimented procedures in which the USPTO makes its decisions, and there is no mechanism for input from the general public,” attorney Jesse A. Witten wrote in an email. “This is not at all like the notice and comment period that accompanies a regulatory rule making.”

Rebecca Tushnet, a law professor at Georgetown University, said the patent office isn’t like the Federal Trade Commission or Food and Drug Administration, where there can be a public comment procedure for individual cases.

“If you don’t have a particular stake there’s no obvious point at which your input can be given,” she said. “I’m sure that doesn’t stop people from sending in correspondence, but I honestly wouldn’t know how to go about getting it read in an individual case.”

The USPTO did not respond to phone calls Monday.

The trademark appeals board based its ruling on part of the law that says a trademark can be canceled if it is deemed disparaging. In the case of the Redskins, the board said the drop in the use of the word in the last century showed it was becoming a slur. The board also pointed to research that found at least 30 percent of American Indians surveyed found the name offensive.

The agency’s decision doesn’t mean the Redskins are barred from using the team name, but it does make it harder for them to assert their brand against potential copycats.

The same appeals board was overruled on appeal in 2003 after ruling against the Redskins in a similar case. Bob Raskopf, the team’s trademark attorney, said in a statement after the most recent ruling that he expects the same outcome.

“This case is no different from the earlier case, where the board canceled the Redskins‘ trademark registrations and where a federal-district court disagreed and reversed the board,” he said.

Even if the public hasn’t been very vocal with the agency, politicians have been quick to let the media and Redskins know where they stand.

Last fall, Mr. Obama said he would think about changing the name if he were team owner Dan Snyder.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, has vowed not to attend any games until the team changes its name.

And Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, said last week at an Associated Press Sports Editors meeting that while he doesn’t think Mr. Snyder should be forced to drop the Redskins‘ name, he’d “probably” change the team name nonetheless.

Read more: washingtontimes.com
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter



To: slowmo who wrote (11245)7/5/2014 3:55:57 PM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Benghazi attack had nothing to do with anti-Muslim video, court documents prove

Read more: dailymail.co.uk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



To: slowmo who wrote (11245)7/6/2014 7:44:59 PM
From: joseffy2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Qualified Opinion
unclewest

  Respond to of 16547
 
VA staffers ignored veterans' needs so they could work on ObamaCare