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: jlallen who wrote (12153)11/11/2014 3:42:11 PM
From: Qualified Opinion  Read Replies (9) | Respond to of 16547
 
Liberals lie - eom



To: jlallen who wrote (12153)11/11/2014 5:04:38 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
John McCain attacks Ted Cruz in… Salon?

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

Hot Air ^ | November 11, 2014 | Noah Rothman








To: jlallen who wrote (12153)11/13/2014 4:54:22 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Washington Post Writer Fails to Fact Check Nancy Pelosi's Jonathan Gruber Denial
.....................................................................................
By P.J. Gladnick | November 13, 2014 | 2:22 PM ESThttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2014/11/13/washington-post-writer-fails-fact-check-nancy-pelosis-jonathan-gruber
newsbusters.org



The Obamacare architect that dares not speak his name. At least from the lips of Democrats who nowadays are pretending to have little or no knowledge of Jonathan Gruber.

The most prominent of the Gruber denialists is House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi quoted by Washington Post reporter Sean Sullivan whose story headline also featured this denial: "I don't know who he is. He didn't help write our bill."

Gee. If Nancy Pelosi said that then it must be true! If you think me a bit too credulous for accepting Pelosi denial without checking her veracity, well that is exactly what Sullivan did.


Absolutely no fact checking.


Of course, in this Age of the Web, fact checking is relatively easy. No need to pound the pavement in the hot sun or extreme cold hunting down leads as in the old days. All Sean needed to do was type in some words like "Nancy Pelosi Jonathan Gruber" into Google and sift through the results. Hey, he could have even sipped on some coffee and enjoyed a jelly doughnut while performing this far from arduous task. If he had done so he would have soon found Pelosi's House Speaker website post of December 1, 2009 which was chock full of Gruber.




To: jlallen who wrote (12153)11/13/2014 10:24:41 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
If You Can't Beat Them, Indict Them
..........................................................................................

By Dennis Lund November 6, 2014
americanthinker.com

In recent years we have seen a new development within the political realm: using Grand Jury indictments (or similar procedures) to taint an opponent. Guilt or innocence does not matter, as low-information voters will see the headline and ignore the facts. The real purpose is not to punish the guilty; it is to end the careers of opponents by any means necessary. This is exactly why the tactic is both effective and reprehensible.


One case in point would be a particularly vile character in Texas: former Travis County Prosecutor Ronnie Earle.

Mr. Earle took it upon himself to go after several people, including: Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, State Representative Mike Martin, Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox, and Speaker of the House Tom Delay.

His record is spotty at best, but he has succeeded in ending the careers of many of those whom he opposes, Tom Delay included.

The Delay persecution was a classic case of retribution and vindictiveness
. Earle’s ‘campaign’ against Speaker Delay began in 2002 and ended in 2007. In between, Earle went to eight Grand Juries, all in the ultra-liberal stronghold of Austin, before he found one gullible enough to issue an indictment on specious grounds.

Delay’s resignation, due to Congressional rules, confirmed that Earle’s mission was accomplished. Later the Speaker was acquitted by judicial decree. The court of appeals decision stated in part:

“.the evidence shows that the defendants were attempting to comply with the Election Code limitations on corporate contributions."

Justice was never the purpose of the persecution. Those who take a schadenfruedistic pleasure from Earle’s actions represent a small but vocal cadre of ideologues who will stoop to anything to destroy opponents.

Fairness and rules do not enter into the equation for such people.

These same reprobates may also be celebrating the recent indictment of Texas Governor Rick Perry by Earle’s successor: Rosemary Lehmberg.



Governor Perry’s own shortcomings ended his presidential aspirations. Rosemary may have sealed his fate for future higher aspirations, though her behavior may very well backfire, as it should.

Some background on the case is warranted.

In 2013, Lehmberg pled guilty to a DU.; Her blood alcohol content was measured at .229. To put that in perspective, that is three times the legal limit and is the approximate equivalent of consuming nine to ten shots of vodka (her beverage of choice) in an hour.

Fox News reported that in a 15-month period Ms. Lehman spent $3,000 on 72 bottles of Vodka. One thing that tells us is Ms. Lehman was not buying the cheap stuff as that works out to over $40.00 a bottle. Then again, the size of the bottle is not given, so maybe she was drinking the cheap stuff.

The governor, not wanting a possible alcoholic representing the good and bad people of Texas, asked her to resign. After she refused, the governor then legally vetoed expenditures designated for a division of her office for which she was responsible. That was when the claws came out, and the slovenly drunk (The video of District Attorney Lehmberg’s booking is not a pretty sight) turned into a vicious attacker.

Perry’s chances of being elected to higher office, which were not that high to begin with, have been diminished to near zero as a result of her vindictive prosecution.

Is this really the method of determining our leaders that fair minded and reasonable people can support?

We hear from people who ask for a healing of the existing divide between the political parties. This is a fantasy and will remain such until such time that people like Ronnie Earle and Rosemary Lehmberg are strongly condemned, and not cheered as they are now.

It is not incumbent upon us as citizens to like those who hold contrarian views, but it is incumbent on us to expect that candidates will be treated equally.

People have fought and died for equal treatment under the law, yet actions as described above serve to make a mockery of our laws.

Those who remain silent are in essence showing their approval. One has to wonder: what further actions would they also approve? And the follow-up question is also warranted: would they accept such actions from their opposition?

:



To: jlallen who wrote (12153)11/15/2014 8:56:10 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Shoot1st

  Respond to of 16547
 
For those who may have forgotten what kind of a President Bill Clinton was: 1) Clinton’s own words show his often expressed innate hostility to, and utter contempt for, the core principles of the American founding:

``If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.’’ -- President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993

``The purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people’’ –- Bill Clinton during an interview on MTV in 1993

``We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…that we forget about reality.’’ -- President Bill Clinton, quoted in USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A, ``NRA change: `Omnipotent to powerful’’’ by Debbie Howlett

“When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly… that they would work for the common good, as well as for the individual welfare… However, now there’s a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there’s too much freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it.” – Bill Clinton, April 19, 1995

2) Clinton inevitably pursued his own political advantage at the expense of American interests and national security. Here is just one of many possible examples:

It is well documented that Clinton and the Democrats took illegal campaign money from groups and individuals tied directly to the Chinese People’s Republican Army. It is therefore not surprising that In January 1998 Clinton went against the advice of then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Pentagon experts by lifting long-standing restrictions against the export of American satellites to China for launch on Chinese rockets. Not only did he move control over such decisions from the more security-focused State Department to the Commerce Department, but he intervened in a Justice Department investigation of Loral Space & Communications, retroactively enabling Loral to sell critical missile technology to the Chinese. Interestingly enough, Clinton’s decision was made at the request of Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz, whose earlier $1.3 million campaign donation made him the single biggest contributor to the Democratic election effort.

The result, as stated eloquently by syndicated columnist Linda Bowles, was that “the Democrats got money from satellite companies and from Chinese communists; China got supercomputors, advanced production equipment and missile technology; Loral got its satellites launched at bargain basement prices . . . and the transfer of sensitive missile technology gave China [for the first time] the capability of depositing bombs on American cities.” Incidentally, Loral ultimately failed to benefit from this permanent injury to America’s security interests: in July 2003, the company filed for bankruptcy protection, and in order to raise cash was forced to sell its most profitable business – a fleet of communications satellites orbiting over North America.

3) On two occasions, Clinton used military action for the specific purpose of distracting the American public from the fallout of the Lewinsky affair:

• On August 20, three days after Clinton finally admitted publicly to the Lewinsky affair, the news media was poised to focus on that day’s grand jury testimony by Monica Lewinsky. That same morning, Clinton personally went on national television to gravely announce his bombing of a Sudanese “chemical weapons factory,” and a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. It was the first time most Americans ever heard the name of Osama bin Laden. The factory bombing in Sudan killed an innocent night watchman, but accomplished little else. It later was proven that the plant was making badly needed pharmaceuticals for people in that poverty-stricken part of the world, but no chemical weapons.

Several months later, the U.S. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, part of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, stated: "...the evidence indicates that the facility had no role whatsoever in chemical weapons development." Kroll Associates, one of the world's most reputable investigative firms, also confirmed that there was no link in any way between the plant and any terrorist organization. As for the Afghanistan bombing, it failed to do any damage at all to bin Laden or his organization. Clinton’s action was accurately characterized by George W. Bush when he said right after 9-11: "When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt.

Clinton’s pointless and murderous military actions did not make Americans safer that day, although they did destroy an innocent life, and for all the good they did certainly could have been delayed in any case. But they did succeed in diverting media attention from Lewinsky’s grand jury testimony for a 24-hour news cycle, which was the main point. So I guess, they weren’t a total loss.

•On December 16, 1998, on the eve of the scheduled House vote on his impeachment, Bill Clinton launched a surprise bombing attack on Baghdad. As justification for this exploit, he cited the urgent threat that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction posed to America, and the need for immediate action. Almost immediately, the House Democrats held a caucus and emerged calling for a delay in the impeachment proceedings. House minority leader Dick Gephardt made a statement: "We obviously should pass a resolution by saying that we stand behind the troops. I would hope that we do not take up impeachment until the hostilities have completely ended."

Conveniently, a delay so near the end of the House term would have caused the vote to be taken up in the next session – when the newly elected House membership would be seated with more Democratic representation, thereby improving Clinton’s chances of dodging impeachment.

The Republicans did, in fact, agree to delay the hearings, but only for a day or two. Amazingly, Clinton ended the bombing raid after only 70 hours -- once it became clear that in spite of the brief delay, the vote would still be held in the current session.

Once the bombing stopped, Clinton touted the effectiveness and importance of the mission. As reported by ABC News : “We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and protect that capability, and on his military and security infrastructure,” he said. Defense secretary William Cohen echoed the point: “We estimate that Saddam's missile program has been set back by at least a year.”

Whether or not one buys Clinton’s assessment of that mission, it is difficult to believe that its timing was so critical that it required commencement virtually at the moment the House was scheduled to vote on the impeachment. I think the most reasonable conclusion is that Clinton cynically deployed US military assets and placed military personnel in harm’s way for purely political reasons.

4) Clinton’s reckless sexual behavior was a threat to American national security:

Clinton and his supporters have been very effective in persuading large numbers of Americans that the Lewinsky scandal was “only about sex.” But I see a bigger issue here, because Clinton is on record as saying that he would have done anything to keep knowledge of the Lewinsky affair from becoming public.

To me, that statement raises a very serious question: What if, instead of sending her recorded Lewinsky conversations to Ken Starr, Linda Tripp had instead secretly offered them for sale, say, to the Chinese government? Or to the Russians? Or even to agents of Saddam?

What kind of blackmail leverage would those tapes have provided to a foreign government in dealing with America on sensitive trade, security or military issues? One of the few things Clinton ever said that I believe is that he would have done anything to keep the Lewinsky affair secret. Given his demonstrated track record of selling out American interests for personal or political gain (and there are more examples that I could have cited here), how far would he have gone in compromising America’s real interests in order to protect his own neck when threatened with blackmail?

Pretty far, I believe. Equally distressing is the prospect Clinton might, in fact, have succumbed to foreign black mail on other occasions in order to hide different sexual episodes that ultimately did not become public. There is no way to know, of course, but I prefer presidents for whom such a scenario is not a plausible possibility.

And don’t even get me started on the war crime in Kosovo.

WAR IN KOSOVO

During Bill Clinton’s 1999 NATO-led war in Kosovo – which according to some estimates cost as much as $75 billion – we bombed Belgrade for 78 days, killed almost 3,000 civilians, and shredded the civilian infrastructure (including every bridge across the Danube.)

We devastated the environment, bombed the Chinese embassy, came very close to engaging in armed combat against Russian forces, and in general, pursued a horrific and inhumane strategy to rain misery on the civilian population of Belgrade in order to pressure Milosevic into surrendering.

Why did we do all that? The US did not even have an arguable interest in the Balkans, and no one ever tried to claim that Serbia represented any kind of threat to our nation or our interests.

But for months the Clinton administration had told us that Milosevic was waging a vicious genocide against Albanian Muslims, and needed to be stopped. The New York Times called it a “humanitarian war.” In March 1999 – the same month that the bombing started – Clinton’s State Department publicly suggested that as many as 500,000 Albanian Kosovars had been murdered by Milosevic’s regime. In May of that year, as the bombing campaign was drawing to a close, Secretary of Defense William Cohen lowered that estimate 100,000.

Five years after the bombing, after all the forensic investigations had been completed, the prosecutors at Milosevic’s “War Crimes” trial in the Hague were barely been able to document a questionable figure of perhaps 5,000 “bodies and body parts.” During the war, the American people were told that Kosovo was full of mass graves filled with the bodies of murdered Albanian Muslims. But none were ever found.

BILL CLINTON ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE

During the election cycle of 1992, George H.W. Bush lost his job after Bill Clinton hammered him relentlessly for having caused the “worst economy of the last 50 years.”

In fact, as CNN’s Brooke Jackson has reported: “Three days before Christmas 1992, the National Bureau of Economic Research finally issued its official proclamation that the recession had ended 21 months earlier. What became the longest boom in U.S. history actually began nearly two years before Clinton took office.” See (See cnn.com.

By the same token, Clinton is generally perceived as having a stellar economic record during his own presidency, in spite of the fact that the economy was already starting to decline during the last year of his term after the stock market crashed in March 2000.

According to a report by MSNBC: “The longest economic expansion in U.S. history faltered so much in the summer of 2000 that business output actually contracted for one quarter, the government said Wednesday in releasing a comprehensive revision of the gross domestic product. Based on new data, the Commerce Department said that the GDP — the country’s total output of goods and services — shrank by 0.5 percent at an annual rate in the July-September quarter of 2000.” See: msnbc.msn.com.



To: jlallen who wrote (12153)11/16/2014 1:08:52 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Man performs Star-Spangled Banner with gun




To: jlallen who wrote (12153)11/22/2014 6:32:50 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Obama Flies Luis Gutierrez on Air Force One for Exec Amnesty Celebration
......................................................................................................................................................

Obama works directly with those who want the US destroyed



To: jlallen who wrote (12153)12/1/2014 12:04:03 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Giuliani on Ferguson Federal Civil Rights Case: ‘It’s the Same Testimony’
.........................................................................
National Review ^ | 12/01/2014 | Tim Cavanaugh


Former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani Sunday poopoohed the idea of a federal civil rights investigation of former Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson, noting that Attorney General Eric Holder would merely be reviewing evidence that has already been rejected by a Ferguson grand jury.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Giuliani made a funny YEEKS face before noting that “had it not had the racial overtones and the national publicity,” the case against Wilson — who shot and killed the unarmed Michael Brown during an altercation in August — would not even have been brought to a grand jury. He addded that one witness claimed Brown had “aggressively” charged Wilson just prior to the fatal shooting.

“It’s the same testimony,” Giuliani said of the evidence that would be reviewed in a federal case. “It’s the same witnesses, the same testimony. In other words, Attorney General Holder is going to have to take a case in which a jury couldn’t find probable cause to indict, and he’s going to have to find probable cause in front of the federal grand jury when there are seven African-American witnesses supporting the officer’s testimony, and the witnesses on the other side — not all of them but almost all of them — have impeachable testimony. In fact, a couple of them committed perjury, saying he was shot in the back when he clearly wasn’t. It’s an impossible case to present to a grand jury. A federal grand jury — in my experience, having been in front of hundreds of them — would find no true bill here, just like this grand jury.”

CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO