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: Taro who wrote (12441)11/24/2014 12:59:52 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
The Washington Post has now put more effort into fact checking an SNL parody on Obama than Gruber's numerous lies. https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/536555529397886977

Josh Jordan @NumbersMuncher Follow



To: Taro who wrote (12441)11/27/2014 11:16:44 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Man of the Year
....................................................................




To: Taro who wrote (12441)11/29/2014 7:24:57 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Obama Really Doesn’t Believe that America has a Right to Exist

.........................................................................................
Frontpage Magazine ^ | 11-28-2014 | Daniel Greenfield




To: Taro who wrote (12441)11/30/2014 10:52:38 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Obama’s Ferguson Sellout Obama's irresponsible statements will make a bad situation worse.
....................................................................................
11/30/2014, city-journal.org ^ | Heather MacDonald



President Obama betrayed the nation last night. Even as he went on national television to respond to the grand jury’s decision not to indict Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson for fatally shooting 18-year-old Michael Brown in August, the vicious violence that would destroy businesses and livelihoods over the next several hours was underway.

Obama had one job and one job only last night: to defend the workings of the criminal-justice system and the rule of law.

Instead, he turned his talk into a primer on police racism and criminal-justice bias. In so doing, he perverted his role as the leader of all Americans and as the country’s most visible symbol of the primacy of the law.

Obama gestured wanly toward the need to respect the grand jury’s decision and to protest peacefully. “We are a nation built on the rule of law. And so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury’s to make,” he said. But his tone of voice and body language unmistakably conveyed his disagreement, if not disgust, with that decision.

“There are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction,” he said.

Understandable, so long as one ignores the evidence presented to the grand jury.

The testimony of a half-dozen black observers at the scene demolished the early incendiary reports that Wilson attacked Brown in cold blood and shot Brown in his back when his hands were up. Those early witnesses who had claimed gratuitous brutality on Wilson’s part contradicted themselves and were in turn contradicted by the physical evidence and by other witnesses, who corroborated Wilson’s testimony that Brown had attacked him and had tried to grab his gun. (Minutes before, the nearly 300-pound Brown had thuggishly robbed a shopkeeper of a box of cigars; Wilson had received a report of that robbery and a description of Brown before stopping him.) Obama should have briefly reiterated the grounds for not indicting Wilson and applauded the decision as the product of a scrupulously thorough and fair process. He should have praised the jurors for their service and courage in following the evidence where it led them. And he should have concluded by noting that there is no fairer criminal justice system in the world than the one we have in the United States.

Instead, Obama reprimanded local police officers in advance for their presumed overreaction to the protests: “I also appeal to the law enforcement officials in Ferguson and the region to show care and restraint in managing peaceful protests that may occur. . . . They need to work with the community, not against the community, to distinguish the handful of people who may use the grand jury’s decision as an excuse for violence . . . from the vast majority who just want their voices heard around legitimate issues in terms of how communities and law enforcement interact.” Such skepticism about the ability of the police to maintain the peace appropriately was unwarranted at the time and even more so in retrospect; the forces of law and order didn’t fire a single shot last night. Nor did they inflict injury, despite having been fired at themselves. Missouri governor Jay Nixon has been under attack for days for having authorized a potential mobilization of the National Guard—as if the August rioting didn’t more than justify such a precaution. Any small business owner facing another wave of violence would have been desperate for such protection and more. Though Nixon didn’t actually call up the Guard last night, his prophylactic declaration of a state of emergency proved prescient.

Obama left no doubt that he believed the narrative of the mainstream media and race activists about Ferguson. That narrative held that the shooting of Brown was a symbol of nationwide police misbehavior and that the August riots were an “understandable” reaction to widespread societal injustice. “The situation in Ferguson speaks to broader challenges that we still face as a nation. The fact is in too many parts of this country a deep distrust exists between law enforcement and communities of color.” This distrust is justified, in Obama’s view. He reinvoked the “diversity” bromide about the racial composition of police forces, implying that white officers cannot fairly police black communities. In fact, some of the most criticized law-enforcement bodies in recent years have been majority black.

“We have made enormous progress in race relations,” Obama conceded. “But what is also true is that there are still problems and communities of color aren’t just making these problems up. . . . The law too often feels like it’s being applied in a discriminatory fashion . . . these are real issues. And we have to lift them up and not deny them or try to tamp them down.” To claim that the laws are applied in a discriminatory fashion is a calumny, unsupported by evidence. For the president of the United States to put his imprimatur on such propaganda is bad enough; to do so following a verdict in so incendiary a case is grossly irresponsible. But such partiality follows the pattern of this administration in Ferguson and elsewhere, with Attorney General Eric Holder prematurely declaring the Ferguson police force in need of wholesale change and President Obama invoking Ferguson at the United Nations as a manifestation of America’s ethnic strife.

Last night’s wanton destruction was over-determined. For weeks, the press has been salivating at the potential for black violence. The New York Times has been running several stories a day, most on the front page, about such a prospect, building on its series earlier in the fall about racism in Ferguson. Press coverage of racial tension treats black violence as both expected and normal. By now, riots are regarded as virtually a black entitlement.

The press is dusting off hoary tropes about police stops and racism. Clearly we are reentering a period of heightened anti-law enforcement agitation, recalling the racial profiling crusade of the 1990s. The New York Times’s fall series selected various features of Ferguson almost at random and declared them racist, simply by virtue of their being associated with the city. A similar conceit has already emerged regarding the now-concluded grand jury investigation: innocent or admirable features of the prosecutor’s management of the case, such as the thoroughness of the evidence presented, are now blasted as the product of a flawed or deliberately tainted process, so desperate are the activists to discredit the grand jury’s decision.

This misinformation about the criminal-justice system and the police will increase hatred of the police. That hatred, in turn, will heighten the chances of more Michael Browns attacking officers and getting shot themselves. Police officers in the tensest areas may back off of assertive policing. Such de-policing will leave thousands of law-abiding minority residents who fervently support the police ever more vulnerable to thugs.

Obama couldn’t have stopped the violence last night with his address to the nation. But in casting his lot with those who speciously impugn our criminal-justice system, he has increased the likelihood of more such violence in the future.

Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor ofCity Journal and the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.



To: Taro who wrote (12441)12/3/2014 8:10:08 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Taro

  Respond to of 16547
 
CHART: How Republicans rob people of their right to vote…



To: Taro who wrote (12441)12/4/2014 1:22:42 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Walker, Van Hollen join lawsuit against Obama immigration order
....................................................................
The Wisconsin Reporter ^ | 12-3-14 | M. D. Kittle


MADISON, Wis. — Saying President Obama has violated his constitutional duty and has exceeded his administrative power, Gov. Scott Walker joined governors and attorneys general in 17 states Wednesday in a lawsuit seeking to block Obama’s executive order on immigration.

“The immigration system is broken, but this is an issue that should be addressed through collaborative federal action, not unilateral action by the President,” Walker said in a statement, after the complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Brownsville, Texas.

“President Obama’s actions represent a violation of his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws and exceed the limits of his administrative powers,” added Walker, who is contemplating a run for the White House.

The lawsuit invokes Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the portion that states the executive will “Take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen also signed onto the lawsuit, which seeks an injunction against the order’s implementation.

“It is clear that the President has exceeded his authority and that this important matter should be reviewed by the courts,” he said in a statement.

Defendants include Jeh Johnson, secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Ronald D. Vitiello, deputy chief of U.S. Border Patrol; and Leon Rodriguez, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

The lawsuit notes Obama’s publicly televised announcement last month in which he said he would “unilaterally suspend the immigration laws as applied to 4 million of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States,” according to the court document.

“The President candidly admitted that, in so doing, he unilaterally rewrote the law: ‘What you’re not paying attention to is, I just took an action to change the law,’” the lawsuit states.

Included in the lawsuit is a directive from the Homeland Security secretary that “purports to legalize the presence of approximately 40 percent of the known undocumented-immigrant population, and affords them legal rights and benefits.”

“That unilateral suspension of the Nation’s immigration laws is unlawful,” the lawsuit asserts. “Only this Court’s immediate intervention can protect the Plaintiffs from dramatic and irreparable injuries.”

Obama’s Deferred Action order would allow more than 4.4 million illegal immigrants who are the parents of U.S. citizens — many of them children born here — and legal permanent residents to remain in the country temporarily without threat of deportation.

The president was defiant in announcing his executive order, taking on a Congress that has balked at passage of a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

“To those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill,” Obama said during his public announcement last month.

Supporters of the order say it is a humane short-term solution to a broken immigration system; Opponents say it is not only unconstitutional, but will prove costly to U.S. taxpayers.

Walker said the lawsuit is not about immigration, however.

“It is about the rule of law and the legality of President Obama’s actions,” the governor said in the statement.



To: Taro who wrote (12441)12/4/2014 1:23:13 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Obama has violated his constitutional duty and has exceeded his administrative power,



To: Taro who wrote (12441)12/4/2014 2:48:12 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Obama on Garner: 'My Tradition is Not to Remark on Cases'

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

breitbart.com

In his remarks Wednesday on the non-indictment of the New York police officer who allegedly choked Eric Garner to death during a routine arrest, President Barack Obama claimed that he does not involve himself in such controversies. "My tradition is not to remark on cases where there may still be an investigation," he said.

The opposite is true: from Skip Gates to Trayvon Martin to Michael Brown, Obama nearly always weighs in.


Even more bizarre was the fact that Obama upstaged New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. The news networks had all been awaiting the mayor's press conference at 4:45 p.m. ET. Yet Obama broke in with his own remarks at about 4:43 p.m., interrupting his own pre-scheduled address to a gathering of Native American leaders at the White House to offer his take on the grand jury decision before local officials had their chance to react.

There was no particular urgency to hear the president speak. In contrast, it was important to hear the mayor speak, given the possibility of violence on the streets of New York.

With activists threatening to attack the Christmas tree lighting at the Rockefeller Center Wednesday evening, and demonstrators massing in Times Square, the mayor's message of non-violent protest was urgent. Yet Obama insisted on upstaging de Blasio.

Obama's goal was to connect a local controversy to "the larger issues that we've been talking about now for the last week, the last month, the last year, and, sadly, for decades--and that is the concern on the part of too many minority communities that law enforcement is not working with them and dealing with them in a fair way." Just over an hour later, on MSNBC Al Sharpton announced a Dec. 13 march in Washington along the same lines.

However, it is not clear, based on the available evidence, that there is much of a connection between the Garner case and earlier controversies.

For one thing, Garner is a more sympathetic victim than either Martin or Brown: though he did not obey officers, he did not use violence in any way. Furthermore, there is no evidence of racism in any of these cases--though Obama, Sharpton, and others are implying that race is the common denominator.

The measures that Obama is proposing and that Sharpton, et al. are demanding involve more intrusion by the federal government, not less. Their primary concern is not abuse of power, but imposing collective guilt for what de Blasio, in his (delayed) remarks, called "centuries of racism."

And, already, the media's leftists are grinding the political axe, with CNN's Jeffrey Toobin blaming the grand jury decision on the fact that Staten Island is more conservative than the rest of the city--never mind that there was no evidence of the multi-racial jury's political affiliations.

Obama wants a debate about race and politics, not about law or policing. It is a useful distraction from the lame-duck Obama presidency's continued failures.

It is also a debate calculated to divide Americans anew.

In 2009, after Obama accused a Cambridge policeman of acting "stupidly" in arresting Professor Gates, the result was a "beer summit" that involved both officer and arrestee. By now, Obama is no longer even bothering with gestures of reconciliation. He pointedly excluded any members of the Ferguson law enforcement community from his White House meetings on the issue this week.

What is worst is that deep down, Obama knows the truth. He cannot quite bring himself to say that America's police actually target black people on purpose, so he refers instead to perceptions in minority communities. He seems desperate to be seen by those communities as an effective leader, instead of as the disappointment he has come to be.

So he fans the flames, regardless of the damage, seizing the spotlight as power slips from his grasp.



To: Taro who wrote (12441)12/4/2014 2:59:11 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Obama fans Race War as a useful distraction from his presidency's continued failures.



To: Taro who wrote (12441)12/6/2014 1:17:02 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
slowmo

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Ivy League professor: whites 'ready to commit race suicide'
.............................................................................
Campus Reform ^ | December 4, 2014 | Maggie Lit


The Professor


•Prof. Russell Rickford says capitalism and white supremacy are responsible for the police brutality toward brown, black, and poor people.



•The professor claims 'dead black bodies in the street is a sacrifice America makes to the gods of white supremacy.'



An assistant professor at Cornell University (CU) told white students they must commit race suicide and reject the inherent privilege of their skin color to move past the events in Ferguson.

Russell Rickford, an assistant professor specializing in black radical tradition and black political culture after WWII, discussed the events surrounding Ferguson, Mo. to a packed auditorium of students on Wednesday. Casey Breznick and the staff of Cornell’s conservative student paper, The Cornell Review, videotaped the event, titled “Ferguson: The Next Steps”

“There’s still a slender minority of white folks, a very slender, but a slender minority of white folks, that are ready to commit race suicide,” says Rickford, nearing the end of his speech. “Which is to say, they are ready to reject corrupt skin privileges. They’re ready to perform treason to whiteness, as an expression of their loyalty to humanity.”

(VIDEO-AT-LINK)

Up to that point, Rickford had primarily spoken on the country’s treatment of minorities and the poor, and how police were “mercenaries for the corporations and the rich.”

“We attempt to negotiate with a system that has demonstrated time and time again its utter disdain for the sanctity of black lives,” Rickford declares at 8:32. “Not only its disdain, but its deep commitment to the slaughtering of black and brown people.

“Let’s be very clear about what is going on. One every 28 hours, dead black bodies in the street is a sacrifice America makes to the gods of white supremacy. Yet, the petite bourgeoisie, including black and brown folks stands [sic] on the sidelines mumbling, asking white supremacy to please crack fewer hits.”

Rickford believes that America’s disciplinary tactics for those who practice their “human right to revolt against fascism,” as he claims relevant in the Ferguson case, is repressive to the poor and those with black or brown skin.

“The propertied classes leverage state violence to discipline, repress, and contain them. America fears and despises all poor people,” Rickford says at the 10:07 mark in the video. “But it reserves a special hatred, a distinctive form of violence for poor black and brown people. Poor black and brown people are the primary victims of American capitalism but they are not just victims. Many of the people who have taken to the streets in Ferguson for example, are exercising their human right to revolt against fascism.”

Rickford also argued that “white supremacy as a system is inextricable from the system of capitalism, imperialism, militarism, and the systems of the carceral-state mass imprisonments,” and rallied students to stand up to America’s corrupt authoritarian regime.

“The statement ‘[expletive] the police’ is one of the most astute, honest and meaningful responses to the events in Ferguson,” the professor says at 12:11. “[expletive] authoritarianism and white supremacy. This is uncompromising politics, the politics of resistance.”

The professor continued to refer to the police as terrorists.

“We’re charging genocide. We’re charging genocide,” Rickford says a few minutes later. “This is a question of human rights….when you cannot walk down the street as a black person without the threat of being attacked by terrorists, that’s a violation of your humanity, that’s a violation of human rights. You’re being treated as subhuman. And you know that Darren Wilson said of Mike Brown, ‘it looked like a demon.’”

Campus Reform spoke to Breznick, the editor-in-chief of the Cornell Review, regarding the event.

“I disagree with everything he says, but I'm trying now to understand what he is saying. The thing you have to know about Rickford and his ilk is that they are operating within a totally different paradigm of thought,” Breznick wrote in an email response to Campus Reform. “They view the world in terms of race and class.

“There is no individual. Notions like self-improvement, self-reliance, and individual rights are nonexistent to them. It's truly frightening, how they've co-opted the liberties and rights this country affords them to turn against that very country and those liberties and rights.”

Professor Rickford has a history of being controversial. In January, he claimed that Martin Luther King Day was a far-right imperialist holiday and led students at a “ Stop Police Brutality” protest this past September.

Rickford did not respond to Campus Reform’s request for comment.



To: Taro who wrote (12441)12/6/2014 1:46:50 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Schnullie

  Respond to of 16547
 
When President Obama received criticism for not meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu while finding time to go on David Letterman's comedy show, Wolf Blitzer offered excuses. "In the scheme of things, who is going to get you more votes?" he argued, while complimenting the President's "very smooth, very confident, very presidential" performance on Letterman.



To: Taro who wrote (12441)12/6/2014 1:50:04 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Shoot1st

  Respond to of 16547
 
We Can't Shut Up!




To: Taro who wrote (12441)12/11/2014 10:10:36 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Pro-Life Leaders Slam ‘Black Lives Matter’ Hypocrisy with Abortion Stats

.....................................................................................
NewsBusters ^ | December 11, 2014 | Katie Yoder |




To: Taro who wrote (12441)12/13/2014 11:42:15 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Sharpton struggles to find marchers for DC protest

.................................................................................................
nypost.com ^ | Dec. 13, 2014 | Aaron Short and Laura Italiano




To: Taro who wrote (12441)12/18/2014 4:19:10 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Commie Jimmy Carter: Commie Obama Showed 'Political Courage' in Communist Cuba Deal



To: Taro who wrote (12441)12/19/2014 1:07:36 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Imagine what the dudes who built it 500 years ago had to do...

Spectacular Salisbury Cathedral spire-climb filmed (Video)
bbc ^ | 12-19-2014


Cathedral conservators who scaled the height of Britain's tallest spire to repair a weather meter have filmed their spectacular efforts.



To: Taro who wrote (12441)12/19/2014 3:03:36 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
UC San Diego Researchers Say Minimum Wage Increase Cost 1.4 Million Jobs



To: Taro who wrote (12441)12/19/2014 3:59:21 PM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Gannett Reporter Simultaneously Promotes Obama Policy While Covering it “Objectively”
......................................................................................................................

DECEMBER 19, 2014

In a scandalous example of corrupt media supporting the Obama agenda, a mainstream newspaper reporter simultaneously wrote “objective news” about the First Lady’s contentious public school lunch program while secretly promoting it for a district, a Judicial Watch probe has found.

It involves a small public school district in Weston Wisconsin. Last month a student at the high school, D.C. Everest High, organized a boycott of the new and despised school lunch, which is part of Michelle Obama’s $4.5 billion law ( Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act) to combat childhood obesity and end childhood hunger in low-income neighborhoods. The student, a senior who is also the editor-in-chief of the school newspaper, organized a successful boycott that got enough media coverage to catch the feds’ attention.

When officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the agency responsible for implementing the First Lady’s costly law, contacted the small school in a tiny Wisconsin town, Judicial Watch launched an investigation. It appeared in news reports as if the administration was attempting to silence or intimidate the students from expressing their disdain for the federally-mandated, low-calorie lunches that kids nationwide have called disgusting and repulsive. The law requires all school districts receiving federal money to implement stringent nutritional standards by limiting fat, sodium and sugar and offering more fruits, vegetables and whole grains. It also sets calorie limits.

This has ignited fury among students and parents nationwide as well as a few media outlets, though we’ve seen plenty of evidence that much of the coverage has been less than objective. In the Wisconsin case, a reporter covering the story for Gannett, the nation’s largest newspaper publisher, was secretly writing copy for the D.C. Everest school district to push the hated federal lunch program to parents, documents obtained by JW show. The reporter, Michelle Rothmeyer, covered the story, presumably objectively, for Gannett’s Wausau Daily Herald.

Behind the scenes, however, the journalist was working with district officials to bolster the federal lunch mandate, according to records obtained by JW. They include electronic mail exchanges between Rothmeyer and district officials that illustrate they were collaborating to promote the controversial lunch measure and manage the public relations crisis after the student boycott.


This occurred while the reporter was covering the story for the Wausau Daily Herald. In one exchange between Rothmeyer and the district’s food service manager, Christine Welsh, the reporter reveals that she’s composing a parent fact sheet to serve as a primer on the regulations and what constitutes a ‘meal’ as well as why it’s important to model healthy eating behaviors.

“I have a 930 conference call I have to prep for a complete, and then I will work on tidying up my drafts and sending them your way for review,” says Rothmeyer’s email which also copies the district superintendent and assistant superintendent. “Overall, Chris and I feel that going forward it is important to be proactive in sharing what the District is doing on the health/wellness/nutrition front and we will utilize digital platforms to do so.” Welsh, the district food service manager, shares an “interesting tidbit” with the reporter; last year the district received $1,255,473 in federal and state money for participating in the First Lady’s lunch program. “This may not be something that you share in this information, but I wanted you to have perspective on how much of a financial impact dropping out of the program would have,” Welsh tells Rothmeyer.

This email exchange is amazing because it shows the newswoman actively colluding with district officials to produce a “parent letter” and “fact sheet” for use by the school district itself to promote what she considers “healthy eating behaviors.” The reporter says she and the school official feel they should be “proactive in sharing what the District is doing.” Is the reporter a government policy advocate while at the same time writing articles on the school lunch boycott for a major news conglomerate? To be fair, we’ve seen a lot of this sort of Obama agenda promoting among the mainstream media but this case appears to be in a class of its own. It certainly violates the journalism code of ethics involving conflict of interest.



To: Taro who wrote (12441)12/20/2014 2:41:23 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
ISIS Reportedly Selling Christian Artifacts, Turning Churches into Torture Chambers



To: Taro who wrote (12441)12/21/2014 12:22:34 PM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Obama briefed on NYC cop assassinations and then went golfing, according to the White House press pool reports.