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: tejek who wrote (836579)2/14/2015 5:44:02 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1576329
 
TERROR IN COPENHAGEN...
Cafe Attacked During Free Speech Event...
Muhammad cartoonist targeted?
One dead, three wounded...
Suspect on loose...



To: tejek who wrote (836579)2/14/2015 5:45:51 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1576329
 
Islamic State Sprouting Limbs Beyond Mideast...



To: tejek who wrote (836579)2/14/2015 8:57:59 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1576329
 
Media attack on Scott Walker earns failing grade

..........................................................................
Canada Free Press ^ | 02/14/15 | Jeff Crouere




To: tejek who wrote (836579)2/15/2015 2:37:34 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1576329
 
Coldest day in two decades...



CHILL MAP...



To: tejek who wrote (836579)2/15/2015 10:07:27 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1576329
 
Prime Minister Abbott promises crackdown on ‘bad people’ who may turn to terrorism

news.com.au ^
| February 15, 2015


PRIME Minister Tony Abbott has attacked Australia’s Muslim leader and signalled another crackdown on border control, citing new concerns about the threat of terrorism.

Mr Abbott, who will deliver a national security statement on Monday week, said the rise of Islamic State had seen new threats emerge, “where any extremist can grab a knife, a flag, a camera phone and a victim and carry out a terror attack”.

“We are a free and fair nation. But that doesn’t mean we should let bad people play us for mugs, and all too often they have: Well, that’s going to stop.”

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has criticised the Grand Mufti of Australia for speaking against a possible ban on the controversial Muslim organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir.

The prime minister said this morning that comments attributed to Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed were “wrong-headed” and unhelpful.

Dr Ibrahim, the spiritual leader of Muslims in Australia, last week said it would be a “political mistake” to ban the group. “Hizb ut-Tahrir is not against freedom of speech, he, they are actually pro-freedom of speech and they are actually practising this policy those who are against freedom of speech are the ones who are thinking to ban HBT from expressing their thoughts,” Dr Ibrahim said, according to the Seven Network.

This morning, Mr Abbott said more Muslim leaders must speak out against the rise in Islamic extremism and the growing threat from terrorism.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ..



To: tejek who wrote (836579)2/15/2015 10:09:48 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1576329
 
Indians call Obama 'Sanctimonious'

............................................................................................
Americanthinker.com ^ | Richard L. Benkin




To: tejek who wrote (836579)2/15/2015 10:45:32 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1576329
 
How Jon Stewart turned lies into comedy and brainwashed a generation

..........................................................................
NY POST ^ | February 15, 2015 | Kyle Smith

So Brian Williams goes out (for six months) humiliated and derided. Jon Stewart goes out (permanently, one hopes) the same day, but on a giant Comedy Homecoming King float, with a 21-gun salute from the media, his path strewn with roses and teardrops.

Why?

Brian Williams lied about his personal exploits a few times. Jon Stewart was unabashedly and habitually dishonest.

Though Stewart has often claimed he does a “fake news show,” “The Daily Show” isn’t that. It’s a real news show punctuated with puns, jokes, asides and the occasional moment of staged sanctimony.

It contains real, unstaged sound bites about the days’ events and interviews about important policy matters.

Stewart is a journalist: an irresponsible and unprofessional one.

He is especially beloved by others in the journo game. (For every 100 viewers, he generated about 10 fawning profiles in the slicks, all of them saying the same thing: The jester tells the truth!).

Any standard liberal publication was as likely to contain an unflattering thought about Stewart as L’Osservatore Romano is to run a hit piece on the pope.

The hacks have a special love for Stewart because he’s their id. They don’t just think he’s funny, they thrill to his every sarcastic quip. They wish they could get away with being so one-sided, snarky and dismissive.

They wish they could skip over all the boring phone calls and the due diligence and the pretend fairness and just blurt out to their ideological enemies in Stewart style, “What the f–k is wrong with you?”

Most other journalists aren’t allowed to swear or to slam powerful figures (lest they be denied chances to interview them in future). Their editors make them tone down their opinions and cloak them behind weasel words like “critics say.” Journalists have to dress up in neutrality drag every day, and it’s a bore.


Modal TriggerBill O’Reilly and Jon Stewart onstage at O’Reilly Vs. Stewart 2012: The Rumble In The Air-Conditioned Auditorium.Photo: Getty Images

Yet Stewart uses his funnyman status as a license to dispense with even the most minimal journalistic standards. Get both sides of the story?

Hey, I’m just a comedian, man. Try to be responsible about what the real issues are? Dude, that’s too heavy, we just want to set up the next d-?-k joke.

Stewart is often derided by the right as having minimal impact and low ratings. That’s not true. He and Stephen Colbert ruled the late-night ratings among 18-to 34-year-olds for most of the last five years, though Jimmy Fallon has lately surpassed both.

About 522,000 Americans in that age range watch “The Daily Show” on an average night, but that means many millions of occasional viewers, with millions more watching clips online.

To a key audience, he was a strong influence. Longtime Cooper Union history professor Fred Siegel says his students constantly came to him repeating Stewart’s talking points.

College students, of course, are both little acquainted with realities of adult existence and walled off from conservative views, so they’re the perfect audience for Stewart’s shtick, which depends on assumptions that are as unquestioned as they are false.

This week’s “Daily Show” segment in which Stewart defended Williams was distilled, Everclear-strength Stewart. It was as amazing as watching Barbra Streisand run through a medley of her greatest hits in only seven minutes: In this little chunk of error, cliche, preening and deception Stewart managed to pack an example of just about everything that is unbearable about his style. It bears close study.


Jon Stewart’s defense of Brian Williams was “The Daily Show” in a nutshell – laugh off a scandal and change the subject.Photo: Getty Images

Stewart made some mild jokes at the anchordude’s expense, interrupted with insufferable Jerry Lewis-style mugging, baby talk, high-pitched silly voices and the inevitable reference to whether Williams was “high” (authority figures getting high: always comedy gold to the campus audience).

Stewart slipped in a line of blatant editorializing: “Being caught is punishment enough, no?” Really? Why? If so, argue it, don’t just point the sheep in the direction you want.

Williams is a news anchor. A guy whose three main skills are being good-looking, an ability to read the English language out loud and seeming credible. To put his case in Stewart-ese: “If you want to be considered a trustworthy source of facts, maybe try NOT LYING!!!”

Declaring that media coverage of Williams’ lies was “overkill,” Stewart then built a wedding cake of bullcrap, layer after layer of untruth.

His first move was to change the subject. He used a variant of the rhetorical fallacy known as the “tu quoque” argument, or calling out alleged hypocrisy. Taken to its endpoint, tu quoque (“you, too”) reasoning means no one would ever slam anyone for anything because, hey, we’re all imperfect.

Tu quoque-ism is a generally meaningless gotcha game that can, of course, be turned right around on Stewart: Hey, Jon, you really think you’re the guy to call foul on nuking media personalities who have made misstatements?

In high dudgeon, as though the thought weren’t already a cliche we’d all seen many times on Twitter and Facebook, Stewart declared sarcastically, “Finally, someone is being held to account for misleading America about the Iraq War.”

Then came the inevitable gotcha sound bites: News figures discussing intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s WMD program. Why such a bizarre tangent into an unrelated matter? Because in Stewart’s mind, and those of his viewers, everything has to be the fault of an evil Republican, preferably George W. Bush.

Near the end of the segment, Stewart declares, with the prototypical combination of blustering self-righteousness and sarcasm that crystallizes his appeal to the college mentality, wonders whether the news shows will now start examining the “media malfeasance that led our country into the most catastrophic foreign policy decision in decades.”

Then (using comic bathos) Stewart cuts to more newscasters making apparently trivial points about Williams’ lying. Stewart’s logic is this: The media can’t report negatively on anything anymore, because they dropped the ball on Iraq.

Stewart doesn’t actually believe that: It’s just a cheap gambit meant to get his buddy Williams off the hook by minimizing his serial lying. If Stewart were a public defender, he’d be even funnier than he is as a comic.

What judge or jury could fail to bust out laughing if a defense attorney said, “I have no rebuttal of any of the charges against my client, but lots of other people not in this courtroom are guilty of stuff, too!”

I look forward to the next time a Republican assistant municipal treasurer in Dirt Falls, Idaho, says something awkward about race and Stewart says “I forgive this guy given that the actual vice president of the United States once said of Barack Obama, ‘I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.’”

Let’s look at the media reports on Iraq that Stewart is arguing make Williams’ untruths pale in comparison. Problem: Those reports were not lies. Journalists trying to figure out whether the war was justified called up credible experts with experience in the field and passed along what they said. As a more honest version of Stewart might say, “Dude. That’s not malfeasance. That’s Re. Por. Ting.”


Modal TriggerPhoto: ZumaPress

Stewart added that “it’s like the Bush administration hired Temple Grandin to build a machine that kills the truth.” Even the audience of devotees seemed to find this simile baffling.

The idea that “Bush lied” is itself a lazy, ill-informed and false statement.

As Judge Laurence Silberman, co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, wrote in The Wall Street Journal last week, essentially nobody in the Washington intelligence community doubted the major report that Iraq had an active WMD program in 2002.

The National Intelligence Estimate delivered to the Senate and President Bush said there was a 90 percent certainty of WMDs. Democrat George Tenet, the Clinton CIA director who continued to serve under Bush, said the case for WMDs was a “slam dunk.”

John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and Joe Biden all looked at the intelligence and voted to authorize force. Sen. Jay Rockefeller argued strongly for the war. Then, years later, when it wasn’t going so well, he published a highly politicized report ripping Bush.

There is a serious case to be made against the Iraq War, but it’s a lot more complicated than the playground taunt, “Bush lied about WMDs.” (“Hey, I’m a comic, you expect me to do serious? Please welcome our next guest, Henry Kissinger!”)

Yet another lie on top of that is the absurd implication that the news media were too soft on Bush. The only way you could possibly consider the media to be too conservative would be if you were an extremist well to their left, which Stewart is.

During the Iraq War buildup, even as overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress authorized the use of force, 59 percent of the sound bites aired by the evening newscasts were antiwar, 29 percent pro-war.

To take another of innumerable examples, in 2006 Bush had about the same approval ratings that Obama suffered in 2014. The network news both commissioned far more polls when Bush stood to suffer, and reported on the Bush results far more.

Again, this isn’t close: The score was 52 to 2, as in 52 mentions of low Bush approval ratings versus two mentions of (even lower, at times) Obama approval ratings.

In every Gallup poll this century, more Americans called the media “too liberal” than “too conservative.” The numbers were 45 to 15 in 2003, the year of the Iraq invasion. In 2008, as Obama was being elected, it was 47 to 13. Last fall it was 44 to 19.

Thanks to polemicists and clowns, the myth that “Bush lied” has caught on, and now a majority of Americans believe it. Stewart-ism won the day.

Liberal comics make things up, liberal journalists chortle and praise and internalize the lies.

Before you know it, if you point out that Bill O’Reilly’s audience is just as well informed as NPR’s (as a Pew poll found), or that Sarah Palin never said, “I can see Russia from my house” (that was “Saturday Night Live”), you’re just a buzzkill.

Brian Williams has become a joke for telling lies, but Jon Stewart is a liar for the way he told jokes.



To: tejek who wrote (836579)2/15/2015 11:22:04 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1576329
 
Jews as ‘Some Folks Chosen at Random’ and Obama’s Muslim Problem

The Blaze ^ | Feb. 12, 2015 | Abraham Miller


The president’s offensive statement that the Jews slaughtered by Islamist terrorist Amedy Coulibaly at a kosher deli in Paris were just “some folks chosen at random” should have been acknowledged as an enormous gaff.

It should have been followed by an apology.

Instead, it is continually spun over and over in some demented form to rationalize the president’s blunder, making it all the worse.

As offensive as the statement is, no apology will be forthcoming. Given a choice between pointing a finger at the anti-Semitism of radical Islam and insulting Jews, the president has chosen to insult Jews. After all, their partisan allegiance is guaranteed. As Jewish conservatives quip, if Barack Obama nuked Tel Aviv, he would lose only 15 percent of the Jewish vote.

A man holds poster with portraits of four victims of the terrorist attack on a kosher grocery store in Paris during their funeral, at Givat Shaul cemetery in Jerusalem, Israel, Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2015. Israel geared up on Tuesday for the solemn funerals of four Jewish victims of a Paris terror attack on a kosher supermarket amid rising concerns over increased anti-Semitism in Europe. (AP Photo/Oded Balilty) A man holds poster with portraits of four victims of the terrorist attack on a kosher grocery store in Paris during their funeral, at Givat Shaul cemetery in Jerusalem, Israel, Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2015. Israel geared up on Tuesday for the solemn funerals of four Jewish victims of a Paris terror attack on a kosher supermarket amid rising concerns over increased anti-Semitism in Europe. (AP Photo/Oded Balilty)

And were the Jews slaughtered in the Chabad House in Mumbai just some folks Islamist militants stumbled upon at random? Were the people killed in the Buenos Aires Jewish community center, blown to bits by Iranian operatives, just some “random folks”?

According to State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki, because non-Jews might have been shopping in a kosher deli the fact that the four victims were Jews and the targeting was a Jewish place of business on the eve of the Jewish Sabbath was just a random event.

By that logic, the victims of the Holocaust were random folks because millions of non-Jews also died at the hands of the Nazis.

Obama not only has a Jewish problem, he also has a Muslim problem.

Obama not only has a Jewish problem, he also has a Muslim problem.

His Jewish problem is an outgrowth of his Muslim problem. It is Obama’s refusal to say that Islamist terrorists are a scourge the world over that is the more significant problem. The refusal to acknowledge that anti-Semitism is a growing crisis across Europe as the percentage of the Muslim population rises is what motivates the president to enunciate another insipid apology for Islam, even Islamist terrorists.

This one comes on the heels of the president’s rhetorical hectoring of Christians at the National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 5, 2015 to get off their high horse and stop castigating Islamic State terrorists because of the evil committed in the name of Jesus in the form of the Crusades and the (Spanish) Inquisition.

The remarks come after a meeting with people with close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which Egypt calls a terrorist organization and whose fundamentalist theology has been an inspiration for terrorism.

Did the president get his ludicrous talking points from Muslim Brotherhood members at that meeting?

By invoking the Crusades, the president pandered to the Islamists. The quest for vengeance among Islamists never dies. The Crusades are seen as an attack on Islam, and in the fundamentalists view any attack on Islam, even if it comes after Islamic conquests of Christian land, is an act of aggression. It is for this reason that Osama bin Laden demanded the return of Andalusia (Spain), which the Muslims seized from Christians by conquest and held until the Kingdoms of Castile and Argon defeated them.

Obama played right into this demented view of history that is not only part of the Islamist culture but also shared by some non-fundamentalist Muslims who relish the prospect of a glorious resurgence of Islam across any land they once held. For all land that was once administered under Islam, to them, is sacred land.

Obama will no more admit that Muslim extremists target Jews than he will admit that there is no moral equivalence between the historical foundations of Islam and Christianity. Let us not forget that Jesus was not a brigand and did not compel anyone to become a Christian by threat of beheading.

Obama’s statement about Jews being the victims of random violence is all the more insulting since photos released by a Jewish school’s surveillance camera from August, by the French website Le Monde Juif, shows the terrorist Amedy Coulibaly and his girlfriend Hayat Boumedienne approaching the school and asking if “it was true that there were Jews inside of the building.”

Their behavior was so strange that the school’s security asked them to leave. French police found that Coulibaly had maps of Jewish schools in his car.

Coulibaly himself told journalist Sarah-Lou Cohen, of French BFM-TV, that he attacked the kosher supermarket because he was deliberately targeting Jews.

All of this was public information long before Obama made his clumsy statement that the attack on the eve of the Jewish Sabbath at a Paris, Jewish-owned business had nothing to do with Jews. And while the attack was carried out in the name of Al Qaeda in Yemen, the president sidestepped, once again, condemning radical Islam.

In the face of public information that contradicts everything he said, Obama and his administration have no difficulty in trying to spin the attack so as to deflect any attention from radical Islam and its anti-Semitic agenda.

If militant Jews had targeted a Halal meat market and killed Muslim hostages, would President Obama have stood before the media and said that the victims were just random folks and the terrorists had nothing to do with Judaism?

If Christians were burning mosques across Europe and beheading and crucifying Muslims, would Obama stand before a Muslim congregation in France and tell them to get off their high horse? Would he dredge up a faux moral equivalence from their past? I think not!

If Bill Clinton was America’s first black president, then most certainly Barack Obama is America’s first Muslim president. For if Obama has one clear agenda item, it appears to be, “The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

In the meantime, Democrats should not fear that any of this will negatively affect the Jewish vote. Not even a Democratic boycott of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress will affect the Jewish vote. As long as liberal Jews are more concerned about their daughter’s right to an abortion than the right of their Israeli brethren to survive the promise of the next genocide, there is no insult that will fracture their partisan allegiance.

Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science, University of Cincinnati. He also served on the faculty of the University of California, Davis and the University of Illinois, Urbana



To: tejek who wrote (836579)2/15/2015 12:25:03 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1576329
 
Obama arrives in Palm Springs, golfs at Sunnylands



To: tejek who wrote (836579)2/15/2015 2:00:18 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1576329
 
Danish television has named the suspect as Omar Abdel Hamid el-Hussein.
................................................................................................................................
2/15/2015,
The Daily Telegraph blog ^




To: tejek who wrote (836579)2/15/2015 2:02:38 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1576329
 
YOLO: Obama cuts up, jokes ‘you only live once’ on day of hostage Kayla Mueller’s death

BizPac Review ^ | 2/14/15 | Michael Dorstewitz


The same day the White House announced that Islamic State terrorists’ only remaining American hostage was killed, President Barack Obama uttered a phrase that means “You only live once.”

The president was clowning around for a BuzzFeed video on Obamacare when he said, “YOLO,” a light-hearted moment that Fox News anchor Heather Childers called inappropriate and insensitive considering its timing. “The president says, ‘YOLO, man!’ And for people at home who may not know what that stands for, YOLO stands for ‘you only live once,’” Childers said on Friday’s show, talking specifically to liberal panelist Juan Williams. “Well you know who’s not alive, Juan, now? Kayla Mueller.”

Williams, of course, took the president’s side.

“It is not a matter of appropriate or inappropriate,” Williams said. “I don’t think it has any connection to Ms. Mueller’s sad demise. What we’re talking about here is a totally different issue, which is the president funning around in pursuit of trying to get more people to sign up for health care.”

Fellow panelist Mary Katharine Ham said that while the president has a tendency for poor optics, she was more concerned with the un-presidential nature of the interview.

“He does have a pattern of doing highly unserious things on the heels of very serious events, and I don’t think that is a great look for the White House,” she said. “On this one, I think I’m less concerned with the timing and more concerned with the sheer silliness of it.”