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: steve harris who wrote (14121)2/28/2015 5:48:47 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Anatomy of a climate witch-hunt letter from U.S. Representative Raúl M. Grijalva
............................................................................................................................................
Anthony Watts February 26, 2015
wattsupwiththat.com

Rabid Lefty Slimebag Raul M. Grijalva

The letter below from Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona speaks to the worst sort of witch hunt tactics that we’ve seen yet. I suspect that pulling on these threads will backfire on Grijalva, as this will motivate a lot of people to join the fight against this sort of “climate McCarthyism” The letter is reproduced in full below, with the original PDF also available. It’s like he’s got Mann’s #kochmachine delusions ideas.



Feb. 24, 2015
L. Rafael Reif
President, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139

Dear President Reif:

As Ranking Member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, I have a constitutional duty to protect the public lands, waters and resources of the United States and ensure that taxpayers are able to enjoy them. I write today because of concerns raised in a recent New York Times report and documents I have received that highlight potential conflicts of interest and failure to disclose corporate funding sources in academic climate research. Understanding climate change and its impacts on federal property is an important part of the Committee’s oversight plan.

As you may have heard, the Koch Foundation appears to have funded climate research by Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, some of which formed the basis of testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology and the Kansas State Legislature’s House Energy and Environment Committee — funding that was not disclosed at the time. Exxon Mobil, in response to an inquiry from the House Science Committee, may have provided false or misleading information on its funding for Dr. Soon’s work. Southern Services Company funded Dr. Soon’s authorship of several published climate studies; Dr. Soon did not disclose this funding to many of those journals’ publishers or editors.

If true, these may not be isolated incidents. Professor Richard Lindzen at your Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences has testified to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology on climate change.(1) He has described the scientific community’s concerns as “mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.”(2). In 2009 he spoke at a conference held by the Heartland Institute,(3) a group funded in part by Altria and by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation that proposed to teach children that climate change is a hoax.(4)

I am hopeful that disclosure of a few key pieces of information will establish the impartiality of climate research and policy recommendations published in your institution’s name and assist me and my colleagues in making better law. Companies with a direct financial interest in climate and air quality standards are funding environmental research that influences state and federal regulations and shapes public understanding of climate science. These conflicts should be clear to stakeholders, including policymakers who use scientific information to make decisions.

My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships. Please respond to the following questions and requests for documents. Please ensure your response is in a searchable electronic format and that your reply quotes each question or request followed by the appropriate response. These inquiries refer to activities conducted between Jan. 1,2007, and Jan. 31, 2015.

1. What is MIT’s policy on employee financial disclosure? Please provide a full copy of all applicable policies, including but not limited to those applying to Prof. Lindzen.

2. For those instances already mentioned and others that apply, please provide:

a. all drafts of Prof. Lindzen’s testimony before any government body or agency or that which, to your knowledge, he helped prepare for others;

b. communications regarding testimony preparation.

3. Please provide information on Prof. Lindzen’s sources of external funding. “External funding” refers to consulting fees, promotional considerations, speaking fees, honoraria, travel expenses, salary, compensation and other monies given to Prof. Lindzen that did not originate from the institution itself Please include:

a. The source of funding;

b. The amount of funding;

c. The reason for receiving the funding;

d. For grants, a description of the research proposal and copy of the funded grant;

e. Communications regarding the funding.

4. Please provide all financial disclosure forms filed by Prof Lindzen in which MIT is listed as his professional affiliation, even if it is only stated for purposes of identification.

5. Please provide Prof Lindzen’s total annual compensation for each year covered here. Thank you for your attention to this issue. Please provide a full response no later than March 16, 2015. Direct questions to Vic Edgerton at vedgerton@mail.house.gov or (202) 225-6065.

Very respectfully,

Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member

House Committee on Natural Resources



1 — wattsupwiththat.com

2 — transcripts.cnn.com

3 — heart1and.org

4 —http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/17/428111/exposed-the-19-public-corporations-funding-the-climate-denier-think-tank-heartland-institute/

The original pdf is here: Grijalva-Richard Lindzen MIT_0



To: steve harris who wrote (14121)2/28/2015 9:05:22 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Zilyunz

  Respond to of 16547
 



To: steve harris who wrote (14121)3/1/2015 11:00:39 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 




Need someone to fraudulently blame the murder of an American Ambassador in Libya on a stupid film? Send Susan to the Sunday talk shows.

Need someone to savage the leader of the only democracy in the Middle East as damaging the “fabric” of Israel’s relationship with the United States? Put Susan in the makeup chair of Charlie Rose.

Yes, it seems there is nothing Susan isn’t prepared to do.

And why should that surprise us?

This is the same Susan Rice who forbade Israel from criticizing John Kerry in her infamous tweet: “Personal attacks in Israel directed at Sec Kerry totally unfounded and unacceptable.” Yes, Israel’s freedom of expression is circumscribed by none other than Susan Rice.

But there is another reason Susan Rice’s attack on the Prime Minister of Israel on Charlie Rose merits special opprobrium and that is the unique insensitivity she is famous for when it comes to genocide.
Iran is threatening to annihilate Israel. It is building the bombs to make that possible. It has lied to the world for more than a decade about its nuclear program. Iran is an oil superpower and energy exporter that needs nuclear energy about as much as I need a pork sandwich.

America is about to do a bad deal with Iran that will leave them something in the range of 5000 spinning centrifuges enriching Uranium. Israel is not party to the talks. It has been cast in the same position of Czechoslovakia in the Munich agreement of 1938 where Britain and France negotiated away Czech security (and much of the country) without the Czechs even allowed to be present.

And while Israel faces the possibility of genocide, Susan Rice shows gross insensitivity to an Israeli leader for simply speaking out.

But why shouldn’t Netanyahu entrust Israeli security to Susan Rice?

Perhaps its because of her record of trivializing genocide.

Jewish Group BLASTS SUSAN RICE In NYT Ad: “Susan Rice Has a Blind Spot: Genocide”



To: steve harris who wrote (14121)3/1/2015 11:09:19 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Is there any dirty job for the Obama Administration that Susan Rice is not prepared to do?



To: steve harris who wrote (14121)3/1/2015 11:15:47 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Susan Rice's record of trivializing genocide.
.................................................................................

In 1994 Susan Rice was part of Bill Clinton’s National Security Team which took no action whatsoever during the Rwandan genocide, leaving more than 800,000 men, women, and children to be hacked to death by machete in the fastest slaughter of human beings ever recorded.

Not content to insist on American non-involvement, the Clinton administration went a step further by obstructing the efforts of other nations to stop the slaughter. On April 21, 1994, the Canadian UN commander in Rwanda, General Romeo Dallaire, declared that he required only 5000 troops to bring the genocide to a rapid halt. In addition, a single bombing run against the RTLM Hutu Power radio transmitting antenna would have made it impossible for the Hutus to coordinate their genocide.

But on the very same day, as Phillip Gourevitch details in his definitive account of the Rwandan genocide We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We will Be Killed With Our Families, the Security Council, with the Clinton Administration’s blessing, ordered the UN force under Dallaire reduced by ninety percent to a skeleton staff of 270 troops who would powerlessly witness the slaughter to come. This, in turn, was influenced by Presidential Decision Directive 25, which “amounted to a checklist of reasons to avoid American involvement in UN peacekeeping missions,” even though Dallaire did not seek American troops and the mission was not peacekeeping but genocide prevention.

Indeed, Madeleine Albright, then the American Ambassador to the UN, opposed leaving even this tiny UN force. She also pressured other countries “to duck, as the death toll leapt from thousands to tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands … the absolute low point in her career as a stateswoman.”

In a 2001 article published in The Atlantic, Samantha Power, author of the Pulitzer-Prize winning A Problem from Hell who is now Rice’s successor as American Ambassador to the United Nations, referred to Rice and her colleagues in the Clinton Administration as Bystanders to Genocide. She quotes Rice in her 2002 book as saying, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November congressional election?”

This is an astonishing statement. Here you have Susan Rice hearing about the murder of 330 people very hour for 3 months and her response is, How will this affect us politically?

That Rice brought up the midterm elections as a more important consideration than stopping the mass murder of so many men, women, and children that their bodies were damming the rivers of Rwanda is one of the most heartbreaking pronouncements ever uttered by American official.

But she did not stop there.

Rice then joined Madeline Albright, Anthony Lake, and Warren Christopher as part of a coordinated effort not only to impede UN action to stop the Rwandan genocide but to minimize public opposition to American inaction by removing words like “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” from government communications on the subject.

In the end, eight African nations, fed up with American inaction, agreed to send in an intervention force to stop the slaughter provided that the U.S. would lend them fifty armored personal carriers.

The Clinton Administration decided it would lease rather than lend the armor for a price of $15 million. The carriers sat on a runway in Germany while the UN pleaded for a $5 million reduction as the genocidal inferno raged. The story only gets worse from there, with the Clinton State Department refusing to label the Rwanda horrors a genocide because of the 1948 Genocide Convention that would have obligated the United States to intervene, an effort in grotesque ambiguity that Susan Rice participated in.

It was painful enough to watch Kofi Anan elevated to Secretary General even though as head of UN peace-keeping forces worldwide he sent two now infamous cables to Dallaire forbidding him from any efforts to stop the genocide (the cables are on display in the Kigali Genocide Memorial).

It’s nearly as painful watching Rice now attack the Jewish state, which lost one third of its entire people in a genocide of four short years, about how its elected leader is destroying its relationship with the world’s greatest superpower simply because a weaker nation insists on standing up for itself and speaking truth to power.




To: steve harris who wrote (14121)3/1/2015 4:01:14 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
How Desperate is the administration to Shut Bibi Up?

Very. Because the minute attention is diverted from the usual media nonsense to the reality of the administration’s chicanery with Iran, the second “centerpiece” of this administration (the first being ObamaCare) will be exposed for the equally foolhardy nonsense it is.

When Selassie addressed the League of Nations, Italy withdrew its delegation and Italian journalists in the galleries jeered and blew whistles given them by Mussolini’s son-in-law to drown out his message, Selassie waited for the demonstration to end and then delivered his powerful message.


I don’t know if the administration has handed out whistles to the sycophants in the American media, but it has fed them a bill of goods suggesting falsely that this tiff is merely the result of personal antagonism between the two leaders. But the running dogs of the jihadists are boycotting the speech:
The boycott lists consists of two groups.

Congressional Black Caucus members who are offended on Obama’s behalf and can smell racism anywhere.

The other consists of opponents of Israel.

It’s instructive to compare the list of boycotters to the 54 members of Congress who signed a letter calling for an end to Israel’s blockade of Hamas in Gaza.

Of the 25 current boycotters, Earl Blumenauer, Raúl Grijalva, Keith Ellison, Peter DeFazio, Betty McCollum, Jim McDermott, Barbara Lee, and John Yarmuth had also signed the Hamas letter in 2010.

Considering how much the makeup of the House has changed then and not in the favor of the Democrats, the overlap is quite significant. A number of these are also among the top recipients of CAIR cash in Congress.

Their boycott isn’t some new response to something Netanyahu did. They’re longtime opponents of Israel.

Here’s what I wrote about some of these creatures back then. The makeup of Congress has changed, for the better, but some of this remains relevant.

Congresswoman Betty McCollum has been waging her own private war on Israel
, right down to issuing an imperial demand that Israeli Ambassador Oren attend the national conference of the far left anti-Israel group, J Street. McCollum famously belittled Hamas’ shelling of Israel as nothing more than a drug gang’s drive by shooting and repeated the discredited white phosphorous smear.

McDermott was actually named CAIR’s Public Official of the Year.

And it is instructive to note how many of the congressmen and congresswomen on the list are funded by CAIR money. Keith Ellison, John Conyers, Loretta Sanchez, Betty McCollum, Lois Capps, Bill Pascrell, Elijah Cummings, Bob Filner, Mike Honda, Barbara Lee, John Dingell, James Moran, Nick Rahall, Andre Carson, Mary Jo Kilroy, Carolyn Kilpatrick and Jim McDermott are among the top receivers of CAIR money in congress.

In 1963, long after the conclusion of World War II Hailee Selassie said: “Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted, the indifference of those who should have known better, the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most, that has made it possible for evil to triumph.

As memorable and iconic as that speech was, the League failed to create effective sanctions and only six nations members refused to recognize Italy’s occupation.

While the rest of the world may not think a nuclear Iran would threaten them it certainly does, and I, therefore, wish Bibi much better luck at persuading Congress and this country of this than Selassie was about allowing evil to triumph at the League of Nations.

Read more: americanthinker.com



To: steve harris who wrote (14121)3/1/2015 4:06:55 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
steve harris

  Respond to of 16547
 
It’s instructive to compare the list of boycotters of Netanyahu's speech to the 54 members of Congress who signed a letter calling for an end to Israel’s blockade of Hamas in Gaza.

Of the 25 current boycotters, Earl Blumenauer, Raúl Grijalva, Keith Ellison, Peter DeFazio, Betty McCollum, Jim McDermott, Barbara Lee, and John Yarmuth had also signed the Hamas letter in 2010.

Considering how much the makeup of the House has changed then and not in the favor of the Democrats, the overlap is quite significant. A number of these are also among the top recipients of CAIR cash in Congress.

Their boycott isn’t some new response to something Netanyahu did. They’re longtime opponents of Israel.

Here’s what I wrote about some of these creatures back then. The makeup of Congress has changed, for the better, but some of this remains relevant.

Congresswoman Betty McCollum has been waging her own private war on Israel
, right down to issuing an imperial demand that Israeli Ambassador Oren attend the national conference of the far left anti-Israel group, J Street. McCollum famously belittled Hamas’ shelling of Israel as nothing more than a drug gang’s drive by shooting and repeated the discredited white phosphorous smear.

McDermott was actually named CAIR’s Public Official of the Year.




To: steve harris who wrote (14121)3/1/2015 4:08:47 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
It is instructive to note how many of the congressmen and congresswomen on the list boycotting Netanyahu's speech are funded by CAIR money.

Keith Ellison, John Conyers, Loretta Sanchez, Betty McCollum, Lois Capps, Bill Pascrell, Elijah Cummings, Bob Filner, Mike Honda, Barbara Lee, John Dingell, James Moran, Nick Rahall, Andre Carson, Mary Jo Kilroy, Carolyn Kilpatrick and Jim McDermott
are among the top receivers of CAIR money in congress.



To: steve harris who wrote (14121)3/3/2015 6:14:33 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Scott Walker deeply rooted in the racism of the Deep South’s former slaveholding states.

..................................................................................................................................................
5 Signs Scott Walker Is Using GOP’s Racist ‘Southern Strategy’ to Win in 2016
...............................................
Global News ^ | March 3, 2015

Walker demonizes unions, the poor and voters of color in order to appeal to whites.

Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s drive for an anti-labor “right to work” law covering private-sector workers is deeply rooted in the racism of the Deep South’s former slaveholding states.

They are yet more evidence that he is following a template known as the Republican Party’s “Southern strategy,” which plays to white voters’ racial resentment, even though his budding presidential campaign is based in snow-encrusted Wisconsin.

This emerging strategy is reminiscent of Richard Nixon’s original “Southern strategy” of 1968 and Ronald Reagan’s 1980 campaign kickoff event. Reagan started his campaign by championing state’s rights in Neshoba County in Mississippi, a site whose only national symbolic significance was serving as the site of the 1964 murders of three civil rights workers.

Many progressive commentators have asserted that major demographic shifts among Latinos and the young have utterly closed off the road to the White House for any GOP candidate. But Thomas B. Edsall cautioned that a different scenario could emerge.

“If the Republicans can downplay overt racial animus at an overt level while subliminally signifying their lack of sympathy for people of color, they can potentially build a durable coalition of whites,” he wrote. “The trick for Republicans in their quest to maintain white majoritarian hegemony is to allow this fusion of issues [racial fears and resentment, economic instability, social conservatism] to do its mobilizing work at a subliminal level, without triggering widespread resistance to explicit manifestations of bias and race prejudice.”

Walker’s emerging presidential campaign appears to be following this scenario. It is remarkably close to the approach Walker has long used in racially polarized Milwaukee, where he began his political career, and can increasingly be seen in his record as governor.

Here are five examples of the way Walker plays the race card.

1. Riding an anti-union law rooted deeply in racism.

This week, Wisconsin’s GOP-controlled legislature took up so-called “right to work” legislation, which would ban unions from requiring all employees to pay dues. While Walker is promoting the “right to work” in the name of “free choice,” this anti-union movement has explicitly racist roots in the Deep South, where the purpose of the original right-to-work laws was precisely to deny free choice to workers who want unions to help them escape misery-level wages and tyrannical control.

“Right-to-work” laws have a clear purpose: to divide workers and undermine and destroy unions. Right to work incentivizes management to hire anti-union employees, and discourages union membership or even payment of fees for the services unions provide to workers. The outcome in a state like Mississippi is that only 3.7 percent of workers are union members.

The legacy of “right to work” laws reaches back to the 1930s, when white supremacists like oil lobbyist Vance Muse initially pioneered the concept to divide and eliminate unions. Muse formed the Christian American Alliance to spread the combined gospel of racism and anti-unionism, pushing the “right-to-work” notion and developing alliances with like-minded groups including the Ku Klux Klan. Muse concluded that the only solution for maintaining segregation was to make union membership or any payment of union dues or fees voluntary. Without such laws, whites would be “forced” to mingle with blacks, although there had been many interracial unions over previous decades.

Crude as it was, Muse’s segregationist argument intersected perfectly with the mentality of corporate managers committed to holding down wages. They recognized that Muse’s “right-to-work” concept would serve to break up unified worker efforts to claim therights granted under the 1935 National Labor Relations Act. Some major corporations directly fused the segregationist and anti-union appeals. As late as 1944, wrote Diane McWhorter in her book Carry Me Home, “U.S. Steel set up a League to Maintain White Supremacy to spread ‘the white supremacy gospel of Simpson [Jim Simpson, an anti-New Deal politician in Alabama] among the grassroots (that is, its workforce)… to baldly promote racial strife.”

But over time, employers increasing dropped their overtly racist pitch and sold “right-to-work” in terms of individual rights and the phantom threat of “compulsory unionism” (no one can be forced to join, but can be expected to pay fees for the costs of union representation). The laws spread slowly from the Deep South over the past eight decades to encompass 24 states, with Wisconsin likely becoming the symbolically important 25th state. This milestone will be seen as a major accomplishment in the eyes of the Republican conservatives Walker is cultivating. It also adds to Walker’s credentials at this past weekend’s Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

2. “Right-to-work” also fits neatly with Walker’s racialized politics.

If the Wisconsin “right-to-work” bill passes the Assembly (after clearing the Senate Wednesday on a 17-15 vote), the primary victims will be low-paid black and Latino workers who have been unable to raise their low wages in fast-food and big-box stores like Walmart despite visible protests. These minority workers have shown a decisive interest in unionizing and have been long targeted by right-wingers.

Conservatives, including the Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation—America’s largest right-wing foundation—have spent decades demonizing unions, public employees and government programs as unnecessary, and social welfare recipients as undeserving opportunists. Their rhetoric raises the specter of an ever-growing class of welfare dependents, who are often hinted to be mainly dark-skinned and draining the tax dollars of hard-working Americans.

Walker used this same line of attack and rhetoric as he has moved to eliminate almost all union bargaining rights through the passage of Act 10 in 2011 and now to weaken union membership further through “right-to-work” legislation. While Wisconsin was still reeling from the economic insecurity generated by the Great Recession during Walker’s tenure as governor, he has blamed supposedly over-paid public employees for the economic anxieties experienced by other Wisconsinites.

The Bradley Foundation has over $800 million in assets and is guided by racial attitudes similar to those of the John Birch Society members who started the foundation. It has funded “academic” research by figures like Charles Murray, who contended poverty was intractable because of welfare programs—with minorities widely perceived as the recipients—and the supposed dependence and moral flaws that were encouraged. Most notoriously, Bradley also spent about $1 million publishing and promoting the 1994 book The Bell Curve by Murray and John Hernnstein, which argued for the inherent intellectual inferiority of African Americans and Latinos. The book garnered a surprising amount of respectable media responses, despite its weak “scientific” basis and white supremacist implications.

Walker’s political activities have been closely interwoven with the foundation. Its president Michael Grebe, the former state GOP party chair, has served as his campaign chair. Its sizeable public-relations resources have also helped give Walker national attention, and Bradley-funded think tanks and advocacy groups actively push Walker’s agenda—and vice-versa. Undoubtedly, the foundation’s contacts have opened doors to conservative donors. But on policy, Walker’s tight relationship with the foundation has aligned him with powerful forces that continually seek to prove that government programs aiding the poor are hopeless.

3. Making black/brown majority Milwaukee his foil.

This disregard for the poor can be seen throughout Walker’s career, as state legislator, Milwaukee County executive and governor. Starting in Milwaukee, Walker consistently neglected the plight of the poor. While the city has a population that is about 40 percent black and 17 percent Latino, Walker has relentlessly fought to downsize public institutions poor residents depend on.

“As Milwaukee County executive for eight years, he presided over the decline of once-exemplary transit and park systems,” observed John Gurda, the author of numerous works on Milwaukee history. “As Wisconsin’s governor since 2010, Walker worked with the Republican Legislature to make the deepest cuts to public education in state history—cuts that Milwaukee, Wisconsin’s largest and poorest public school system, felt disproportionately.” Walker’s latest state budget proposals reflect the same mindset.

Many observers argue his policies have only exacerbated the city’s social misery and decline. He has portrayed Milwaukee’s poverty as the result of failed public safety-net institutions, rather than its abandonment by corporations that closed shop seeking higher profits in southern states or exporting jobs to lower-wage Mexico and China. During his gubernatorial recall election in 2012, he said, “We don’t want Wisconsin to become like Milwaukee.”

In reality, Milwaukee has experienced a rapid decline from a relatively prosperous middle-class city into the nation’s fourth poorest because of drastic deindustrialization and many corporations moving out-of-state or overseas. Milwaukee has lost over 80 percent of its industrial base since 1977. The destruction of family-sustaining job opportunities has driven down wages and created widespread unemployment that has devastated African-American workers.

Milwaukee was once dubbed the “Star of the Snowbelt” by the Wall Street Journal because of its initial success in retaining jobs and was long known as the “machine tool capital of the world” because of its uniquely skilled workforce. But it has been on a decades-long slide as wages have been dragged down by right-to-work states, as well as by Mexico and China. “In 1970, median African-American family income was 19 percent above the national black average; 30 years later, it was 23 percent lower,” Richard Longworth noted in Caught in the Middle.

It is telling that Walker’s lone initiative for injecting money into Milwaukee is a measure pushed by the city’s business elite: providing $220 million in state bonds for a new arena for the Bucks NBA basketball team, owned by three billionaires.

4. Replacing the poll tax with voter ID and redistricting.

Walker and his allies have strenuously worked to police and restrict voting, with measures that will make it much more difficult for African Americans and Latinos to vote and via partisan redistricting, which redraws district lines to intentionally dilute Democratic strongholds.

Walker’s bill restricting voter rights came almost immediately after the Occupy-style labor revolt against his push to crush public-sector unions. Frances Fox Piven, author of many books on voting rights and social movements, told me, “We saw labor protests of unprecedented size and intensity over limiting their voice as workers. And then [protesters] were greeted with a law to limit their power electorally, too.”

Walker sees his electoral chicanery as one of his significant accomplishments. At this winter’s Iowa Freedom Summit for prospective 2016 presidential candidates, Walker boasted to right-wingers that he had signed voter ID law in 2011—although it has been used just for one small-scale election and now hangs in legal limbo. The state’s Common Cause chapter called it “the most restrictive, blatantly partisan and ill-conceived voter identification legislation in the nation.”

The law would effectively disenfranchise large numbers of African American, Latino, poor elderly, and college students who lack the required state-issued voter IDs to get a ballot. One Wisconsin study showed that requiring a state-issued ID like a driver’s license would have a high impact on African Americans, Latinos and the elderly, saying, “Among black males between ages 18 and 24, 78 percent lacked a driver’s license.”

The law also requires longer residency requirements to be eligible to vote, and cuts back on early voting options in Milwaukee, which has been highly popular among black churches and organizations as a central means of encouraging voter turnout.

Walker’s Republican allies also diluted the voice of poor and working-class voters, especially minorities in the state’s industrial cities through a secretively crafted redistricting plan that put Democratic-leaning voters into smaller number of districts. In 2012, the Democrats won 174,000 more votes than the Republicans in Wisconsin legislative races, yet the electorate wound up with an overwhelming 60-39 Republican majority in the Assembly. The Republicans won 46 percent of the vote, but due to the newly drawn districts that translated into 61 percent of the seats.

5. Walker has a history of race-baiting.

In one revealing episode of the 2012 recall campaign, Walker put up a TV ad reminiscent of the Republican Party’s ugly race-baiting politics many believed had been consigned to the past. “Walker ran an ad charging [his opponent, Milwaukee Mayor Tom] Barrett with covering up violence in Milwaukee featuring an image of a brutalized toddler—a Willie Horton–style spot one rarely sees in other parts of the country anymore,” recalled historian John Gurda, referring to the TV spot George H.W. Bush’s 1988 presidential campaign used against Massachusetts’ Democratic Gov. and party nominee, Michael Dukakis.

Such race baiting is not new to Walker and his key supporters. Two influential right-wing radio talk-show hosts, Charlie Sykes and Mark Belling, have helped his climb in politics by putting him on the air often and applauding him. They are known for their frequent remarks about the purported moral deficiencies of blacks and Latinos, but have a vast following of suburban conservatives they can mobilize politically in a way no left-leaning media outlet has approached.

As former GOP legislator Scott Jensen remarked, “The listenership is just so much higher here [in the Milwaukee suburbs]. And the ability to get people to march in step when [the shows] are all hammering the same themes is extraordinary.”

Walker’s Extremist Right-Wing Base

Walker has also benefitted from relationships with other wealthy right-wingers, such as Wisconsin’s Diane Hendricks, Las Vegas gambling magnate Sheldon Adelson, and the Koch brothers. All have been central to Walker’s political success in Wisconsin and his emergence as a serious presidential contender for 2012 among Republican.

But Walker’s turn to “dog-whistle” politics, or the manipulation of whites’ racial resentments, is as noteworthy as it is notorious. It begins with an agenda that is hostile to government programs benefitting the poor and big government programs of any kind—except for those providing subsidies to corporations and the rich. However, there is a not-so-subtle subtext of pro-white racism.

There are many dots that connect this ugly picture: Walker’s war against labor and support for “right-to-work” laws despite their racist legacy and present-day impacts; his willingness to use Willie Horton-style ads which stoke white fears of blacks; his support for restricting the right of blacks and Latinos; his institutional ties to long-standing institution like the Bradley which are tacitly approving of white supremacy; his links to media personalities who thrive on feeding racism; and his policies punishing urban citizens, especially people of color.

Essentially, Walker embodies the lessons outlined by the late Lee Atwater, the ruthless Republican strategist. In a remarkably frank interview, Atwater once described the evolution of conservative politics and the “Southern strategy”: “You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968 you can’t say nigger—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites… .’We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘nigger, nigger.'”

Walker, in governing Wisconsin and running for president, is showing himself to be a consummate practitioner of the Southern strategy long advocated by Atwater and warned about by the liberal Thomas Edsall. The overt racism is scrapped on the surface, but the core of the ever-congenial Walker’s policies is profoundly hostile to people of color and to social justice.



The original source is a commie site: This Article originally appeared in:– AlterNet.org Main RSS Feed> :–Full Article



To: steve harris who wrote (14121)3/4/2015 11:01:04 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
R2O

  Respond to of 16547
 
Clinton ran own computer system for her official emails
...................................................................................................
3/4/2015, AP ^
By JACK GILLUM and TED BRIDIS



FILE - In this Oct. 18, 2011, file photo, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton checks her Blackberry from a desk inside a C-17 military plane upon her departure from Malta, in the Mediterranean Sea, bound for Tripoli, Libya.

Clinton used a personal email account during her time as secretary of state, rather than a government-issued email address, potentially hampering efforts to archive official government documents required by law. Clinton's office said nothing was illegal or improper about her use of the non-government account and that she believed her business emails to State Department and other .gov accounts would be archived in accordance with government rules. (AP Photo/Kevin Lamarque, Pool, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) - The computer server that transmitted and received Hillary Rodham Clinton's emails - on a private account she used exclusively for official business when she was secretary of state - traced back to an Internet service registered to her family's home in Chappaqua, New York, according to Internet records reviewed by The Associated Press.

The highly unusual practice of a Cabinet-level official physically running her own email would have given Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, impressive control over limiting access to her message archives.

Most Internet users rely on professional outside companies, such as Google Inc. or their own employers, for the behind-the-scenes complexities of managing their email communications. Government employees generally use servers run by federal agencies where they work.

In most cases, individuals who operate their own email servers are technical experts or users so concerned about issues of privacy and surveillance they take matters into their own hands. It was not immediately clear exactly where Clinton ran that computer system.

Clinton has not described her motivation for using a private email account - hdr22@clintonemail.com, which traced back to her own private email server registered under an apparent pseudonym - for official State Department business.

Operating her own server would have afforded Clinton additional legal opportunities to block government or private subpoenas in criminal, administrative or civil cases because her lawyers could object in court before being forced to turn over any emails. And since the Secret Service was guarding Clinton's home, an email server there would have been well protected from theft or a physical hacking.

But homemade email servers are generally not as reliable, secure from hackers or protected from fires or floods as those in commercial data centers. Those professional facilities provide monitoring for viruses or hacking attempts, regulated temperatures, off-site backups, generators in case of power outages, fire-suppression systems and redundant communications lines.

A spokesman for Clinton did not respond to requests seeking comment from the AP on Tuesday. Clinton ignored the issue during a speech Tuesday night at the 30th anniversary gala of EMILY's List, which works to elect Democratic women who support abortion rights.

It was unclear whom Clinton hired to set up or maintain her private email server, which the AP traced to a mysterious identity, Eric Hoteham. That name does not appear in public records databases, campaign contribution records or Internet background searches. Hoteham was listed as the customer at Clinton's $1.7 million home on Old House Lane in Chappaqua in records registering the Internet address for her email server since August 2010.

The Hoteham personality also is associated with a separate email server, presidentclinton.com, and a non-functioning website, wjcoffice.com, all linked to the same residential Internet account as Mrs. Clinton's email server. The former president's full name is William Jefferson Clinton.

In November 2012, without explanation, Clinton's private email account was reconfigured to use Google's servers as a backup in case her own personal email server failed, according to Internet records. That is significant because Clinton publicly supported Google's accusations in June 2011 that China's government had tried to break into the Google mail accounts of senior U.S. government officials. It was one of the first instances of a major American corporation openly accusing a foreign government of hacking.

Then, in July 2013, five months after she resigned as secretary of state, Clinton's private email server was reconfigured again to use a Denver-based commercial email provider, MX Logic, which is now owned by McAfee Inc., a top Internet security company.

The New York Times reported Monday that Clinton exclusively used a personal email account it did not specify to conduct State Department business. The disclosure raised questions about whether she took actions to preserve copies of her old work-related emails, as required by the Federal Records Act. A Clinton spokesman, Nick Merrill, told the newspaper that Clinton complied with the letter and spirit of the law because her advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails to decide which ones to turn over to the State Department after the agency asked for them.

In theory but not in practice, Clinton's official emails would be accessible to anyone who requested copies under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. Under the law, citizens and foreigners can compel the government to turn over copies of federal records for zero or little cost. Since Clinton effectively retained control over emails in her private account even after she resigned in 2013, the government would have to negotiate with Clinton to turn over messages it can't already retrieve from the inboxes of federal employees she emailed.

The AP has waited more than a year under the open records law for the State Department to turn over some emails covering Clinton's tenure as the nation's top diplomat, although the agency has never suggested that it didn't possess all her emails.

Clinton's private email account surfaced publicly in March 2013 after a convicted Romanian hacker known as Guccifer published emails stolen from former White House adviser Sidney Blumenthal.


The Internet domain was registered around the time of her secretary of state nomination.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the special House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks, said the committee learned last summer - when agency documents were turned over to the committee - that Clinton had used a private email account while secretary of state. More recently the committee learned that she used private email accounts exclusively and had more than one, Gowdy said.

President Barack Obama signed a bill last year that bans the use of private email accounts by government officials unless they retain copies of messages in their official account or forward copies to their government accounts within 20 days. The bill did not become law until more than one year after Clinton left the State Department.

___

Associated Press writer Stephen Braun contributed to this report.





To: steve harris who wrote (14121)3/4/2015 2:48:19 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Britain Bans Ad Saying Jerusalem’s Old City is Part of Israel

......................................................................
INN ^ | 3/4/2015, 4:42 AM | Ben Ariel




To: steve harris who wrote (14121)3/13/2015 2:36:13 PM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Shiite victory in Tikrit over ISIS would cement Iran’s influence in Iraq

.......................................................................
The State ^ | 03/13/2015 | Mitchell Prothero





To: steve harris who wrote (14121)3/29/2015 2:11:13 PM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
NETANYAHU WARNS IRAN DEAL ‘EVEN WORSE'; OBAMA GOES GOLFING

........................................................................................................
Breitbart Big Government ^ | 29 Mar 2015 | by JOEL B. POLLAK



To: steve harris who wrote (14121)6/18/2015 12:07:37 PM
From: joseffy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
Rachel Dolezal And Caitlyn Jenner: Textbook Cases In Intellectual and Moral Incoherence

..................................................................................
Townhall.com ^ | June 18, 2015 | Jack Kerwick