Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 (839954)	3/2/2015 6:49:45 AM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB joseffy steve harris Respond to of 1573558

Obama will be standing next to Putin to protect him. "tell Vadamir I'll have more flexibility after the next election" that quote will be Obama's legacy

To: tejek who wrote (839954)	3/2/2015 8:31:03 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573558

How can you still believe in anthropogenic global warming when all the models have given FAILED predictions, every single time? When every catastrophic prediction since the 1980's has come and gone without the climate armageddon promised. How long do you keep believing in this doomsday cult? If this offends you, and cannot be questioned, does that mean it is your religion?

To: tejek who wrote (839954)	3/2/2015 8:33:28 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573558

Once you've made the decision to look at it as a scientist and look for actual proof, you have to question who actually benefits from keeping the global warming g lie alive.

To: tejek who wrote (839954)	3/2/2015 8:34:12 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573558

Steve McIntyre (statistician: he killed the Hockey stick)

To: tejek who wrote (839954)	3/2/2015 8:34:34 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573558

Judith Curry (climate scientist extraordinaire at Georgia Tech, who was excoriated for expressing scientific doubt),

To: tejek who wrote (839954)	3/2/2015 8:34:53 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573558

Steve Goddard (who has proven that the temperature records of the past are being illegally and unethically lowered to make the present appear warmer)

To: tejek who wrote (839954)	3/2/2015 10:09:25 AM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573558

Goodbye to Eric Holder, With One Question .............................................................................. PowerLine by John Hinderaker Posted on February 28, 2015 Excerpt: Eric Holder is on his way out, thankfully. In a farewell interview with *Politico, he demonstrated again why he was unfit to be Attorney General. He trashes his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales: I had to take a Justice Department that was in shambles, you know, when I got here: political hiring, political firing, exclusion of career people from decision making for political reasons.* Someone in Gonzales’s Justice Department tried to bring a little diversity to the almost monolithically liberal department by hiring a few conservatives, and got slapped down for it. Holder continues: *And so, I had to rebuild the department, put in place people who I thought would share my — my view of what this department ought to be.* But wait! How is “put[ting] in place people who…would share my view of what this department ought to be” different from “political hiring”? In fact, it was Holder, not Gonzales, who brought an unprecedented degree of politicization to DOJ. But Politico’s Mike Allen, a fellow Democrat, fawns uncritically. He asks Holder about the Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin cases: MIKE ALLEN: Travyon Martin’s mother says George Zimmerman got away with murder. You’re writing a letter to Trayvon’s mother, his parents, what will it say? AG. HOLDER: Well, I’m going to try to — it’s yeah — I’m going to pen a letter to them. -I’ve worked on it already, and I think I’d like to kind of keep that personal. … MIKE ALLEN: And it looks like no federal charges in Ferguson or Trayvon. I’m a young African-American. What do I think? AG. HOLDER: Well, I would say, first, I would note I have not announced anything with regard to — to Ferguson. … MIKE ALLEN: Mr. Attorney General, are the standards of the civil rights laws too high for you to make cases in instances like this? AG. HOLDER: I mean that’s certainly something that I’m going to want to talk about before I leave. I think some serious consideration needs to be given to the standard of proof that has to be met before federal involvement is appropriate, and that’s something that I am going to be talking about before — before I leave office. MIKE ALLEN: And in what sense have you come to realize that the standards in the civil rights laws are too high? AG. HOLDER: Well, I think that if we adjust those standards, we can make the federal government a better backstop, make us more a part of the process in an appropriate way to reassure the American people that decisions are made by people who are really disinterested, and I think that if we make those adjustments, we will have that capacity. Those pesky laws keep getting in the way! It is hard to imagine what Holder means by “standard of proof.” The laws they are talking about are criminal (principally 18 U.S.C. §242, which could apply to Ferguson, and 18 U.S.C. §249, which could apply to the Martin/Zimmerman case), and the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. Finally, Allen asks Holder whether people opposed him because of his race: MIKE ALLEN: Now, there clearly have been times more recently since then when you have felt disrespected on Capitol Hill. How much of that do you think relates to race? AG. HOLDER: It’s hard to say. You know, hard to look into people’s minds, you know, their hearts. MIKE ALLEN: But were there times when you thought that was a piece of it? AG. HOLDER: Yeah, there have been times when I thought that’s at least a piece of it. MIKE ALLEN: Now, the piece of it that was racial, how did that make you feel? This is the kind of tough questioning that Democrats get from “reporters.” A more appropriate question would have been, Since pretty much everyone who holds a high federal office gets criticized, what reason do you have to think that criticism of you had anything to do with race? But I actually have a different question for Eric Holder: Your predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, was mercilessly savaged by Democrats. In fact, you savaged him in this very interview. Were Democrats’ criticisms of Gonzales based on race? And if not, why not? Link

To: tejek who wrote (839954)	3/2/2015 12:21:23 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573558

Obama Negotiates Israel’s Destruction ...................................................................................... Canada Free Press ^ \| 03/02/15 \| Alan Caruba

To: tejek who wrote (839954)	3/2/2015 12:25:25 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573558

Obama’s Empowerment of Islam .................................................................................. Canada Free Press ^ \| 03/02/15 \| Douglas V. Gibbs

To: tejek who wrote (839954)	3/2/2015 12:35:53 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573558

Obama, in the presence of dozens of Islamic African delegates, gave the one-finger affirmation of Islamic faith, at last August’s U.S.-African Leaders’ Summit in Washington D.C.

To: tejek who wrote (839954)	3/2/2015 12:36:24 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573558

When Coptic Christian women and children were kidnapped and slaughtered in Egypt, and when Christians were lined up on a Libyan beach and beheaded, the Obama administration was willing to call the action “evil,” but stopped short of calling the action “Islamic.” When Coptic Christian women and children were kidnapped and slaughtered in Egypt, and when Christians were lined up on a Libyan beach and beheaded, the Obama administration was willing to call the action “evil,” but stopped short of calling the action “Islamic.” In the case of the Coptic Christians, the White House refused to label the Christian victims as anything other than “Egyptian.” The same narrative was used with 150 Christians kidnapped from a string of villages in Syria. “Evil” was used to describe what happened, but it was not an action the minions of Obama even considered to be connected to Islam.

To: tejek who wrote (839954)	3/2/2015 12:38:03 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573558

The Obama administration does not see Islam as an enemy. Remember, the administration has declared that the hoax of man-made global warming is a greater danger to worldwide safety than terrorism, and have shown time and time again that they believe the greater threat to America is Christianity, conservatives, and gun owners, rather than the Islamic Jihad.

To: tejek who wrote (839954)	3/2/2015 12:41:14 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573558

By his actions, Obama is using the language he uses, and is taking the actions he is taking, in order to empower Islam, to support the jihad, and side with them in their slaughter of non-Muslims.

To: tejek who wrote (839954)	3/2/2015 12:42:29 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573558

Gov. Scott Walker: I don’t know whether Obama is a Christian

To: tejek who wrote (839954)	3/2/2015 12:46:25 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573558

Obama Believes He Alone Is The Law In America ......................................................................................................................................................................... 02/27/2015 news.investors.com Rule Of Law: First, the president issues unlawful executive orders giving illegal immigrants amnesty. Then, he dares an equal branch of government to vote on his orders' legality so he can veto it. Is he establishing a monarchy? While speaking at a town hall meeting Wednesday night at Florida International University, President Obama clearly indicated that he believes he is the final authority on law in this country. He will not tolerate dissent. "If Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, want to have a vote on whether what I'm doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote, because I'm absolutely confident that what we're doing is the right thing to do," he told a group organized by Democratic Rep. Jose Diaz-Balart. In November, Obama announced a set of unilateral actions to change the immigration system. Government agencies were ordered not to enforce the law against up to 5 million illegal immigrants in the country. He also declared that they would not be subject to deportation and were to be handed green cards. There was no vote in Congress. No consultation with the House and Senate. No law cited that gave him the authority. Just his word. A month ago, we wondered if Obama was "so hellbent on amnesty for illegals he'll resort to nullifying and even breaking the law." Today, we know that he is. Not even a federal judge's ruling has stopped him from making and unmaking law as he sees fit. On Feb. 16, Southern Texas District Judge Andrew Hanen issued a temporary injunction against the administration's executive lawmaking. "No, Mr. President," said the George W. Bush appointee, "you and your party's long-term political agenda are not above the law." The administration wants Hanen's order lifted, but one should assume that even if the courts don't rule Obama's way, the White House will eventually do as it wishes and challenge the courts to stop it, just as it has taunted Congress. Several times during Obama's six years in office he has insisted he's not a king able to act alone. He said it right up until he began to overtly behave as one. House Speaker John Boehner's office counted 22 times that Obama said "he couldn't ignore or create his own immigration law." Yet at a time of his choosing, the president decided he could indeed create his own immigration law, just as he made changes to the Affordable Care Act as if it were his own set of commandments handed down from on high. Obama is the president who said all he needed was a pen and a phone, that he wasn't going to wait around for Congress to act. He's the Oval Office occupant who, while visiting Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's home in Charlottesville, Va., a year ago with French President Francois Hollande, declared that it's a "good thing as a president, I can do whatever I want." We said then and still believe today that if he meant that quip to be a joke, "it's a bad one, for it accurately describes the psyche of a president who governs by executive order and regulation." A little more than a year after Obama's re-election, the Washington Times reported that "from immigration to the minimum wage, congressional Democrats and liberal activists ... urged Mr. Obama to declare an end run around Capitol Hill, assert executive authority and make as much progress as he can on the expansive agenda he laid out for his second term." They knew with whom they were dealing. Obama well represents the political left, which has no time or respect for constitutional limits, the rule of law or power shared among the three branches. Today's leftists, loosely defined as "progressives," want raw political power to enact their agenda. And from Obama they're getting it. Read More At Investor's Business Daily: news.investors.com

To: tejek who wrote (839954)

3/2/2015 1:13:52 PM

From: joseffy

Respond to of 1573558

Obama’s Threat of War Against Israel
...................................................................................................
By Douglas V. Gibbs March 1, 2015
canadafreepress.com

President Obama has been setting the stage for a showdown with Israel, defending Islamic terrorist groups, and refusing to call the enemy by name, while verbally attacking both Christianity, and Israel.

Obama has threatened sanctions against Israel for building on their own land in East Jerusalem, and now according to reports, President Barack Obama has threatened to shoot down Israeli jets if they attempt to embark on a military operation against Iran in an attempt to protect Israel’s interests in the region against a nuclear Iran. The accusation that Obama said he would shoot down Israeli jets if they launched an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities are regarding an operation planned by Netanyahu back in 2014. It is being reported that after Obama verbalized the threat to commit an act of war against Israel, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was forced to abort the planned Iran attack.

The source being used in this story is a Kuwaiti paper, and according to that source the threat came after Israel revealed the plans of their attack on Iran’s nuclear program after discovering that the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel’s back.

When the unnamed Israeli minister, according to the report, revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

The report also says that “Netanyahu and his commanders agreed after four nights of deliberations to task the Israeli army’s chief of staff, Benny Gantz, to prepare a qualitative operation against Iran’s nuclear program. In addition, Netanyahu and his ministers decided to do whatever they could do to thwart a possible agreement between Iran and the White House because such an agreement is, allegedly, a threat to Israel’s security.”

Former US diplomat Zbigniew Brzezinski, who enthusiastically campaigned for Obama in 2008, called on him to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” said the former national security adviser to former President Jimmy Carter in an interview with the Daily Beast.

“We have to be serious about denying them that right,” he said. “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a ‘Liberty’ in reverse.’”

Brzezinski, after being considered as a top candidate to become an official adviser to President Obama, was forced to create distance between him and Obama after Republican and pro-Israel Democrat Party members charged him with being anti-Israel, and the Obama camp believed that Brzezinski’s stance against Israel could be detrimental to Obama’s placement in the polls.

The news of Obama’s threat of war against Israel last year is being revealed while Netanyahu is already en route to Washington, D.C. for an address to Congress on Tuesday aimed squarely at derailing Obama’s cherished bid for a diplomatic deal with Tehran. Meanwhile, as Netanyahu is delivering his speech, Secretary of State John Kerry, and other international “Neville-Chamberlain-style appeasers” will be in Switzerland for talks with the Iranians, trying to create the framework for an agreement that is hoped for by a late March deadline.

Netanyahu’s speech before the American Congress also comes only two weeks before the next election in Israel, where the Israeli prime minister may either be elected to an unprecedented fourth term, or turn his position over to a new Israeli leader. The speech is expected to echo his first in front of Congress in 1996, when he warned that an atomic Iran would “presage catastrophic consequences, not only for my country, and not only for the Middle East, but for all mankind.”

Secretary of State John Kerry, in an attempt to downplay Netanyahu’s opposition to the Obama administration’s plan to negotiate with Iran regarding the country’s nuclear program, insisted the Obama administration’s diplomatic record with Iran entitles the U.S. to “the benefit of the doubt” as negotiators work toward a long-term nuclear deal.

“We are going to test whether or not diplomacy can prevent this weapon from being created, so you don’t have to turn to additional measures including the possibility of a military confrontation,” Kerry told ABC’s “This Week.”

“Our hope is that diplomacy can work. And I believe, given our success of the interim agreement, we deserve the benefit of the doubt to find out whether or not we can get a similarly good agreement with respect to the future.”

So much for the historical philosophy of America not negotiating with terrorists.

A Netanyahu adviser said of the situation, “We are not here to offend President Obama whom we respect very much. The prime minister is here to warn, in front of any stage possible, the dangers of the agreement that may be taking shape.”

According to the adviser, Western compromises with Iran are dangerous for Israel. Israel “does not oppose every deal.” Israel is merely doing its best to warn the U.S. of the risks entailed in the current one.

According to Speaker of the House John Boehner, who invited Netanyahu to speak before Congress, to the anger of the White House because Obama was not notified of the invitation (as if Congress is required to ask him permission), Netanyahu “can talk about this threat, I believe, better than anyone. And the United States Congress wants to hear from him, and so do the American people.”

Netanyahu disapproves of any deal that does not entirely end Iran’s nuclear program. President Barack Obama, however, has indicated he is willing to leave some nuclear activity intact, backed by safeguards that Iran is not trying to develop a weapon. Iran insists its program is solely for peaceful energy and medical research.

Commenting on Netanyahu’s visit and speech, Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, described the “timing and partisan manner” of Netanyahu’s visit as “destructive” for the U.S.-Israeli relationship - as if threatening to shoot down Israeli jets is not destructive to the U.S.-Israeli relationship in the first place.

Obama firing on Israeli Jets is a Plausible Scenario - Pajamas Media
Obama Threatened to Shoot Down IAF Iran Strike - Arutz Sheva
Netanyahu Declines Dems’ Invite As Obama Ramps Up Hypocrisy - Political Pistachio
Obama Eyes Sanctions On Israel - Political Pistachio
Obama Administration’s Empowerment of Islam - Political Pistachio
Obama Regime Bans Muslim Apostates From “Stand With Mohammed” Summit - Political Pistachio
Obama, Netanyahu, on Collision Course 6 Years in the Making - ABC News
Netanyahu’s address to Congress will be most important speech of his life - Washington Post

To: tejek who wrote (839954)	3/2/2015 1:31:06 PM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573558

NY TIMES Phony "Conservative" David Brooks: Netanyahu Address to Congress a ‘Political Disaster,’ ‘Substantive Disaster’ for Israel ................................................................................... David Brooks on 'NewsHour,' 2/28/15 breitbart.com by Jeffrey Poor28 Feb 2015 On Friday’s “NewsHour” on PBS, New York Times columnist David Brooks was critical of the notion of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressing a joint session of Congress due to the politicization of the state of Israel. “I think it’s a political disaster,” Brooks said. “It’s a substantive disaster for the state of Israel. I think it’s political disaster for Bibi Netanyahu back home, because they’re — most Israelis are really worried about the state of the relationship. It’s different than the past times, in part because it’s — as Mark said, it’s partisan now. Suddenly, Republicans are pro-Israel. And what are Democrats supposed to do?” “Second, support for Israel, especially on the Democratic left, especially on college campuses, is more fragile than it’s ever been before,” he continued. “Third, the Iran situation is just this gigantically big issue, and existential for Israel, a serious issue for the United States. And to mess this up at a time when this issue is looming is cataclysmic, distracted the debate over the — what’s being settled between the U.S. and Iran into some sideshow. And I happen to think Netanyahu’s concerns about what — the deal we’re apparently getting close to with the Iranians are legitimate, but he has sidetracked that debate into something very self-destructive.”

To: tejek who wrote (839954)	3/2/2015 3:39:33 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 1573558

Writer of False Story About Scott Walker Slashing Funding for Rape Reporting is ‘Sorry, Not Sorry.’ ......................................................................... IJR - IJ Review ^ \| March 2, 2015 \| Mike Miller

To: tejek who wrote (839954)	3/2/2015 3:47:03 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1573558

Jezebel Reporter Reluctantly Apologizes for Scott Walker Accusation ....................................................................... FrongPage Magazine ^ \| 3/2/2015 \| Mark Tapson The left realizes that the fearless Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is becoming a serious threat as the right’s potential presidential candidate. So, true to their politics of personal destruction, the leftist media has united in a full-on pre-emptive assault to take Walker down. That included a blatant lie about the governor’s effort to conceal the reporting of campus rapes. Last Friday Jezebel, a politics-and-pop-culture website replete with vicious and foulmouthed radical feminists, posted an attack on Walker written by “senior reporter” Natasha Vargas-Cooper. Vargas-Cooper is no novice to pop culture journalism, though she apparently doesn’t feel bound by any Old School journalistic standards of factuality and objectivity (and why should she? The mainstream media long ago decided that the aim of journalists should be, not fair and balanced reportage, but social justice activism). The daughter of leftist journalist Marc Cooper, her writing has been featured in all the usual media outlets from The New York Times and The Atlantic Monthly to HuffPost and Salon. Her short article, straightforwardly titled “Scott Walker Wants Colleges to Stop Reporting Sexual Assaults,” claimed that his proposed state budget “has a non-fiscal bombshell tucked in between its insane pages”: Under Walker’s budget, universities would no longer have to report the number of sexual assaults that take place on a campus to the Department of Justice. Under Walker’s plan, university employees who witness a sexual assault would no longer have to report it. There are no policy recommendations in Walker’s budget how or what would replace these reporting mechanisms. The Governor simply instructs that they should be deleted. Vargas-Cooper went on in a weak attempt to belittle Walker as “a small-time guy who is having a big-time moment by playing the conservative werewolf, a role Chris Christie and Jeb Bush are so far unwilling to play in their presidential bids.” She sneered at him as bearing the “CONSERVATIVE STRONG MAN card” – which is precisely the reason the left fears him so much: they recognize that Walker isn’t a soft RINO who can be counted on to roll over for them once he is in office, like the current Republican leadership. Jezebel’s perpetually hate-spewing readership swallowed this false accusation whole and, in the comments section, responded predictably with head-exploding outrage, casual obscenities, and animated graphics called gifs in lieu of literate thought (“I can only express myself via gif” wrote one female commenter, which is no doubt true of her and much of the rest of Jezebel’s readers). However, to paraphrase Vargas-Cooper herself, there was a non-factual bombshell missing from her article’s insane paragraphs: Walker neither wanted nor instructed the state university system to stop reporting sexual assaults. As noted by USA Today, it was the University of Wisconsin itself that asked Walker to delete a requirement that all 26 campuses report sex assault allegations to the state every year, because it already submits similar information to the federal government as well as posting that information on its website. USA Today also reported that Walker’s spokesperson confirmed that “protecting victims of domestic violence and sexual assault remains a top priority for the governor.” But the left never apologizes and never plays defense (take heed, conservatives). So rather than Vargas-Cooper acknowledging the damning revelation about Walker and posting a retraction, she initially let the libelous headline stand and merely added an “UPDATE.” The original piece too remained unchanged, but at the bottom, Jezebel vaguely clarified that Walker was not at fault. Since the headline still reads as if Walker is waging a war on women, this is the newspaper equivalent of burying a retraction on page 17. As reported at Newsbusters, The Daily Beast initially ran with the smear, as did blogger Ana Marie Cox, who later took down her tweet about Walker being “terrified of campus rape stats getting out.” The Feministing website declared that “With a swipe of the ‘delete’ key,” Walker “has eliminated efforts to combat campus rape from the state budget.” The progressive mouthpiece Rawstory repeated the false charge as well. Madison’s local progressive paper Capitol Times slyly wrote, “Does Scott Walker want colleges to stop reporting sexual assaults? It’s not that simple.” Yes it is – the answer is no, but Jezebel and its cohorts in the media would rather not be bothered to acknowledge that because it’s more useful to spread the hateful lie that Walker is pro-rape. Called out on Twitter about her hit piece, Vargas-Cooper dug in her heels with this begrudging bit of belligerence: “Ran an update on the Walker piece. Find another thing to be outraged about sweet, sweet Walkerites.” When Twitterites took her to task for this juvenile, bullying unprofessionalism, she doubled down: “Also, I’m not gonna apologize for reporting what was in the budget. Because that was in the budget. Ask your gov. to apologize for bad optix.” Right, it was in the budget – never mind that she lied about the entire context surrounding it and refused to apologize for it. The damage was already done, so for her it was “Mission Accomplished.” But in light of the USA Today story, and after intense browbeating on social media, where conservatives actually have a voice, Jezebel finally issued another “ update” – not described as a retraction – in which they announced that “We reported this piece without full context, and while this piece conveys factual information, omission of that context for that information presents an unfair and misleading picture. We regret the error and apologize.” The original headline smearing Walker still stands, however. In the wake of that reluctant apology, the Daily Beast came out with a full-blown retraction blaming Jezebel but hinting that there were still problems with the sexual assault reporting requirement in Walker’s budget. At least they changed the headline to “Walker Unfairly Attacked on College Rape – ORIGINAL STORY RETRACTED.” Finally, Vargas-Cooper herself broke down and admitted fault in a series of Twitter messages: “I realize now that it would have been worth a follow up phone call to Walker’s office… So, you guys, Walker folk and media pundits alike, I screwed up… I know I said I wasn’t going to say sorry but I hope you won’t fault me for changing my mind.” Welcome to the wonderful world of progressive journalism, where angry radicals in the guise of journalists don’t even bother pretending to care about the truth until they’re taken to task for it on social media. All that matters to the left is the total destruction of the target – in this instance, the Conservative Strong Man that progressives fear the most.