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: Blasher who wrote (14164)3/2/2015 3:54:36 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
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.



To: Blasher who wrote (14164)3/2/2015 8:42:20 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Obama exceeds Chamberlain by switching allegiance from ally to enemy

...........................................................................................
Canada Free Press ^ | 03/02/15 | A. Dru Kristenev



To: Blasher who wrote (14164)3/2/2015 8:43:10 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Bibi's Truth: Forty years of Liberal Betrayal

...................................................................................
American Thinker ^ | March 02, 2015 | James Lewis




To: Blasher who wrote (14164)3/9/2015 6:56:34 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Blasher

  Respond to of 16547
 
. Munich, The Sequel
...................................................................
Townhall.com ^ | March 9, 2015 | Paul Greenberg




It is not often that a ghostly figure from the past is not only embodied in a present-day politician but addresses the Congress of the United States -- which is what Israel's embattled prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, did last Tuesday.

The prime minister could have been Banquo's ghost out of "Macbeth" summoned to haunt this administration's festive rapprochement with Iran. Instead, he brought to mind Edvard Benes, the leader of the Czechoslovakian government that would be sold out at the Munich Conference of 1938. Ever since, Munich has been not just the name of a German city but the symbol of appeasement and the bitter fruit it regularly bears -- war and chaos. And is about to bear again.

Washington's foreign policy establishment now prepares to further ease its trade sanctions on Iran and celebrate a deal that would give Teheran's mullahs the chance to develop a nuclear weapon all their own, an opportunity they long have sought, and now appear on the verge of achieving.

In this remake of the Munich tragedy, Benes' warnings about the threat Nazi Germany posed in 1938 can be applied to Teheran's little fuehrers, and some of the Israeli prime minister's lines last week sounded just as prophetic:

--"Iran's regime poses a great threat not only to Israel but also to the peace of the entire world."

--"This deal won't be a farewell to arms. It will be a farewell to arms control."

--"Would Iran be less aggressive when (American) sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? Why should Iran's radical regime as a terror sponsor change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both worlds: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?"

--"I don't believe that Iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal."

Not any more than Herr Hitler's did after Munich. On the contrary, he was emboldened. Just as today Iran's rulers are being encouraged by one concession after another.

The world has seen this tragedy before, though the cast may change from time to time. Neville Chamberlain is being played this year by Barack Obama, but the outcome may be no more propitious.

Yes, some in Congress can see all too clearly the tragedy now in progress. Just as a quixotic backbencher in the House of Commons in 1938 named Winston Churchill declined to join the widespread jubilation that greeted the signing of the Munich Agreement back in those heady days.

He could see that Mr. Chamberlain's vaunted Peace in Our Time would prove anything but. And the war came. The most terrible of wars in man's history. It's hard to see how throwing nuclear weapons into this witches' brew of negotiation, appeasement and general procrastination will improve anything this time around. This repeat performance of the Follies of 1938 could come to an even sorrier end. And soon.

Winston Churchill's voice in the wilderness back in 1938 summed up what had happened at Munich in words that should still ring:

"I do not grudge our loyal, brave people, who were ready to do their duty no matter what the cost, who never flinched under the strain. ... I do not grudge them the natural, spontaneous outburst of joy and relief when they learned that the hard ordeal would no longer be required of them at the moment; but they should know the truth. They should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: 'Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting.'

"And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."

In the end, the British race did just that in what would become its Finest Hour as it stood alone against the tyrant till the rest of the world awakened.

But why wait till desperate circumstances oblige the American people to rediscover our character and rise again to the occasion? Why not reject Munich II and make this the moment America awoke? While there is still time to rise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.



To: Blasher who wrote (14164)3/12/2015 11:13:19 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Forced indoctrination in what used to be the ‘land of the free’.



To: Blasher who wrote (14164)3/12/2015 4:18:28 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Blasher

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 16547
 
How Barack Obama Undercut Bush Administration’s Nuclear Negotiations With Iran

Posted on March 12, 2015 by John Hinderaker in Iran, Obama Foreign Policy
powerlineblog.com

In 2008, the Bush administration, along with the “six powers,” was negotiating with Iran concerning that country’s nuclear arms program. The Bush administration’s objective was to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. On July 20, 2008, the New York Times headlined: “Nuclear Talks With Iran End in a Deadlock.” What caused the talks to founder? The Times explained:

Iran responded with a written document that failed to address the main issue: international demands that it stop enriching uranium. And Iranian diplomats reiterated before the talks that they considered the issue nonnegotiable.

The Iranians held firm to their position, perhaps because they knew that help was on the way, in the form of a new president. Barack Obama had clinched the Democratic nomination on June 3. At some point either before or after that date, but prior to the election, he secretly let the Iranians know that he would be much easier to bargain with than President Bush. Michael Ledeen reported the story last year:

During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

So Obama secretly told the mullahs not to make a deal until he assumed the presidency, when they would be able to make a better agreement. Which is exactly what happened: Obama abandoned the requirement that Iran stop enriching uranium, so that Iran’s nuclear program has sped ahead over the months and years that negotiations have dragged on. When an interim agreement in the form of a “Joint Plan of Action” was announced in late 2013, Iran’s leaders exulted in the fact that the West had acknowledged its right to continue its uranium enrichment program:

“The (nuclear) program will continue and all the sanctions and violations against the Iranian nation under the pretext of the nuclear program will be removed gradually,” [Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif] added. …

“Iran’s enrichment program has been recognized both in the first step and in the goals section and in the final step as well,” Zarif said.

“The fact that all these pressures have failed to cease Iran’s enrichment program is a very important success for the Iranian nation’s resistance,” he added.

So Obama delivered the weak agreement that he had secretly promised the mullahs.

In view of these events, it is deeply ironic that the Democrats are accusing 47 Republican senators of undermining Obama’s position in the negotiations for a final agreement. Unlike Obama, they have done nothing in secret. They have published an “open letter” that is intended for the Obama administration and the American people as much as for Iran’s leaders. The letter spells out basic truths relating to our Constitution and the Senate’s role in ratifying treaties. Unlike Obama’s secret overture to Iran, the GOP senators aren’t discouraging Iran from dealing with Obama so that they can get a better deal later. On the contrary, their letter strengthens Obama’s bargaining position. He can say, “Even if I wanted to, I can’t give in on nuclear enrichment. It would never get through the Senate.” But of course, that isn’t what Obama wants to do. He wants to agree to a weak deal that will allow Iran to become a nuclear power. The Democrats are upset because the senators’ letter shines the light of truth on the Obama administration’s plan to give away the store.



To: Blasher who wrote (14164)3/12/2015 4:29:52 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Blasher

  Respond to of 16547
 
Michelle Obama-Iranian New Year part of “traditions that make us who we are as a country.”
.............................................................................................................................

Watch: Michelle O Just Reached Out To Islamic Iran With A Big White House Party…And Said THIS


WesternJournalism.com ^
| MARCH 12, 2015 | NORVELL ROSE


First Lady Michelle Obama hosted a “Nowruz” celebration of the Iranian New Year, throwing open the doors of the White House earlier this week to mark the official start of the Persian holiday that’s been celebrated for thousands of years.

Nowruz means “The New Day” and is the name of the Iranian New Year, marking the beginning of the year in the Persian calendar.

As a post on Downtrend notes of the White House event: “For the optics-conscious Obamas, the timing couldn’t be more perfect with the Republicans’ letter to Iran and Netanyahu’s speech still ruffling administration feathers.”

In keeping with President Obama’s public praise for Islam and the supposedly noteworthy threads of Muslim Americans woven through the fabric of the nation’s history, the first lady suggested to the Nowruz gathering something that could be considered rather curious…if not absolutely stunning.

Mrs. Obama said that a celebration like the one marking the Iranian New Year is part of the “traditions that make us who we are as a country.”

(Excerpt) Read more at westernjournalism.com ...



To: Blasher who wrote (14164)3/25/2015 5:47:14 PM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 16547
 
Did you see the statement in his book about siding with the muslims? Yeah that’s about it.