Please Hit

There are MANY expenses associated with running this site, computers, wifi cards, travel to debates and conferences, purchase of research, etc.

Despite what the progressives say, I receive no funding from the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, or the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy.

The only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers.

Folks PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going.

Hit the Tip Jar (it's on the left-hand column).

Friday, February 27, 2015

AP's Matt Lee Exposes Kerry Hypocrisy At State Dept. Presser

John Kerry brought it upon himself. Testifying before a house committee on Wednesday he explained that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu perceptions on the Iranian nukes should not be trusted, after all he supported the Iraq.  Of course when he said that Kerry forgot the fact that as a Senator, Kerry voted for the Iraqi war resolution.  And no one but the AP's Matt Lee would ask about that.

Lee lead State Dept. Spox Jen Psaki through a series of questions, reminding her that Kerry voted for the war, to which Psaki responded that Kerry just wanted to show that no one was infallible. That's when Lee dropped the death blow, "But – so, okay. Well, so if no one is infallible, how is it possible that Prime Minister Netanyahu here in his opposition to a potential Iran deal is wrong and you guys are all right?"

Matt Lee may be the primary reason Psaki is moving to the White House, she doesn't want to face him again.

The Transcript and video of their conversation is below:

Lee: Yeah. Why don’t we go to Matt?

Ms. Psaki: You want Matt to go and we’ll go back to you? Okay. Go ahead, Matt.

Lee: Yesterday when he was testifying on the Hill, the Secretary questioned Prime Minister Netanyahu’s judgment about his opposition to a potential Iran deal, and one of the reasons why he cited for questioning it was because the prime minister – before he was prime minister in his current iteration – was supportive of the 2003 Iraq war. And in fact – well, he just said supported it and vocally – vocal – was a vocal supporter of it. And I’m wondering if you can explain a bit more about what he meant since there were a lot of people, including himself at one point, who were supporters of that war, and why this makes Prime Minister Netanyahu’s judgment suspect and does not make anyone else’s judgment suspect.

Ms. Psaki: Well, the Secretary was simply stating the fact that as has been recorded, and in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s own words, that he was a strong supporter of the Iraq war. He raised this to make the point that no one is infallible, including himself too, and that it’s important to approach international challenges with an open mind and with all of the options in mind. I think I wouldn’t compare, though, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s strong and vocal support for the Iraq war, and I would point you to the fact that the Secretary himself at the time also spoke out quite a bit about the path that the current – the administration at the time took and his opposition to many of those actions. So I wouldn’t put them in the exact same category. But regardless of that, his point was about where we are with the Iran negotiations, and that we have to look at all of the options, look at all of the information that’s available, to – and have an open mind about how to approach this. And that’s what he’s asking from the prime minister.

Lee: Okay. Well, but you do understand why there are people who can’t really understand why he would use that, at least? I mean, I’m sure that there may be other things that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been wrong about, if – what --

Ms. Psaki: He was making more of a forward-looking comment --

Lee: Does it have to do --

Ms. Psaki: -- about looking ahead to what we’re debating and what we’re discussing, and that was the point he was making.

Lee: And I suppose – I guess it is a relief that he’s willing to concede that no one is infallible, including himself. Does that --

Ms. Psaki: That includes – that is true, right? Even all of us.

Lee: Does that include the Pope?

Lee: Does that include the President?

Lee: Or the Pope?

Ms. Psaki: No one is infallible, Matt. I think that’s true.

Lee: But – so, okay. Well, so if no one is infallible, how is it possible that Prime Minister Netanyahu here in his opposition to a potential Iran deal is wrong and you guys are all right?

Ms. Psaki: What – the point the --

Lee: There is a – is there not a potential --

Ms. Psaki: Let me be --

Lee: -- that you guys are wrong about this?

Ms. Psaki: The point the Secretary was making is that as we look to the Iran deal, let’s look at what the components are, let’s look at what the final details are, let’s look at whether or not it prevents Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, which we all agree is in the interests of Israel, it’s in the interests of the global community. Let’s not make a prior judgment.

Lee: But it’s the – but what is being opposed here is not that. You set that up as something that – as what is being – what the opposition is for.

Ms. Psaki: I don’t think most would argue --

Lee: The opposition isn’t for that --

Ms. Psaki: -- that there is an effort to prejudge an outcome when the details are not yet known.

Lee: Well, but it’s the approach that the prime minister has an issue with, not the goal that you both – that I think he would say that you share with him, which is to prevent Iran from --

Ms. Psaki: And we’ve said we have a disagreement on that.

Lee: But he says that – but he says – yeah, but he says that this is not the way to do that. And if you’re admitting that no one is infallible, or if that’s what the Secretary meant to say, and citing specifically Prime Minister Netanyahu and not any of the other people who perhaps didn’t support the Iraq war but are still opposed to the Iran nuclear --

Ms. Psaki: Well, we look forward to hearing what the alternative is, then. We haven’t seen a proposal on that front, Matt.


Eric Holder Wants To Lower Standard Of Proof For Civil Rights Laws

As he prepares to leave office in a few weeks, Eric Holder plant to push for a lower standard of proof for civil rights laws after not being able to prove a civil rights violation in the case of Trayvon Martin, and will probably have the same outcome in the Michael Brown case.

Attorney General Eric Holder plans to push, during his final weeks in office, a new standard of proof for civil-rights offenses, saying in an exit interview with POLITICO that such a change would make the federal government “a better backstop” against discrimination in cases like Ferguson and Trayvon Martin.

From a report in today's Politico we learn
In a lengthy discussion ranging from his own exposure to the civil rights movement of the ’60s to today’s controversies surrounding the shootings of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, Holder also acknowledged that he felt some of his own struggles with Republicans in Congress during his six years in office were driven partly by race.
“There have been times when I thought that’s at least a piece of it,” Holder said, adding that “I think that the primary motivator has probably been political in nature … [but] you can’t let it deflect you from … your eyes on the prize.”
Eric Holder has a chip on his shoulder so huge I am surprised he can walk.  If he really believes there was racism involved  for congress to investigate fast and furious, the new black panther case, the IRS scandal, etc. then the guy has issues.

Holder told POLITICO that between now and his departure, probably in early March when the Senate is expected to confirm Loretta Lynch as his successor, he will call for a lower standard of proof for civil-rights crimes. Such a change would make it easier for the federal government to bring charges in the case of a future Ferguson or Trayvon Martin

“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 I leave office,” Holder, 64, said

The attorney general’s comments appeared to be aimed partly at preparing the country for the possibility that no federal charges would be brought in the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., last summer. Holder said the inquiry would be completed when he left office, expected around the second week of March.

The Justice Department announced Tuesday that the Martin investigation had been closed, with “insufficient evidence to pursue federal criminal civil rights charges” against George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch coordinator who shot the unarmed black teenager to death back in 2012.

Asked if the bar for federal involvement in the civil rights offenses is too high for federal prosecutors to make cases in shootings like those of Martin and Brown, Holder suggested it was.
Perhaps Holder isn't the best judge of what is and isn't racial in nature.

Remember the New Black Panther case? Eric Holder's Justice Department dropped the already won case of voter intimidation because of the belief that it was impossible for blacks to violate someone's civil rights?

In Sept. 2010 Christopher Coates, former chief of the Justice Department’s Voting Section, and still a DOJ employee defied his bosses orders and testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to discuss the reasons why the New Black Panther Voter intimidation case (NBPP) was dropped even though the Judge had ruled that the DOJ had already won the case.

Coates' testimony was a shocking indictment of the rampant racism against Caucasians in the Obama administration's Department of Justice. He accused the administration of using race to determine which cases are prosecuted. Corroborating the testimony of J. Christian Adams who quit the DOJ because the NBPP case was dropped, Coates illustrated that the issue goes way beyond that specific case; the real issue is the organization charged with protecting civil rights is now a tool for increasing discrimination in the country, but this time against Caucasians.
The election of President Obama brought to positions of influence and power within the civil rights division many of the very people who had demonstrated hostility to the concept of equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

When Holder was asked about the NBPP case in front of congress he said,

" When you compare what people endured in the South in the '60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened in Philadelphia… I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line for my people"
Interestingly Mr. Holder didn't deny that the NBPP broke the law and forgets that as Attorney General all Americans are his people.

Does the man who runs this department sound like someone who can conduct a fair investigation of a white police officer shooting a black teenager?

We are talking about an Attorney General who called laws passed by states to enforce US immigration law as racist. He accuses states trying to protect "one man one vote" for all its citizens with voter ID laws racist. Let's face it is a guy who sees a racist under every bed.

Recently he talked about the criticism of President Obama and himself as racist:
There's a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that's directed at me [and] directed at the president. You know, people talking about taking their country back," Holder said. "There's a certain racial component to this for some people. I don't think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there's a racial animus.
If being race-neutral is important to being fair, it is impossible for Attorney General Holder to be fair in the Michael Brown case. Eric Holder is a man who sees everything through the prism of race and the "white man" is always the oppressor.

He may be Attorney General, but he has a warped view of Racism and Civil Rights.
If fairness and justice is the goal Eric Holder should not be allowed within ten miles of civil rights laws.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

The Truth Behind Obama's War On Israel and Netanyahu

The Democratic Party War on Israel has expanded in recent days, from the gauntlet thrown down by Susan Rice, to the half-truths told John Kerry at a house hearing yesterday (Bibi and the war on Iraq) the members of Congress who have abandoned Israel to participate in the Obama-led boycott on the speech. Make no mistake about it, this crisis between Israel and the Administration has been totally created by this president and supported by the Democrats.

This split serves Obama's goals, ensuring that Netanyahu loses the upcoming election, stopping Israel from damaging his sell out to Iran, and driving a wedge between the American people and Israel so he can bully the Jewish State into an unfavorable deal with the Palestinians.

Yesterday John Kerry ridiculously contented that Binyamin Netanyahu can't be trusted on Iran because in 2002 he testified before congress in support of a war in Iraq. A great argument to expand the wedge between anti-war Democrats and Israel. Of course using the same argument, since Kerry voted for the war resolution when he was in the Senate how can we trust him. But even more than that, if one reads his 2002 congressional testimony at the House Government Reform Committee(and I did) his testimony was more nuanced than that.
Yes Netanyahu said Saddam had nukes, every intelligence agency in the world said it also, but what Bibi also said was that if Saddam was toppled Qaddafi would give up his nukes (he did) and Iran would become destabilized (it was remember the green revolution which Obama refused to support even with a kind word). Oh and he also predicted the Arab spring attempted democratization of the region.

He also explained the only way to win the war on terror, a method Obama has long since forgotten:
If I had to say what are the three principles of winning the war on terror, it is like what are the three principles of real estate: location, location, location. The three principles of winning the war on terror are the three Ws: winning, winning, and winning.
Israel and the Obama administration have distinct objectives in the spat between the two governments.  As mentioned above Obama's goals are ensuring that Netanyahu loses the upcoming election, stopping Israel from damaging his sell out to Iran, and driving a wedge between the American people and Israel so he can bully the Jewish State into an unfavorable deal with the Palestinians. Netanyahu's goals are far less political preventing the 8+ million Israelis from getting nuked into oblivion. Perhaps it is because Obama's actions against Bibi are political he can't see Netanyahu's speech as having anything less than the same nefarious political intent. 

Each of the twenty-two members of congress who are boycotting the Netanyahu speech and each of the members of Congress who haven't spoken out against the Obama anti-Israel attacks like Chuck Schumer, Steve Israel, Jerrold Nadler, Kirsten Gillibrand, the entire lot of those silent Democrats them may feel in their hearts they are pro-Israel, but with their action (or lack of action) the are being very anti-Israel. Their silence supports Obama's anti-Israel actions and maybe without knowing it, they are supporting nothing less than the destruction of the Jewish State.

Jihad John Has Been Identified: Mohammed Emwazi


Mohammed Emwazi who grew up in a wealthy London household has been identified as the coward dressed in black seen in in ISIS videos beheading the likes of journalist James Foley; Steven J. Sotloff; the British aid worker David Cawthorne Haines; the British taxi driver Alan Henning; and the American aid worker Peter Kassig.
Jihad John has been identified by British security services as Mohammed Emwazi, a British citizen from London.

Known in the news media as “Jihadi John,” he is said to have been born in Kuwait and traveled to Syria in 2012. His name was first published on Thursday on the website of The Washington Post.
“I have no doubt that Mohammed is Jihadi John,” said one of Emwazi’s close friends who identified him in an interview with The Washington Post. “He was like a brother to me. . . . I am sure it is him.”

The friends, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation, believe that Emwazi started to radicalize after a planned safari in Tanzania following his graduation from the University of Westminster.

Emwazi and two friends — a German convert to Islam named Omar and another man, Abu Talib — never made it on the trip. Once they landed in Dar es Salaam, in May 2009, they were detained by police and held overnight. It’s unclear whether the reason for the detention was made clear to the three, but they were eventually deported.
The story was confirmed by a senior British security official, who said that the British government had identified Mr. Emwazi some time ago but had not disclosed his name for operational reasons.
He grew up wealthy? But wait I though it was the poor non-Muslims looking for a job who became terrorists?

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

GREAT! Now Donald Trump Believes He's A Doctor

One could understand Donald Trump calling himself a successful businessman, or a big TV Star, the eyes start getting raised when he calls himself a conservative, or worse a politician, but now Trump is acting like he thinks he's a doctor.

The billionaire birther buffoon is now working on a different conspiracy theory, a guest on the Hugh Hewitt radio show, Trump is working on the premise that vaccinations cause autism.

The Link between Autism and the Measles, Mumps, Rubella vaccine (MMR) is the medical version of the "birther" or "truther" story.  The original study which made the connection has never been  duplicated, the original paper was withdrawn as false by the medical journal which originally published it, yet for the people who believe it true there is probably not enough evidence in the world to convince them the original study was bogus. And while the study's believers (such as "actress" Jenny McCarthy) continue to try and convince parents not to vaccinate their kids, unnecessary cases of Measles and Mumps in the United States continue to rise as do needless deaths from these childhood diseases.

In January 2011 the case linking the MMR vaccine to Autism was destroyed. In an article called, "Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent" The British Medical Journal published the result of an independent investigation revealing that the British doctor who authored the study, Andrew Wakefield, was guilty of an "elaborate fraud" by faking data in his studies linking vaccines with autism. 

Hewitt: Last question, because you’ve been very generous, I appreciate the time.

Trump: Yeah, I’ve enjoyed being with you, Hugh.

Hewitt: And it goes to a tweet that you put out. I love the fact that you tweet your own stuff. You wrote massive combined inoculations to small children is the cause for a big increase in autism. Spread shots over a long period, and watch positive result. Do you stand by that, Donald Trump?

Trump: Okay, I do, and let me explain it real quickly. I am a total believer in getting the shots and having it done, and I am a total believer, 100%, nobody a bigger believer. What I don’t like seeing is that 20 pound little baby going in and having this one massive inoculation with all of these things combined. I’d like it spread over, because look, our autism rate is at a level that it’s never been. Nobody’s ever, you know, in the old days, you didn’t even hear about autism, and now it’s at a level that’s so high, especially in boys, but so high that nobody can even believe it. What I’m saying is 100% I want to see it happen. I want everybody, but it should be spread over. Smaller doses over a longer period of time. So spread it out over a year. There’s no harm in that, and I believe autism will go way down. 

Hewitt: So you’re saying there’s a causal connection…

Trump: I totally believe, but I would like to see it spread out and in smaller doses.

Hewitt: So you believe there’s a causal connection between vaccines and autism?

Trump: Well, a lot of people do. I mean, there are many people that do. And I know at least two people, one of them who works in the building that I’m in right now, a beautiful woman, has a child. The child is 100% healthy, takes the child, who was I think around a year and a half or two years old to get the shot, gets this massive shot of fluid pumped into the baby’s body, and a few days later, catches a fever, and all of a sudden, is severely autistic. And many people, many people have had that experience, Hugh. And I will tell you, on Twitter and on Facebook, where you know, so many people, I feel, it’s sort of interesting, because I get so much response, people are praying for me that I at least say that. So I totally believe in the shot. I totally believe that you should be vaccinated. But let them spread it out over a little period of time. You can’t pump that, because have you ever seen the size of these inoculations? You can’t pump that much fluid into a little baby’s body. And I think it’s having an effect. And I know of at least two cases in my, but many people say the same thing happened to me where their child is totally healthy. They get pumped up with this huge pile of liquid, with many, many different vaccines, and their child turns out to be autistic after it. And all I’m saying is spread it out in smaller doses over a longer period of time.

Hewitt: If a group of scientists came to you and said look, The Donald, that’s just, that’s not right, you’re giving out misinformation, would you change your mind if presented with facts on that?

Trump: Well, I’ve seen babies that were totally healthy that weren’t healthy, and I’m not asking for anything. All I’m doing is saying spread it out over a period of time. I’m not saying don’t get inoculated, don’t get the shots, don’t get the vaccines. I’m saying spread it out over a period of time. It doesn’t hurt anybody other than probably the pharmaceutical companies, because they probably make more money putting it into one shot. Maybe it hurts the doctors. I don’t know. But I can say this. Everybody would get the vaccines. They just, they wouldn’t be pumping these massive amounts of liquid into a child.