September 16, 2014

Celebrating Bigotry

Jack Kemp forwards this:

The Met Opera’s new musical celebration ‘promoting bigotry’

September 15, 2014 | 2:39am

This is not just offensive. It’s dangerous.
The month after we observed the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, the Metropolitan Opera, one of the world’s most prestigious cultural institutions, will bow to forces of anti-Semitism and pro-terrorist sentiment. The Met is to present an obscene opera titled "The Death of Klinghoffer” — a musical celebration of the senseless murder by Palestinian monsters of a defenseless, elderly Jewish New Yorker.
People of good conscience are not taking this artistic assault lying down.
"Are we in hell?” veteran actor Tony Lo Bianco asked me.
"I don’t know who we are anymore,” he said. "Our values have been destroyed. We’ve gone politically correct, and we’ve destroyed ourselves.”
Since it was first produced at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in 1991, "The Death of Klinghoffer” has outraged some audiences. But it also has inspired hatred among people of all religions with its romantic portrayal of an act of violence committed by creatures who don’t deserve to breathe air.
The opera, by American composer John Adams with a libretto by his countrywoman Alice Goodman, dramatizes the murder — not merely the "death,” as the title implies — of Leon Klinghoffer.
The retired 69-year old businessman, confined to a wheelchair after a stroke, was slain off the coast of Egypt as he took a cruise on the ship Achille Lauro with his wife, Marilyn, to celebrate their 36th wedding anniversary in October 1985. Members of the Palestine Liberation Front hijacked the ship. Before they surrendered, a butcher shot Klinghoffer in the back.
While he still breathed, the savages dumped him, along with his wheelchair, into the Mediterranean Sea. Marilyn Klinghoffer, 58, died four months later of cancer in New York.
Here are a few lyrics:
"Whenever there is misery, you’ll find Jews getting fat,” sings a terrorist called Rambo.
"You know how to cheat the simple, exploit the virgin, pollute where you have exploited.
"Defame those you cheated and break your own law with idolatry
"America is one big Jew.”
Another idiot spouts: "We are soldiers fighting a war. We are not criminals and we are not vandals, but men of ideals.” Right.
Lo Bianco, who appeared in the 1971 film "The French Connection” and is about to reprise his one-man stage role in "Little Flower,” about the legendaryNew York City Mayor Fiorello La Guardia, plans to speak at an anti-opera rally on Sept. 22.
"I’m a tremendous supporter of Israel,” said Lo Bianco, who has not seen the opera.
The rally, in front of the Metropolitan Opera House at Lincoln Center, is expected to draw more than 2,000 people, including some 500 high-school students from Westchester County and Long Island, plus representatives of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human-rights organization. It coincides with the season’s opening-night gala for opera donors.
In June, Peter Gelb, the Met’s general manager — who has been plagued lately by dwindling audiences and the need to cut union wages — canceled a simulcast of "Klinghoffer” that was set to beam a live performance into more than 2,000 movie theaters in 67 countries worldwide on Nov. 15. He tossed the show after striking a deal with Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, who represented the Klinghoffers’ daughters, Lisa and Ilsa.
"‘The Death of Klinghoffer’ perverts the terrorist murder of our father and attempts to romanticize, rationalize, legitimize and explain it,” the Klinghoffer sisters said in a statement released by the ADL.
A message from the two women is to be posted on the Met’s Web site and in printed programs for the opera, which is set to run for eight performances beginning on Oct. 20.
Foxman told me he doesn’t consider the opera anti-Semitic — because, in its current form, the anti-Jewish sentiment is expressed by a terrorist. But he didn’t want it to play in Europe, where attacks on Jews are growing in number.
Is he rationalizing filth?
"Why would anyone want to do an opera about a hideous, hateful murder?” asked Foxman, who saw an earlier version he does consider anti-Jewish on videotape. "It’s not anti-Semitism, per se. It shows this murderer as an anti-Semite. I was more concerned that this opera will be shown all over the world, from Vienna to Madrid and, I don’t know, Algiers — was it playing in Algiers?”
Gelb, the Met’s general manager, did not return my call seeking comment.
This opera, staged in the heart of New York City, serves no purpose except to promote bigotry. Cancel it! There is still time.
Running circles around justice.


There will be a protest on September 22 at 4:30 at the Lincoln Center Meetropolitan Opera House.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 798 words, total size 6 kb.

September 15, 2014

Leftists, Alinsky, and the Left's Bad Religion

Saul Alinsky

Timothy Birdnow

David Horowitz was a Communist, of that there can be no dispute. If we are to get anything out of this essay we must acknowlege his insider view of the political Left. Horowitz knew them, lived with them, breathed their air, drank their whine (yes, I meant to do that). Horowitz is an invaluable resource to us, the defenders of Orthodoxy and Judeo-Christian values, because he had dined with the Devil through his early life. They call people like Horowitz "Red Diaper Babies" and Horowitz was raised to manhood along side of the worst sort of leftists.

That is why we must take Horowitz at his word when he makes pronouncements about how Leftists think.

I have long argued that the Left is utopian, believing in the perfectability of the human condition. They really DO believe paradise is possible by human effort alone. They really do think that all that is necessary is the removal of the corrupting influences of industrialism, of civilization, of human culture and the natural inherent goodness of Man will shine through, giving those happy descendents of our communist revolutionaries a perfect existence. It is a religion to them, a belief that is irrational and powerful. It is not necessary to do anything more but destroy, to vandalize, to smash the old order.

Horowitz agrees.

Here are some excerpts from a book by Mr. Horowitz entitled Barack Obama; Rules for Revolutionaries - the Alinsky Model

Guided by Alinsky principles, post-Communist
radicals are not idealists but Machiavellians. Their
focus is on means rather than ends, and therefore
they are not bound by organizational orthodoxies in
the way their admired Marxist forebears were. Within
the framework of their revolutionary agenda, they are
flexible and opportunistic and will say anything (and
pretend to be anything) to get what they want, which
is resources and power.


Unlike the Communists who identified their goal
as a Soviet state - and thereby generated opposition
to their schemes - Alinsky and his followers organize
their power bases without naming the end game,
without declaring a specific future they want to
achieve - socialism, communism, a dictatorship
of the proletariat, or anarchy. Without committing
themselves to concrete principles or a specific future,
they organize exclusively to build a power base
which they can use to destroy the existing society
and its economic system. By refusing to commit to
principles or to identify their goal, they have been
able to organize a coalition of all the elements of the
left who were previously divided by disagreements
over means and ends.

The demagogic standard of the revolution is
"democracy” - a democracy which upends all social
hierarchies, including those based on merit. This is
why Alinsky built his initial power base among the
underclass and the urban poor. The call to make the
last ones first is a powerful religious imperative.
8 Rules for Radicals, p. 113
But in politics it functions as a lever to upset every
social structure and foundation. For Alinsky radicals,
policies are not important in themselves; they are
instrumental - means to expanding the political base.


Alinsky is the Sun-Tzu for today’s radicals,
his book a manual for their political war. As early
as its dedicatory page, Alinsky provides revealing
insight into the radical mind by praising Lucifer as
the first rebel: "Lest we forget, an over-the-shoulder
acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all
our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to
know where mythology leaves off and history begins
- or which is which), the first radical known to man
who rebelled against the establishment and did it so
effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -
Thus Alinsky begins his text by telling readers
exactly what a radical is. He is not a reformer of the
system but its would-be destroyer. In his own mind
the radical is building his own kingdom, which to him
is a kingdom of heaven on earth. Since a kingdom
of heaven built by human beings is a fantasy - an
impossible dream - the radical’s only real world
efforts are those which are aimed at subverting the
society he lives in. He is a nihilist.

I am constantly asked how radicals could hate America
and why they would want to destroy a society that
compared to others is tolerant, inclusive and open,
and treats all people with a dignity and respect that is
the envy of the world. The answer to this question is
that radicals are not comparing America to other real
world societies. They are comparing America to the
heaven on earth - the kingdom of social justice and
freedom - they think they are building. And compared
to this heaven even America is hell.

In my experience conservatives are generally
too decent and too civilized to match up adequately
with their radical adversaries, at least in the initial
stages of the battle. They are too prone to give them
the benefit of the doubt, to believe there is goodness
and good sense in them which will outweigh their
determination to change the world. Radicals talk
of justice and democracy and equality. They can’t
really want to destroy a society that is democratic
and liberal, and more equal than others, and that has
brought wealth and prosperity to so many people. Oh
yes they can. There is no goodness that trumps the
dream of a heaven on earth. And because America is
a real world society, managed by real and problematic
human beings, it will never be equal, or liberal, or
democratic enough to satisfy radical fantasies - to
compensate them for their longing for a perfect
world, and for their unhappiness in this one.

angry obama saul alinsky is my hero period

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 959 words, total size 9 kb.

GOP Reinflating the Mortgage Bubble

Timothy Birdnow

Republicans and Democrats just don't play the same game. It is rather like watching an amateur badmitton player against a tennis pro, or a kid used to shooting for the windmills against a PGA champion. Sometimes it is beyond painful. Here is a case in point.

Not having learned one solitary thing from the mortgage crisis that gave us Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid (the Progressive Trinity) Republicans are pushing for a relaxation of subprime mortgage standards.

From Net Right Daily:

"Overall, the perils of debt deflation were fully on display. One might think that the lesson learned would be not to do it all over again. Not to engage in stupid, risky lending backed up by a near limitless supply of government. Not to use housing valuation inflation as the primary means of expanding wealth. Not to depend on debt creation to generate economic growth and new jobs.


Now, seven years after the crisis began in the summer of 2007, demand for new credit remains low by historical standards. The amount of labor force displacement as a result of the initial recession remains quite elevated. Home values, although having recovered somewhat from the market bottom, have stalled right along with home sales. To the extent that we had a recovery, it looks like it has pretty much run its course. Time for another cooling."


"For example, recently the House Financial Services Committee, run by Republicans, sent H.R. 5148 to the floor of the House. It eliminates mandatory appraisals by an independent appraiser in higher risk mortgages of homes valued $250,000 or less. Those are mortgages with higher interest rates ranging from 1.5 to 3.5 percentage points higher than prime. By definition, then, these "higher risk mortgages” are subprime.

The legislation does not apply to prime mortgages. So for the vast majority of legitimate loans, a mandatory appraisal will still be necessary. The exception will be subprime. But is that a good idea? Aren’t higher risk mortgages the ones where an honest valuation is the most important?"


"Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.), the bill’s sponsor, believes the change is necessary for rural communities, where a supposed lack of local appraisers requires bringing in appraisers from miles away to get houses to go to closing. As a result, escalating closing costs are being passed on to consumers.

But, if the bill is supposed to be simply for rural areas where there are no appraisers, then why does it encompass all subprime loans, which naturally will be concentrated in suburban communities, not family farms? What about prime loans in rural areas? Why do they still need independent appraisals? It doesn’t add up.

And yet, if this one has you scratching your head, it shouldn’t. This is reflective of a larger problem, that is, the need for ever-expanding debt to grow in our finance-based economy. When the government perceives not enough new loans are being created, and market conditions are too cool, the natural response to get things moving is to make it easier to make the loans. In this case, by removing the need for appraisals for higher-risk loans.

While both parties may disagree on the means, H.R. 5148 passed out of committee on a party line vote, they do both appear to agree on the ends. This is seen on the left with the push for so-called community reinvestment, that is, loans being given for low-income families in higher risk neighborhoods. Or in the push to punish lenders who do not. It is seen in calls for more banks to give out Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans, even though they are already widely available."

End excerpts.

Blaine Luetkemeyer is a Congressman in a district neighboring my own here in Missouri. While I generally agree with him, he is a standard issue Establishment type, albeit a fairly conservative one.

The Democrats are licking their chops with this one. They successfully blamed the GOP for the original subprime mortgage mess, despite efforts by House Republicans and the Bush Administration to rein in Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac prior to the bubble burst. The problem is that the GOP was on board with the housing bubble because it appeared to be good politics, and when it burst the Dems and their media allies immediately blamed them, managing to deflect blame from themselves. The mortgage crisis was a result of long-term polices set in motion primarily by Democrats (such as the Community Reinvestment Act) and by strange actions taken by people like Tim Geitner at the New York Fed prior to the collapse.

Now idiots like Luetkemeyer have given them another source for a bubble and we have no reason to suspect it will turn out any differently. Needless to say the GOP will take the blame.

It's strange; the GOP cowers whenever any action popular with the public and with their base in particular is concerned but are lions when "bipartisan" bills are brought forth. Like Charlie Brown kicking field goals, they never learn that the ball will be pulled out from in front of them and they'll land on their posteriors.

If people like Blaine Luetkemeyer want this bad bill, he should get a Democrat to sponsor it and quietly back it. Then he can come out against it after it is an established fact as more of what caused our current predicament. I know; Republicans don't pull such acts of duplicity. But the Democrats would not think twice about it.The GOP has to start thinking like the Dems.

But in reality it should not be done at all. This is nothing but an attempt to reinflate the mortgage bubble. That bubble was driven by government programs designed to foster "affordable housing" - a phrase we often heard from Barney Frank and the other Progressive Liberals, who pushed government intervention in housing for a reason. That reason was to empower the government, to make it possible for government to control where people live and who they live amongst. If government regulates mortgages, who is to say they can't promote mortgages to people who are not financially qualifiable? To promote integration of classes, of races, of disparate groups through the Fair Housing Act via control of the flow of money? That was the goal and is the goal, and the subprime mortgage was the instrument to create this multicultural paradise. Poor people were moving into middle-class neighborhoods as a direct result of subprime mortgages. That was no coincidence.

Robert Romano believes the primary purpose of this is to buttress lending, the backbone of modern economics. I believe it is much deeper, a way to manipulate America's social and economic fabric.

And our brave defenders in the GOP are right on board.

The problem with the GOP is that there is no longer a Democratic Party. The radicals took over the Dems back in the 1970's, and people like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have no home there. The GOP IS the home of moderates in twenty first century America, and the result is we now encompass both the Conservatives and the moderates. Claims that the GOP has moved to the right cannot be factually supported in any logical way, but claims it has moved to the center are abundantly evidenced. This is one example.

So we are in a siamese twin relationship with moderates, who thirty years ago would be known as liberals. There is nowhere for the mod squatters to go, because there no longer is a Democratic Party to join. This is a huge problem, because we can't live with 'em and can't shoot 'em.

We will never make real reforms with the GOP in it's current incarnation. I know many conservatives who argue we have to take the party over, but this is simplistic thinking; we can't exclude the moderates, and they have nowhere to go save the GOP. SOMEBODY has to give, and unfortunately the Conservative wing is not the monied class in this party. The monied class represents the Demicans.

Third party is not just tricky, it's nearly impossible given the way America is set up. We are institutionally structured for two parties. There have been third parties in the past (take the National Republicans "no-nothings" or the Populists, or even the Republicans) but to attain real power one of the original parties has to collapse, like the Whigs, or the Federalists.)

We don't need so much to take over the GOP as to get the GOP to leave us. There has to be an alternative to the Republicans for moderates. That's one reason I hate this "big tent" that is promoted every election cycle; it encourages a watering down of our message until we are the equivalent of a political Bud Select; less calories, less carbs, less taste.

At any rate, Luetkemeyer shows exactly what is wrong with the GOP, and why we will never bring about a renewal in America under their banner.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1494 words, total size 9 kb.

Ozone 'Twixt the Ears; Claims that Treaty Fixed Ozone Dubious

Timothy Birdnow

This from Matt Ridley at the U.K. Times:

The Ozone Hole Isn’t Fixed. But That’s No Worry
The Times, 15 September 2014

The risk from extra UV light is just one of the dangers that have been overplayed by the eco-exaggerators

The ozone layer is healing. Or so said the news last week. Thanks to a treaty signed in Montreal in 1989 to get rid of refrigerant chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the planet’s stratospheric sunscreen has at last begun thickening again. Planetary disaster has been averted by politics.

For reasons I will explain, this news deserves to be taken with a large pinch of salt. You do not have to dig far to find evidence that the ozone hole was never nearly as dangerous as some people said, that it is not necessarily healing yet and that it might not have been caused mainly by CFCs anyway.

The timing of the announcement was plainly political: it came on the 25th anniversary of the treaty, and just before a big United Nations climate conference in New York, the aim of which is to push for a climate treaty modelled on the ozone one.

Here’s what was actually announced last week, in the words of a Nasa scientist, Paul Newman: "From 2000 to 2013, ozone levels climbed 4 per cent in the key mid-northern latitudes.” That’s a pretty small change and it is in the wrong place.

The ozone thinning that worried everybody in the 1980s was over Antarctica.
Over northern latitudes, ozone concentration has been falling by about 4 per cent each March before recovering. Over Antarctica, since 1980, the ozone concentration has fallen by 40 or 50 per cent each September before the sun rebuilds it.

So what’s happening to the Antarctic ozone hole? Thanks to a diligent blogger named Anthony Watts, I came across a press release also from Nasa about nine months ago, which said: "Two new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size.”

As recently as 2006, Nasa announced, quoting Paul Newman again, that the Antarctic ozone hole that year was "the largest ever recorded”. The following year a paper in Nature magazine from Markus Rex, a German scientist, presented new evidence that suggested CFCs may be responsible for less than 40 per cent of ozone destruction anyway. Besides, nobody knows for sure how big the ozone hole was each spring before CFCs were invented. All we know is that it varies from year to year.

How much damage did the ozone hole ever threaten to do anyway? It is fascinating to go back and read what the usual hyperventilating eco-exaggerators said about ozone thinning in the 1980s. As a result of the extra ultraviolet light coming through the Antarctic ozone hole, southernmost parts of Patagonia and New Zealand see about 12 per cent more UV light than expected. This means that the weak September sunshine, though it feels much the same, has the power to cause sunburn more like that of latitudes a few hundred miles north. Hardly Armageddon.

The New York Times reported "an increase in Twilight Zone-type reports of sheep and rabbits with cataracts” in southern Chile. Not to be outdone, Al Gore wrote that "hunters now report finding blind rabbits; fisherman catch blind salmon”. Zoologists briefly blamed the near extinction of many amphibian species on thin ozone. Melanoma in people was also said to be on the rise as a result.

This was nonsense. Frogs were dying out because of a fungal disease spread from Africa — nothing to do with ozone. Rabbits and fish blinded by a little extra sunlight proved to be as mythical as unicorns. An eye disease in Chilean sheep was happening outside the ozone-depleted zone and was caused by an infection called pinkeye — nothing to do with UV light. And melanoma incidence in people actually levelled out during the period when the ozone got thinner.

Then remember that the ozone hole appears when the sky is dark all day, and over an uninhabited continent. Even if it persists into the Antarctic spring and spills north briefly, the hole allows 50 times less ultraviolet light through than would hit your skin at the equator at sea level (let alone at a high altitude) in the tropics. So it would be bonkers to worry about UV as you sailed round Cape Horn in spring, say, but not when you stopped at the Galapagos: the skin cancer risk is 50 times higher in the latter place.

This kind of eco-exaggeration has been going on for 50 years. In the 1960s Rachel Carson said there was an epidemic of childhood cancer caused by DDT; it was not true — DDT had environmental effects but did not cause human cancers.

In the 1970s the Sahara desert was said be advancing a mile a year; it was not true — the region south of the Sahara has grown markedly greener and more thickly vegetated in recent decades.

In the 1980s acid rain was said to be devastating European forests; not true — any local declines in woodland were caused by pests or local pollution, not by the sulphates and nitrates in rain, which may have contributed to an actual increase in the overall growth rate of European forests during the decade.

In the 1990s sperm counts were said to be plummeting thanks to pollution with man-made "endocrine disruptor” chemicals; not true — there was no fall in sperm counts.

In the 2000s the Gulf Stream was said to be failing and hurricanes were said to be getting more numerous and worse, thanks to global warming; neither was true, except in a Hollywood studio.

The motive for last week’s announcement was to nudge world leaders towards a treaty on climate change by reminding them of how well the ozone treaty worked. But getting the world to agree to cease production of one rare class of chemical, for which substitutes existed, and which only a few companies mainly in rich countries manufactured, was a very different proposition from setting out to decarbonise the whole economy, when each of us depends on burning carbon (and hydrogen) for almost every product, service, meal, comfort and journey in our lives.

The true lesson of the ozone story is that taking precautionary action on the basis of dubious evidence and exaggerated claims might be all right if the action does relatively little economic harm.

However, loading the entire world economy with costly energy, and new environmental risks based on exaggerated claims about what might in future happen to the climate makes less sense.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1124 words, total size 7 kb.

September 14, 2014

Egypt Offers Palestinians a Homeland - they Reject it

Timothy Birdnow

Here is something interesting the media isn't reporting; Egypt offered 1,600 Kilometers (about 800 miles) of land in Sinai to the Palestinian Authority as a free gift. The idea was to greatly enlarge the Palestinian State, and allow a return of refugees in the enlarged area. The offer was rejected.

According to Front Page Mag:

"On August 31, PLO chief and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told an audience of Fatah members that Egypt had offered to give the PA some 1,600 kilometers of land in Sinai adjacent to Gaza, thus quintupling the size of the Gaza Strip. Egypt even offered to allow all the so-called "Palestinian refugees” to settle in the expanded Gaza Strip.

Then Abbas told his Fatah followers that he rejected the Egyptian offer.

On Monday Army Radio substantiated Abbas’s claim.

According to Army Radio, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi proposed that the Palestinians establish their state in the expanded Gaza Strip and accept limited autonomy over parts of Judea and Samaria.

In exchange for this state, the Palestinians would give up their demand that Israel shrink into the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, surrendering Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Sisi argued that the land Egypt is offering in Sinai would more than compensate for the territory that Abbas would concede.

End excerpt.

So, despite being offered what the Palestinians claim they want, the Egyptians were rejected. Why is that? Because demands for a Palestinian state have never been about a home for Palestinians but rather for the destruction of Israel. This is the age-old Islamic view that where the Prophet's followers set foot they shall not be driven out. Israel infuriates them because it exists where they believe Sharia should rule.

Nothing matters but driving Israel into the sea. Nothing.

Strange how the media failed to report this to us.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:12 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

Destroying The World as We Know It

By Joseph Dalton Leatherwood

Nancy Pelosi said if republicans win the senate in 2014 the world as we know it
will end?

How about some truth- it has already ended! The world as we have known it has
ended because it has been systematically destroyed by reactionary socialists,
like Nancy Pelosi and the federal government.

They have:

-- shredded the Constitution and stymied our Republic;
-- destroyed our economy through willful acts of nationalization, oppressive
regulation and bureaucratic coercion;
-- undermined the electoral system through judicial fiat, IRS intimidation and
outright voter fraud;
-- worked to debase the culture and society through legislative mechanisms
(ACA), judicial rulings, bureaucratic fiat and executive actions;
-- degraded citizenship through domestic spying and a growing nationalization of
police forces; and
-- obliterated federalism through outright bribery - using taxpayers dollars to
force conformity on states, local governments and special districts.

What Pelosi and the "democrat" party have wrought is socialism as an operating
system and as a means of governing. It is totalitarian in its mindset and its
nature. Under their "governance" the nation has been in the throes of a modern
disintegration and degeneration for a number a years. Despite their rhetoric,
they have brought America to a moral and cultural crisis.

Socialism is characterized by:

-- a constant deception by the rulers of the people they govern over;
-- purposefully discriminating between groups to pick winners and losers;
-- imposing its will on the people by the rulers even when its dictates run
counter to the will of the people;
-- its authoritarian enforcement of the law through a militaristic police force;
-- arbitrariness in its decision making based on greed and empowerment rather
than the rule of law;
-- its dogmatic adherence to secular humanism in the affairs of the State and
their use of State power; and
-- inclusivism which seeks to force everyone into one mass - to level everyone
and everything.

The Pelosi's of the world are the destroyers in our midst. They have brought
America to a societal crisis severely threatening the very future of this
nation. Clearly, they are an existential threat to this nation because they
have brought the nation to the edge of the abyss and seek to take us over the
edge and end the world as we gave known it.

They hold America's past in derision and seek to destroy it.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.

The War Neither Obama, Nor Any Other Nation Wants to Fight

By Alan Caruba

Two trends have emerged since President Obama’s September 10 speech regarding his intention to "degrade and destroy” the Islamic State.
One is the understanding that he will not commit U.S. troops as "boots on the ground” to fight a force estimated variously between 10,000 and 30,000 depending on intelligence guesswork.

The other trend is the reluctance of any other nation to engage in the warfare that would be necessary to defeat the terrorist army occupying northern Iraq and a swath of Syria.

This was initially signaled at the NATO meeting in Wales and, according to a September 12 page one report in The Wall Street Journal, "A day after President Barack Obama outlined a strategy to combat Islamic State militants, Washington’s international allies didn’t make clear how far they would go to join military operations even as they pledged support.”

Who would support a President who said he had no intention of being "dragged back into a war in Iraq”?

That is not a "strategy.” It’s surrender. It is an admission of a lack of intent to confront what will surely emerge as a major threat to the Middle East and the West.

Word Games

The Obama administration was initially reluctant to even call it a war. It was a "counter-intelligence operation” according to Secretary of State Kerry. The President and his administration have spent six and a half years labeling terrorist attacks as anything other than acts of war. But 9/11 was an act of war.

The killing of soldiers at Fort Hood wascalled "workplace violence” when it was clearly a terrorist act. Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told us that the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed our ambassador and three security personnel was just a bunch of militants angered by a video no one ever saw.

In Iraq—a nation now in name only—its military fled from combat with ISIS. The result has been a demonstration of the barbarity of ISIS, killing Muslims and "infidels” alike in large numbers. The videos of the beheadings of two American journalists sent the U.S. a message that dramatically altered the simmering reluctance of Americans to make war on the Islamic State. The beheading of a British citizen will no doubt echo the U.S. population's desire for revenge and a full-scale war on ISIS.

Middle East expert, Walid Phares, says ISIS's message is that it hasconcluded that neither the U.S. nor Great Britain will engage it with troops, preferring only air strikes. No military expert believes that will be sufficient to defeat ISIS.

Turkey, that shares a border with Syria, Iraq and Iran, is fearful for the lives of nearly fifty of its diplomats taken hostage in Mosul when it was captured in June. They have cause, but Turkey has been increasingly Islamic in its outlook for nearly a decade, shedding its secular approach to governance. It has refused to allow the U.S. to use bases there to fight ISIS.

In Europe, Germany said it would not take part in any airstrikes against ISIS. Other EU nations willlikely follow its lead.In a similar fashion, Arab nations have not indicated any intention to actively—militarily—participate in what appears to be a "coalition” in name only.

Apost by Steve Eichler CEO of Tea Party, Inc. says it all:

"We are in the gravest of situations. Our military—once the most powerful in the world—is crumbling.

Obama is purging every branch of the US armed forces at an alarming rate.

He's deliberately crippling our military, setting them up for failure and defeat. Through his actions he is rapidly demoralizing our troops en masse, creating a dangerous situation at home and abroad, leaving our troops, our country and we citizens open to attack.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, recipient of the U.S. military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, as well as other top retired officers, say Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.
Our Army has not trained for six months. Meanwhile there is tremendous domestic and foreign unrest taking place. "To have the Chief of Staff of the army confess to the world that our Army has not trained for six months is highly disturbing," says formerFlorida Congressman Allen West. '(It) should make us all sleep less soundly at night.'"

Obama has been destroying our military in every way he can and, other than air power, he hasa greatly reduced infantry and other forceswith which to wage a ground war in Iraq. ISIS knows this and so does the rest of the world.

Not since the end of World War II and our ascendance as a superpower has America fallen to such a loss and lackof real power both militarily and economically.

The years since Obama’s election in 2008 have been an unqualified disaster for the nation, the West, and the rest of the world. They have looked to the U.S. to lead and now see a U.S. that has twice elected a man whose entire agenda has been to abandon leadership.

To some, his actions reek of treason.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 880 words, total size 10 kb.

Obama Supplying Military Arms to Colleges

Timothy Birdnow

The U.S. government has not just been equipping police with military weaponry; they've been supplying such weapons to colleges as well. According to The Chronicles of Higher Education:

"Should the campus police at the University of Central Florida ever need a modified grenade launcher, one sits waiting in the department’s armory. Retooled to fire tear-gas canisters, the weapon was used several years ago for training purposes, according to Richard Beary, the university’s chief of police. It hasn’t left storage since.

At Central Florida, which has an enrollment of nearly 60,000 and a Division I football team, the device was acquired, a police spokeswoman said, for "security and crowd control.” But the university’s police force isn’t the only one to have come upon a grenade launcher. Hinds Community College—located in western Mississippi, with a student population of 11,000—had one too. (Campus police officers at Hinds declined to comment. A woman who worked for the department but declined to identify herself said that the launcher had been repurposed to shoot flares but that the college no longer possessed it.)

Both institutions received their launchers from the same source: the Department of Defense. At least 117 colleges have acquired equipment from the department through a federal program, known as the 1033 program, that transfers military surplus to law-enforcement agencies across the country, according to records The Chronicle received after filing Freedom of Information requests with state governments (see table of equipment).

Campus police departments have used the program to obtain military equipment as mundane as men’s trousers (Yale University) and as serious as a mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicle (Ohio State University). Along with the grenade launcher, Central Florida acquired 23 M-16 assault rifles from the Department of Defense."

End excerpt.

The article goes on to provide a list of weapons supplied by Uncle Sam.

Anyone remember Obama's call for an internal military force? Colleges have zero need for such weapons, but colleges are one of the Left's power bases, and should push come to shove students and professors would be the ideal foot soldiers for Obama and the left. (Colleges usually provide the human grist in leftist revolutions worldwide.) Seems we now have a revolutionary wing as well armed as the U.S. military.

I am not opposed to private citizens possessing such weapons; Shall Not Be Infringed is pretty clear. But the government is giving weapons to certain groups, and that for a reason. An argument can be made for giving police these weapons - back in the days of the War on Drugs (before America switched sides) local police were often outgunned by the drug cartels (who we have been arming in recent years thanks to Fast and Furious). So the case can be made for arming the police with military surplus. I think it a bad idea, one that should not happen in a free society. But arming colleges? Who else has received this largess? The New version of ACORN?

And there are practical considerations as well; how do you keep such hardware out of the hands of terrorists? Police departments are difficult enough, but does anyone believe that the rent-a-cops on campus are capable of protecting this serious weaponry.

Strange; the Obama Administration promotes gun control, as do most of the Democratic Party, and yet they freely, nay, generously give high powered weapons away for the asking. They have armed Mexican drug cartels via Fast and Furious. They have armed terrorist groups like or Hamas, or the Muslim Brotherhood in the interest of the "Arab Spring". They have given away all this military hardware to police and colleges and who knows who else. Yet the bitterly oppose private ownership of firearms by responsible Americans. Strange.

Outside of those private firearms who could oppose this lethal force inserted into the community?

And we know that the Administration has been arming some strange bureaucracies; the Social Security Administration, NOAA, NASA, The TSA, and a host of others have received weapons from the government, as of course has the Department of Homeland Security, which has purchased over a billion and a half rounds of hollow point bullets, enough to kill every American.

Here is an interesting essay about the militarization of police. The author concludes with this:

"Which brings us back to the original question: as the NYT succinctly summarizes the situation, "as President Obama ushers in the end of what he called America’s "long season of war,” the former tools of combat — M-16 rifles, grenade launchers, silencers and more — are ending up in local police departments, often with little public notice.”

Perhaps that sentence needs some qualification: as Obama, humiliated on the international arena by everyone, from Assad to Putin and back, and desperately seeking to avoid future embarrassment, redeploys weapons of mass murder, why is he seeking to put said weapons – many of which are of the offensive kind – not out to pasture but in America’s very own back yard? Just who does Obama plan to wage his next, and hopefully last, war against? The good news is that everyone will get sufficient advance notice before said war begins by the squadrons of weaponized drones sent out to test the ground, and inflict the "accidental” collateral damage casualty, or million."

End excerpt.

Good question. When the Soviet Union was in peril I translated a speech by Mikhail Gorbachev (Pronounced mee-kai-eel, not McHail like some sort of Golden Arch product, and the last name is Gor-ba-choff, by the way) warned the U.S. of the danger of a Soviet Collapse, that all of the weapons held by the U.S.S.R. would wind up in the hands of, well, whosoever grabbed them. Gorby's warning is equally germane here; America is sending these weapons hither and yon, to everyone except the People themselves.

But in this case the weapons are going to strange places, to non-military wings of the government, to colleges, to people who could perhaps use them in a civil war - against the American people. Certainly these weapons are being stockpiled for a reason.

I would say that maybe the government knows something, but this point is mute because they have opened up our southern border to anyone who wishes to enter - making the likelihood of our enemies coming here for us all the greater. Why arm these groups if we are going to keep the border open? This makes no sense if protecting the People were the prime objective. No, but this comports with the idea that these groups are being armed AGAINST the People. It is a revolution in the making.

Furthermore, the U.S. has conducted numerous exercises simulating the taking of U.S. cities, and Obama has replaced much of the military high brass, imposing a litmus test that ascertains whether a commander would issue orders to attack the American People. And there are contingency plans for FEMA camps where American citizens can be compelled to perform labor. And there have been attempts to create an internet kill switch. It goes on and on.

Here is my take on it.

So now we know the Administration is arming the students. Most communist revolutions had their roots in the Universities. Apparently that lesson was not lost on the people behind Barack Hussein Obama.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1213 words, total size 8 kb.

September 13, 2014

Analysis of the CNN "Eyewitness" Tape from Conservative Treehouse

Canfield Map New 2

The actual "anonymous” construction workers were 220+ feet away

Timothy Birdnow

The Treepers have a fine piece on the new CNN "eyewitness" video of the Mike Brown shooting.

From Desperately Seeking Deedee:

"... In 2012 Parks and Crump needed a witness to get to second base, the arrest. Absent of evidence they created a witness to support their demands, an arrest. They need the arrest to establish ‘probable cause’ for their wrongful death lawsuits.

That is THE ONLY reason they are demanding an arrest – PERIOD!

In 2014 Parks and Crump are working desperately to find their modern "Dee Dee” witness, and why CNN continues to assist them is a very odd, yet ideologically aligned, dynamic.

Last week we discovered Kevin Christopher Seltzer (DOB 4/26/84), a resident of the Canfield Gardens apartment complex who had uploaded several video segments to his various social media.

Coincidentally, 30-year-old Mr. Seltzer, a convicted felon, had served prison time for various criminal infractions in Broward County Florida, home of the aforementioned Trayvon Scheme Team."


"Of course, as with "Dee Dee” the anonymity plays well for the scheme team (Parks, Crump, Jackson/Gray) goals. Anonymity stops scrutiny in further media discussion.

As with all structural lies and deception, anonymity facilitates the ruse.

Looking at the new witnesses, which are not actually new because the LA Times interviewed Kevin Seltzer (aka Christopher_4_26, aka Yung anias) on August 15th, you’ll note a few general aspects which, just like Tiffany Mitchell and Piaget Crenshaw, contradict each other.

According to the CNN propaganda the construction workers claim to be "50 feet” from the shooting. CNN mistake #1, actually there is an unattributed statement from the construction crew saying approximately 50 yards (150 ft). However, even that is seriously flawed.

And if you actually look at the location you can clearly see the building where Piaget Crenshaw’s apartment is located is directly blocking their view for most of the event.

You can also notice the blocked view in the actual video CNN is displaying.

However, if you are unfamiliar with the entire scene it appears they are closer because of the optical illusion created by the iPad doing the recording which was located in the basement apartment at the time.

The primary take-aways are these:

• Attorney’s Daryl Parks and Benjamin Crump NEED Darren Wilson arrested in order to get paid (lawsuits)
• Daryl Parks and Ben Crump will follow their previous playbook and manufacture media evidence to get that arrest.
• CNN in 2014, just like CNN 2012, will assist Parks/Crump in a public display of the manufactured evidence they create.
• All of the manufactured evidence is for public opinion consumption only. None of it would hold up to scrutiny in a courtroom.

Little, if any, of the currently debated evidence in the media is even remotely consistent.

Here’s an example of witness inconsistency"

End excerpts.

This story smells very bad. It truly is a Bonfire of the Vanities scenario.

statement 3

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 501 words, total size 5 kb.

The Search for an Inoffensive Mascot

Timothy Birdnow

Dana Mathewson and I were discussing new, politically correct names for professional sports franchises and we came up with a few good ideas. Here is our conversation:

From Dana:

The Buffalo Bills need to change their name, because who likes being reminded he owes somebody money? And the Buffalo Sabres -- can't talk about weapons, it traumatizes liberals and their kids.

If they're gonna figure that somebody MIGHT be offended, I imagine there isn't a team out there who's safe. At least I can't think of one. Certainly not teams like the Rambling Wrecks from Georgia Tech, or the Wake Forest Demon Deacons! Why, that last one pisses ME off! The Green Bay Packers have a name that annoys the habitually unemployed. The LA Dodgers' name has to honk off people like Bill Clinton

From Tim

How about the Arizona Cardinals? We all know about the Inquisition; it may make Jews uncomfortable. And Protestants.

From Dana

Oh, absolutely.

And the Chicago White Sox have to be a "coded" gang name. Or coded racism of some sort.

Ditto the Boston Red Sox, which is probably an ultra-leftist shout-out to Communism. And I can remember a few years, during the Cold War, when the Cincinnati Reds were at least informally renamed the Redlegs, undoubtedly under orders by the John Birch Society.* But they were covered in the original.

Now, going from memory here (as I kid I knew the names of all the MLB teams, but there have been additions since then, and besides, we have opened this up): we have the Detroit Tigers. I'm not sure who could complain about them, but -- liberals being liberals, I'm sure somebody somewhere must have an objection. Perhaps we must eliminate team names that remind us of endangered species, though I can't imagine why. I would think we should be mindful of such -- and perhaps rename some of the disputed teams to reflect this. We could, therefore, have the Washington Snail Darters (or the Washington Spotted Owls, if you prefer birds over fish -- personally I find them equally delightful on my dinner plate).

In my youth there were the Philadelphia Athletics, who are now the Oakland A's. Do they now unpleasantly rub the noses of poor spellers into "it?" (whatever "it" is)? Or could we rename the Cleveland Browns the Cleveland B's, the San Diego Chargers the San Diego C's, etc.?

I'm sure we have quite a few to go here yet. Let's not let the liberals beat us at this!

*(I wonder whether you remember, since you're not as ancient as I, the group years ago that was promoting a return to the use of outhouses and who had designed some very luxurious ones? Called themselves the Birch John Society. . .You can't make these things up!)

From Tim

Yeah, Dana; the Red Sox brings to mind the more racist White Sox, clearly discriminatory against people of color. (Did you see where some libs were complaining about "flesh colored" band-aids and whatnot because they are the color of Caucasian skin?) I can't see where the Red Legs would be offensive, except to perhaps old Missouri Confederates who remember James Lane.

Yeah; endangered species should probably be out. Maybe we should go with commonality? The Earthworms, say, or the Ants, or go for a more aggressive sort; the chiggers, or my personal favorite for Washington, the leeches.

Yeah; you could shorten those names to single letters. Or maybe go with computer geeks out west by using binary code "the fighting 01100111010110? Might work for a sports team around silicone valley.

I do NOT remember the Birch John Society! Love it! Whoever came up with that name should have won marketer of the year. Granted, their product was a weak one..

Jack Kemp suggests these:

Washington Red Menace
Washington McCarthyites
Washington Red Diaper Babies
Washington Bingo Casino Executives

Dana, I think the Cincinnati Red are known, in legal contracts, as the Cincinnati Red Stockings Baseball Club. Sounds like a transvestite name me.

From Dana:

All the more reason to change the name. How about the Cincinnati Silk Stockings?

Oh, wait. That might offend lesbians. (On the other hand, gay men would love it.) But enviros would bemoan the silkworm's plight (whatever THAT is -- probably being forced to work below minimum wage).

If it were changed to the Cincinnati [insert favorite synthetic] Stockings, someone would start yelling about how the jobs creating the fabric and making the stockings were outsourced -- even if those stockings were never made in the States in the first place. If it turns out the stockings are produced by child labor, which is likely, well -- we know what THAT argument would be and who would make it.

I think the ideal way around this is to force sale of the team to an owner (or consortium of owners) in Memphis, whereupon the team can be renamed the Memphis Blues. People who are fans of that venerable style of music would not be offended -- at least, if the team did well -- and the rest of the country would just think it refers to a color. Democrats would think it's their color and that they had won the argument; Republicans would say "Whatever."

From Tim

"I think the ideal way around this is to force sale of the team to an owner (or consortium of owners) in Memphis, whereupon the team can be renamed the Memphis Blues."

Naaah; offends people suffering from mental disorders. How about the Memphis Belles? It would appeal to transgendered men and maybe even lipstick lesbians. Might hack off the butch ones, but you can't please everybody.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 949 words, total size 7 kb.

September 12, 2014

Yahoo Threatened by Government with Huge Fines for Not Turning Over Private Data

Timothy Birdnow

According to the Washington Post, Yahoo was threatened under the Prism program with quarter of a million dollar a day fines for not releasing private customer information. A FISA court upheld the Obama Administration decision to demand the data.

"The documents, roughly 1,500 pages worth, outline a secret and ultimately unsuccessful legal battle by Yahoo to resist the government’s demands. The company’s loss required Yahoo to become one of the first to begin providing information to PRISM, a program that gave the NSA extensive access to records of online com­munications by users of Yahoo and other U.S.-based technology firms.

The ruling by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review became a key moment in the development of PRISM, helping government officials to convince other Silicon Valley companies that unprecedented data demands had been tested in the courts and found constitutionally sound. Eventually, most major U.S. tech companies, including Google, Facebook, Apple and AOL, complied. Microsoft had joined earlier, before the ruling, NSA documents have shown.

A version of the court ruling had been released in 2009 but was so heavily redacted that observers were unable to discern which company was involved, what the stakes were and how the court had wrestled with many of the issues involved."

End excerpt.

So a secret court ruled secretly against Yahoo in a secret proceeding that had to be kept secret. And the private American citizen lost his fundamental rights to privacy (and it is the liberals who claim such a right is inherent in the Constitution) and definetely lost the 4th Amendment security of their papers and effects.

This is police state tactics. We more resemble the Soviet Union these days than the United States.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 3 kb.

World Economic Woes Caused by Lack of Female Empowerment

Timothy Birdnow

So, according to IMF chief Clhristine Legarde, the world economy is in the doldrums not because of massive overspending on the part of world governments, nor because Keynsian economic policies are in place in most countries, nor because of bad monetary policy weakening the dollar, nor because of environmentalist policies which are squeezing world energy supplied, but because - drumroll please - women are not adequately empowered!

You can't make this stuff up!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:05 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

More Thoughts on the CNN Brown Shooting Video

Timothy Birdnow

More thoughts on the CNN tape purportedly of a contractor witnessing the Mike Brown shooting.

First, I heard the CNN talking headdress claim the tape was shot between one and three minutes after the shooting, and I have heard that claim repeated by local media people (once again, Dave Glover on our local conservative talker repeated this.) But is that so? Remember, Officer Darren Wilson was alone at the time of the shooting. He was injured. He had to call for backup, and undoubtedly did so after the shooting. Now the average response time to a 911 call is between 10 and 12 minutes. It took 20 minutes for police to respond to the emergency call at Sandy Hook, and apparently that is not all that uncommon. It takes [link]ten minutes for New York City police to respond. Now, one would suspect that an officer shooting may speed up response time, and that, since Ferguson isn't that big, the police should be able to arrive quickly, we may well cut this time in half, but still that gives us 5 minutes for police just to arrive on the scene. The video clearly shows police taping off the area, an activity that did not start the instant officers arrived. We are looking at something that happened probably ten minutes after the shooting, and perhaps quite a bit longer after.

As I stated in my blogpost last night, there is a lack of proper horror on the part of the "witness" - almost as if he hadn't actually seen what happened. Had the individual in question actually seen the shooting or had he heard the gunfire and been told Brown had his hands up to surrender? My response to witnessing such an event would have been to guffaw and repeat "Oh my God!" Thouis guy isn't doing that, but is immediately saying he was surrendering. Strange.

Or is it? Do we know the man in the picture is saying what we hear on the tape at all? After all, the video seems to be shot from quite a distance from these two gentlemen.

Again, it is strange that this should come out after all this time. And why CNN? Certainly other outlets were available, and were I a concerned citizen I would give it to multiple sources, or at least to one that had some credibility on the issue (Fox News, say) rather than CNN, which has been a purveyor of dubious information on this topic in the past. Their alleged audio of the shooting has been cast in serious doubt as a fake, for instance.

Really, it would have been far more sensible to go to a local news station, or the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Why CNN?

CNN has lost the benefit of the doubt.

Even if this is entirely true it makes no mention of what occured prior. That in itself is damning in my opinion, because some things cannot be stopped once set in motion. If Office Wilson had a serious eye injury, if he had indeed just fought Brown off, barely managing to keep his firearm, and Brown stopped to surrender it may well have appeared to be an attack posture to the visually impaired Wilson. And remember Wilson didn't just have the three hundred pound Brown to contend with but also Dorian Johnson - two assailants. Maybe Brown was surrendering and maybe he wasn't, but at this point the events were in motion and could not be stopped. Wilson was in fear for his life. Someone seeing it from a distance at a bad angle may not have understood what was happening.

Again, the claims made by the contractors are contradicted by the family's own autopsy report; Brown was not shot in the back. He was shot in the front of his arms, meaning those arms were down when Wilson opened fire. Had Brown originally raised his hands in faux surrender then charged? This is entirely plausible. What isn't plausible is the description of the contractors, who claim Wilson shot at him while he was turned around and that THEN Brown turned to face him. This is very hard to swallow.

This thing has a bad smell, if you ask me.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:17 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 714 words, total size 5 kb.

If You Want to Get into a Really Big War, Elect a Liberal

By Selwyn Duke

If I pointed out that involvement in every major 20th-century conflict the US was part of occurred on liberals’ watch, it might not be entirely fair. True, there was WWI under Wilson, WWII under FDR, Korea under Truman, and Vietnam under Kennedy and Johnson. But the second Great War needed to be fought, four conflicts aren’t exactly a scientific sample, and some could contend that these men were, to some extent, victims of timing and circumstance. It also should be said that with modernity’s characteristic flaw of relativism causing ever shifting social visions, yesterday’s liberals aren’t like today’s. As to this, some may mention that it’s a tad tendentious to limit the conflict timeframe to the 20th century, with George W. Bush getting us into Iraq and Afghanistan. But like his father, Bush was always a traditional statist, an old-line liberal in the mold of JFK. Moreover, our Middle East adventures weren’t quite like Korea or Vietnam: the wars were won fast. The problem was winning the peace.

But, fair enough, the historical record itself isn’t sufficient to indict liberals as warmongers. No matter, though, because I don’t claim liberals are warmongers. They are ignorance and naïveté mongers.

Avoiding disastrous war is the stuff of foreign policy, and foreign policy involves dealing with other humans; as such, it can only be as good as your understanding of human nature. Thus, just as in the schoolyard or the street, your ability to avoid disastrous international fights will be commensurate with your understanding of human nature. Can you read people — some of whom are potential threats — well? Can you differentiate between a gathering storm that needs to be nipped in the bud and a situation exacerbated by meddling? Do you know what’s your business and what isn’t? Can you strike the balance between projecting the strength that deters aggression and seeming as a threat yourself? Complicating matters is that foreign policy is about dealing with foreign human beings, people sharing your basic nature but not your basic conception of the world.

Given this, it’s clear that a leader can only avoid unnecessary or disastrous war insofar as he grasps man’s nature. And how do liberals measure up in this area?

During the 1990s budget battles, liberals said that with the alleged Republican "budget cuts,” the elderly would have to eat dog food to afford medicine. Spoofing this, radio host Rush Limbaugh said that he purchased a new can opener for his mother "so that she can get the dog food easier when she has to eat it.” The next day, liberal Congresswoman Pat Schroeder took to the House floor and   said flabbergasted, "T]his is what it’s come to! …Rush Limbaugh actually said he's going to buy his mother a can opener so she can have dog food. Wow!”

Yeah, wow. Schroeder took seriously the most obvious of jokes. Talk about an inability to read people. Talk about a foreign human being.
Exhibit B: at a 1990s feminist conference in my area, I made a rather articulate statement during the question-and-answer session, prompting some agitated feminist organizers to subsequently approach me and ask if I represented some group. Finding me unpalatable, they ultimately begged out of the conversation by offering to send me literature and asking for my address. I consented but quipped, "As long as you don’t send a hit squad to my house.”

You guessed it. Schroederesquely, they took me seriously and said sternly, "We don’t do things like that.” Bizarre. Just bizarre.

Then I think of Charles Jenkins, an American soldier who spent 39 years in North Korean captivity. After finally returning to the US, he said about his arch-leftist captors, "When you lie they think you are telling the truth, and when you tell the truth they think you are lying. You learn real quick to say no when you mean yes, and yes when you mean no.” I guess the North Koreans are just like our leftists — only more so.

My last example concerns the nuclear-war scare of 1983. When the CIA reported that the Soviets actually thought NATO command-post exercise Able Archer 83 might be a prelude to a nuclear attack, President Ronald Reagan was shocked. Reagan’s deputy CIA director Robert Gates would later write, "Was the Soviet leadership so out of touch that they really believed a preemptive attack was a real possibility?”

Yes, they were.

They were leftists.

Of course, it’s no put-down to mention that just as the Soviets misread Washington, Reagan and, it appears, all his advisors misread the Soviets. We all fail in this regard at times, mistaking a joke for a serious comment, taking offense when none was intended or something else. Discernment is a continuum. But while some people occupy the Amazing Kreskin end of the scale, others populate the Schroeder end. And having such a person in power can mean the bitter end.

And what of Obama? Is he at all a mind-reader or just a Teleprompter reader? He misread ISIS, calling it the "JV team.” He misread the tribalistic, Muslim humans in Iraq, saying they had a "sovereign, stable and self-reliant” "representative government.” He misread the Middle East in general, stating "the tide of war is receding.” As the usually sympathetic New York Times wrote about the president, "Time and again, he has expressed assessments of the world that in the harsh glare of hindsight look out of kilter with the changed reality he now confronts.”

Moreover, just last week Obama said in Estonia that an attack on that nation (alluding to Russian aggression) would be considered an attack on all of NATO and be met with the "armed forces of the United States of America.” Huh? As Pat Buchanan pointed out, such a statement about Russia’s sphere of influence is unprecedented and is something Obama’s "Cold War predecessors would have regarded as certifiable madness.” Would the president really risk nuclear war over tiny Estonia? Was it prudent to enter Vladimir Putin’s backyard and saber rattle? Was Obama wise to send the message that he’s either the world’s worst bluffer or its most insane leader?

But, again, liberals are the Braille bunch of human understanding. Just consider their prescriptions for deterring criminals, disciplining children, interpreting sexual inclinations or perceived statuses, encouraging productivity, avoiding nuclear war (unilateral disarmament), dealing with bullies in schools, thwarting school shootings (gun-free zones) or just about anything else that involves understanding man’s nature. Like old Patsy, who mistook a most comedic comment for the most serious callousness, they don’t just get others wrong — they get things completely backwards.
Why is this? Because liberals live lives of rationalization, something debating them reveals. You can make an airtight point and a leftist not only won’t cede it, he’ll disgorge a completely absurd denial of reality. Of course, that’s what a rationalization is: when you lie to yourself, bend reality for yourself. And when you deny reality habitually, year after year — refusing to see one pixel here, another there, and a thousand others in different places — you never assemble enough elements of reality to see the big picture; this is called being out of touch with reality. Yet living in a Matrix of his own design, the person doesn’t know he’s thus detached. But the consequence is that he has difficulty discerning truth; he misreads people, events, life, the Universe and everything.

What explains liberals’ propensity for rationalization? Note here that by "liberals” I mean people who are relativists, who don’t believe in Absolute Truth, because this defines liberals (generally speaking) at the deepest level: the philosophical. And while we all may rationalize, there is a difference. If a person believes in Truth, he’ll likely care about it and be less likely to deny one of its inconvenient or uncomfortable aspects. He’ll be wont to say, "Okay, I don’t like reality here, but, heck, the Truth’s the Truth; I’ll just have to man up and accept it.” He also may understand, or at least sense intuitively, that denial of Truth is a moral defect.

But the person fancying that morality is just values and values are man-made, that everything is relative, approaches things differently. You can’t be denying Truth if Truth doesn’t exist; you’re just denying a different perspective. Moreover, even in matters of outright deception, such as peddling forged documents damaging to George W. Bush, what of it? A lie can’t be any worse than the "truth” in a relativistic universe. For everything there boils down to occultist Aleister Crowley’s maxim, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

So what can we expect from our detached-from-reality ignorance mongers? Well, pondering this I’m reminded of a woman whose somewhat liberal husband would be namby-pamby with their son, let him take too many liberties and allow the tension to build, until he would explode and react to the boy inappropriately. That’s the danger with leftists. If anyone would get us into a really big war, it would be someone who misreads situations and other people, fails to take necessary preventive action, and then reacts rashly. It would be a liberal.

Of course, the bigger problem is the detached ignorance mongers who would elect an Obama — twice. But, hey, perhaps they can persevere if they maintain their ability to rationalize. After all, with the onset of a nuclear winter, there would be no reason to worry about global warming.

  "" Contact Selwyn Duke,  "" follow him on Twitter or log on to  H ""


A recent study shows conservatives are far better at understanding liberals than liberals are at understanding conservatives.

This buttresses Selwyn's case immensely; liberals are poor at reading people who think differently than they.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1643 words, total size 11 kb.

September 11, 2014

A New Mike Brown Tape from CNN

Timothy Birdnow

CNN is at it again. Last episode, you may remember, featured CNN promoting a dubious recording of the shooting of Michael Brown by a lovesick lothario who couldn't be bothered to stop his electronic woo-pitching as bullets wizzed about his apartment. Prior to that we had CNN claiming a witness who said that, nosiree, Officer Darren Wilson was not injured in his eye socket when Big Mike bopped him. Now we have this.

"Two men, shocked at what they saw, describe an unarmed teenager with his hands up in the air as he's gunned down by a police officer.
They were contractors doing construction work in Ferguson, Missouri, on the day Michael Brown was killed.

And the men, who asked not to be identified after CNN contacted them, said they were about 50 feet away from Officer Darren Wilson when he opened fire.
An exclusive cell phone video captures their reactions during the moments just after the shooting.

Intense clashes during Ferguson protest Protests disrupt Ferguson town meeting
Photos: Ferguson council meeting

"He had his f**n hands up," one of the men says in the video.

The man told CNN he heard one gunshot, then another shot about 30 seconds later.
"The cop didn't say get on the ground. He just kept shooting," the man said.
That same witness described the gruesome scene, saying he saw Brown's "brains come out of his head," again stating, "his hands were up."

The video shows the man raising his arms in the air -- just as, he says, Brown was doing when he was shot.

The other contractor told CNN he saw Brown running away from a police car.
Brown "put his hands up," the construction worker said, and "the officer was chasing him."
The contractor says he saw Wilson fire a shot at Brown while his back was turned."

End excerpt.

Once again, we have an anonymous source making claims that cannot be examined. We are told these are contractors who do not live in Ferguson, but are given no more information.

And we have a video of their REACTION to the shooting, but the person taking the video was unable to capture the shooting itself. The man throws up his hands; hardly the act of someone who just witnessed a gruesom cold-blooded murder. The report mentions police taping off the area, meaning this scene occured well after the shooting.

In other words, we have an anonymous guy throwing up his hands at some unspecified time after the event occured.

We have no way of knowing if this fellow saw anything at all.

Furthermore, the claim by the witness is contradicted by the Brown family's own autopsy; Brown had no bullet wounds in his back (they had the good sense to say only Wilson fired at Brown's back) but several wounds on his arms - the front of his arms. Does that sound like a man with his arms thrown up over his head?

That the man does not live in Ferguson (which may or may not be true) is immaterial; most of the looters and rioters who firebombed local businesses were not from the area either. Does that mean anything? There is nothing that prevents an outsider from making such claims when they know nothing.

Why did it take so long for these fellows to come forth? It seems to me that, with media as thick as mosquitoes in Ferguson over the last several weeks, there was ample time to get this to CNN - or any other outlet. Why is it only coming to light now?

CNN has been desperate to restart the narrative of racist cop murdering a good black child in cold blood. They have been embarassed on their last several efforts. I am fairly confident this last is just another failure.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:56 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 643 words, total size 5 kb.

Global Warming Comes Early this Year

Timothy Birdnow

Global Warming my a, er, foot!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

What's in a Name?

Dana Mathewson

From an old musician friend in Buffalo, NY., regarding a subject getting WAY too much air time these days, I think.

Subject:NFL Team Name Change

NFL Team Name Change

No matter which side you are on in this matter, this is funny. This guy is hilarious... Here is an e-mail sent to Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune after an article he published concerning a name change for the Washington Redskins.

Dear Mr. Page...
I always love your articles and I generally agree with them. I would suggest, as in an email I received, they change the name to the "Foreskins" to better represent their community, paying tribute to the dick heads in Congress.
I agree with our Native American population. I am highly insulted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins. One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay, nay. We must be careful not to offend, and in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward.
Let's ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, theAtlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians. If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns.
The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60's alive. Gone. It's offensive to us white folk.
The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that tragic war that cost this country so many young men's lives.
I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres.
Then there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates!
Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even spending habits. Wrong message to our children.
The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children.
The Cincinnati Reds promote downers/barbiturates. Wrong message to our children.
TheMilwaukeeBrewers. Well that goes without saying. Wrong message to our children.
So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the government will likely become involved with this issue, as they should. Just the kind of thing the do-nothing Congress loves.

As a diehardOregonStatefan, my wife and I, with all of this in mind, suggest it might also make some sense to change the name of theOregon
Statewomen's athletic teams to something other than "the Beavers."

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 495 words, total size 10 kb.

September 10, 2014

Dorian Johnson may have Assaulted Darren Wilson Prior to Brown Shooting

Timothy Birdnow

Dorian Johnson, the eye witness friend and partner in crime of Michael Brown, may have been an active participant in the attack on Officer Darren Wilson.

From the article:

"At first, TCT contributor "sundance” studied enlarged photos taken at the scene of the shooting, and noticed what initially appeared to be a spent bullet shell casing laying on the pavement next to Wilson’s vehicle.

Upon closer analysis, it occurred to sundance that the bright, shiny, gold-colored item in the image was not a spent shell casing at all; that it was instead a bracelet which had been worn by Johnson just prior to the incident, as shown by the surveillance video from the convenience store Brown and Johnson had just robbed.

In the video, Johnson can be seen wearing something on his right wrist which, upon inspection, resembles the bright item laying on the pavement in the photo of the shooting scene, by Wilson’s vehicle.

In his first recorded video statement to media at the scene just after the shooting, Johnson can clearly be seen with no bracelet on his right wrist–only some sort of elastic-looking band on his left wrist.

One is compelled by all this to ask: If Dorian Johnson was not involved in the physical confrontation between Brown and Wilson, then how did his bracelet wind up on the ground next to Wilson’s patrol vehicle?

The explosive report by sundance, replete with pictures, video, and analysis, can be digested here.

Further information posted by sundance about Dorian Johnson, including social media pictures clearly showing him wearing a bracelet resembling the item in question on the ground at the scene, can be assessed here.

Combine all of this with other excellent analysis by sundance and various commenters at TCT, such as the sudden appearance at the shooting scene of notorious black St. Louis race-agitator/anti-police provocateur Anthony Shahid (who went to work right away coaching certain key "eyewitnesses” to fabricate the catchy media meme "hands up, don’t shoot” narrative) and we have even more reason to see the entire controversy yet another colossal race-hoax railroading of an innocent man by the criminal black subculture and their deranged, politically-correct white cohorts."

End excerpt.

Johnson is often forgotten in this whole affair; Office Wilson did not just have to stop the three hundred pound Brown, but also defend against an attack from another direction. Had Johnson assaulted Brown then he would be guilty of murder.

I wonder what the Grand Jury is learning about this case.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 02:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 429 words, total size 15 kb.

Ferguson Revisited: Pictures at an Exhibition

Brian Birdnow

During the last week to ten days the troubles in Ferguson, Missouri have faded somewhat from the national consciousness. This is to be expected, since the modern media cycle reflects the decreasing attention span of the public. An important story has a short shelf life, and the media is pulled in different directions, as international stories begin, once again, to take center stage. It would be a mistake, though, to assume that Ferguson is all quiet now that the city has slipped from the public consideration, and the headlines. There have been renewed protest marches and public pressures on elected officials, although these have been generally peaceful and calm, in marked contrast to the events of August10-20th. Clearly, the Ferguson situation has cooled down, but there are a number of hands still to be played in this high-stakes poker match and the next few months will witness some interesting infighting between the media, politicians, the judicial system, and ordinary citizens as the game is played out to the last card.

On Monday, August 25th Michael Brown was laid to rest on a brutally hot afternoon, with the temperature hovering at the century mark, and humidity to match. A number of mourners were overcome by the elements, and required medical assistance. The register of funeral-goers included, of course, Mr. Brown’s family and friends. The list of those paying their final respects included, however, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, the Reverend Al Sharpton, Martin Luther King III, Bernice King, Spike Lee, MC Hammer, Sean (Diddy) Combs, the family of Trayvon Martin, and the family of Emmitt Till. The political contingent included U.S. Representative Maxine Waters D-California, a former resident of Kinloch, Missouri, which borders Ferguson on the west side. Also in attendance was U.S. Representative William L. Clay, who represents the district in Congress, and has routinely referred to the tragic event as a "murder”. Finally the legislative branch was represented by U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill D-Mo. Chris Koster, the Attorney General of Missouri, and a widely rumored future Democratic candidate for state governor, attended, as did St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay. Finally, the federal government was represented by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, and four unnamed White House aides who came as President Obama’s personal representatives. It speaks well of many of these people, who have no discernible connection to the Brown family, that they chose to come to North St. Louis County to comfort the grieving relatives and friends. One is left to wonder, however, if this was the primary reason that so many who did not know Michael Brown chose to attend his funeral.

The proceedings were quite decorous, by all accounts. The speakers preached reconciliation, and spoke, quite appropriately, of the need for healing. No one urged resistance or violence, although there were a few references to racial solidarity, which seems peculiar, given the strong support across racial lines for a thorough investigation of the incident, and punishment for any wrongdoing, if this is proven to be true. The Ferguson PD has also come in for criticism over heavy-handed tactics, and this has also crossed the racial divide.

The next topic of discussion must be the community of Ferguson, itself. The working class suburb has suffered a heavy body blow, and it is doubtful that the city’s reputation will ever recover. Much of the reporting concerning Ferguson has been plainly incorrect. It became something of a mantra to preface reports with the lead-in, "…the impoverished community of Ferguson, Missouri…” Ferguson has a long and generally favorable history. It was the home of General Jimmy Doolittle, major league baseball Hall-of-Famer Enos Slaughter, and Michael McDonald, of Doobie Brothers pop music fame. The country town was incorporated in 1896, and easily drew St. Louisans who liked living in a country village, a short train ride from the big city. Urban sprawl after 1940 led to a period of rapid growth, and by the late 1960s Ferguson boasted a population of over 30,000 souls. The populace was an eclectic mix of skilled laborers, white collar families, and professionals like attorneys, physicians, and academics.

Clearly, Ferguson has declined somewhat from the halcyon days of its 1960-1980 peak. Still, Ferguson is home to the Emerson Electric Corporation, and is within a stone’s throw of the Boeing Corporation World Headquarters-Defense Properties and the adjacent manufacturing facility. Centene Corporation has announced that they will shift their operations to Ferguson in the next year. Ferguson is certainly not Georgetown, Martha’s Vineyard, Malibu, or the Hamptons and the elite would not spend summers there, but media efforts to portray it as a vast and sprawling example of third world-type poverty is an inaccuracy of the worst order.

The current discontents have led, predictably, to calls to reorganize the city. Many Ferguson residents are now attaching "I Love Ferguson” stickers to their car bumpers and their houses in an effort to buck up people’s spirits. Yet, the drumbeat of criticism continues. The protests outside of the Ferguson City Hall and the Police Department carry on daily. There are calls for the city to contract policing responsibilities out to the county, or to neighboring jurisdictions. The city atmosphere is tense, if not as hot as the weather. Through it all many Ferguson residents and even the police are continuing their normal routines. Last week, two Ferguson residents who were riding horses along West Florissant Avenue in a silent protest remembering Michael Brown heard the sound of a fracas and accompanying gunshots. They witnessed an armed robbery, wherein two miscreants had relieved passersby of their I-phones. The horseback riders called police, followed the perpetrators, and helped to arrest one of them, after officers responded to the call. Police officers doing their jobs with the active assistance of concerned citizens represent the best of American life, and this is on display in Ferguson.

The media would prefer to ignore this and concentrate, instead, on the conflict here, and the racial element involved in that struggle. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the local metropolitan daily newspaper, has been stirring the pot, as is their tradition. The Post-Dispatch has slammed Ferguson for having only three African-American police officers, even though the city is 67% black. They have also argued that a city 2/3 black should, by mathematical formulae, have a similar number of black public officials. The Ferguson mayor and aldermen are all white, and this angers the Post-Dispatch to no end. Some of the few people who read the newspaper anymore have pointed out that the entire executive and editorial board of the Post-Dispatch is white, but the irony of the situation is lost on the editor and his henchmen. Rather than putting their own house in order, the Post-Dispatch scribes prefer to lob cream pies at St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch, demanding that he recuse himself from any further proceedings in this case, even though he has said he will carry out the duties he was elected to perform. Last week, the Post-Dispatch issued a formal call for President Obama to come to Ferguson and to exert his moral authority to ensure that justice is served in the community. So far they have received no response from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. With an election coming up in a couple of months one would think that the President is a little too busy at the present moment.

This preoccupation has not stopped other politicians from getting into the act. Attorney General Holder announced last week that, in addition to the civil rights investigation he ordered in Ferguson in the wake of the original protests he is ordering a concurrent investigation of the Ferguson Police Department, specifically their hiring practices, the statistics concerning traffic stops, arrests, and other assorted sundry items. Holder states that it is important that the people know that the Ferguson PD is made up of capable, competent, professional and non-racist officers. The fact that no Missouri policing jurisdiction can hire anyone who has not received 640 hours of classroom instruction and extensive field training as an officer seems lost in the sound and fury emanating from Washington.

Closer to home in Missouri, the political fallout continues to build. Jay Nixon, the state governor, lifted the state of emergency in Ferguson last week. Nixon was missing in action for the first four days of the rioting and lawlessness, and he had been dubbed the "Stealth Governor” by some. Nixon has been nothing short of breathlessly clueless and incompetent during the whole crisis. Governor Nixon has always been a slippery customer. He is a Democrat in a purple state, but one that has been trending Republican at the statewide level. He has played the game well in the sense that he is a rural Democrat and, thus, is generally trusted in outstate Missouri. He has, as a Democrat, carried the St. Louis and Kansas City metropolitan areas easily in statewide elections and has managed to scrape together enough support outstate to win four terms as state Attorney General, and two terms as Governor. He prefers to avoid controversy and adopts fairly liberal positions on social issues, gun control, and tax and spending questions. When he loses in the legislature, as is increasingly the case, he denounces the GOP, and goes off to his next fund raising event. Nixon has, however, sailed into a hurricane he never envisioned. He has lost all support among the St. Louis black political community, and has blown his support among the law and order Democrats as well, since he seemed to prejudge the case against the Ferguson PD in public comments. Nixon is term limited and cannot run for governor again. He does, however, desperately want, to win a U.S. Senate seat in 2016. He can very likely kiss that one goodbye.

One of the two current U.S. Senators, Claire McCaskill, has been very visible during the crisis, actually attending Michael Brown’s funeral, as was noted earlier. McCaskill, a former Kansas City area prosecuting attorney, now lives in suburban St. Louis, although a pretty good distance from Ferguson. McCaskill is promising hearings in Washington, she has demanded a formal investigation of the operations of Ferguson and St. Louis County Police departments, and has suggested a federal law that requires all police officers to wear body cameras in order to track their behavior during stops and arrests, not to mention possible shootouts. McCaskill may be sincere, but she has a tendency, like many politicians, to grandstand and to seek headlines. McCaskill, a savvy political operator, knows that she is a blue state woman in a purple state, and like Governor Nixon, she has to walk a thin line in order to stay in office. She does not run again until 2018, but she may be trying to build some sort of national reputation, since it is unlikely that she’ll face another weak opponent like she did in 2012.

The wild cards in the deck are a number of local figures. As was mentioned before, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch finds himself in the eye of the storm. McCulloch has been in office for years, and is respected enough that the St. Louis County Republicans are not fielding a candidate against him in November. The current unpleasantness is the first time that the temperature is ratcheting up in the McCulloch political dining hall, and the citizens will see if McCulloch can take the heat, or if he gets out of the kitchen, to paraphrase another Missouri political figure of note, namely Harry Truman.

Much of McCulloch’s discomfiture is coming from fellow St. Louis area Democrats. Antonio French, a St. Louis city alderman, has been a permanent presence at the protests and has garnered favorable national press, as a result. French has no political connection to Ferguson, but has cut a good figure, and has walked the thin line very carefully and with great skill. He has, correctly, denounced looting and rioting, but has denounced heavy handed policing, as well. Two other St. Louis area politicians Maria Chappelle-Nadal, a state representative, and Jamilah Nasheed, a state senator, have also been prominent in the protests and the action. Ms. Chappelle-Nadal has led protests outside of Ferguson City Hall, the St. Louis County Government complex, and the county police headquarters. She has led a petition drive to take Bob McCulloch off of the case, and has personally attacked McCulloch, Governor Nixon, and other public figures. She has, however, hurt her case by frequently peppering her comments with profanities, and public swearing and cursing, which alienates many right- thinking people. Ms. Nasheed has, for her own reasons, promised to shut down Interstate-70 in St. Louis next week. In response to a question from a television reporter as to what this was intended to accomplish she simply repeated the overused cliché, "No Justice, No peace.” Ms. Nasheed continued on to say that this would be only the beginning, although she refused to elaborate on that remark, or to say what would come next.

So, the unbiased observer can see that, while "peace” has returned to the recently mean streets of Ferguson, Missouri those of us who live in the area know that we aren’t out of the woods. Maybe this will start a useful national conversation, although the confrontational attitudes mentioned above are not encouraging. No one knows what lies ahead, but it will not be business as usual.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 01:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2235 words, total size 14 kb.

September 09, 2014

Will Orange be the "New Black" for Lois Lerner?

Dana Mathewson

I just read a great, great article from New York Observer, about the continuing drip, drip, drip of the IRS scandal and the part played by Lois Lerner. Thanks to Judicial Watch and their tenacity in pursuing their Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, we keep learning things such as the interesting fact that the IRS apparently buys El Cheapo computers, since they seem to have more than their share of hard drive crashes. The article tells about the latest ones:

Late last Friday afternoon, in a blatant "late news dump” to avoid making headlines about the Internal Revenue’s witch hunt against conservative non-profits, the IRS disclosed to Congress that five more of the IRS computers containing relevant records had mysteriously crashed. Those computers belonged to colleagues of Lois Lerner, whose conduct is at the center of the investigation.

Perhaps there is some strange computer virus that selectively trashes records inconvenient to incumbents, like the "glitch” that erased part of Nixon’s tapes. How else to explain the fact that this is the fourth announcement of an ever-expanding computer calamity connected to Lois Lerner to emerge from the IRS? First it was just Lerner’s computer that was affected, then those of her closest co-conspirators, then "no more than twenty” computers, and now an ever larger batch of burned out workstations.

Even more interesting, the IRS has apparently not yet shared this newest tidbit with Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, the distinguished and courageous jurist presiding over Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. Judge Sullivan has made the most progress so far in uncovering the conspiracy among Lerner and friends to target, harass and illegally obtain information from conservative non-profit organizations to benefit Mr. Obama’s reelection campaign—for which the law firm of Ms. Lerner’s husband, Michael Miles, also hosted a voter registration event.

We also learned that Lerner and the IRS wiped and destroyed her Blackberry and all its content even after the congressional investigation began. The IRS reluctantly disclosed that information only because Judge Emmet G. Sullivan didn’t accept the carefully crafted declarations in the agency’s first response.

It doesn't take a law degree to understand that destroying evidence after an investigation has begun is, well, illegal.

It gets better. While the agency continues to blame "computer crashes” for the now more than 20 people whose emails are "missing,” no IRS official has yet to identify when or how each computer crashed—much less why. We know Lois Lerner’s hard drive, which was "scratched” only a matter of days after receiving a letter from Congress requesting her emails. The IRS then destroyed it. The IRS followed a year later with the destruction of her unimpaired Blackberry containing emails for the same period. As we reported first, it made no effort whatsoever to obtain information from the Blackberry—despite being well into the Congressional inquiry. That is obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence—worse than the conduct for which Leslie Caldwell, now head of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, destroyed Arthur Andersen LLP and its 85,000 jobs.

Any number of federal criminal statutes might apply to these facts, including Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1343—Wire Fraud; Section 1503—Influencing officer generally; 1505—Obstruction of proceedings before department, agencies and committees; and Section 1519—Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations. Sections 1343 and 1503 are also predicate offenses for the federal Racketeering Statute, Section 1961, which provides that a "pattern of racketeering activity” can be proved by committing two predicate acts. These statutes are punishable by terms of imprisonment varying from five to twenty years.

I hope I've whetted your interest to read the whole article, which is here:

Meanwhile, if you get a solicitation for money from Judicial Watch, think about this lawsuit and remember: these guys are doing very important work!

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 645 words, total size 6 kb.

<< Page 1 of 480 >>
169kb generated in CPU 0.07, elapsed 0.0801 seconds.
33 queries taking 0.0165 seconds, 167 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.