Thursday, March 19, 2015

he lied to get elected. what a loser and those who voted for him are stupid.

Netanyahu’s Likud Surges to Stunning Israeli Election Win

By Associated Press | March 18, 2015

Last Updated: March 18, 2015 6:52 am

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu greets supporters at the party's election headquarters In Tel Aviv. Wednesday, March 18, 2015. Exit polls from Israel’s national elections showed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party nearly deadlocked with Isaac Herzog’s center-left Zionist Union. (AP/Dan Balilty)

TEL AVIV, Israel—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling Likud Party scored a resounding victory in the country’s election, final results showed Wednesday, a stunning turnaround after a tight race that had put his lengthy rule in jeopardy.
With nearly all votes counted, Likud appeared to have earned 30 out of parliament’s 120 seats and was in a position to build with relative ease a coalition government with its nationalist, religious and ultra-Orthodox Jewish allies. Such a government would likely put Israel at odds with the international community over settlement construction and its opposition to Palestinian statehood, and continue clashing with the White House over hard-line policies.
The election was widely seen as a referendum on Netanyahu, who has governed the country for the past six years. Recent opinion polls indicated he was in trouble, giving chief rival Isaac Herzog of the opposition Zionist Union a slight lead. Exit polls Tuesday showed the two sides deadlocked but once the actual results came pouring in early Wednesday, Likud soared forward. Zionist Union wound up with just 24 seats.
Given the final results, it is all but assured that Israel’s largely ceremonial President Reuven Rivlin will task Netanyahu with forming a new government. Netanyahu says he hopes to do so quickly, within two to three weeks.
“Against all odds, we achieved a great victory for the Likud,” Netanyahu told supporters at his election night headquarters, declaring victory even before final results were known. “I am proud of the people of Israel, who in the moment of truth knew how to distinguish between what is important and what is peripheral, and to insist on what is important.”
Netanyahu focused his campaign primarily on security issues, while his opponents instead pledged to address the country’s high cost of living and accused the leader of being out of touch with everyday people. Netanyahu will likely look to battle that image now by adding to his government Moshe Kahlon, whose upstart Kulanu party captured 10 seats with a campaign focused almost entirely on bread-and-butter economic issues. Kahlon is expected to become the country’s next finance minister.
A union of four largely Arab-backed factions became Israel’s third largest party — with 14 seats — and gave Israel’s Arab minority significant leverage in parliament for the first time. Ten parties in all made it into parliament.
Herzog, who appeared poised only days ago to stage a coup, conceded defeat, saying he called Netanyahu and offered him congratulations. He signaled that he would not join forces with Netanyahu and would rather head to the opposition.
“I think that at this moment what Israel needs most of all is another voice, a voice that offers an alternative and a voice that tells it the truth,” he said outside his Tel Aviv home.
Netanyahu’s return to power for a fourth term likely spells trouble for Mideast peace efforts and could further escalate tensions with the United States.
Netanyahu, who already has a testy relationship with President Barack Obama, took a sharp turn to the right in the final days of the campaign, staking out a series of hard-line positions that will put him on a collision course with much of the international community.
In a dramatic policy reversal, he said he now opposes the creation of a Palestinian state — a key policy goal of the White House and the international community. He also promised to expand construction in Jewish areas of east Jerusalem, the section of the city claimed by the Palestinians as their capital.
The Palestinians, fed up after years of deadlock with Netanyahu, are now likely to press ahead with their attempts to bring war crimes charges against Israel in the International Criminal Court. Renewed violence could also loom.
The international community overwhelmingly supports the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza Strip, areas captured by Israel in 1967, and opposes settlement construction. With the race close, Netanyahu reneged on his previous stated support for a Palestinian state in an attempt to shore up his hawkish base in a frenzied last day of campaigning.
Netanyahu also infuriated the White House early this month when he delivered a speech to U.S. Congress criticizing an emerging nuclear deal with Iran. The speech was arranged with Republican leaders and not coordinated with the White House ahead of time. Reaching a two-state solution to the Palestinian conflict has been a top foreign policy priority for President Obama as well.
In Washington, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama was confident strong U.S.-Israeli ties would endure far beyond the election, regardless of the victor.
Throughout the campaign, Netanyahu portrayed himself as the only politician capable of confronting Israel’s numerous security challenges.
Avi Degani, president of the Geocartography polling institute who had predicted an outright Likud victory, said ultimately Netanyahu’s experience prevailed.
“There was a situation where many people wanted to replace him but there was no one whom they wanted to replace him with,” he said.

Category: World Europe

Saturday, March 14, 2015

netan yahoo is sure there is a wide movement to oust him.

"There is a huge international effort, with major money, that is partnering up with leftist organizations here and also with media figures in order to bring down the Likud government that I head," Netanyahu told Channel 2 television on Saturday.

Just like Ghadaffi, and Assad. and every other Arab Spring Totalitarian that went down.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

what the hell are republicans warning the Iranians about anything?

SHouldnt they be charged with giving comfort to the enemy?if they are warning them about anything? It is obviously written to help them in some way? THanks for your DE.

Sunday, March 1, 2015

Bibi's ready for his close up.

This is all about showing how great Bibi is. Are we really to believe that the U.S. is ready to let another country blow up Israel? Bibi is feeling a little less than supremely powerful and he is trying to bull his way back to the power of the top. wont happen. His God is not at the top anymore. He is not Moses. IT's over. He needs to pack up and apologize to his country and I mean really apologize like he means it or drag his people to hell, unless they vote him out, which they should do post haste.

Friday, February 27, 2015

We are not a Christian Nation

Founding Fathers: We Are Not a Christian Nation

Posted: 02/26/2015 12:49 pm EST Updated: 02/26/2015 4:59 pm EST

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
--John Adams
As we witness yet again the brutal and bloody consequences of religious intolerance in the form of ISIS, we have a majority of Republicans pining for a Christian America. Proponents of converting the United States into a theocracy do not see the terrible parallel between religious excess in the Middle East and here at home, but they would not because blindness to reason is the inevitable consequence of religious zealotry.
Conservatives who so proudly tout their fealty to the Constitution want to trash our founding document by violating the First Amendment in hopes of establishing Christianity as the nation's religion. This is precisely what the Constitution prohibits:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Back to the Beginning
How terribly ironic that the louder Christians protest against the excesses of Islam, the more they agitate for Christian excess. We really need to stop this ridiculous argument about being a Christian nation. If there should be any doubt, let us listen to the founding fathers themselves. This from Thomas Jefferson in an April 11, 1823, letter to John Adams:

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. ... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding....

These are not the words of a man who wishes to establish a Christian theocracy. Jefferson promoted tolerance above all and said earlier that his statute for religious freedom in Virginia was "meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammeden, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." He specifically wished to avoid the dominance of a single religion.
Let us be perfectly clear: We are not now, nor have we ever been, a Christian nation. Our founding fathers explicitly and clearly excluded any reference to "God" or "the Almighty" or any euphemism for a higher power in the Constitution. Not one time is the word "god" mentioned in our founding document. Not one time.
The facts of our history are easy enough to verify. Anybody who ignorantly insists that our nation is founded on Christian ideals need only look at the four most important documents from our early history -- the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers and the Constitution -- to disprove that ridiculous religious bias. All four documents unambiguously prove our secular origins.
Declaration of Independence (1776)
The most important assertion in this document is that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Note that the power of government is derived not from any god but from the people. No appeal is made in this document to a god for authority of any kind. In no case are any powers given to religion in the affairs of man.
Remember, too, that this document was not written to form or found a government but was stating intent in a way that was meant to appeal to an audience with European sensibilities. Only four times is there any reference at all to higher powers -- "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," "Supreme Judge of the world," "their Creator," and "divine Providence" -- and in all four cases the references to a higher power appeal to the idea of inherent human dignity, never implying a role for a god in government.
Articles of Confederation (1777)
Throughout the entire document, in all 13 articles, the only reference to anything remotely relating to a god is a term used one time, "Great Governor of the World," and even then only in the context of general introduction, like "Ladies and gentlemen, members of the court...." Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this document did indeed seek to create a type of government in the form of a confederation of independent states. The authors gave no power or authority to religion. And this document is our first glimpse into the separation of church and state, because just as the Articles of Confederation give no authority to religion in civil matters, so too does the document deny any authority of government in matters of faith.
U.S. Constitution (1787)
This one is easy, because the Constitution of the United States of America makes zero reference to a god or Christianity.
The only reference to religion, found in Article VI, is a negative one: "[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." And of course we have the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Federalist Papers (1787-88)
While Thomas Jefferson was the genius behind the Declaration of Independence, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (publishing under the pseudonym "Publius") were the brains providing the intellectual foundation of our Constitution. And what brilliance they brought to the task. The first time I picked up the Federalist Papers, I intended to scan the book briefly and then move on to more interesting pursuits. But I could not put it down; the book reads like an intriguing mystery novel with an intricate plot and complex characters acting on every human emotion. There is no better way to get into the minds of our founding fathers and understand their original intent than by reading this collection of amazing essays.
As with the Constitution, at no time is a god ever mentioned in the Federalist Papers. At no time is Christianity every mentioned. Religion is only discussed in the context of keeping matters of faith separate from concerns of governance, and of keeping religion free from government interference.
The founding fathers could not be clearer on this point: God has no role in government; Christianity has no role in government. They make this point explicitly, repeatedly, in multiple founding documents. We are not a Christian nation.
"In God We Trust"
Our national obsession with God in politics is actually a recent phenomenon and would seem completely alien to any of our founders. "In God We Trust" was first placed on United States coins in 1861, during the Civil War. (More about that in a bit.) Teddy Roosevelt tried to remove the words from our money in 1907 but was shouted down. Only in 1956 was that expression adopted as the national motto by the 84th Congress. The clause "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was inserted only in 1954, when President Eisenhower signed legislation to recognize "the dedication of our Nation and our people to the Almighty." But conservatives, ignorant of our history, or willfully ignoring it, wish us to believe that the pledge always referenced God. Here is Sarah Palin's take, defending the "under God" clause: "If the pledge was good enough for the founding fathers, its [sic] good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance." One wonders if she thinks the founders were alive in 1954. I guess if Noah could live to be nearly 800 years old....
That we are a secular nation was obvious to past generations, so much so that in the mid-1800s several groups formed to rectify what they considered a mistake of our forefathers in founding our country on principles of reason rather than faith. Perhaps the most prominent was the National Reform Association, established in 1863 for the purpose of amending the preamble to the Constitution to acknowledge God and Jesus Christ as the sources of all government power, because the original document does not.
The National Reform Association believed that the Civil War was evidence that God was punishing the country for their failure to put God into the Constitution (nothing to do with slavery, of course). Also, note that this apparent knowledge of God's mind is reminiscent of Pat Robertson's claims about God's wrath in Haiti, Florida and anywhere else he believes the devil has taken hold. Anyway, in their 1864 convention the National Reform Association agreed on a preamble that would replace "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..." with "Recognizing Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, and acknowledging the Lord Jesus Christ as the governor among the nations, his revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government...."
They presented their suggestion to President Lincoln, who avoided it like a dirty diaper. The Congress also dodged the idea but threw the group a bone by agreeing to put "In God We Trust" on our currency, in an act of pure political pandering. So "In God We Trust" was first placed on United States coins in 1861 during the Civil War. From the Treasury we also find out:

The use of IN GOD WE TRUST has not been uninterrupted. The motto disappeared from the five-cent coin in 1883, and did not reappear until production of the Jefferson nickel began in 1938. Since 1938, all United States coins bear the inscription. Later, the motto was found missing from the new design of the double-eagle gold coin and the eagle gold coin shortly after they appeared in 1907. In response to a general demand, Congress ordered it restored, and the Act of May 18, 1908, made it mandatory on all coins upon which it had previously appeared. IN GOD WE TRUST was not mandatory on the one-cent coin and five-cent coin. It could be placed on them by the Secretary or the Mint Director with the Secretary's approval.
The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since July 1, 1908.

For much of our existence, the United States never included God in its motto, on its currency, or in any document creating the Republic. We were born a secular nation and must remain one to sustain our future, unless we want to go the way of ISIS.
Our founding fathers understood well the extraordinary danger of mixing religion and politics; we forget that lesson at our great peril. If we forget, just glance over to the Middle East. I tremble in fear for my country when the majority of conservatives believe we are a Christian nation; that frightening majority has forgotten our history, ignored our founding principles and abandoned our most cherished ideal of separating church and state. In mixing religion and politics, the religious right subverts both. And the world suffers.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

Walmart giving raises to it's workers/

ITs probably because we refuse to buy from them when they treat our people like shit.

We have the power people.

Aetna’s C.E.O., Mark Bertolini, announced in January that Aetna’s lowest-paid workers will get big raises. Some will go from $12 to $16 an hour. “Companies are not just money-making machines,” he told the New Yorker. “For the good of the social order, these are the kinds of investments we should be willing to make.”

Walmart’s Macmillon sounded as if he was thinking the same way. Walmart is the biggest employer in the United States, with 1.3 million employees. If it chooses to share more of the wealth it generates with its non-executive workers, it might be the beginning of a big change in America’s economic landscape.

The labor market is changing. “The number of state and city minimum wage increases across the country, and now this move from Walmart, is important,” according to Alexander Colvin, Professor of Labor Relations and Conflict Resolution at Cornell University.

Religious Acceptance Key to Combating Extremism

Obama: Religious Acceptance Key to Combating Extremism

“showing the world the power of peaceful communities."

This is a more refined view of showing the world the power of making money.

President Barack Obama told world leaders on Thursday that promoting democracy and acceptance of people of all faiths are essential to stopping the spread of violent extremism.

"Groups like al Qaeda and [ISIS] peddle the lie that some of our countries are hostile to Muslims. Meanwhile we've also seen, most recently in Europe, arise inexcusable acts of anti-Semitism, or in some cases anti-Muslim sentiment, or anti-immigrant sentiment," Obama said at the closing session of a White House summit on combating extremism. "When people spew hatred towards others because of their faith or because of their faith or because they are immigrants, it feeds into terrorist narratives."

The president's remarks come as anti-Muslim sentiment is on the rise in Europe following terror attacks in Paris and Copenhagen.

Obama: 'Ugly Lie' That West Is at War With Islam

NBC NEWS

The president also said stability requires democratic governments and that oppressing groups upon sectarian lines fuels the hatred that creates terrorism. The Sunnis alienation from the Iraqi government was a major factor that led to the rise of ISIS.

"When people are oppressed and human rights are denied, particularly along sectarian lines, or ethnic lines, when dissent is silenced, it feeds violent extremists," Obama said.

Thursday marked the second day the president addressed the conference that consisted of delegates from more than 60 countries. In both his speeches, Obama made clear the west was not at war with Islam, but those who have "perverted" it.

"The notion that the West is at war with Islam is an ugly lie," Obama said.

-- Andrew Rafferty

Monday, February 16, 2015

Bush/Schiavo

the 3rd Bush , contrary to commonly heard republican themes about letting the individual be responsible, and smaller government, intrusively, grew the government, overreached himself, representing the government, into a family situation that was being taken care of independently. This is what he is used to, getting his own way, by stepping on whatever he needs to to get what he wants. THAT is the true republican way. Same as FATSO in JERSEY. This girl was dead. without tubes, she was going to die. let nature take it's course. But no, He intruded and went to great lengths to do so. including sponsoring a special bill giving him clearance to After her husband obtained a court order to pull her life-support in 2002, Bush worked with the state legislature to pass a bill that would give the governor the power to reinsert Schiavo’s feeding tubes., specially creating a a law that only affected ONE person! this is not a MISTAKE, this is a meditated, thought out activist (doing whatever you want) intrusion into the private lives of Americans, based on religion. His religion.

IT is his first failure, to force religion into the state apparatus, specifically, republican right religion. Totalitarian.. A true despot. Perhaps even a god as he speaks of what only a god can know - “absolute truth”

Bush told reporters he was “disappointed, not for any political reasons, but for the moral reasons.”

He called his personal police department - “I requested that FDLE in concert with the Department of Children and Families be prepared to enter,” Bush told reporters,

He needed legal walls to hide behind before he ordered police to do anything. Bush told reporters, “We were ready to go.....“if that was going to be the option available to us

“We were ready to go,” a Bush spokesman told the Miami Herald. “We didn’t want to break the law.”

What makes him “untrustworthy,” he said, is that he fought the courts as long as he did just because he didn’t like the decisions they kept making. “I wouldn’t trust him in any type of political office,” he said.

Bottom line: MAJOR EXECUTIVE OVERREACH. ON A PERSONAL WHIM. AT A SMALL EXECUTIVE LEVEL.

Friday, February 13, 2015

took 2 days to comment on the Chapel Hill assissinations

Obama’s silence on Chapel Hill murders already speaks volumes

Submitted by Ali Abunimah on Wed, 02/11/2015 - 17:03

chapel_hill_3.jpg

Deah Barakat, Yusor Abu-Salha and Razan Abu-Salha were shot dead last night in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. (via social media)

Note: This post has been updated with additional information since initial publication.

Update, 12 February: “No specific reaction” from White House

On Wednesday, at the White House press briefing, President Obama’s spokesperson was asked about the administration’s reaction to the Chapel Hill shootings.
“There’s no specific reaction from the White House,” Obama spokesperson Josh Earnest replied.
Earnest added that the White House would await the results of the local police investigation before saying anything, a standard, as I note below, that not been applied in other recent cases of mass violence. In those cases, Obama has strongly condemned killings and offered condolences and federal assistance to local authorities immediately.
Obama’s studied silence continues even as Chapel Hill newspaper The News and Observer reports that thousands came out last night to mourn Deah Barakat, Yusor Abu-Salha and Razan Abu-Salha, whose killings, it said, “reverberate around the world.”
Jordan’s foreign ministry has also announced that the Abu-Salha sisters carried Jordanian citizenship.

Original post

Whatever he says, if anything, in the next few hours, US President Barack Obama’s silence so far on the murders of three young Muslims in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, last night already speaks volumes.
Once again, Obama is sending the message that racially or religiously motivated violence by white men, against Muslims or people of color, is not his concern and is not a public concern.
He’s demonstrating contempt for Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23, his wife Yusor Abu-Salha, 21, and Yusor’s sister, Razan Abu-Salha, 19, who were gunned down last night. (The Facebook page “Our Three Winners” has been set up to pay tribute to the three accomplished young people.)
He’s demonstrating neglect for Muslim Americans left in shock, fear and anguish. Few who have paid attention to the relentlessly rising volume of unchecked Islamophobia will be surprised at these killings. And we cannot ignore the role of the “war on terror” that Obama is escalating once again in stoking hatred of Muslims.
A neighbor, Craig Stephen Hicks, 46, turned himself in over the shooting. A Facebook page apparently belonging to Hicks examined in detail by The Electronic Intifada contains a relentless stream of anti-religious diatribes going back years, with many posts quoting the notorious British Islamophobic “atheist” Richard Dawkins.
When the alleged perpetrator of a crime is identified as Muslim, far less than this is necessary for media to begin speculating about “terrorist” motives.
Yet absurdly, Chapel Hill police announced: “Our preliminary investigation indicates that the crime was motivated by an ongoing neighbor dispute over parking.”
As of this morning, no mainstream media outlets I could see were referring to the murders as a potential act of “terrorism.”
With the 15 April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, however, the label was applied immediately.
Obama, to his slight credit, waited a single day before rushing to judgment that the Boston bombing was indeed a “terrorist” attack and its unknown perpetrators “terrorists.” But he did not wait that long to address a panicked nation and first spoke out about the attack, pledging federal resources within hours.
As I wrote at that time: “It is also important to note the contrast between Obama’s eagerness to label the Boston attack as ‘terror’ and its alleged perpetrators as ‘terrorists’ – without evidence – and his reluctance to label the August 2012 mass murder at the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin as ‘terrorism’ despite the identification of the shooter as having a history of white nationalist and supremacist activism.”
Similarly, public intellectual Dr. Cornel West has slammed Obama for “silence” on the murder and oppression of Black Americans by police.
West criticized Obama for sending out condolences on the death of Hollywood actor Robin Williams before acknowledging the police killing in Ferguson, Missouri, of Michael Brown.

Obama has no excuse for not speaking

The families of Deah Barakat and Yusor and Razan Abu-Salha held a press conference on Wednesday afternoon urging authorities to investigate the murders as hate crimes (video). Deah’s older sister Suzanne Barakat also gave this powerful and emotional interview to CNN’s Anderson Cooper.

Suzanne Barakat talking to Anderson Cooper about Chapel Hill Shooting

Given the national and global attention to this case, and the heightened tensions due to Islamophobia, Obama could have already issued a short statement to the effect that he’s aware of the horrific tragedy, sends condolences for three young Americans, is gathering information and will offer federal assistance to local authorities.
Indeed, that is precisely what Obama did right after the 13 April 2014 shooting at Jewish community center in Kansas City. The president noted that “While we do not know all of the details surrounding today’s shooting, the initial reports are heartbreaking.”
He offered his condolences for the dead and said “I have asked my team to stay in close touch with our federal, state and local partners and provide the necessary resources to support the ongoing investigation.”
Is that too much to ask? Instead there has been silence almost twenty-four hours after the shootings.

on Twitter

White men’s culture and violence

hicks_gun.jpg

A photo of a gun posted on Facebook by suspected Chapel Hill killer Craig Hicks.

There is a disturbing pattern here that is inescapable yet little discussed, but raised eloquently in a March 2013 Washington Post op-ed by Charlotte Childress and Harriet Childress.
It’s so important, I’m quoting it at length:

Imagine if African American men and boys were committing mass shootings month after month, year after year. Articles and interviews would flood the media, and we’d have political debates demanding that African Americans be “held accountable.” Then, if an atrocity such as the Newtown, Conn., shootings took place and African American male leaders held a news conference to offer solutions, their credibility would be questionable. The public would tell these leaders that they need to focus on problems in their own culture and communities.
But when the criminals and leaders are white men, race and gender become the elephant in the room.
Nearly all of the mass shootings in this country in recent years — not just Newtown, Aurora, Fort Hood, Tucson and Columbine — have been committed by white men and boys. Yet when the National Rifle Association (NRA), led by white men, held a news conference after the Newtown massacre to advise Americans on how to reduce gun violence, its leaders’ opinions were widely discussed.
Unlike other groups, white men are not used to being singled out. So we expect that many of them will protest it is unfair if we talk about them. But our nation must correctly define their contribution to our problem of gun violence if it is to be solved.
When white men try to divert attention from gun control by talking about mental health issues, many people buy into the idea that the United States has a national mental health problem, or flawed systems with which to address those problems, and they think that is what produces mass shootings.
But women and girls with mental health issues are not picking up semiautomatic weapons and shooting schoolchildren. Immigrants with mental health issues are not committing mass shootings in malls and movie theaters. Latinos with mental health issues are not continually killing groups of strangers.

Childress and Childress pose these questions in ways we are not used to hearing, when the subjects are white men:

What facets of white male culture create so many mass shootings?
Why are so many white men and boys producing and entertaining themselves with violent video games and other media?
Why do white men buy, sell and manufacture guns for profit; attend gun shows; and demonstrate for unrestricted gun access disproportionately more than people of other ethnicities or races? Why are white male congressmen leading the fight against gun control?
If Americans ask the right questions on gun issues, we will get the right answers. These answers will encourage white men to examine their role in their own culture and to help other white men and boys become healthier and less violent.

Interestingly, Childress and Childress classify the 2009 Fort Hood shooter as a white man. According to US census definitions, they are correct since people of Arab ancestry are officially classified as “caucasian.”
But in fact, unlike mass shooters of European descent, US Army Major Nidal Malik Hassan, who was sentenced to death for killing fourteen fellow soldiers, has widely been called an “Islamic terrorist” by US media and politicians.
Muslims are used to being collectively scapegoated, any and all of them considered accountable for the acts of any other Muslim anywhere in the world. And whereas the actions of white shooters are almost immediately attributed to “mental health” issues, those who happen to be Muslim are always suspected of having religion as their driving motive.
Obama may speak soon and I’ll be watching what he says. But his silence has already sent a disturbing message.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

I kill because I believe in right vs wrong?

What religion says that?

Confiscation of Falun Gong Banners Ruled Unconstitutional in Hong Kong

By Lin Yi, Epoch Times | February 12, 2015

Last Updated: February 12, 2015 7:21 am

Food and Environmental Hygiene Department officers are attempting to take away a Falun Gong banner held by a practitioner Ms Poon (center) on May 2, 2013. (Epoch Times)

HONG KONG—For the past two years, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) in Hong Kong has been interfering with Falun Gong information booths and confiscating banners and materials. Their actions were recently ruled unconstitutional and excessively forceful.
Since the Chinese Communist Party began its brutal persecution of Falun Gong in 1999, practitioners of the spiritual discipline have been explaining the facts about the persecution to citizens and mainland Chinese tourists in Hong Kong. They use information booths to raise awareness of the situation and counter the Party’s propaganda.
Beginning in April 2013, the FEHD, under the administration of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying, has employed a task force to carry out daily inspections of Falun Gong booths and forcibly confiscate all their banners and panels.
Although Falun Gong practitioners have recently made progress with their lawsuits, the FEHD has ignored the court’s decision and continues to interfere.

Ms. Poon’s Case

50-year-old Falun Gong practitioner Ms. Poon arrived alone at the Chief Executive’s Office in Central on May 2, 2013 to raise awareness of the persecution by holding banners. While she was meditating, around 10 FEHD members arrived.
An FEHD member bagged one of the banners, and Ms. Poon hurriedly took the other banners in her arms. Several members tried to take them away from her, but were unsuccessful and called the police.

MORE:

A Hong Kong Judge Just Called This Chinese Shopping Habit a ‘National Disgrace’ – and Netizens Agree

10 police officers arrived and asked Ms. Poon to hand over the banners. She refused at first, as she did not think she had done anything illegal.
However, after arriving at the police station to give a witness statement, she was forced to surrender the banners as evidence.
On Aug. 8 that year, Ms. Poon was officially accused of resisting or obstructing a public officer and illegally displaying bills or posters on government land.
After many call-over hearings, Magistrate Marco Li Kwok-wai ruled on Jan. 30, 2015 that article 104A of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (PHMSO), Chapter 132—prohibition of unauthorized display of bills or posters—is in violation of Hong Kong’s Basic Law and Human Rights Law.

The task force of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department is taking away Falun Gong demonstration placards and banners in Mong Kok in 2013. (Epoch Times)

Article 104A states that no bill or poster shall be displayed or affixed on any government land, except with the written permission of the authority. The article was originally used for the abuse of space for commercial bills, but for the past two years it has been used to accuse Falun Gong practitioners of illegally displaying banners and display boards in public areas without permission.
However, the application form in the Management Scheme for the Display of Roadside Non-Commercial Publicity Materials is actually a well-defined form that states, under Note: (2): “Only the organizations listed at B(1) are eligible to apply. Applications from individuals (except District Council Members and LegCo Members) will not be considered.”
Since Article 104A does not allow for the freedom of expression by individuals, Li ruled it unconstitutional.
Although the article gives the FEHD the authority to remove banners, Li criticized the department for their excessive use of force. He also said that accusing the other party of an offense was a harsh approach.
The representative of the Department of Justice has appealed against Li’s decision, and another hearing has been scheduled. As Article 104A was ruled unconstitutional, it is expected that the charges will be withdrawn at the next hearing.
Ms. Poon said that she is not surprised at the results. She said that exposing the Communist Party’s persecution is not illegal, and she is confident that she will win.
Former Democratic Party community officer Chow Wai-tung, who has been actively assisting Falun Gong practitioners, said the FEHD has used Article 104A to suppress Falun Gong practitioners for a long time, stifling their freedom of expression.
“The court believes that article 104A actually conflicts with the freedom of expression,” Chow said. “The article is being abused by the FEHD, and it is like a knife that stifles human rights. That’s why it is being ruled unconstitutional.”
He thinks this decision is meaningful. “Now that the court has ruled it unconstitutional, this law naturally cannot be used anymore. The government can either amend the legislation so that it will not violate human rights, or make some new legislation to replace it,” Chow said.

Mr. Chan’s Case

Another incident on May 2, 2013 became the first time a Falun Gong practitioner won a case after being falsely accused by the FEHD.
That day, Falun Gong practitioner Mr. Chan was using banners to explain the facts about the persecution at Argyle Street in Mong Kok when a FEHD inspector led 10 task force members to attempt to remove the banners.
After both sides reached a stalemate, the FEHD charged Mr. Chan with the offense of obstructing a public officer.

MORE:

In court, the video provided by the police department was found to have inadequate prima facie evidence. The defendant lawyer argued that they did not need to respond to such a video, and Magistrate Don So Man-lung agreed.
The judge believed that Mr. Chan did not know the people who came to take the banners were from the FEHD, and they also did not have the authority to take the banners. The removal of banners is only authorized to the inspector level, and the video showed that the inspector did not arrive until the middle of the incident.
The Magistrate ruled Mr. Chan not guilty, and the banners were returned to him. The entire court case took one hour, and Mr. Chan won it on Jan. 29 this year.
Chow said that the victory of this case is very significant, as this was the first case in which the FEHD has falsely accused Falun Gong practitioners and also the first time the ruling was in favor of the accused.
He thinks this case is very representative, as it highlights the fact that the FEHD’s forcible confiscation of Falun Gong banners is politically motivated. This case shows that the FEHD is deliberately trying to suppress the situation, Chow said.
Recently, the FEHD has continued to harass Falun Gong information booths. Chow called on FEHD members to not break the law and not violate the basic human rights of Falun Gong practitioners.
Translated by Veronica Wong. Written in English by Sally Appert.

Tags: Falun Gong persecution Falun Gong practitioner Hong Kong

Category: China Chinese Regime

Monday, February 9, 2015

Top US analyst: We made 5 dangerously wrong assumptions about China
MICHAEL PILLSBURY, "THE HUNDRED-YEAR MARATHON"
FEB. 9, 2015, 2:22 PM 12,459 19

chinaReuters/David GrayThis story comes from "The Hundred-Year Marathon" by Michael Pillsbury.
See Also

Drones are delivering ginger tea in China

China has crossed a major investment threshold that is going to change the entire world

Here's the latest effort by China to stimulate growth
Michael Pillsbury is director of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Chinese Strategy and a top defense policy advisor. He worked on China policy and intelligence issues for the White House during several US administrations. The following post is an excerpt from his book, "The Hundred-Year Marathon."

I was among the first people to provide intelligence to the White House favoring an overture to China, in 1969.

For decades, I played a sometimes prominent role in urging administrations of both parties to provide China with technological and military assistance.

I largely accepted the assumptions shared by America’s top diplomats and scholars, which were inculcated repeatedly in American strategic discussions, commentary, and media analysis.

We believed that American aid to a fragile China whose leaders thought like us would help China become a democratic and peaceful power without ambitions of regional or even global dominance.

Every one of the assumptions behind that belief was wrong—dangerously so.

The error of those assumptions is becoming clearer by the day, by what China does and, equally important, by what China does not do.

False assumption #1:  Engagement brings complete cooperation
chinaReuters/Kim Kyung-Hoon

For four decades now, my colleagues and I believed that “engagement” with the Chinese would induce China to cooperate with the West on a wide range of policy problems. It hasn’t. Trade and technology were supposed to lead to a convergence of Chinese and Western views on questions of regional and global order. They haven’t. In short, China has failed to meet nearly all of our rosy expectations.

Take, for example, weapons of mass destruction. No security threat poses a greater danger to the United States and our allies than their proliferation. But China has been less than helpful — to put it mildly — in checking the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran.

In the aftermath of 9/11, some commentators expressed the belief that America and China would henceforth be united by the threat of terrorism, much as they had once been drawn together by the specter of the Soviet Union. These high hopes of cooperating to confront the “common danger” of terrorism, as President George W. Bush described it in his January 2002 State of the Union address, by speaking of “erasing old rivalries,” did not change China’s attitude. Sino-American collaboration on this issue has turned out to be quite limited in scope and significance.

False assumption #2:  China is on the road to democracy
incense chinaReuters/Stringer

China has certainly changed in the past thirty years, but its political system has not evolved in the ways that we advocates of engagement had hoped and predicted. The idea that the seeds of democracy have been sown at the village level became the conventional wisdom among many China watchers in America.

My faith was first shaken in 1997, when I was among those encouraged to visit China to witness the emergence of “democratic” elections in a village near the industrial town of Dongguan. While visiting, I had a chance to talk in Mandarin with the candidates and see how the elections actually worked. The unwritten rules of the game soon became clear: the candidates were allowed no pubic assemblies, no television ads, and no campaign posters.

They were not allowed to criticize any policy implemented by the Communist Party, nor were they free to criticize their opponents on any issue. There would be no American-style debates over taxes or spending or the country’s future. The only thing a candidate could do was to compare his personal qualities to those of his opponent. Violations of these rules were treated as crimes.

False assumption #3:  China, the fragile flower
china phoneReuters/Edgar Su

In 1996, I was part of a U.S. delegation to China that included Robert Ellsworth, the top foreign policy adviser to the Republican presidential nominee, Robert Dole.

In what appeared to be a forthright exchange of views with Chinese scholars, we were told that China was in serious economic and political peril — and that the potential for collapse loomed large. These distinguished scholars pointed to China’s serious environmental problems, restless ethnic minorities, and incompetent and corrupt government leaders — as well as to those leaders’ inability to carry out necessary reforms.

I later learned that the Chinese were escorting other groups of American academics, business leaders, and policy experts on these purportedly “exclusive” visits, where they too received an identical message about China’s coming decline. Many of them then repeated these “revelations” in articles, books, and commentaries back in the United States.

Yet the hard fact is that China’s already robust GDP is predicted to continue to grow by at least 7 or 8 percent, thereby surpassing that of the United States by 2018 at the earliest, according to economists from the International Monetary Fund, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the United Nations. Unfortunately, China policy experts like me were so wedded to the idea of the “coming collapse of China” that few of us believed these forecasts. While we worried about China’s woes, its economy more than doubled.

False assumption #4:  China wants to be — and is — just like us
news conference chinaReuters/Carlos BarriaA foreign journalist raises her hand to ask a question during a news conference in Beijing.

In our hubris, Americans love to believe that the aspiration of every other country is to be just like the United States. In recent years, this has governed our approach to Iraq and Afghanistan. We cling to the same mentality with China.

In the 1940s, an effort was funded by the U.S. government to understand the Chinese mind-set. One conclusion that emerged was that the Chinese did not view strategy the same way Americans did. Whereas Americans tended to favor direct action, those of Chinese ethnic origin were found to favor the indirect over the direct, ambiguity and deception over clarity and transparency. Another conclusion was that Chinese literature and writings on strategy prized deception.

Two decades later, Nathan Leites, who was renowned for his psychoanalytical cultural studies, observed:

Chinese literature on strategy from Sun Tzu through Mao Tse-tung has emphasized deception more than many military doctrines. Chinese deception is oriented mainly toward inducing the enemy to act inexpediently and less toward protecting the integrity of one’s own plans.

False assumption #5:  China’s hawks are weak
freedom birds geese letting go flying free chinaREUTERS/China DailyA paramilitary policeman releases a wild goose in Linghai, Liaoning province, January 20, 2015.

In the late 1990s, during the Clinton administration, I was tasked by the Department of Defense and the CIA to conduct an unprecedented examination of China’s capacity to deceive the United States and its actions to date along those lines.

Over time, I discovered proposals by Chinese hawks (ying pai) to the Chinese leadership to mislead and manipulate American policymakers to obtain intelligence and military, technological, and economic assistance. I learned that these hawks had been advising Chinese leaders, beginning with Mao Zedong, to avenge a century of humiliation and aspired to replace the United States as the economic, military, and political leader of the world by the year 2049 (the one hundredth anniversary of the Communist Revolution).

This plan became known as “the Hundred-Year Marathon.” It is a plan that has been implemented by the Communist Party leadership from the beginning of its relationship with the United States.

When I presented my findings on the Chinese hawks’ recommendations about China’s ambitions and deception strategy, many U.S. intelligence analysts and officials greeted them initially with disbelief. Chinese leaders routinely reassure other nations that “China will never become a hegemon.” In other words, China will be the most powerful nation, but not dominate anyone or try to change anything.

The strength of the Hundred-Year Marathon, however, is that it operates through stealth. To borrow from the movie Fight Club, the first rule of the Marathon is that you do not talk about the Marathon. Indeed, there is almost certainly no single master plan locked away in a vault in Beijing that outlines the Marathon in detail. The Marathon is so well known to China’s leaders that there is no need to risk exposure by writing it down. But the Chinese are beginning to talk about the notion more openly — perhaps because they realize it may already be too late for America to keep pace.

chinaReutersDelegates sit at the stage before the opening ceremony of 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, November 8, 2012.

I observed a shift in Chinese attitudes during three visits to the country in 2012, 2013, and 2014. As was my usual custom, I met with scholars at the country’s major think tanks, whom I’d come to know well over decades. I directly asked them about a “Chinese-led world order”— a term that only a few years earlier they would have dismissed, or at least would not have dared to say aloud. However, this time many said openly that the new order, or rejuvenation, is coming, even faster than anticipated. When the U.S. economy was battered during the global financial crisis of 2008, the Chinese believed America’s long-anticipated and unrecoverable decline was beginning.

I was told — by the same people who had long assured me of China’s interest in only a modest leadership role within an emerging multipolar world — that the Communist Party is realizing its long-term goal of restoring China to its “proper” place in the world. In effect, they were telling me that they had deceived me and the American government. With perhaps a hint of understated pride, they were revealing the most systematic, significant, and dangerous intelligence failure in American history. And because we have no idea the Marathon is even under way, America is losing.

china cello

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-hundred-year-marathon-excerpt-2015-2#ixzz3RIJIMwlM

Friday, February 6, 2015

the right is not disgusted. they are trying to hold onto their tool for power - religion.

see to call isis as it is - thugs using religion as a tool, takes the muslim cover off the lid and allows good people to know that if they are isis then they are not muslim. Because, one should not murder consistently again and again to get forward traction in faith. Tp do otherwise shows that they are not really ijnterested in becoming closer to The Maker. For the maker makes everything and everyone, and if you destroy his creations because he told you to, i would ask, where does it say that? in his name well that just doesn't add up. THe maker wants truth, compassion, and tolerance. .

So if you are harming others you are not making forward progress. and will fall back.

critics Seize On Obama’s ISIS Remarks at Prayer Breakfast

WASHINGTON — President Obama may have thought he was giving a straightforward history lesson at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday when he compared the atrocities of the Islamic State to the bloodshed committed in the name of Christianity in centuries past.

But that is not how many of his longtime critics saw it.

“The president’s comments this morning at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime,” said Jim Gilmore, the former Republican governor of Virginia. “He has offended every believing Christian in the United States.”

Rush Limbaugh devoted a segment of his show to what he said were the president’s insults to the “whole gamut of Christians” and Twitter’s right wing piled on. Guests on Megyn Kelly’s Fox News show spent 15 minutes airing objections to the president’s comments.

“Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” Mr. Obama said. “In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Still, the president went on to focus on the terrorism carried out under the guise of Islam, saying that the last few months have shown the degree to which faith can be “twisted and misused in the name of evil.”

“From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith — their faith — professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact are betraying it,” he said, describing the Islamic State as “a brutal, vicious death cult that, in the name of religion, carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism.”

Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League, said in a statement that Mr. Obama was trying to “deflect guilt from Muslim madmen.” He said the president’s comparisons were “insulting” and “pernicious.”

Mr. Gilmore said the comments go “further to the point that Mr. Obama does not believe in America or the values we all share.”

The White House had no comment on Thursday night about the criticism.

In his speech, Mr. Obama said the use of religion to justify violence and killings “is not unique to one group or one religion.”

“There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency, that can pervert and distort our faith,” he said.

The talk of terrorism was the sharpest note in a speech that was otherwise a reflection on religion and humility, and it was Mr. Obama’s latest effort to avoid branding recent violence by the Islamic State or those professing common cause with it as “Islamic” extremism. His team has said that doing so would play into the hands of terrorist organizations, legitimizing their message.

Sunday, February 1, 2015

Jeb Bush. Third times a charm?

First there was George then there was W. Now JEB? I don't think so. I just don't see it...

Thursday, January 29, 2015

Be unique.

PHOENIX • Seattle Seahawks coach Pete Carroll was fired from his first two NFL head-coaching jobs. Understand that Carroll wasn’t a bad coach; he just wasn’t the coach he wanted to be. Carroll was too worried about fitting the NFL prototype. Concerned with playing the role of coach instead of actually coaching in his own way.

Too many head coaches sleep in their office. They’re overly intense and heart-bypass serious. If there’s one thing we’ve learned about most modern NFL head coaches, it’s this: These men work awfully hard at being miserable as they obsess over every arcane detail of their jobs.

Carroll was fired by the New York Jets after one season (1994) and that was a raw deal. In his second shot, with the New England Patriots, Carroll was moved out after the 1999 season so team owner Robert Kraft could hire close friend Bill Belichick. Carroll led the Patriots to the playoffs in two of his three seasons, but he wasn’t Belichick. And it’s not as if Kraft made a horrible decision; Belichick has won three Super Bowls, six AFC championships and 12 division titles over the last 14 seasons.

Still, it wasn’t quite fair. But Carroll also knew he could be better. So Carroll took some time off. Before he took another run at head coaching he needed to find out who he was, and what he wanted to be. And Carroll concluded that the next time he would do it his way — or not at all.

“A tremendous amount of growth,” Carroll said this week, as the Seahawks prepared for Sunday’s Super Bowl showdown against the Patriots. “It’s really just about evolving as a coach and as a man. There’s a lot of things that we go through...there’s so many experiences that have come along and so many opportunities to expand your thinking and the way you do things and the way you handle situations and people and all of that.

“I like to think I’m a beneficiary of a lot of really good experiences that have really helped, so that I’m doing things better than I’ve ever done before. There were a lot of days back in those years when, man, I was just winging it and trying to do the best I could in figuring it out. Hopefully you make the good choices and turns in your direction so you can demonstrate more closely the person that you’d like to be.”

Carroll re-entered the profession through the collegiate ranks, accepting the USC job in 2001. He would win two national championships in his nine seasons there — winning 34 consecutive games in one stretch. Carroll would also leave just before the NCAA slapped USC with a loss of 30 scholarships and a two-year bowl ban for multiple NCAA infractions. If that cloud hangs in Carroll’s background, he pretends he doesn’t see it. His jaw is set to the smiling, happy mode.

But as for coaching the USC players, the remade Carroll was a spectacular success.

What changed? The real Pom Pom Pete emerged.

All of that enthusiasm and exuberance that Carroll tried to suppress in leading the Jets and the Patriots? Carroll set himself free. Actor-comedian Will Ferrell would give pep talks to the Trojans. Snoop Dogg and other celebrities would hang out at the USC field. Carroll blared hip-hop and metal music during practices, and challenged players to basketball-shooting contests before team meetings. The Trojans were talented, but they also played the game with unrestrained energy and joy. Carroll set the team’s personality.

It is the same style that Carroll would take to Seattle when he became the Seahawks’ HC in 2010. The Seahawks are brash, they are loud, they are abundantly confident. And they are crazy about their coach. This isn’t just a party; Carroll is seriously wired. He constantly gets on his players, urging them to compete, compete, compete. (It’s apparently his favorite word.)

Carroll also wants his Seahawks to express themselves and be true to their personalities. Carroll doesn’t care if cornerback Richard Sherman talks trash, or if running back Marshawn Lynch is a grump with the media. In a team sport — and the Seahawks are a very close team — Carroll provides room for individual thought and freedom.

“I think it’s pretty cool,” Seattle defensive end Michael Bennett said. “I think a lot of times football players feel so confined by who other people want us to be. I think it’s good that Pete lets people be themselves. I think when you do that, you get more success … you think about any successful businesses in America right now and it’s all about letting people be themselves and letting them work. Sometimes when you have people doing too much, they just forget who they are and they aren’t happy. And when you’re happy, you do a lot of things better.”

At 63, Carroll bounces up and down on the sideline, much to the annoyance of fans tired of watching the Seahawks win so many games. But there’s a lot more to Carroll then the rah-rah stuff.

Before getting back in, at USC, Carroll wanted to shape a philosophy on leadership, and he turned to books. He read everything he could about legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden’s principles for success. He read books on self-actualization. He read psychologist Carl Jung, and the Zen master D.T. Suzuki.

How do you get players to compete at their best? How can you push them to the limits … but also keep it fun? How do you establish a collective identity in a way that fosters unity and a shared purpose?

According to an old profile in Esquire magazine, Carroll even turned to the wisdom of the late Jerry Garcia, leader of the band the Grateful Dead. Yep. Jerry Garcia. Don’t be surprised; Carroll grew up in San Francisco.

The message: Be unique. Strive to be like no other team.

“Jerry Garcia said that he didn’t want his band to be the best ones doing something,” Carroll was quoted as saying at the time. “He wanted them to be the only ones doing it. To be all by yourself out there doing something that nobody else can touch — that’s the thought that guides me. We’re going to do things better than it’s ever been done before in everything we do, and we’re going to compete our (tail) off. And we’re gonna see how far that takes us.”

It’s taken Carroll and the Seahawks to a 36-12 record over the last three seasons. And Sunday the ’Hawks will be trying to swoop in for their second consecutive Super Bowl championship. Pete Carroll became the coach he always wanted to be. And the colorful Seahawks have established a strong brand, a singular identity. In personality and style, there’s no other NFL team quite like them. Jerry Garcia would approve.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

destroy muslims

US has picked a fight with the religion of Muhammed (as it has been for hundreds of years) in order to create a boogey man to create a mob mentality which, once created, can be used in any direction it pleases.

Liberals want to evolve. things can't evolve if they stay the same. So, while there are certain realities that must be acknowledged, that does not mean we should not keep our eyes beyond the more immediate threat and look for opportunities to improve.