.jpg)
.jpg)
===
Former FBI Ass't Director lays it on regarding Holder's destructive and politically biased management of The Justice Department. (See 1 below.)
===
MIT cannot control public expressions of its professors but it can be damaged by them.
I love the fact that Professor Gruber came forth and revealed the truth but I am bemused by the fact that he did not fathom the effect of his words.
Elitist academics live in a cocoon, believe, like Obama, they can drink their own bath water, their every words contain pearls of wisdom and they know what is best for us because we are stupid boobs! What arrogance and families pay fortunes for their kids to be exposed to their tripe. (See 2 below.)
===
Seldom a day passes that does not present Obama the opportunity to display his economic ignorance which he readily proceeds to do
His latest 'stupidity' is his argument that building a pipeline in Canada simply increases pollution and benefits only Canada's exportation of crude oil through our nation.
Oil is basically fungible, sold on world markets and generally the dollar is used as the medium of exchange. More oil available the lower the price which benefits consumers and makes our nation less dependent upon foreign sources and the jobs provided labor unions are very high paying.
Also a stronger dollar meansless energy inflation to Americans. Capiche Obama?
Obama would be a political 'dumbo' on all counts if he vetoes the pipeline bill save for the fact that he is a political 'donkey' thus, ignorance of economics is understandable! (See 3 below.)
===
My candidate to replace Obama! THE U.S. ISN’T THE ONLY COUNTRY WITH AN A/H FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!1.......
===
Being Jewish I am more than happy to acknowledge and wish my Christian friends the Merriest of Christmases. (See 4 below.)
About time? (See 4a below.)
====
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) EXCLUSIVE: In Scathing Letter to Obama, Former FBI Assistant Director Slams Holder as "Chief Among Antagonists" in Ferguson
By Katie Pavlich
As the Senate prepares to hold confirmation hearings for new Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch and as outgoing Attorney General Eric Holder continues to allocate Department of Justice resources to the situation in Ferguson, former FBI Assistant Director and Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund President Ron Hosko has sent a scathing letter to President Obama detailing the damage done to the relationship between law enforcement and DOJ over the past six years.
"The hyper-politicization of justice issues has made it immeasurably more difficult for police officers to simply do their jobs. The growing divide between the police and the people – perhaps best characterized by protesters in Ferguson, Mo., who angrily chanted, “It’s not black or white. It’s blue!” – only benefits members of a political class seeking to vilify law enforcement for other societal failures. This puts our communities at greater risk, especially the most vulnerable among us," Hosko wrote in the letter exclusively obtained by Townhall. "Your attorney general, Eric Holder, is chief among the antagonists. During his tenure as the head of the Department of Justice, Mr. Holder claims to have investigated twice as many police and police departments as any of his predecessors. Of course, this includes his ill-timed decision to launch a full investigation into the Ferguson Police Department at the height of racial tensions in that community, throwing gasoline on a fire that was already burning. Many officers were disgusted by such a transparent political maneuver at a time when presidential and attorney general leadership could have calmed a truly chaotic situation."
In Ferguson law enforcement officials are bracing for violence and riots ahead of a Grand Jury decision about whether to prosecute Police Officer Darren Wilson for the killing of Michael Brown. Wilson says he shot Brown in self-defense after Brown went for his gun during a struggle in the police car. According to anofficial autopsy, Brown was shot at close range and had gun powder residue on his hand, indicating the struggle in the car did in fact happen and that Brown reached for Wilson's gun.The official county autopsy, which was performed by Dr. Gershom Norfleet, showed Brown was shot in the hand at close range based on the finding of “foreign matter ‘consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm,’” in a wound on Brown’s hand, the Post-Dispatch reports. "[This] guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound,” Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, told the Post-Dispatch.
The official autopsy also “did not support witnesses who have claimed Brown was shot while running away from Wilson, or with his hands up,” the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. These witness statements would lead protesters to raise their hands in a stance of surrender while facing police during demonstrations, chanting “Hands up, don’t shoot.”
Brown's being shot in the hand at close range appears to confirm the account Wilson told to investigators—that Wilson and Brown had “struggled for Wilson’s pistol inside a police SUV and that Wilson had fired the gun twice, hitting Brown once in the hand”—a source with knowledge of Wilson’s statements told the Post-Dispatch.In August, Holder sent Department of Justice officials from the Civil Rights Division and dozens of FBI agents to Ferguson to investigate the case before the official autopsy was conducted and nearly suggested in a statement that Officer Wilson was guilty of a crime before any evidence was produced.
"It won’t be long before the American people turn their attention to other matters. Long after Ferguson is forgotten, police officers across America will still remember the way their senior federal executives turned their back on them with oft-repeated suggestions that race-based policing drives a biased, broken law enforcement agenda," Hosko continued. "As we move forward with the selection and confirmation of a new attorney general, I ask that you personally reengage with the law enforcement community of dedicated and valiant men and women across the country, serving at every level of government. With two years remaining in your presidency, you have an urgent responsibility to correct damage inflicted upon law enforcement and help mend the rift between police and those they protect. The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund will be happy to support any such discussions."
The Grand Jury report and decision from the Michael Brown case in Ferguson is expected to be released any day now.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It should be noted that before becoming President of LELDF, Hosko served as FBI assistant director under Holder until retiring earlier this year.
2)- Dear President Reif,
I'm sure you aware of the multiple videos now circulating recording the remarks of Prof. Jonathan Gruber (MIT Economics Dept.) at academic conferences and lectures in which he details a pattern of deception on his part in the crafting and promotion of the Affordable Care Act. In short, I believe that Prof. Gruber has both committed and made a prima facie admission to multiple acts of academic fraud.
First, he received about $400,000 in federal grant money to research Obamacare (ACA). Clearly, he did not approach the problem in a dispassionate, intellectually honest way but had an agenda and presented his data and recommendations in a biased and deceptive way. This is no different than if a scientist receives an NIH grant to study some disease and then manipulates and massages his data to support a particular conclusion, and after it is published in a journal, he crows to the public about how clever his deception was. This would almost certainly result in a departmental and university investigation and quite possibly a federal prosecution.
Second, even if Prof. Gruber attempted to segregate and wall-off his ACA work form his MIT employment, it is clear that if he used MIT facilities, communications, stationary, or utilized MIT personnel in the editing, formatting, or the transmittal of his ACA grant and the management of said grant after it was awarded, then these walls were breached.
Third, even if Prof. Gruber was totally meticulous and successful in the segregation of his ACA activities from MIT, it is not at all clear whether academic fraud was not committed. For instance, suppose an MIT biochemistry professor has a completely unblemished record of research and publication, but that he also consulted with an outside pharmaceutical company with the explicit permission of MIT, with such consultation occurring completely off MIT premises and outside of normal working hours (let's say on vacation time). Now let us suppose that he purposely deceptively manipulated his presentation of the prospects of the progress being made by the company's research efforts, presenting it in a much better light than an objective reviewer. And let us further stipulate that he later openly described and crowed about his deceptive consulting activities on video at an academic conference. Would this still not constitute academic fraud ? After all, the underlying reason why he was chosen to be retained by the pharmaceutical company was because of the high prestige of being an MIT biochemistry professor. And, his consultation work was in the specific area and domain of his expertise (biochemistry). On the other hand, if for instance he was hired to be a consultant on the decorative arrangement of plants in the lobby of the executive suite of the pharmaceutical company, and for whatever reason decided to recommend the placement of inappropriate foliage in inappropriate corner spaces in the lobby and later lectured colleagues on his clever joke, certainly there was no academic fraud (although there may in fact be commercial fraud).
Finally, putting all of this in the context of pulling a deception on the "stupid" American people and being publicly proud and boastful of the cleverness of his deception demeans citizens and shames the reputation of MIT.
Sincerely,
David Emanuel Sarfatti
Philadelphia, PA.
tel. # 215 - 545 - 6191
Will President Obama Veto Tens of Thousands of Keystone Jobs?
The president told Americans last week, “I hear you” – but is he listening when it comes to the Keystone pipeline, and the tens ofthousands of jobs and increased energy security that come with it? That remains to be seen, but remarks by White House spokesman Josh Earnest leave little room for optimism. Following news that the House will soon vote on H.R. 5682, legislation by Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) approving the Keystone pipeline, Earnest cast doubt on whether the president will sign the bill and allow this project – which has been under review for more than six years – to move forward:
“The White House on Thursday hinted that President Obama could veto congressional legislation approving the Keystone XL pipeline as lawmakers in both the House and Senate were readying votes on the controversial construction project. ‘Our dim view of these kinds of proposals has not changed,’ press secretary Josh Earnest said.” (The Hill)
The Keystone pipeline is backed by numerous labor unions andeditorial boards, the vast majority of the American people, and even members of the president’s own party. The State Department has confirmed it will not have any significant environmental impact. And, the White House has now seen how far its allegiance to Democrats’ most extreme political allies has gotten it. What excuse does the president have for continuing to stand in the way?
The president said his policies were on the ballot, and they were resoundingly rejected. Next week, he’ll have an opportunity to demonstrate that he received the message sent by the American people. Will he ‘hear’ them, or will he veto the Keystone pipeline and keep them asking the question, “where are the jobs?”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)-
MERRYCHRISTMASYOUR FIRST CHRISTMAS CARD
Twas two months before Christmas
When all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying
Nor taking a stand.
Why the PC Police had taken away
The reason for Christmas - no one couldsay.
The children were told by their schools not to sing
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people's feelings, the teachers wouldsay
December 25th is just a ' Holiday '.
Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-Pod
Something was changing, something quite odd!
Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Targets were hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was nowhere to be found.
At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-is-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.
Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton,Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton !
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.
And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.
So as you celebrate 'Winter Break' under your 'Dream Tree'
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say
Shout MERRYCHRISTMAS,
not Happy Holiday !
Please, all Christians join together and
wish everyone you meet
MERRYCHRISTMAS!
4a Are Democrats Losing the Jews?
First, some raw facts. In the 2006 midterm elections, 87 percent of Jews voted for Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives. Last week, in the 2014 midterm elections, 66 percent cast ballots for Democrats. That's a 21-point drop in eight years—and, it might seem, a major cause for celebration among the likes of the Republican Jewish Coalition and philo-Semitic political strategists everywhere.
But while Jewish support for Democrats has definitely declined over the last decade, the context is important. Poll numbers show how people are voting, but it's more difficult to figure out what they mean for the role of Jews in American politics.
And for such a small group, that's a big question.
Here are some of the other constituencies that make up 2 percent of the American electorate: customer-service representatives. People who participate in archery and bowhunting. AOL users. Residents of Indiana. So why all the attention?
"The importance of the Jews isn't their votes," said Benjamin Ginsberg, a professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University. "They account for a huge share of the activist base of the Democratic Party and account for much of the money available to Democratic candidates. If you are a Republican strategist, it seems fairly obviously that if you can shift Jewish support even a little bit away from the Democrats, it makes the Democratic Party less competitive."
Historically, Republicans have had mixed success with this strategy. Jewish support for Democratic presidential candidates peaked during World War II; 90 percent of Jews voted for Franklin Roosevelt in 1940 and 1944, who won 55 and 53 percent of the overall popular vote in each of those years, respectively. Barry Goldwater, by contrast, was wildly unpopular among the Chosen People, winning only 10 percent of the Jewish vote in the 1964 presidential election. Almost three decades later, George H.W. Bush won only 11 percent of the Jewish vote in the 1992 presidential race. At times, Republicans have also had a bad habit of saying and doing things that seem anti-Semitic—like Bush Senior's secretary of state, James Baker, who infamously said "fuck the Jews" in a private conversation about Israel with a co-worker, or Richard Nixon, who had one of his staff members count the number of Jews who worked at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
On the other hand, Jimmy Carter only won 45 percent of Jews' votes in his doomed run against Ronald Reagan in 1980; Walter Mondale won 67 percent of the Jewish vote in 1984. The point is that "the Jewish vote has ebbed and flowed over the years," said Herbert Weisberg, a professor emeritus at Ohio State and the author of a forthcoming book on historical Jewish voting patterns.
"Particularly during the Clinton years, [support for Democrats] really increased, reaching nearly 80 percent," he said. "But when you look back at the '70s and '80s, Republicans were getting about 30 percent of the Jewish vote. It looks like it’s going back to where it was [then]."
Midterm elections are also distinct from presidential races, particularly in terms of the issues people care about.** When the president is unpopular, it seems to work in the favor of the opposing party. This happened in both 2006 and 2014: At a time when George W. Bush was very unpopular, Democrats did well among Jews and American voters in general; and last week, Obama's unpopularity had the same salubrious effect on Republicans. It's also worth noting that overall voter turnout plummets during midterm elections, and in general, midterm voters tend to be older and more male, and this may have affected the poll results among Jews. (The 2010 data collected from exit polls about how people voted didn't have a big enough sample size of Jews to make meaningful comparisons with how they voted that year.)
For Jews in particular, it's usually assumed that Israel is a decisive factor in influencing voters' decisions. But Weisberger said that's unlikely in midterm elections; if anything, Israel would be more influential in presidential elections.
Even then, said Ester Fuchs, a professor of political science at Columbia University, most Jews probably don't vote based on what's going on with the relationship between Israel and the U.S. Despite vast support for the Jewish state among Republicans, GOP politicians still haven't won over even close to a majority of Jewish voters. "Efforts to shift the Jewish vote over to Israel haven’t really worked," she said. "The more assimilated Jews are, the less important Israel is to them."
Evaluating the extent of Jewish assimilation is a tricky—and divisive—endeavor. But here's a snapshot: In a Pew report released last fall, only 26 percent of American Jews said that religion is "very important" to them, compared to 56 of the general public. Similarly, roughly 25 percent said they attend services once or twice a month, whereas 50 percent of Americans overall said the same. Jewish intermarriage is on the rise, and two-thirds of ethnic Jews who don't identify as religious aren't raising their children within the faith. This isn't to say that American Jewry is headed toward non-observance or extinction; among the Orthodox, for example, the number of observant Jews is actually growing.
But these statistics do provide some context for what's happening among Jewish voters. In 2006, 87 percent of Jews voted for Democratic candidates for the House, as did 50 percent of white Catholics and 37 percent of white Protestants—a 37- and 50-percentage point difference, respectively. In 2014, those gaps narrowed: There was only a 12-point difference between Jews and white Catholics, and a 40-point difference between Jews and white Protestants. Those are still big differences, obviously, but the conclusion is there: Jews are voting more like white people.
"The Republican Party is basically increasing their share of the white electorate," Fuchs said. "You see that mirrored in the Jewish vote, except that the Jewish vote starts at a different baseline."
It's unclear what all this means for the future of Jewish political activism, or whether Jewish donors like Sheldon Adelson are going to proliferate and start bankrolling more Republican campaigns. It also doesn't mean Jews are buying out the stores of Republican bumper stickers—Democrats still won two-thirds of Jewish votes in this election, even if Jews' support has trended more to the right in recent years. And as a side note, with Eric Cantor gone from the House, there will only be one Jewish Republican left in Congress: New York Representative Lee Zeldin.*
But it may be that, as a people as much as a voting bloc, Jews are becoming less influenced by their Jewishness.
No comments:
Post a Comment