bengahazi

Deal is sort of loosely done as Iran says they can still continue with the centrifuges and Kerry says further enrichment is stopped, for the stage one of this deal. Who do you believe?

unohombre  Angusomy 

• 

We should fear Obama, Kerry and Hillary Clinton WILL deal with Iran this weekend or very soon, so they can change the subjects on Obamacare, Benghazi and the multitude of other fiscal, military, and Department of State fiascos created by the Liberal Progressive fellow travelers.

I just received this email on Ben Ghazi. (He goes into the logistics) Read it and perhaps learn something new or refresh your memory on the saddest incident in America's military or State Department history. Then make a copy and pass it along for others to read.

Here are some facts on Benghazi you may not have heard before. Pretty sad leadership we have at the top.

If nothing else, by reading this you will now know why the military is so screwed up today. Military leadership has been subjugated by this president to be nothing more than political hacks and yes men. God help us all.

Air Force expert on Benghazi "Hands" Handley is a well-respected USAF fighter pilot. Here is his short resume of accomplishments.

Colonel Phil "Hands" Handley is credited with the highest speed air- to-air gun kill in the history of aerial combat. He flew operationally for all but 11 months of a 26-year career, in aircraft such as the F-86 Sabre, F-15 Eagle, and the C-130A Hercules. Additionally, he flew 275 combat missions during two tours in Southeast Asia in the F-4D and F-4E. His awards include 21 Air Medals, 3
Distinguished Flying Crosses, and the Silver Star.

Here is what Col. Handley wrote in response to Panetta and Dempsey's claims there was no time to send help to Benghazi .
---------------------------------------
Betrayal in
Benghazi
Phil "Hands"
Handley Colonel, USAF (Ret.)

The combat code of the US Military is that we don't abandon our dead or wounded on the battlefield. In US Air Force lingo, fighter pilots don't run off and leave their wingmen. If one of our own is shot down, still alive and not yet in enemy captivity, we will either come to get him or die trying.

Among America 's fighting forces, the calm, sure knowledge that such an irrevocable bond exists is priceless. Along with individual faith and personal grit, it is a sacred trust that has often sustained hope in the face of terribly long
odds.

The disgraceful abandonment of our Ambassador and those brave ex-SEAL's who fought to their deaths to save others in that compound is nothing short of dereliction-of-duty. Additionally, the patently absurd cover-up scenario that was fabricated in the aftermath was an outright lie in an attempt to shield the President and the Secretary of State from responsibility.

It has been over eight months since the attack on our compound in Benghazi . The White House strategy, with the aid of a "lap dog" press, has been to run out the clock before the truth is forthcoming.

The recent testimonies of the three "whistle blowers" have reopened the subject and hopefully will lead to exposure and disgrace of those responsible for this embarrassing debacle. It would appear that the most recent firewall which the Administration is counting on is the contention "that there were simply no military assets that could be brought to bear in time to make a difference" mainly due to the unavailability of tanker support for fighter aircraft.

This is simply a bunch of bull, regardless how many supposed "experts" the Administration trot out to make such an assertion. The bottom line
is that even if the closest asset capable of response was half-way around the
world, you don't just sit on your rear end and do nothing. 

The fact is that the closest asset was not half-way around the world, but as near as Aviano Air Base, Italy where two squadrons of F-16Cs are based. 

Consider the following scenario (all times Benghazi local): When Hicks in Tripoli receives a call at 9:40 PM from Ambassador Stevens informing him "Greg, we are under attack!" (his last words), Hicks immediately notifies all agencies and prepares for the immediate initiation of an existing "Emergency Response Plan." 

At AFRICON, General Carter Ham attempts to mount a rescue effort, but is told to "stand down". By 10:30 PM an unarmed drone is overhead the compound and streaming live feed to various "Command and Control Agencies" so everyone watching that feed knew damn well what was going on. 

At 11:30 PM Woods, Doherty and five others leave Tripoli, arriving in Benghazi at 1:30 AM on Wednesday morning, where they hold off the attacking mob from the roof of the compound until they are killed by a mortar direct hit at 4:00 AM. 

So nothing could have been done, eh? Nonsense. If one assumes that tanker support really "was not available" what about this: 

When at 10:00 PM AFRICON alerts the 31st TFW Command Post in Aviano Air Base, Italy of the attack, the Wing Commander orders preparation for the launch of two F-16s and advises the Command Post at NAS Sigonella to prepare for hot pit refueling and quick turn of the jets. 

By 11:30 PM, two F-16Cs with drop tanks and each armed with five hundred 20 MM rounds are airborne. Flying at 0.92 mach they will cover the 522 nautical miles directly to NAS Sigonella in 1.08 hours. While in-route, the flight lead is informed of the tactical situation, rules of engagement, and radio frequencies to use. 

The jets depart Sigonella at 1:10 AM with full fuel load and cover the 377 nautical miles directly to Benghazi in 0.8 hours, arriving at 1:50 AM which would be 20 minutes after the arrival of Woods, Doherty and their team. 

Providing that the two F-16s initial pass over the mob, in full afterburner at 200 feet and 550 knots did not stop the attack in its tracks, a few well placed strafing runs on targets of opportunity would assuredly do the trick. 

Were the F-16s fuel state insufficient to return to Sigonelli after jettisoning their
external drop tanks, they could easily do so at Tripoli International Airport ,
only one-half hour away. 

As for those hand-wringing naysayers who would worry about IFR clearances, border crossing authority, collateral damage, landing rights, political correctness and dozens of other reasons not to act -- screw them. It is time our "leadership" get its priorities straight and put America 's interests first. 

The end result would be that Woods and Doherty would be alive. Dozens in the attacking rabble would be rendezvousing with "72 virgins" and a clear message would have been sent to the next worthless terrorist contemplating an attack on Americans that it is not really a good idea to "tug" on Superman's cape. 

Of course all this depends upon a Commander In Chief more concerned with saving the lives of those he put in harm's way than getting his crew rested for a campaign fund raising event in Las Vegas the next day. It also depends upon a Secretary of State Hilary Clinton who actually understood "What difference did it make?", and a Secretary of Defense who was watching the feed from the drone and understood what the attack consisted of instead of making an immediate response that "One of the military tenants is that you don't commit assets until you fully understand the tactical situation."

YGBKM! ( You Gotta Be Kidding Me) 

Ultimately it comes
down to the question of who gave that order to stand down? Whoever that coward turns out to be should be exposed, removed from office, and face criminal charges for dereliction of duty. The combat forces of the United States of America deserve leadership that really does "have their back" when the chips are down.

FOR THOSE OF YOU
HAVE ACTUALLY TAKEN THE TIME TO READ THIS, DO ONE THING FOR ME AND FORWARD IT TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!! TO AVOID THIS HAPPENING AGAIN, WHOM EVER GAVE THE "STAND DOWN" ORDER NEEDS TO BE EXPOSED!!!

Twists and Turns, of costs of Obama care

Here are 169 reasons why hypocrite politicians and unions that support Obamacare want exemptions for themselves

Now 219 reasons  January 2014

Can it really be this bad??
Just what can one say when it seem it is all heaped up, illicit  on illicit,  cronyism on cronyism,  illegality on illegality all in the name of demos = mob rule and that "we are here to help you" and if you just look over there and how good it will all be while a swirl of  others  slide there hands over you, relieving you of  even your own decency 

http://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/obamacare-59/

By Dan from Squirrel Hill

Posted on September 24, 2013. Updated on November 12, 2013.

As the author of this blog post, I place it into the public domain. Anyone may freely copy it in any part or in its entirely, without asking my permission, and without paying any money. I do ask you please cite a link to http://danfromsquirrelhill.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/obamacare-59/

I ask you to please show this list to as many people as possible. Sunshine really is the best disinfectant. I can’t stop Obama from doing any of these horrible things to our health care system, but I can tell people about what he is doing. So please share this list with others on Facebook, Twitter, etc. Thank you. The short link for this is http://tinyurl.com/m8tfd7q

And now, on with the list:

1) After Obamcare was passed, unions that supported its passage requested and received special exemptions

Within months after Obamacare was passed, Obama gave some organizations anexemption from some of the requirements of Obamacare.  As time went on, more than 1,300 organizations received these exemptions.

More than half of the people who are covered by insurance plans that received these exemptions are in union insurance plans. These unions supported the passage of Obamacare. But immediately after Obamacare was passed, these unions wanted exemptions from the very same law that they wanted to force everyone else to obey. This reveals an extreme level of hypocrisy among many of the supporters of Obamacare.

In addition, these exemptions are illegal for two reasons – because Obama granted the exemptions without approval from Congress, and because the Constitution requires the law to treat everyone the same.

The Washington Times wrote of this:

“Selective enforcement of the law is the first sign of tyranny. A government empowered to determine arbitrarily who may operate outside the rule of law invariably embraces favoritism as friends, allies and those with the best-funded lobbyists are rewarded. Favoritism inevitably leads to corruption, and corruption invites extortion. Ultimately, the rule of law ceases to exist in any recognizable form, and what is left is tyranny.”

“The now-familiar monthly trickling down of new waivers is, at best, a tacit admission that Obamacare is a failure. So far, seven entire states and 1,372 businesses, unions and other institutions have received waivers from the law. The list includes the administration’s friends and allies and, of course, those who have the best lobbyists.”

“More than 50 percent of the Obamacare waiver beneficiaries are union members, which is striking because union members account for less than 12 percent of the American work force. The same unions that provided more than $120 million to Democrats in the last two elections and, in many cases, openly campaigned in favor of the government takeover of your health care, now celebrate that Obamacare is not their problem.”

2) After Obamacare was passed, politicians who voted for it asked for a special exemption for their own districts

Even the politicians who voted for Obamacare want exemptions for their own districts.

In response to the medical device tax that is part of Obamacare, some medical device manufacturers have announced plans to layoff employees, including Welch Allyn (275 planned layoffs), Stryker (1,170 planned layoffs), and Medtronic (1,000 planned layoffs).

In December 2012, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, John Kerry, and 15 other Democrats who supported the passage of Obamacare wrote a letter to Harry Reid, asking him to delay the tax on medical devices, claiming that the tax would hurt job creation in their districts.

3 ) Politicians who voted for Obamacare wanted an additional exemption for themselves and their staff after it was passed

This is another example of how the politicians who voted for Obamacare want exemptions for themselves.

In 2010, Obamacare was passed by the House and Senate, and signed by President Obama.

Three years later, members of Congress and their staff complained that Obamacare was going to cost them a lot of money, and said that this would likely cause a brain drain among their staff. In response to this, Obama made changesto Obamacare so that these things would not happen. However, Obama’s actions were illegal, because he made these changes without Congress voting on them first.

The New York Times wrote of this:

… the language of the health care law requires Congressional employees to obtain health insurance through an exchange created by the law, but other parts of the federal legal code restrict the ability of the federal government to pay the usual employer share for group insurance programs approved by the Office of Personnel Management.

A straightforward reading of the law thus means that Congressional staff members, starting in January 2014, will have to obtain insurance through the Affordable Care Act but pay for it on their own without the normal contribution from their employer — Congress. This would be a multi-thousand-dollar income hit for those affected… many… would potentially feel the pain, giving rise to concerns over a potential brain drain of Congressional staff members finding other employment.

… the federal personnel office initially ruled that Congressional staff members would not be eligible for the subsidies, and then changed this decision under pressure from the White House…

4) An entire state that supported Obamacare asked for an exemption

The people of 

it is worth  while to continue on after jump break just to see how it twists and turns

Political Science screws Science

We need to oppose the efforts by the Warmers to destroy our economy, reduce our standard of living, bring our people into economic, and political slavery

Environmentalism: The Science with No Basis in Science

By Tim Dunkin (Bio and Archives)  Thursday, November 7, 2013  Comments at bottom of page | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us 6

Americans have a high regard for science, despite the stereotypes about the capacities of American students in this set of fields. Our nation is still one of the leading producers of scientific advancement, publication, and technological spinoff from pure and applied research.

This regard for science, in fact, is most concentrated among conservatives and liberty lovers—exactly that set of people who are most grounded in reality and who understand that the world works according to laws the govern our physical world and which are not subject to wishful thinking. While many people who have fed at the “conservatives hate science!” hog trough may find my statement unbelievable, and perhaps even a bit scandalous, it is nevertheless true. Indeed, a recent study by a professor at Yale found that Tea Partiers were more likely to display a knowledge and understanding of scientific principles than the general population. This result surprises only those left-wingers who get their information about conservatives and liberty lovers fromtheir own little insular bubble of left-wing white noise sources.

What is ironic is that those on the Left—who pat themselves on the back for “believing in science” while oftentimes knowing very little about it—are the ones who approach the issues from an unscientific mindset and viewpoint. Indeed, those on the Left are the ones who generally approach scientific issues with what one might call the “wishful thinking,” or even “magical,” mindset. Most liberals approach scientific matters with the attitude of “our worldview says this has to be this way, so we will ignore anything that contradicts this.” They do this with gun-related issues, choosing to ignore all the evidences that gun control does not work to stop crime but that armed citizens do. This is their approach to economics, completely ignoring the visible evidences of the failures of socialism, nationalized health care, wealth redistributionism, and the rest.  And this is how they approach science—the physical world, according to liberals, ought to bend to conform to left-wing ideological preconceptions rather than working as it actually does.

When liberals accuse conservatives and liberty lovers of “opposing science,” what they really mean is that we’re disagreeing with left-wing ideas about what science “ought” to say, rather than the empirical facts on the ground of what it actually says.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the general set of fields known as environmentalism. Since the 1960s, the Left has worked arduously to invest environmentalism with cloaks of authority and sanctity. Springboarding from the respect that the average person has for “science” as a concept, environmentalists have sought to give themselves that same respect, even though much of their “science” is in fact contradicted by genuine scientific discovery. This is papered over, however, by the sanctity that they seek to give to their belief system, such that disagreement with it or criticism of it is not to be viewed just as a difference of opinion, but the rankest of religious heresy and apostasy. Michael Crichton was entirely correct when he argued that environmentalism is really a religion. Today, “going green” has reached the point of being a religious obligation, and there are many proponents of this new secular religion (such as Al Gore) who have even advocated punishment for those who stray from the straight and narrow way.

In almost every prediction that environmentalism has made, it has been wrong. The earth did not turn into an overpopulated, resource-starved wasteland by 1985. The global cooling that was so stridently warned in the 1970s did not materialize. The Alaskan coastline where the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred was not uninhabitable for a hundred years, but was actually back and more filled with life than before just ten years later. It has all given the appearance of being nothing more than ideologically-driven fear-mongering designed to pursue a particular political agenda.

This state of affairs would almost be comical, if it were not for the fact that environmentalism is such a dangerous, anti-human, death-creating belief system. The predictions that environmentalism makes, though they almost always fail to come to pass, nevertheless are pushed as vital reasons for doing something right now!!! The false sense of urgency created by environmentalists is used to push weak-willed politicians into actions that end up being detrimental to the lives and fortunes of millions.

As far back as 1962, this was the case. This was the year that environmental biologist Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring was published, a book that was long on hysteria while being short on facts and evidence. In it, Carson argued that man-made pesticides and other agrochemicals were an existential threat to both human life and the environment. In fact, most of her predictions were wrong, and acting on her unscientific arguments has actually done tremendous harm, both to humanity, and to the earth that Carson professed to be protecting. As governments acted on her warnings to ban or limit the use of certain types of pesticides and other agrochemicals, the result has actually been that in many places, crop yield per acre has been reduced, requiring more land to be devoted to agriculture, which results in more erosion, sedimentation in rivers, etc, which in turn harms the ecosystems environmentalists supposedly want to preserve. Further, with the ban on pesticides and the rise of “natural, organic” farming, the quality and volume of food has declines—we have less of it, and it is most pest-ridden. Due to supply and demand, this has contributed to the rise in worldwide food prices, and has helped to worsen the problems of food transportation and distribution to places habitually wracked with famine.

The almost worldwide ban on DDT that was a direct result of Carson’s book resulted in the spread of malaria all around the world, resulting in the deaths of millions as many regions no longer had an effective means to control the mosquitoes that spread malaria. In a very real sense, Rachel Carson and her compatriots are responsible for more deaths worldwide than Adolf Hitler.

This is not the only area where the environmentalists have done great harm. Another of their traditional hobbyhorses has been “overpopulation.” Environmentalists believe that the earth is hurling headlong to destruction because we are simply reproducing so much that there will not be enough space, food, or resources to sustain everybody. Some United Nations predictions say that earth’s population could reach 11.5 billion by 2075, and a mindboggling 28 billion by 2150. Of course, this is not the case—in fact, the rise in the earth’s population has been leveling off, and more reasonable predictions suggest that the total planetary population will peak at around 8.5 billion by 2030, due to the fact that fertility rates are dropping worldwide. While this sounds like a lot, we should keep in mind that with modern Western intensive farming techniques and just the land currently available for cultivation (which does not mean that all of it IS being cultivated), we could produce enough food to feed all of these mouths and to spare, provided the logistics of transportation and distribution were worked out.

Nevertheless, “overpopulation” is the root justification for the left-wing theme of “sustainable living.” What this term describes is essentially the reduction of lifestyle to a pre-industrial level: stop using electricity and fossil fuels, stop eating so much, stop taking up so much space with your horrible, mass produced McMansions, and so forth. The Leftwants to essentially destroy our industrialized economy in the name of “sustainability.” All these things like “industry” and “power plants” and “automobiles” and whatnot harm the earth and use up resources. With so many people due to overpopulation, we have to “scale back” so that all those people don’t end up stripping the earth bare like a horde of locusts. Of course, none of this is remotely happening, and indeed, as industrialization increases and living standards have risen globally, we’ve found that technology has helped us to reduce the resources needed per person, even as more resources are found and obtained more efficiently.

Of course, this hasn’t stopped the efforts by the Left to reduce world population. The Left loves the idea of advancing abortion around the world. There are reports that vaccines in India and elsewhere have actually been used to introduce life-threatening illnesses and reduce population. Indeed, “population control” is a major theme on the Green Left, going as far back as Paul Ehrlich’s calls for massive population reduction in his book The Population Bomb. There are even a few extremist environmentalists who advocate forcible, violent reduction of the earth’s population to around 500 million (which would make Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot together look like rank amateurs).

All of it premised on shoddy, unsubstantiated, and indeed unsubstantiable “science.”

Of course, one of the most well-known modern environmentalist myths hiding behind the label of “science” is that of anthropogenic climate change, known colloquially as “global warming.”

Global warming is embedded in the Western psyche as the premiere “threat” to the world today. The argument for global warming rests on the premise that as CO₂ (carbon dioxide) levels have risen in the earth’s atmosphere beginning with the advent of Industrial Evolution, the earth’s temperature has been rising due to the greenhouse effect. Supporting this argument was “data” which supposedly gave a neat “hockey stick” graph that purported to show that the earth’s climate change had reached a critical point where temperatures are now rising much more rapidly, and will result in the melting of the earth’s ice cap, raising sea levels over 60 meters and wiping out coastal areas—many of them heavily populated—all over the world.

A funny thing happened on the way to Waterworld, however. A few years ago, the debate about global warming was rocked by revelations that several of the most prominent scientists involved in the study of climate change had deliberately manipulated, and in some cases produced out of whole cloth, the data that supposedly supported concerns about global warming. The “hockey stick” was an invention not substantiated by actual scientific observations. Indeed, the release of the release of the “Climategate” emails demonstrated that many of these scientists knew that the data substantiating global warming were weak and unsubstantiated, but that they chose to misrepresent the data so as to further their political agenda. Despite furious spinning from left-wing activists, the Climategate scandal essentially destroyed the foundations for the global warming argument, as any reasonable person who is actually interested in facts and truth could see.

The arguments for global warming were largely based on computer models, rather than actual observation. And as with any computer model, its predictive power is only as good as the information fed into it. These models suffered from the GIGO principles—garbage in, garbage out. Climate scientists were feeding in erroneous, manipulated date so that they could obtain the frightening, heart-stopping figures for rapid heating of the earth needed to support their apocalyptic predictions. It was all smoke and mirrors from the beginning.

In recent years, the global warming hypothesis has taken further hits as more and more data about the earth’s climate are gathered. As it turns out, the earth is not engaging in out-of-control warming due to man’s industrialization and burning of fossil fuels. Instead, the earth is in the midst of a 17 year “pause” in warming, and the warming that we had seen (which is much less than predicted by any of the models) is due to a natural, 300 year cycle that is unrelated to anything mankind does. This pause is likely to continue into the 2030s. Arctic ice coverage—which environmentalists predicted was going to disappear and contribute to increased sea levels—is actually rebounding, and is greater than it has been in years (indicating the planet is cooler than they thought it would be). Similarly, the Antarctic ice pack has also seen more coverage than expected.

Recent years have seen “extreme weather events” (such as hurricanes, the prevalence of tornadoes, etc.) decline. This is important because one of the predictions about global warming is that as the earth heats up, more and more powerful storms will occur. Yet, as we’re observing—the number of tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat days, and hurricanes has been declining in recent years. In fact, the US tornado count is the lowest it has been in quite a while, and the bottom has also dropped out of the hurricane count. Yet, the news media and the environmentalists were quick to jump on Hurricane Sandy last year as an example of a “global warming-driven superstorm,” even though Sandy was really a fairly small storm that happened to hit a densely-populated area where the people failed to prepare for her arrival, and was not actually all that unusual in how far north she came, as I pointed out here.

It has gotten so bad for the global warming enthusiasts that many scientists have begunopenly criticizing the mouthpieces for “climate change,” such as the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). This brings to the fore another fact that the environmentalists don’t want you to know—the majority of scientists in the relevant fields do not actually support the global warming hypothesis, despite the best efforts of the politicians, the media, and the “Warmers” to create the impression that “scientists” monolithically support the arguments for manmade climate change. It’s simply not true—“scientists” do not. Indeed, many scientists recognize global warming for what it is—asecular, environmentalist-driven religion that ignores inconvenient empirical evidences, or else adjusts them to fit into the politically correct political position about this issue.

Now, the observant reader may have noticed that there is a common thread that binds all three of these environmentalist bugaboos—they are all used to justify the reduction in our quality of life and to reduce the human population to what environmentalists and the global “elite” consider more manageable levels. All of these things work to that end—“sustainable living,” reducing food production, limiting the ability to destroy deadly diseases, destroying access to and use of fossil fuels, eliminating industry. These are all part of the same program, which is to reduce our numbers, destroy our wealth, and eliminate the ability of the common man on the earth to resist the global “elite” and its agenda.

Many conservatives and liberty lovers like to point out the hypocrisy of people like Al Gore who preach climate change and the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels, while flying the world in their big gas-guzzling jets. I don’t think people like Gore would even recognize this as hypocrisy. Instead, they would see it merely as a privilege pertaining to their elite station. There is a concerted effort by the transnational elite to enserf the middle classes in the West, and to cull and manage the poorer populations in the third world. That the middle classes are able to live prosperous, comfortable lives apart from the provision of the elites is an affront to these elites. The poorer peoples of the world, in turn, are more numerous, and therefore cannot be allowed to aspire to the sort of living standards that the middle classes in the West enjoy, so they have to be thinned so that they will be more useful as worker drones in the system the elites would like to establish. Seriously—surely the observant reader has noticed that just about everything that the Left and its transnational allies like George Soros do works to reduce the economic self-sufficiency of our middle class and to destroy the productivity and power of Western economies.

We have to stop this agenda in its tracks. We need to oppose the efforts by the Warmers to destroy our economy, reduce our standard of living, and bring our people into economic (and therefore political) slavery. We have to stand up for capitalism, the benefits of science, technology, and industrialism. We cannot let this “science” with no basis in science be used as a weapon to destroy the gains made over the last few centuries.

0 Comments Tim Dunkin is a pharmaceutical chemist by day, and a freelance author by night, writing about a wide range of topics on religion and politics. He is the author of an online book about Islam entitled Ten Myths About Islam, and is the founder and editor ofConservative Underground, a bi-weekly email newsletter focusing on foundational conservative worldview and philosophy. He is a born-again Christian, and a member of a local, New Testament Baptist church in North Carolina. He can be contacted at:patriot_tim@yahoo.com All emails may be monitored by the NSA for quality assurance purposes

Journalist /Media Agendas

MEDIA USES NEW GOETZ ARREST TO MOLD PUBLIC OPINION — AGAIN!

by Beverly Eakman
November 8, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

Most readers know that public opinion is molded by the mainstream media, by schools, and by most TV news anchors. What most people don’t know is precisely how the deed is accomplished so systematically and pervasively.

The technique itself is called “perception management,” a topic on which I wrote last fall (“It’s About Perception Management, Stupid”). Just this past weekend, a breaking news item provided an opportunity to see the process at work up close, in the form of an arrest of one of conventional journalism’s favorite nemeses: Bernhard Goetz. For those still not quite clear as to the means whereby distorted information gets a free pass—so much so that no amount of evidence to the contrary, presented by credible experts after the fact, alters the originally planted misrepresentation—the following should serve as Exhibit One.

An Associated Press story started out this way, and was picked up on November 2, 2013, by the Washington Post, among other mass media, without any significant change sin wording:

NEW YORK (AP) — Subway vigilante Bernie Goetz, who ignited a national furor over racism and gun control after he shot four panhandling youths on a train in the 1980s, has been charged with misdemeanor sale and possession of marijuana, authorities said Saturday.

Goetz was nabbed in a sting operation in Union Square park Friday evening for selling $30 worth of pot to an undercover officer….

First, note the use of the operative terms: vigilante, racism, shot, panhandling, youths, and sting operation.

The public has already been conditioned to view any report carrying these words negatively, especially when packed together in the first two sentences of a story. Vigilante, of course, is associated with an out-of-control loner — a “nut-case” who is also most likely a criminal. The term racism needs no further explanation. The other terms, while not so blatant in their emotional baggage, in this case add to the bias, because of their proximity to the first two buzz-terms. People are acclimated to feel sorry for children (“youths”), especially if they are begging (“panhandling”), and conditioned toward outrage whenever a person is described as gunned down (“shot”). Similarly, John Q. Public views detective work (a “sting operation”) as an appropriate use of police power.

Most readers faintly remember Bernhard Goetz. But almost 30 years has elapsed since the original story, so the details get fuzzy. Only a couple of major media outlets bothered to get the story right, even in 1984. And even when they got a second chance at it in 2011, journalists didn’t dig their way to the bottom of the story, when one of the original teen culprits “inexplicably” took his own life in prison on the anniversary of the 1984 subway victimization of Goetz—while serving time for an unrelated violent crime.

Now here’s what really happened,along with the background context of the story that sparked so much angst in the press in 1984:

In 1981, a then-34-year-old, bespectacled, nerdy-looking electronics entrepreneur, Bernhard Goetz, suffered permanent damage to one knee and his chest at the hands of three hoodlums at a subway station. They attempted to rob him as he carried equipment. They were later charged only with “criminal mischief.”

Although injured, Goetz helped a nearby off-duty police officer arrest the ruffians. But he wound up spending more time at the police station than the thugs who attacked him. He decided then and there that, given his physical appearance, he’d better purchase a gun for self-protection. He had no confidence that anyone else would protect him in a city where the crime rate was so out of control that every opinion poll taken at time expressed indignation. But surprise! Goetz found himself turned down for a gun permit on the grounds of “insufficient need,” even though in the course of his business he routinely carried expensive electronics and enough money to conduct completely legitimate business transactions. So, on a trip to Florida to visit family, he purchased a handgun.

The incident in New York both scared and traumatized him. Even though he thought deep down, like most victims, that the attempted mugging had probably been a one-time event and would never happen again, he was later reported to as saying: “Prior to being mugged I did not feel I had to carry a gun, [but] you can't let yourself be pushed around. You can’t live in fear. That's no way to live your life.”

Sure enough, three years later he was accosted again, this time inside a subway car by four assailants, not three. One demanded Goetz’s money; another cut off the passageway out of the subway car; and a third attacker, James Ramseur, according to witnesses, hovered menacingly with a screwdriver in hand. Goetz figured he was really in for it this time: four against one.So he pulled out his gun and shot them, injuring all four, one critically.

It turned out that each of the four had already been arrested and/or convicted on criminal charges. Yet, they were roaming the streets. In fact, several reports from 1984 stated that the foursome seemed to be on their way to rob some video arcade machines when they happened upon Goetz.

Because of the public backlash against openly vicious and uncontrolled crime, Goetz suddenly became a hero to much of the public.But he was villain to leftists in the media who were hot to strip away the Second Amendment. So they labeled Goetz “the Subway Vigilante,” over and over—until a public perception of Goetz as a loner out for revenge took hold. He wound up serving six months—for carrying the unlicensed firearm—thanks to scores of unsupportive journalists with an ulterior agenda.

But there’s an additional clincher to this story. You have to dig deeply to find it—not because it was unreported, but because of the way it was reported:

In December 2011, the screwdriver-holder of the four, James Ramseur, committed suicide—exactly 27 years to the day after the attack on Goetz. The media fixated on the obvious link—the date of the suicide—even managing to obtain a quote from Goetz himself, who voiced the natural assumption that Ramseur “probably was depressed.”

Most of the news reports went on to imply that James Ramseur likely held a fierce grudge against Goetz’s public-hero status, while the four attackers were simply seen as criminals.

Could it be that the thug with the screwdriver was the one Goetz critically injured, James Ramseur? Well, news reports don’t exactly say. You have to go back to the original incident police reports to find out—and no, he wasn’t. In fact, what only a few reports mentioned, and then only in passing, is that James Ramseur subsequently served 25 years for raping and sodomizing a pregnant woman in 1986.

Look at that year again: 1986!

Goetz was accosted by Ramseur and the others in the subway car in 1984. For saving his own life, Goetz served six months for (horrors!) carrying a weapon of self-defense. With the 2011 suicide, the press created the impression that Ramseur was a victim, not by anything said or written down, but by omitting factual context.

So, Mr. Screwdriver-holder was where? Out on the streets, raping and sodomizing someone who was definitely in no position to fight back! A pregnant woman! Furthermore, Ramseur had had major run-ins with the law even before the 1984 Goetz incident.

So why did Ramseur kill himself on 27th anniversary of the Goetz attack?

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out: More than likely, the nerdy Mr. Goetz looked like an easy mark, whereas he turned out to be the only one who’d ever fought back and lived to tell about it! He had surprised the thugs by taking on four big, strong, menacing attackers. Ramseur, no doubt, had relived that moment during his 25 years in prison on the rape-and-sodomy charge, and he seethed at the thought that an unimposing figure like Goetz was the only one ever to foil him.

In the context of the crime the evidence was hiding in plain sight. This is how perception management is propagated in the media. Public opinion is molded by repetition; lack of a consistent and vocal challenge; and the overwhelming numbers represented by leftist media. Schools of journalism train budding newscasters in the use of manipulative strategies, and editors of mainstream publications expect the facts to reflect a certain spin.

Thus, most of the reports on Ramseur’s suicide made it appear that, because of the timing, he killed himself over Goetz’s actions that day in 1984. Well, yes, sort of. Goetz refused to be a doormat for a violent crime—one perhaps not so unlike the one perpetrated on the helpless pregnant woman!

Only as an aside would alert readers ever learn that Ramseur went free to commit that savage crime two years later.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily E-Mail Alerts! Enter Your E-Mail Address:

Oh, and by the way, not a single story ever reported on the mental state of the poor woman Ramseur brutally assaulted in 1986, or the fate of the child she was carrying—or, for that matter, whether either of the victims lived or died.

As for this past weekend’s story of the marijuana “sting operation” that got Bernhard Goetz arrested over $30 worth of a substance that the Left is finally succeeding in legalizing, let’s just say that Goetz’ defense attorney could rightfully take a page out of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi playbook,on Jan. 23, 2013, when she famously spat:

“What difference at this point does it make?”

And then say “Gotcha!”

© 2013 Beverly Eakman - All Rights Reserved

   Share This Article
Click Here For Mass E-mailing

---

Beverly K. Eakman’s 8th book, PUSH BACK! How to Take a Stand Against Groupthink, Bullies, Agitators and Professional Manipulators (Skyhorse Publishing), has an expected release date of January 2014.Mrs. Eakman began her career as a teacher, left to become a scientific writer for a NASA contractor, and went on to serve as a speech writer for the head of the Voice of America and for the chairman(a former U.S. Supreme Court Justice) of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution. She was a writer for the U.S. Dept. of Justice before retiring from federal government. Her first book in 1991 blew the whistle on misrepresented standardized testing of schoolchildren. She specializes in covering education policy, mental-health fraud, data-trafficking, privacy and political agitation strategies.

Her website is: beverlyeakman.com

E-Mail: BKEakman@gmail.com

Governmentally Speaking Commandments

Sorry this may seem like a mish-mash but it is in development and should be tidied up sometime later and more is being added to it.
Choice ,freedom to choose; governments do not like choice of school, of doctor, of medicine,

The 10 Commandments of Government by Director Blue
Posted on November 3, 2013 by Dymphna
Doug Ross   http://directorblue.blogspot.co.nz/2013/11/the-10-commandments-of-government.html
has submitted for your review the following “commandments” of government. He could have said “operating system” or some other metaphor, but the word commandment does express both the quasi-religious nature of these rules, and the failure to heed them which indeed brings down the wrath of the State on your puny head.

For a much longer but equally on-target explanation (including a forecast) you would do well to get a copy of Gregory Copley’s book:


Copley doesn’t offer solutions, but his naming of the various problems we will face goes a long way toward aiding us in figuring out what to do while we wait. Let’s just say the more skills in your tool box, the better. And community will become increasingly important. Fragile, but necessary.

Our book budget is nil, but this one was too important not to buy. An atlas would help in your journey through Mr. Copley’s future. See the geo in front of the politics in the title? He really means it.

Meanwhile, here we are in Geenormous Government Land. Might as well read the rules to see if we can stay out of jail. That is becoming the unintended destination for lots of folks who weren’t planning to go there.

What follows is Director Blue’s Commandments and Dymphna’s amendments. Please feel free to add yours in the comments. In fact, if you can think of further commandments, let us know.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
I Generally speaking, government always grows — it never shrinks — whether times are good or bad.

The growth in good times is incremental. In bad times, it surges, tumors sprouting everywhere. Sometimes it fabricates “bad times” so it can go to war against these dangers — e.g., the Wars on poverty (or Poverty) and drugs and failing schools. Government loves wars.

II In each area it purports to “assist”, government attempts to replace individual decision-making with central planning.

Those ‘attempts’ at ‘assisting’ become evermore insistent and evermore umm…embracing. People are learning not to make frontal conflicts but instead to quietly build work-arounds. Homeschooling is one of those. However, it has been so successful it may well become illegal so people need to think ahead, especially where their children are concerned.

We have received distraught emails from shattered Norwegian parents who watch their children being brain-washed. That doesn’t mean there aren’t lots of parents in Norway who love their children’s school. But that’s not a universal love in Norway — we’ve also heard from grown-ups who survived the system and carry the scars. That’s what happens in totalitarian democracies.

Soon you will see lots more cases of “democracy” in scare quotes. People in many countries, including the U.S. republic, are beginning to grasp the farce of an electoral process in which the candidates on offer are the lowest common denominator results of crony, kleptocratic politics. They have nothing to add to the common weal but lots of ideas on what they plan to take from it during their “turn”.

III In order to implement its grand central plans and solidify its power, government must take from one citizen to give to another; this is, in effect, lawful theft.

And boy does it make the victims of these perennial robberies mad! Despite Obama’s transparent obsession with making things “fair” — a fixed game if ever there was one — his anger at rich white people — even just regular old white people like his granny — shines through each pronouncement. The man has done much damage to race relations in this country; it will take a wise saint to help us heal.

“Fairness” must always be founded on justice. When it is capricious or backward-looking, it becomes a dangerous weapon.

IV No matter how many times central planning fails, the self-appointed masterminds in government assert that “this time is different” and that with only a few tweaks and more money, their delusional plans will succeed.

Hahahahah. Can you say ObamaCare? No Child Left Behind? They’re tweaking like crazy and it will never ever be fixed. It’s a con and the American people are the unwilling suckers. As in ‘it sucks to be us’. If ObamaCare were real, all the Congress klepts would be in on it.

V Because it uses funds confiscated from taxpayers, self-restraint is no obstacle to government’s ambitions.


They have become increasingly gluttonous and greedy. They don’t even bother to hide it anymore — witness Nancy Pelosi and her deluxe private flights home to California, with the tab picked up by the taxpayer victims. Or the excesses of the IRS’ parties. Weren’t they the agency who went to Las Vegas?
 and continues on, then their are more suggestions in comments. 
Later I should summarize and tidy this up

Symbol? or just huff and puff?

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/11/02/in-midst-syrian-war-giant-jesus-statue-arises/
Will it last?  Will things change?  The surprising connection over time of its backers.   Does it give hope or will hope just be dashed in swirling conflicts, strife, politics and religion? 

BEIRUT –  In the midst of a conflict rife with sectarianism, a giant bronze statue of Jesus has gone up on a Syrian mountain, apparently under cover of a truce among three factions in the country's civil war.

Jesus stands, arms outstretched, on the Cherubim mountain, overlooking a route pilgrims took from Constantinople to Jerusalem in ancient times. The statue is 40 feet tall and stands on a base that brings its height to 105 feet, organizers of the project estimate.

That the statue made it to Syria and went up without incident on Oct. 14 is remarkable. The project took eight years and was set back by the civil war that followed the March 2011 uprising against President Bashar Assad.

Christians and other minorities are all targets in the conflict, and the statue's safety is by no means guaranteed. It stands among villages where some fighters, linked to Al Qaeda, have little sympathy for Christians.

So why put up a giant statue of Christ in the midst of such setbacks and so much danger?

Because "Jesus would have done it," organizer Samir al-Ghadban quoted a Christian church leader as telling him.

The backers' success in overcoming the obstacles shows the complexity of civil war, where sometimes despite the atrocities the warring parties can reach short-term truces.

Al-Ghadban said that the main armed groups in the area -- Syrian government forces, rebels and the local militias of Sednaya, the Christian town near the statue site -- halted fire while organizers set up the statue, without providing further details.

Rebels and government forces occasionally agree to cease-fires to allow the movement of goods. They typically do not admit to having truces because that would tacitly acknowledge their enemies.

It took three days to raise the statue. Photos provided by organizers show it being hauled in two pieces by farm tractors, then lifted into place by a crane. Smaller statues of Adam and Eve stand nearby.

The project, called "I Have Come to Save the World," is run by the London-based St. Paul and St. George Foundation, which Al-Ghadban directs. It was previously named the Gavrilov Foundation, after a Russian businessman, Yuri Gavrilov.

Documents filed with Britain's Charity Commission describe it as supporting "deserving projects in the field of science and animal welfare" in England and Russia, but the commission's accounts show it spent less than $400 in the last four years.

Al-Ghadban said most of the financing came from private donors, but did not supply further details.

Russians have been a driving force behind the project -- not surprising given that the Kremlin is embattled Assad's chief ally, and the Orthodox churches in Russia and Syria have close ties. Al-Ghadban, who spoke to The Associated Press from Moscow, is Syrian-Russian and lives in both countries.

Al-Ghadban said he began the project in 2005, hoping the statue would be an inspiration for Syria's Christians. He said he was inspired by Rio de Janeiro's towering Christ the Redeemer statue.

He commissioned an Armenian sculptor, but progress was slow.  A series of his backers died, including Valentin Varennikov, a general who participated in the 1991 coup attempt against then President Mikhail Gorbachev. He later sought President Vladimir Putin's backing for the statue project.

Varennikov died in 2009.

Another backer, Patriarch Ignatius IV, the Lebanon-based head of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and All the East, died in 2012. He had donated the land for the statue, according to church official Bishop Ghattas Hazim.

By 2012, the statue was ready, but Syria was aflame, causing the project's biggest delay, al-Ghadban said.

Majority Sunni Muslims dominate the revolt, and jihadists make up some of the strongest fighting groups. Other Muslim groups along with the 10-percent Christian minority have stood largely with Assad's government, or remained neutral, sometimes arming themselves to keep hard-line rebels out of their communities.

Churches have been vandalized, priests abducted. Last month the extremists overran Maaloula, a Christian-majority town so old that some of its people still speak a language from Jesus' time.

On Tuesday a militant Muslim cleric, Sheik Omar al-Gharba, posted a YouTube video of himself smashing a blue-and-white statue of the Virgin Mary.

Al-Ghadban and the project's most important backer, Gavrilov, weighed canceling it.

They consulted Syria's Greek Orthodox Patriarch John Yaziji. It was he who told them "Jesus would have done it."

They began shipping the statue from Armenia to Lebanon. In August, while it was en route, Gavrilov, 49, suffered a fatal heart attack, al-Ghadban said.

Eventually the statue reached Syria.

"It was a miracle," al-Ghadban said. "Nobody who participated in this expected this to succeed."

Property Rights

PROPERTY RIGHTS; THE MOST IMPORTANT RIGHTS WE HAVE

 http://www.newswithviews.com/Goldstein/mitchell107.htm

By Coach Mitchell Goldstein
November 2, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

In issues of primacy, i.e. whose rights are more important, the owner of the land or the user of the land? It is clear; today’s consumerist view has won out. Today, neither legislators nor judges feel constrained by the principle of Stare Decisis, to stand by that which is decided, i.e. the original constitutional precept. Rather, they abide by Stalin’s Law, “A promise is like a pie crust, it is meant to be broken.” Feelings rule, not intellect. As a society we seem totally taken in by Goebbels like style over Jeffersonian and Madisonian substance.

The Federalist, that gathering of essays explaining the Founders ideas, is replete with philosophical entreaties that, within natural law, property is primal. A natural law is one which each person is born with, a law that no government can take away because natural law is higher than government law and all government law must first adhere to the basic premise that government exists to defend a person’s Life, Liberty, and

Property. People do not exist to serve government; that is the Socialistic view. Property is held to be primary amongst man’s natural rights. The ability to defend and retain control over one’s property is the most important of our natural rights, for it undergirds all the others. A basic aim of Life is to gather property so as to sustain oneself. Liberty means nothing without the ability to improve one’s lot, primarily through the acquisition of property. The admonition against government rulemaking over property is stated in several places in the Constitution. Probably the single most voiced line in American history is Jefferson’s assertion that amongst man’s natural rights are his “rights to Life, Liberty and” Property, expressed as a term of art as “the pursuit of Happiness.”

If looking at the history of law in the US and NYS, we see the steady assertion and institutionalism of an idea the Founders held in total disrepute: that Socialism, in any form was to be avoided because it always leads to totalitarianism. That is a fact. We see the originalist idea of “caveat emptor,” let the buyer beware, being changed in law and in case law to, “caveat lessor,” let the landlord beware. This is fact.

It is not yet fashionable to label one as Fascist, but you decide if our governments, at all levels, deserve this label. Webster’s 1961 New World Dictionary defines Fascism as that form of government which “controls the means of production,” i.e. the economy. The control comes in the form of edict and regulation. The Founders expressly forbid regulation of this type because it leads to dictatorship and avoiding dictatorship was the main reason they sought independence.

The last four generations, having little if any schooling in the precepts of the Constitution, but having lots of schooling in Mao’s “Little Red Book” and Marx’s ideas, are not even aware of the precepts of natural law and how it underpins freedom. Anyone with an inkling of understanding of the Freedom Philosophy can clearly see the lack of Americanist ideals when reading the editorial opinions expressed in most newspapers but especially any big city newspaper.

Veritably, all law that restricts freedom of property without fair compensation is not constitutional – period. This applies to Zoning Law, which takes from every property owner the right to do with his property as he sees fit – but does not compensate him. That is the definition of legalized theft! Demands on landlords, such as The Rental Certificate law, similarly restricts property owners, violates their constitutional rights, and all without fair compensation.

This is the hallmark of Fascism! You hold the deed; the government lets you keep ownership, but the government totally controls the use, usually in favor of a preferred class, in this case, tenants. In other cases, we see bloated government giving funds to preferred friends labeled “special interests.” This is how Fascism operates. You work to keep you nose above water and the government takes whatever it wants – but it always says it’s for your own good.

Just for the record: this black hearted landlord of over 30 years, has never evicted anyone, and just last night, I restructured a $5000 rental arrearage for long term tenants who have not managed their finances well for the entire seven years of their tenancy. Landlords help more people, in more real ways, than government. And we clean the toilets and the greasy ovens tenants leave behind.

I understand the heart felt desires of legislators to fix a situation, to “do something.” However you can’t break constitutional rules to satisfy your feelings. The Constitution must be viewed in the same way as the Ten Commandments. G-d did not say “Thou shalt not steal – but if you’re hungry, it’s OK.” You don’t require the butcher to give away his meat to those who are hungry. Leaving the corners of the wheat field for the poor is a voluntary act, which makes it holy.

In the same way, landlords want good tenants and have the means to help when needed, like I did, but it should not be required. There are so many extra apartments available in our cities that tenants have a veritable choice and landlords know that they must compete for good tenants. The biggest problem is the low grade of tenants - a subject the various government entities say they cannot do anything about, so the municipality resorts to harassing the landlord, the equivalent of low hanging fruit, because of governments’ lack of ability to correct errant tenant behavior.Readers of NWW understand those who think that blaming the baby for the bathwater is a crazy idea. About a decade ago I followed proposed real property law in the NYS legislature. Many bills stated as their purpose that rental property owners had assets that the state could use to help in its desire to house people. Example: Problem: the City of NY’s municipal infrastructure is often overcrowded. New Law Solution: make the eviction process take at least 30-60 days longer so tenants will not have to be housed at city expense. There was no proposal to compensate rental property owners; the mentality is to use the property as if it were the governments. Fascism is control through regulation.

Those whose need is to protect the needy and the weak, should do so, and entreat others to do the same, through voluntary means. That is our history and the requirement of the Constitution. Read it, the Constitution allows none of the current new laws. Yet, those who profess to have such a great heart that, in the current socialist egalitarian mode, they want to give to those in need, yet can only do so by forcibly taking it from others, i.e. legalized theft.

Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! Enter Your E-Mail Address:

These folks do not see their crime. They do insist though that you be made criminal if you don’t abide by their edict. They steal from you and demand that you pay or be punished. Washington wrote, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Could any statement be more clear? Let landlords fight it out for good tenants by having good properties. Rental Certificates are bad policy, they void the Constitution and they institutionalize government control. Rental Certificates are wrong, just as Zoning is wrong, and as are other means of government control over our property where there is no fair compensation. It is the Police Power run amok.

© 2013 Mitchell Goldstein - All Rights Reserved