In my opinion they got off light what they did to those students is worse than robbing a store!
Tag Archives: ATP 3-39.33
Intellectual tyranny–Thomas Sowell discusses
Sowell is almost always right on but Milloy make a good point about the current situation and the funding. In a perfect world the Scientists would police themselves but the lure of money has destroyed science as it once was. The people living in the country now only what free things and the intellectuals are no better wanting grant money to enhance their status. The politicians wanting power give both groups what they desire and there is only one way this can end! Lets hope there is a rebirth of freedom sometime not to distant from now.
Here at junkscience.com it’s a damn lucky thing we aren’t offerred a lot of money to change our opinions.
View original post 193 more words
Scott Walker Doesn’t Mince Words When Responding to ‘Unbelievable’ Jab From Obama on Iran
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) responded Wednesday evening to criticism President Barack Obama levied against him for his position on the nuclear talks with Iran.
Previously, Walker said he would void any deal Obama makes with Iran if it allows the country to continue uranium enrichment. On Tuesday, Obama responded and said Walker was taking a “foolish approach” and that “perhaps Mr. Walker, after he’s taken some time to bone up on foreign policy, will feel the same way.”
Walker, who is widely expected to make a run for the White House in 2016, did not mince words when responding during a Fox News appearance.
“It’s unbelievable,” Walker said. “This is a president who should spend more time trying to work with governors and Congress instead of attacking them. But it’s not the first time … he went after me not too long ago for signing right to work in Wisconsin as well.”
“This is a president who should spend more time trying to work with governors and Congress instead of attacking them.”
“The thing about that statement, this is a guy in the last year who called ISIS the JV squad, who called Yemen just last Fall … a success story, had a secretary of state under Hillary Clinton that gave Russia a reset button and then they ultimately went into the Ukraine, this is a guy who I think shouldn’t have the audacity to be schooling anyone on foreign policy,” Walker added.
Lucifer, Salesman of the Year
We can end the day with some Humor — we need it since Hillary Howled out her Hobble for the white House today.
“Isn’t this the most gorgeous day we’ve had all year?” I asked The Devil as I put my feet up on the front porch railing and sipped my Snapple.
It was a glorious Spring Sunday, and I didn’t need Lucifer to confirm that today was the best day 2015 had offered thus far. The sun was shining, the temperature was in the mid sixties, and the snow was almost all gone.
“I’m going to miss the frigid weather, though,” Satan replied as he tentatively put his feet, in their expensive Italian loafers, up on the porch railing.
“Is this some sort of Hell is hot, and Maine in Winter is the exact opposite, so I love the juxtaposition kind of logic?” I asked incredulously as I passed my porch guest a Snapple from the cooler that sat between our chairs.
“Not at all. This Winter turned out to be quite…
View original post 505 more words
That Didn’t Take Long – NY Mayor De Blasio Doesn’t Endorse Hillary Clinton – Immediate Threats Toward Him From Team Hillary…
Hail to the Queen
Jeanine Pirro discusses threats to the power grid with Tony Shaffer and Frank Gaffney
Misreading Alinsky
Posted By Andrew C. McCarthy On April 10, 2015 @ 5:27 pm
Since the year before his disciple, Barack Obama, was elected president, many of us have been raising alarms about how Saul Alinsky’s brass-knuckles tactics have been mainstreamed by Democrats. It was thus refreshing to find an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal this week, by Pete Peterson of Pepperdine’s School of Public Policy, expressly calling out a top House Democrat for resorting to the seminal community organizer’s extortion playbook.
But in the end, alas, Mr. Peterson gets Alinsky wrong.
He does a fine job of exposing the hardball played by Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee. Grijalva attempted to intimidate scientists and professors who fail to toe the alarmist line on “climate change” by sending letters to presidents of their universities. He wrote the letters on congressional letterhead and purported to impose a March 16 due date for a response – creating the coercive misimpression that the letters were enforceable demands for information, made by a government official in a position to punish noncompliance. The missives sought information about the scientists and academics (among them, the excellent Steve Hayward of Pepperdine and Power Line), including whether they accepted funding from oil companies. Peterson adds that the letters were followed up by officious calls from Grijalva’s staff. The abuse of power is blatant and reprehensible.
Peterson is quite right that Grijalva’s “targeting [of] institutions and their leaders is pure Alinsky; and so are the scare tactics.” He goes astray, however, in contending that this leftist lawmaker’s adoption of Alinsky’s tactics “may not fit with Alinsky’s philosophy.”
In essence, Peterson contends that Alinsky’s systematizing of extortionate tactics can be divorced from any particular ideological agenda. He urges, as did Alinsky himself in Rules for Radicals, that the latter’s system was devised for the “Have-Nots,” advising them how to take power away from the “Haves.” Therefore, Peterson reasons, “an existential crisis for [Alinsky’s] vision” arises once the Have-Nots acquire power: i.e., the system is somehow undermined by its own success because the Have-Nots are not Have-Nots anymore.
This overlooks a crucial detail. There is a reason why Alinsky’s self-help manual is called Rules for Radicals, not Rules for Have-Nots.
Alinsky was a radical leftist. Of course, he struck the pose of one who eschewed faithful adherence to a particular doctrine; but that is a key part of the strategy. To be successful – meaning, to advance the radical agenda – a community organizer needs public support. Thus he must masquerade as a “pragmatist” rather than reveal himself as a socialist or a communist. The idea is for the organizer to portray himself as part of the bourgeois society he despises, to coopt its language and mores in order to bring about radical transformation from within.
But it is not as if Alinsky organizers are indifferent to the kind of change a society goes through as long as it is change of some kind. Alinsky was a man of the hard left, a social justice activist who sought massive redistribution of wealth and power. Peterson acknowledges this in a fleeting mention of Alinsky’s “professed hatred of capitalism.” Noteworthy, moreover, is Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals critique of such seventies revolutionaries as the Weathermen: his contempt stemmed not from disagreement with their goals but from the fact that their terrorist methods enraged the public, making those goals harder to achieve. When a book begins, as Rules for Radicals does, by saluting Lucifer as “the very first radical,” it is fairly clear that the author has taken sides.
It is true, as Peterson observes, that some non-leftists have recommended that some Alinsky tactics could be used to advance some non-leftist causes. But that does mean this is how Alinsky himself would ever have used them. Furthermore, even if a conservative might opportunistically exploit an Alinsky tactic here or there, one who by nature seeks to conserve the American constitutional system would never wholly (or even very partially) adopt the Alinsky plan, which seeks to destroy that system.
Community organizing is not designed for any random Have Nots to use against any random Haves. It is for the Left’s Have Nots to use against proponents of individual liberty, economic liberty, private property, and the governmental system created to protect them. To be sure, the election of an Alinskyite to the presidency is, as Peterson describes it, a climactic event. But that does not mean Alinskyites perceive it as an “existential crisis.” To the contrary, they perceive it as an opportunity to achieve total victory over the former Haves. That is why Democrats have no compunction about using their awesome government power in the same way – except to greater effect – that a community organizer uses “direct action” (i.e., extortion).
Peterson confounds ends and means. Alinsky was not trying to improve the lot of the Have Nots. He was trying to rally the Have Nots to his side because doing so was necessary to achieve his goal of supplanting the American system. Alinsky was not planning to switch sides if his program succeeded in turning America’s Haves into Have Nots. Alinsky’s program is about acquiring power in order to use it for purposes of imposing a leftist vision.
Mr. Peterson is absolutely correct to see the political success of Alinskyites, and their accompanying grip on government, as a huge problem. But that hardly means the Alinskyites themselves see it as a problem, theoretical or otherwise. They see it as a coup. Rules for Radicals is not a strategy for giving Have Nots an even playing field; it is a strategy for giving the radical left the power needed to win.
Judge Jeanine Savages Hillary For Laughing About Her Rapist Client
” On the eve of Hillary’s announcement that she is running for president, Judge Jeanine reminds us all just how vile her character really is, playing a tape of Hillary laughing about getting her client only 2 months incarceration for the brutal rape of a 6th-grader.”
The Burdens of Thought Policing
From gay weddings to Iran’s muscle-flexing, PC enforcers have a big job.
It is not easy being a contemporary thought policeman.
No sooner had the radical gay Left demonized the owners of an Indiana pizza parlor, which does not cater weddings, for suggesting that in theory they might not wish to cater a gay wedding than all sorts of stories surfaced saying that lots of Muslim eateries professed that they too would not cater gay weddings. What can the thought bullies do if one victim should victimize another?
Money complicates thought policing as well. The CEO of Apple is outraged at the thought crimes of Indiana pizza-parlor owners who offer his trillion-dollar company no chance of lucre — but he is not outraged at the concretely homophobic culture of the Middle East or the religious intolerance of China, which are hooked on i-products. Are theoretical sins worse than actual ones?
We are back in spirit to the scripted outrage of a few years ago at Mormons in California for supposedly voting down gay marriage on a ballot proposition — until exit polls suggested that the state’s black voters had proved as much opposed to gay marriage as the so-called Religious Right. Figuring out who is and who is not an enemy of the people, and so subject to banishment to the PC gulag, is as difficult as it was for the Stalinists in the 1930s to hound out the last Russian counterrevolutionaries.
In the George Zimmerman case, we have to give the thought police of the New York Times and NBC News some credit for matching the untiring zealousness of Inspector Javert. The Timesinvented a new rubric, “white Hispanic,” to preempt any competing Zimmerman claim on ethnic victimhood. NBC doctored a 911 tape to make Zimmerman sound like a foul racist. Other news outlets tried to Photoshop away police images that had shown a bleeding Zimmerman after the fight; in contrast, Trayvon Martin, who by the time of the confrontation was a tall teenager, was often seen in photos as a cuddly preteen in his football uniform. But finally even the thought police could not stop a supposedly poor, honest woman of color who was a witness for the defense, Rachel Jeantel, from testifying as an unapologetic racist (“creepy-ass white cracker”) and homophobe who seemed to confirm the defense’s argument that Martin started the fight (“whoop ass”).
In the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Mo., a nearly-300-pound thug — who had just strong-armed a liquor store, walked down the middle of the road under the influence, and rushed and attacked a policeman — had to be transmogrified by the thought police into a “gentle giant.” When Big Brother got through with Brown, he had been gunned down in cold blood by a racist cop after pleading for his life with a final “hands up, don’t shoot.” The makeover almost worked — if it were not for a few honest eyewitnesses and the laws of ballistics and criminal forensics. Note one constant “true lies” theme of thought policing, whether in Ferguson or in the recent Rolling Stone rape-allegations caper: When exposed, falsifiers never apologize to their real victims, whether the smeared Officer Darren Wilson or the University of Virginia fraternity members. Instead, we are subjected to ends-justifying-the means throat clearing and worries that the lies may prevent discussion of real racism or actual rapes — as if the untruth at least served some social good by raising our awareness.
To believe the media’s acceptance of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail yarns, we would have to engage in mental gymnastics that would make Rose Mary Woods’s physical contortions during Watergate seem a trifle in comparison. Hillary sort of had four mobile devices, but also sort of had only one. Everyone knows you need two separate smartphones to have two separate e-mail accounts, and thus she had only one of each. She protected her server from hackers by having bodyguards on the premises — but not from her more dangerous alter ego, who deleted thousands of e-mails and crashed her server. She wanted a private account to e-mail her husband – and, as proof, Bill Clinton said he had written only two e-mails in his entire life. She swears that she knew which e-mails were private and which were public, and so understandably destroyed the former to prove just that to the American people. What Hillary Clinton did was not at all unusual, although no other high-ranking administration official communicated only through a private e-mail account and server. Listening to her gibberish was like an exasperated Dorothy watching the stammering Oz as the tiny man behind the curtain frantically twisted dials and pulled levers to let out steam and project a defiant, though empty, talking head.
The Obama administration has prompted a new use for the old adverb “unexpectedly,” which has been repeatedly used by the media to characterize dismal current statistics on economic growth and employment. “Unexpectedly” now means that massaged federal statistics and media spin are still not enough to hide the fact that something that inevitably should have happened actually has happened. Jaw-boning down business, hiking taxes, creating the Obamacare mess, expanding entitlements and regulations, running up $1 trillion deficits on the way to an $18 trillion national debt — all that and more “unexpectedly” led to more dismal economic news on flat employment and stagnant economic growth.
Do we remember how the thought police cited the unexpected Japanese tsunami, the unexpected Washington earthquake, the unexpected Arab Spring, unexpected online ticketing, unexpected ATM machines, an unexpected BP oil slick, unexpected Hurricane Irene, and unexpectedly soft Americans (cf. Barack Obama’s pronouncement: “The way I think about it is, this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft, and we didn’t have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades”), which all unexpectedly combined to cause a sluggish economy?
The Iran nuclear deal poses the greatest challenge to thought policing — largely because of the simple fact that if the theocracy, as it professes, did not wish to enrich uranium to get a bomb, there would never have been any enriched uranium there in the first place, and therefore no need for talks with an already energy-rich Iran.
President Obama and his administration had in the past warned us that we must not do what they just did. Suddenly Iran can keep the subterranean Fordow enrichment site. The Arak plutonium facility is now apparently okay too. Thousands of centrifuges can keep spinning. Enriched uranium does not have to be sent to Russia for inspection. Sanctions can be lifted before full compliance. Ballistic-missile development is a separate issue.
John Kerry had done his best multicultural mimicry (“Inshallah!”) since “Jenjis” Khan to convince us that he fathoms the Middle East. Barack Obama, who speaks no foreign languages and confuses the Falklands with the Maldives, let loose his pseudo-authentic Tay-hrran to prove that he too has special expertise to decipher the Iranians — in the tired fashion of his faux-erudite Pock-kee-stahn, Chee-leh, and Ta-lih-ban. So why worry about Ee-rahn when it is a legitimate regional power naturally flexing its muscles a bit in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen?
The thought police have been busily at work. The Iranians will no doubt fear crossing Obama in the same way that Putin feared destroying reset, that Assad feared crossing the Obama red line on WMD use, and that the ISIS jayvees feared Obama. The only alternative to the Iran deal is supposedly a war ginned up by the neoconservatives — never tougher sanctions, embargoes, or blockades. Iran, unlike other nations in the Middle East, is supposedly a great and powerful country that deserves singular respect. The greater fear is that Republican extremists in the Senate could derail the sober and judicious diplomacy of foreign-policy pros like John Kerry.
Why fight them? Close your eyes like Winston Smith and accept that you kept your doctor, that your premiums and deductibles went down $2,500 a year as your coverage expanded, and that the health-care savings reduced the deficit. When you wake up in your pod with a snatched body, Bibi Netanyahu is a coward and chickens–t, and Hassan Rouhani a new American ally.
Centinel2012 