January 23rd, 2015
The New American
By Alex Newman
As if to prove that global-warming alarmism is in fact a political movement rather than a scientific one, the U.S. Senate, composed primarily of carbon dioxide-spewing attorneys, voted this week to declare that the climate is changing as it always has, and that (natural) climate change is “not a hoax.” Warming theorists celebrated the news, as if a majority vote by lobbyist-controlled politicians — who remain less popular than cockroaches in most polls — constituted evidence of Truth.
In the end, though, despite their cheering, many climate alarmists apparently either did not understand the measure or were deliberately trying to mislead the public about it. The Senate never agreed with their increasingly discredited catastrophic man-made global-warming theory. Instead, lawmakers simply stated the obvious: the climate changes, just as it has since Earth’s creation and just as it will likely continue to change as long the planet exists.
It was an attempt by alarmist Democrats to divide Republicans. However, the GOP ultimately "punked" the alarmists by celebrating and voting in favor of the climate change declaration. Realist Republicans pointed out that the climate has always changednaturally, and so they would gladly vote for the amendment, introduced by Democrat Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and co-sponsored by climate realist Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), reiterating that fact. The widely ridiculed Senate vote came just days after NASA came under fire from scientists for again misleading the media and the public about warming and as the public becomes increasingly skeptical.
The “not a hoax” climate measure, attached to the doomed Keystone XL pipeline legislation as an amendment, was approved 98 to 1. However, that is not because the Senate has suddenly fallen victim to global-warming hysteria. Rather, even the Senate’s leading climate realist, Environment Committee Chairman Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), voted in favor of it and urged his colleagues to do the same. Inhofe, who wrote the book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, actually co-sponsored the amendment.
On Twitter before the vote, Inhofe reiterated his view that man-made climate change was a hoax and called on his Senate colleagues to vote yes on the amendment. Citing scientific, archeological, and scriptural evidence, the conservative senator noted that while climate change is real, the notion that humans are responsible for “climate change” is a “hoax.”
Even much of the establishment press ultimately acknowledged that alarmist Senate Democrats’ “gotcha” scheme had backfired in spectacular fashion. "With Inhofe's re-framing the question, the Democrats, trying to engineer a gotcha moment, ended up empty-handed on the vote, with neither the satisfaction of nailing down opposition to scientific consensus [sic] and without a point of leverage for future discussions of addressing the warming planet [sic]," wrote global-warming theorist Philip Bumb in theWashington Post in a piece headlined "Jim Inhofe flips the script on Democratic climate-change-is-a-hoax vote." Politico, meanwhile, reported that Republicans had "outfoxed" the Senate warming theorists.....
January 23rd, 2015
Obama's constant end-runs around normal Inner-Beltway traditions, and, of course, the US Constitution, have become almost expected, but when the table's turned on El magnifico, watch out!
By Barry Secrest
The 'Narcissist-in-Chief' is already reportedly plotting his revenge against Israeli President Ben Netanyahu's agreeing to address the US Congress, via a John Boehner invitation.
Now, many an American might wonder why Obama is so angry that Netanyahu will be speechifying in front of Congress, however, these are probably the same Americans who haven't watched the 44th President, very critically, over the past six years.
Obama had already rejected any sort of meeting with the Israeli leader, and Obama's dislike for Netanyahu is legendary.
So, why is Obama fuming?
Supposedly, the reason for Obama's anger has to do with Netanyahu's visit while in the course of new Iranian sanctions being considered by Congress. However, Congress is virtually always in the process of considering some form of foreign policy legislation. Even more hilariously, Obama's statements were actually connected to an apparent brand new dislike of [foreign leaders] interfering in 'Democratic elections,' which is laughable on the face of it.
Obama's repeated attempts to interfere in Egypt, Libya, Syria, and on a favorable behalf of virtually every other Islamist nation on the planet [read Iran], has now become historic.
Granted, Obama's pathological narcissism in the terrible need to be 'the only Supreme leader' certainly also weighs into this mix, but might there be more involved?
Indeed, once again, it's the simple fact that Obama is America's first Islamic President, and Islam will not tolerate Jews, period, and now a powerful Jewish leader will be addressing America's other, lesser leaders.
It's enough to throw any jealous Supreme Islamist Leader into an outraged fit--and it certainly did-- more on this story from Fox News:
"House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu -- and the Israeli leader accepted – without any involvement from the White House.
In public, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest politely describes this as a “departure” from protocol. He also says the president will not meet with Netanyahu when he visits in early March, but has attributed that decision only to a desire not to influence Israel’s upcoming elections.
But in private, Obama’s team is livid with the Israeli leader, according to Haaretz.
"We thought we've seen everything," a source identified as a senior American official was quoted as saying. "But Bibi managed to surprise even us. There are things you simply don't do.
“He spat in our face publicly and that's no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency and that there will be a price."
The anonymous quote was a throwback to when, last year, Atlantic magazine quoted another unnamed senior administration official calling Netanyahu a “chickenshit.”
Administration officials, including Earnest, did not deny the quote at the time, though the White House stressed the criticism did not reflect how the rest of the administration views Netanyahu.
On Friday, Earnest once again was asked about tensions with the Israeli government. Asked if the decision to speak to Congress was a slap at the Obama administration, he said, “I certainly didn’t interpret it that way.”
As for the decision for Obama not to meet with his Israeli counterpart, he stood by the earlier explanation.
“This administration goes to great lengths to ensure that we don’t give even the appearance of interfering or attempting to influence the outcome” of democratic elections abroad, he said"....
January 23rd, 2015
By Barry Secrest
While much has been both written and experienced with regard to Facebook's censoring of Conservatives, the social media company's latest thrust towards censorship could mean trouble for non-mainstream media news posters.
With a few clicks of a mouse, posts which operatives 'gang-click' as disturbing or inappropriate, could send stories into Facebook's dungeon.
The problem worsens, if a post is labeled as unpopular or uncomfortable to others, it can easily be suppressed by just a few negative clicks, and to a degree which guarantees hardly anyone will actually see it.
This could ultimately mean severe suppression of information which is not commonly being reported, a thing which has become increasingly common as alternative news sources (other than the mainstream media) have increasingly come to the fore.
Both governments and corporations already operate on social media sites, such as Facebook, in order to stir interest or suppress unwanted stories, from being viraled out into the populace.
How this latest effort will operate in the real world remains to be seen, however, during Obama's initial campaign, Facebook was specifically utilized as a means to further the President's message via social networking.
In fact, Obama was the first Presidential Candidate to utilize Facebook "extensively" as a campaign medium, which attracted an estimated six million younger voters. The Obama Campaign actually brought onboard Chris Hughs, one of the three original Facebook founders, who was enamored of Obama in being a Candidate who could take advantage of Facebook's social networking while, apparently, feeding Hughs' ideological persuasion. Hughs then started a highly successful website called mybarackobama.com, which is an online community dedicated to furthering Obama's ideology in all things.
Hughs is credited in many circles with being the frontman responsible for Obama's election. While Facebook was just moving into the throes of being a huge and money making hit for its founders, Hughs was actually pulled away from Facebook by the Obama campaign to the chagrin of Zuckerberg. Hughs has, throughout, apparently maintained his contacts with Facebook and is still close friends with Zuckerberg.
Another interesting fact detailed on the website Social Beat, indicates that Facebook was the only consumer internet company to actually lobby Federal Intelligence Agencies in 2009--including the CIA. This in comparison to Internet giants such as Google, Amazon, and Apple--among others--who seemingly stayed away from such agencies. Facebook was the only one--but better yet, why again?
According to Kim-Mai Cutler, most of Facebook's D.C. "experiences" center around helping Legislators and otherwise utilize Facebook's social networking potential with regard to campaigns, etc.; however, a further note of interest would have to be Facebook's 2009 hiring of Tim Sparapaniof the American Civil Liberties Union, which is a Liberal bastion of Left-Wing-think, despite Facebook's burgeoning use as a law enforcement tool which would seem to go against Civil liberties issues--at least in the past.
The ultimate test for Facebook bias would have to be the overall ideological set of both its members and its employees who control the actions of Facebook members. Since 2007, Facebook employees, as a whole, have donated over 97% of all of their political funding to the Democrats and Democratically-connected causes.
January 22nd, 2015
By Bob Unruh
The “no-go zones” in some Western nations, where law enforcement has lost control because of the influence of Islamic law, are coming to America.
That’s according to several Islam experts interviewed by WND who believe the kind of Muslim enclaves that have developed in Europe due to a lack of assimilation will eventually arise in the U.S. as the Muslim population grows.
The contention that “no-go” zones exist is controversial, as evidenced by the widespread ridicule that arose when an analyst said in a Fox News interview shortly after the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack in Paris that the major English city of Birmingham was a “no-go” zone itself.
The analyst apologized, but only for exaggerating his point, not for asserting “no-go” zones exist.
As WND reported, the government of France has identified 751 Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones, that the state does not fully control, citing Middle East foreign policy expert Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum.
The zones are enclaves where Muslim immigrants have chosen not to assimilate, and law enforcement has lost some degree of control.
Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal recently told Fox News interviewer Neil Cavuto that the zones are inevitable in America if the country doesn’t insist that immigrant Muslims assimilate.
He said Islamists are setting up their own culture within the United States “to overturn our culture.”
“We need to recognize that threat,” he insisted.
He said there are neighborhoods that could be defined as a no-go zone.
“You can call them whatever term you want, but absolutely there are neighborhoods, we have communities of people that don’t want to integrate or assimilate,” he said.
January 22nd, 2015
FiveThirtyEight / By SAM DEAN
In the past week, two high-profile mass-killing trials began, as many trials do, with jury selection. In Boston, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is accused of assisting his brother in the planning and execution of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, which left three dead and 260 injured. In the suburbs of Denver, James Holmes is standing trial in the killing of 12 people and wounding of 70 more during a 2012 shooting spree in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater.
And in both, the judges and lawyers involved face the particular challenge of finding 12 people who could possibly qualify as an “impartial jury,” as required by the Constitution.
In Boston, more than 1,200 people have been called to answer questions in the first round of jury selection, and in Colorado, an unprecedented 9,000 prospective jurors have been called to the Arapahoe County Courthouse to do the same.
That second number, 9,000, is reportedly the largest potential juror pool called in the history of the United States. By contrast, only 500 potential jurors were called for the 2013 trial of George Zimmerman, 600 for the Jerry Sandusky abuse trials, and 500 for the sentencing trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.
So, why 9,000?
The presiding judge in any case decides the size of a jury selection pool, but my requests to interview Colorado judge Carlos Samour went unanswered (understandably — he’s busy).
He did give a glimmer of insight into his thought process in a court document published in November, when he bumped the size of the prospective juror pool from 6,000 to 9,000. He wrote that, “after further reflection, the Court has decided to summon 9,000 prospective jurors instead of 6,000. It will be much easier to call off prospective jurors who are not needed than it will be to adjust if there are insufficient prospective jurors.”
Makes sense. ???
But compared with the historical size of juror pools, this number seems more and more bizarre. Valerie Hans, a Cornell Law School professor specializing in jury research, said pool sizes vary by state and county, based on the particular system and how good each judge is at estimating the size of an appropriate pool. But, she said, “none of that would lead to 9,000 people. I’m astonished.”
In fact, the record shows that even in some of the highest-profile cases of the past 35 years, courts got the job done with way fewer jurors.
A book called “Managing Notorious Trials,” published in 1992 and revised in 1998, looked at the size of the jury pool called for high-profile cases tried in the D.C. U.S. District Court between 1980 and 1998. This data set includes the trials of John Hinckley Jr., who tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan, and the Iran-contra trial of Oliver North. For North, the court got what it considered a valid jury out of a pool of 234. For Hinckley, it only took 90.
These numbers don’t reflect the entire pool; they’re the number of prospective jurors who responded to summons. According to data published in a recent survey of state courts, Samour can expect somewhere between 25 and 30 percent of his 9,000 summons to be delivered to an old address, reach someone who isn’t qualified for duty, or simply go unanswered. That still leaves a potential juror pool more than 10 times larger than those summoned in some of the largest cases since 1980.
If you’re thinking this might have something to do with the nature of notorious murder cases — opposed to massive military corruption or presidential assassination attempts — the courts found serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer a jury from a pool of just 150 in 1992.
It’s difficult to compare cases of such specific awfulness, of course, and the media environment has certainly changed between 1992 and today. But has it really changed by a factor of 50?
Greg Hurley, an analyst at the Center for Jury Studies at the National Center for State Courts, called a potential juror pool of 9,000 “an extreme aberration.” Hurley said the CJS advises courts to keep their wasted juror percentage as low as possible — ideally as low as 10 percent at each phase of the culling process. By “wasted jurors,” Hurley means people who sit in a holding room all day and don’t make it to questioning. Keeping the number of wasted jurors down not only cuts down on costs — an increasing concern, Hurley noted, in the belt-tightening post-2008 financial climate — but also keeps people from thinking that the justice system is hugely inefficient.