Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Couldn't agree more. And BO is pouring on the hatred and she's chiming in to ride his wave.
Google Memorial Day deaths in Chicago alone. This such a bogus, totally political hatred of the American people and law enforcement theme provided by our 'glorious leader from behind'.
Since it lead from behind, what might tell us about his personal life?..............
You probably saw this:
A preview of the results of Otezla versus Prurisol was suggested in the CTIX Dermatology review released today.
See pages 26 and 27
http://cellceutix.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Cellceutix_Corporate_Slide-Deck_DERMATOLOGY-Non-Confidential-July-2016-1-1.pdf
By Week 12, 46% of
patients receiving
200mg of Prurisol with
“moderate” psoriasis
achieved IGA 0/1
(equivalent to PASI 90,
which increasingly is
the new standard.
In contrast only 8.1% of the Otezla patients achieved a PASI 90 at the end of the study which ran for 32 weeks.
There are marked differences in the studies. The Otezla study included severe psoriasis patients and ran 32 weeks.The Prurisol study included mild to moderate patient and only ran for 12weeks.
It is obvious the studies are not equivalent and it is dishonest to suggest a head to head controlled study would yield the same results, but it does confirm CTIX's assertion the Prurisol 200mg study results were very good in moderate psoriasis.
GLTA Farrell
Who needs the truth when we have Slick Hillie?......
Memorial Weekend in Chicago
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=30+people+shot+in+chicago+over+the+weekend
a whole list of stories.
And we have the coward and chief and Slick Hillie telling us all that we're bad? How about the people actually involved that endanger us every day?
5 Statistics You Need To Know About Cops Killing Blacks
By: Aaron Bandler
July 7, 2016
?
The Alton Sterling and Philando Castile shootings have caused an uproar among leftists because they fuel their narrative that racist white police officers are hunting down innocent black men. But the statistics – brought to light by the superb work of Heather MacDonald – tell a different story.
Here are five key statistics you need to know about cops killing blacks.
1. Cops killed nearly twice as many whites as blacks in 2015. According to data compiled by The Washington Post, 50 percent of the victims of fatal police shootings were white, while 26 percent were black. The majority of these victims had a gun or "were armed or otherwise threatening the officer with potentially lethal force," according to MacDonald in a speech at Hillsdale College.
Some may argue that these statistics are evidence of racist treatment toward blacks, since whites consist of 62 percent of the population and blacks make up 12 percent of the population. But as MacDonald writes in The Wall Street Journal, 2009 statistics from the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveal that blacks were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the 75 biggest counties in the country, despite only comprising roughly 15 percent of the population in these counties.
"Such a concentration of criminal violence in minority communities means that officers will be disproportionately confronting armed and often resisting suspects in those communities, raising officers’ own risk of using lethal force," writes MacDonald.
MacDonald also pointed out in her Hillsdale speech that blacks "commit 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, and 66 percent of all violent crime" in New York City, even though they consist of 23 percent of the city's population.
"The black violent crime rate would actually predict that more than 26 percent of police victims would be black," MacDonald said. "Officer use of force will occur where the police interact most often with violent criminals, armed suspects, and those resisting arrest, and that is in black neighborhoods."
2. More whites and Hispanics die from police homicides than blacks. According to MacDonald, 12 percent of white and Hispanic homicide deaths were due to police officers, while only four percent of black homicide deaths were the result of police officers.
"If we’re going to have a 'Lives Matter' anti-police movement, it would be more appropriately named "White and Hispanic Lives Matter,'" said MacDonald in her Hillsdale speech.
3. The Post's data does show that unarmed black men are more likely to die by the gun of a cop than an unarmed white man...but this does not tell the whole story. In August 2015, the ratio was seven-to-one of unarmed black men dying from police gunshots compared to unarmed white men; the ratio was six-to-one by the end of 2015. But MacDonald points out in The Marshall Project that looking at the details of the actual incidents that occurred paints a different picture:
The “unarmed” label is literally accurate, but it frequently fails to convey highly-charged policing situations. In a number of cases, if the victim ended up being unarmed, it was certainly not for lack of trying. At least five black victims had reportedly tried to grab the officer’s gun, or had been beating the cop with his own equipment. Some were shot from an accidental discharge triggered by their own assault on the officer. And two individuals included in the Post’s “unarmed black victims” category were struck by stray bullets aimed at someone else in justified cop shootings. If the victims were not the intended targets, then racism could have played no role in their deaths.
In one of those unintended cases, an undercover cop from the New York Police Department was conducting a gun sting in Mount Vernon, just north of New York City. One of the gun traffickers jumped into the cop’s car, stuck a pistol to his head, grabbed $2,400 and fled. The officer gave chase and opened fire after the thief again pointed his gun at him. Two of the officer’s bullets accidentally hit a 61-year-old bystander, killing him. That older man happened to be black, but his race had nothing to do with his tragic death. In the other collateral damage case, Virginia Beach, Virginia, officers approached a car parked at a convenience store that had a homicide suspect in the passenger seat. The suspect opened fire, sending a bullet through an officer’s shirt. The cops returned fire, killing their assailant as well as a woman in the driver’s seat. That woman entered the Post’s database without qualification as an “unarmed black victim” of police fire.
MacDonald examines a number of other instances, including unarmed black men in San Diego, CA and Prince George's County, MD attempting to reach for a gun in a police officer's holster. In the San Diego case, the unarmed black man actually "jumped the officer" and assaulted him, and the cop shot the man since he was "fearing for his life." MacDonald also notes that there was an instance in 2015 where "three officers were killed with their own guns, which the suspects had wrestled from them."
4. Black and Hispanic police officers are more likely to fire a gun at blacks than white officers. This is according to a Department of Justice report in 2015 about the Philadelphia Police Department, and is further confirmed that by a study conducted University of Pennsylvania criminologist Gary Ridgeway in 2015 that determined black cops were 3.3 times more likely to fire a gun than other cops at a crime scene.
5. Blacks are more likely to kill cops than be killed by cops. This is according to FBI data, which also found that 40 percent of cop killers are black. According to MacDonald, the police officer is 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black than a cop killing an unarmed black person.
Despite the facts, the anti-police rhetoric of Black Lives Matter and their leftist sympathizers have resulted in what MacDonald calls the "Ferguson Effect," as murders have spiked by 17 percent among the 50 biggest cities in the U.S. as a result of cops being more reluctant to police neighborhoods out of fear of being labeled as racists. Additionally, there have been over twice as many cops victimized by fatal shootings in the first three months of 2016.
Anti-police rhetoric has deadly consequences.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler
26 police killed so far in 2016, up 44% from 2015
Gregg Zoroya, USA TODAY
2:56 p.m. EDT July 8, 2016
Dallas police chief David Brown says a gunman that was holed up downtown expressed anger for Black Lives Matter and only wanted to shoot white police officers. He was killed after police sent in a bomb robot.
The number of police officers shot and killed in the USA is 44% higher than at this time last year following the Dallas ambush Thursday night that left five officers dead, according to data from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.
The deaths of four Dallas police officers and one Dallas transit officer from sniper fire during a protest in the city Thursday raised the national total of firearm deaths among police to 26. This compares with 18 at this point in time in 2015, said Nick Breul, director of research for the fund in Washington, D.C.
Breul said it was also the latest of 11 ambushes of police officers so far this year across the country, already outpacing the eight ambushes of law enforcement that occurred last year.
"That's certainly a concern for us. It's troubling and it's something that we watch," Breul, a former Washington, D.C., police officer, said about the shootings. "It's really an assassination. You're taking advantage of an officer and you're ensuring that you're able to kill them through them either being vulnerable or through a complete surprise attack."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/07/08/nationwide-police-shooting-deaths/86861082/
She is running on her Secretary of Defense achievements that are all a secret and/or been destroyed. No way any other person could get away with this. But with Barry, he is covering his corrupt ass too. A Republican President would expose his criminal activity and potentially throw both he and Slick Hillie in jail.
time to carpet bomb.
As long one doesn't have alligator arms.......
We had Slick Willie. We need to rename the Shrill, Slick Hillie.
We had Slick Willie. We need to rename the Shrill, Slick Hillie.
LOL! Yeah, like the CEO of Pharma companies are out there doing every project. No, they DELEGATE, hiring an extremely experienced, competent, former BP director to work UNDER him. Sounds very CEO like to me. Do we ask our Presidents to actually put on the uniform and fight wars for us?..... Uh, no.
Former National Guard soldier charged with ISIS support
July 5, 2016, 12:53 PM
McLEAN, Va. - A former National Guard soldier has been charged with plotting to help the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and contemplating a Fort Hood-style attack against the U.S. military.
Twenty-six-year-old Mohamed Jalloh of Sterling, Virginia, is expected to make an initial appearance Tuesday in federal court in Alexandria.
Court records made public Tuesday indicate Jalloh is a former member of the Army National Guard who says he quit after hearing lectures from radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
A court affidavit spells out a three-month sting operation in which Jalloh said he was thinking about carrying out an attack similar to the 2009 shootings at Fort Hood, which left 13 people dead.
Court records indicate the FBI saw Jalloh purchase an assault rifle Saturday.
Jalloh's sister, Fatmatu Jalloh, said she hadn't seen the charge against her brother but denied he would be helping ISIS.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-national-guard-soldier-mohamed-jalloh-charged-isis-support/
Former National Guard soldier charged with ISIS support
July 5, 2016, 12:53 PM
McLEAN, Va. - A former National Guard soldier has been charged with plotting to help the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and contemplating a Fort Hood-style attack against the U.S. military.
Twenty-six-year-old Mohamed Jalloh of Sterling, Virginia, is expected to make an initial appearance Tuesday in federal court in Alexandria.
Court records made public Tuesday indicate Jalloh is a former member of the Army National Guard who says he quit after hearing lectures from radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.
A court affidavit spells out a three-month sting operation in which Jalloh said he was thinking about carrying out an attack similar to the 2009 shootings at Fort Hood, which left 13 people dead.
Court records indicate the FBI saw Jalloh purchase an assault rifle Saturday.
Jalloh's sister, Fatmatu Jalloh, said she hadn't seen the charge against her brother but denied he would be helping ISIS.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/former-national-guard-soldier-mohamed-jalloh-charged-isis-support/
Might be time to give it a rest.
Report:Top aide said Clinton destroyed State Dept. schedules (2)
July 04, 2016, 10:22 am
By Tim Devaney
Hillary Clinton’s top aide said during a deposition that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee destroyed her schedules as the head of the State Department, according to a new report.
Huma Abedin revealed the information last week during a deposition over Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of State, The New York Post reported Monday.
“If there was a schedule that was created that was her secretary of State daily schedule, and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that .?.?. that certainly happened on .?.?. on more than one occasion,” Abedin reportedly said while she was being deposed by Judicial Watch, which is seeking access to Clinton’s emails.
Abedin’s comments came in response to a question from a Judicial Watch lawyer: “And during your tenure at the State Department, were you aware of your obligation not to delete federal records or destroy federal records?"
Clinton has previously said she destroyed “personal emails,” but this is the first time her aides have said she got rid of official State documents that are considered public records, according to the Post.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/286435-report-aide-said-clinton-destroyed-state-dept-schedules
On the non-stop campaign trail again today. Wonder why she hasn't done any press conferences?.....
Huma Abedin admits that Clinton burned daily schedules
By Daniel Halper
July 4, 2016 | 12:52am
Hillary Clinton’s closest aide revealed in a deposition last week that her boss destroyed at least some of her schedules as secretary of state — a revelation that could complicate matters for the presumptive Democratic nominee, who, along with the State Department she ran, is facing numerous lawsuits seeking those public records.
Huma Abedin was deposed in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit into Clinton’s emails — but her admission could be relevant to another lawsuit seeking Clinton’s schedules.
“If there was a schedule that was created that was her Secretary of State daily schedule, and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that .?.?. that certainly happened on .?.?. on more than one occasion,” Abedin told lawyers representing Judicial Watch, the conservative organization behind the emails lawsuit.
Abedin made the surprising admission in response to a question about document destruction at the Department of State. A lawyer for Judicial Watch asked: “And during your tenure at the State Department, were you aware of your obligation not to delete federal records or destroy federal records?”
‘I’ve never seen anyone put their schedule in the burn bag.’
Abedin was not pressed for more details.
Clinton has admitted to destroying “private personal emails” as secretary of state. But Abedin’s admission that she used so-called “burn bags” — a container that material is placed in before it is destroyed — for some of her schedules is the first time anyone close to her has disclosed destroying public records.
The exact circumstances surrounding those destroyed records will likely come under intense scrutiny, critics said.
A former State Department official told The Post it was unprecedented for a diplomat to destroy a schedule like this.
“I spent eight years at the State Department and watched as four US ambassadors and two secretaries of state shared their daily schedules with a variety of State Department employees and US officials,” said Richard Grenell, former diplomat and US spokesman at the United Nations.
“I’ve never seen anyone put their schedule in the burn bag — because every one of them had a state.gov email address and therefore their daily schedules became public records, as required by law.”
Others said Clinton’s careful approach to her schedule further highlights her recklessness in using a personal server for all her email communications.
“The [president’s] schedule was not classified but it was deemed ‘highly sensitive.’ Instructions were given at the White House and on the road that schedules would be disposed of through the use of ‘burn bags’ and/or shredding,” said Brad Blakeman, a scheduler for President George W. Bush.
“This shows, in my opinion, a skewed sense of security. The Clinton people would dispose of the secretary’s schedule in the same manner as if it were classified yet those same safeguards were not in place with regard to email communications.”
Ambassador John Bolton, a Clinton critic, said the matter shows Clinton’s “recklessness” regarding her emails. But he noted it’s unlikely Clinton could have completely destroyed her schedules.
“They can’t eliminate it even if they wanted to,” Bolton said.
The Associated Press has been seeking Clinton’s schedule through Freedom of Information Act requests asking for Clinton’s public and private calendars and schedules from Jan. 21, 2009, through Feb. 1, 2013. The wire service sued the State Department for those schedules in 2015.
http://nypost.com/2016/07/04/huma-abedin-admits-that-clinton-burned-daily-schedules/
Huma Abedin admits that Clinton burned daily schedules (2)
By Daniel Halper
July 4, 2016 | 12:52am
Hillary Clinton’s closest aide revealed in a deposition last week that her boss destroyed at least some of her schedules as secretary of state — a revelation that could complicate matters for the presumptive Democratic nominee, who, along with the State Department she ran, is facing numerous lawsuits seeking those public records.
Huma Abedin was deposed in connection with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit into Clinton’s emails — but her admission could be relevant to another lawsuit seeking Clinton’s schedules.
“If there was a schedule that was created that was her Secretary of State daily schedule, and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that .?.?. that certainly happened on .?.?. on more than one occasion,” Abedin told lawyers representing Judicial Watch, the conservative organization behind the emails lawsuit.
Abedin made the surprising admission in response to a question about document destruction at the Department of State. A lawyer for Judicial Watch asked: “And during your tenure at the State Department, were you aware of your obligation not to delete federal records or destroy federal records?”
‘I’ve never seen anyone put their schedule in the burn bag.’
Abedin was not pressed for more details.
Clinton has admitted to destroying “private personal emails” as secretary of state. But Abedin’s admission that she used so-called “burn bags” — a container that material is placed in before it is destroyed — for some of her schedules is the first time anyone close to her has disclosed destroying public records.
The exact circumstances surrounding those destroyed records will likely come under intense scrutiny, critics said.
A former State Department official told The Post it was unprecedented for a diplomat to destroy a schedule like this.
“I spent eight years at the State Department and watched as four US ambassadors and two secretaries of state shared their daily schedules with a variety of State Department employees and US officials,” said Richard Grenell, former diplomat and US spokesman at the United Nations.
“I’ve never seen anyone put their schedule in the burn bag — because every one of them had a state.gov email address and therefore their daily schedules became public records, as required by law.”
Others said Clinton’s careful approach to her schedule further highlights her recklessness in using a personal server for all her email communications.
“The [president’s] schedule was not classified but it was deemed ‘highly sensitive.’ Instructions were given at the White House and on the road that schedules would be disposed of through the use of ‘burn bags’ and/or shredding,” said Brad Blakeman, a scheduler for President George W. Bush.
“This shows, in my opinion, a skewed sense of security. The Clinton people would dispose of the secretary’s schedule in the same manner as if it were classified yet those same safeguards were not in place with regard to email communications.”
Ambassador John Bolton, a Clinton critic, said the matter shows Clinton’s “recklessness” regarding her emails. But he noted it’s unlikely Clinton could have completely destroyed her schedules.
“They can’t eliminate it even if they wanted to,” Bolton said.
The Associated Press has been seeking Clinton’s schedule through Freedom of Information Act requests asking for Clinton’s public and private calendars and schedules from Jan. 21, 2009, through Feb. 1, 2013. The wire service sued the State Department for those schedules in 2015.
http://nypost.com/2016/07/04/huma-abedin-admits-that-clinton-burned-daily-schedules/
Report: Top aide said Clinton destroyed State Dept. schedules (1)
By Tim Devaney
July 04, 2016, 10:22 am
Hillary Clinton’s top aide said during a deposition that the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee destroyed her schedules as the head of the State Department, according to a new report.
Huma Abedin revealed the information last week during a deposition over Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of State, The New York Post reported Monday.
“If there was a schedule that was created that was her secretary of State daily schedule, and a copy of that was then put in the burn bag, that .?.?. that certainly happened on .?.?. on more than one occasion,” Abedin reportedly said while she was being deposed by Judicial Watch, which is seeking access to Clinton’s emails.
Abedin’s comments came in response to a question from a Judicial Watch lawyer: “And during your tenure at the State Department, were you aware of your obligation not to delete federal records or destroy federal records?"
Clinton has previously said she destroyed “personal emails,” but this is the first time her aides have said she got rid of official State documents that are considered public records, according to the Post.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/286435-report-aide-said-clinton-destroyed-state-dept-schedules
On the non-stop campaign trail again today. Wonder why she hasn't done any press conferences?.....
Neologisms
The Washington Post's Mensa Invitational once again invited readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition. Here are the winners:
1. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.
2 Ignoranus : A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
3. Intaxicaton : Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.
4. Reintarnation : Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
5. Bozone ( n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future
6. Foreploy : Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid..
7. Giraffiti : Vandalism spray-painted very, very high
8. Sarchasm : The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
9. Inoculatte : To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
10. Osteopornosis : A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)
11. Karmageddon : It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like, a serious bummer.
12. Decafalon (n.): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.
13. Glibido : All talk and no action.
14. Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
15. Arachnoleptic Fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after you've accidentally walked through a spider web.
16. Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.
17. Caterpallor ( n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you're eating.
The Washington Post has also published the winning submissions to it's yearly contest, in which readers are asked to supply alternate meanings for common words. And the winners are:
1. Coffee, n. The person upon whom one coughs.
2. Flabbergasted, adj. Appalled by discovering how much weight one has gained.
3. Abdicate, v. To give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.
4. Esplanade, v. To attempt an explanation while drunk.
5. Willy-nilly, adj. Impotent.
6. Negligent, adj. Absentmindedly answering the door when wearing only a nightgown.
7. Lymph, v. To walk with a lisp.
8. Gargoyle, n. Olive-flavored mouthwash.
9. Flatulence, n. Emergency vehicle that picks up someone who has been run over by a steamroller.
10. Balderdash, n. A rapidly receding hairline.
11. Testicle, n. A humorous question on an exam.
12. Rectitude, n. The formal, dignified bearing adopted by proctologists.
13. Pokemon, n. A Rastafarian proctologist.
14. Oyster, n. A person who sprinkles his conversation with Yiddishisms.
15. Frisbeetarianism, n. The belief that, after death, the soul flies up onto the roof and gets stuck there.
16. Circumvent, n. An opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men
http://chaosunbridled.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-washington-posts-annual-neologism.html
Neologisms
The Washington Post's Mensa Invitational once again invited readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition. Here are the winners:
1. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.
2 Ignoranus : A person who's both stupid and an asshole.
3. Intaxicaton : Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.
4. Reintarnation : Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
5. Bozone ( n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future
6. Foreploy : Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid..
7. Giraffiti : Vandalism spray-painted very, very high
8. Sarchasm : The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
9. Inoculatte : To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
10. Osteopornosis : A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)
11. Karmageddon : It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's like, a serious bummer.
12. Decafalon (n.): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.
13. Glibido : All talk and no action.
14. Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
15. Arachnoleptic Fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after you've accidentally walked through a spider web.
16. Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.
17. Caterpallor ( n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you're eating.
The Washington Post has also published the winning submissions to it's yearly contest, in which readers are asked to supply alternate meanings for common words. And the winners are:
1. Coffee, n. The person upon whom one coughs.
2. Flabbergasted, adj. Appalled by discovering how much weight one has gained.
3. Abdicate, v. To give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.
4. Esplanade, v. To attempt an explanation while drunk.
5. Willy-nilly, adj. Impotent.
6. Negligent, adj. Absentmindedly answering the door when wearing only a nightgown.
7. Lymph, v. To walk with a lisp.
8. Gargoyle, n. Olive-flavored mouthwash.
9. Flatulence, n. Emergency vehicle that picks up someone who has been run over by a steamroller.
10. Balderdash, n. A rapidly receding hairline.
11. Testicle, n. A humorous question on an exam.
12. Rectitude, n. The formal, dignified bearing adopted by proctologists.
13. Pokemon, n. A Rastafarian proctologist.
14. Oyster, n. A person who sprinkles his conversation with Yiddishisms.
15. Frisbeetarianism, n. The belief that, after death, the soul flies up onto the roof and gets stuck there.
16. Circumvent, n. An opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men
http://chaosunbridled.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-washington-posts-annual-neologism.html
I'm shocked, shocked to see criminal behavior coming from the leftist nominee.......
Makes you wonder how he comes to each conclusion. Maybe 'conjugal' visits?.....
Couldn't agree more. Hillary is a disaster waiting to happen. Freedom, liberty - already going out the window, she'd hyper accelerate the process while Bill via Chelsea scoops up the cash.
Works for me. I didn't and never would vote for Barry, Hillary or Bill. Three Alinsky-ites.
Alinsky’s ideas have been used by the Left in inner cities and college campuses. Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis at Wellesley College was on Alinsky. So influential is Alinsky that Time magazine once wrote that “American democracy is being altered by Alinsky’s ideas.” Even conservative author William F. Buckley said Alinsky was “very close to being an organizational genius.” Alinsky biographer Sanford Horwitt claims that not only did Obama follow Alinsky’s teachings as a Chicago-based community organizer, Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign was influenced by those teachings. Alinsky’s rules are also wielded by Internet trolls. Conservatives, therefore, should thoroughly acquaint ourselves with those rules, so that we can quickly recognize an Alinskyite, identify the tactic s/he is using against us and, even better, use those tactics against them. Here’s a brief summary of the rules (h/t The Union News):
Alinsky’s 13 Rules for the Left:
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/09/10/lefts-playbook-satanist-saul-alinskys-13-rules-political-warfare/
McCain campaign was pathetic. Acted like he regretted running at campaign stops at high donor meetings we attended. Then the Palin VP nomination was a last second insert. It was like the last choice possible. When she came to town, big turnout. EVERYONE left shocked - astonishingly pathetic.
Romney is a get it done guy, not a stand in front of the country guy because he was destroyed by the leftist media for being Mormon. The real amazing one was that he was a killer. He was good at big donor events, David Foster would bring the entertainment and also went to NYC to his 'family home' - a top floor of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel across from the park. He was very good but still doesn't do it on the television which is where most get their impressions.
Trump gets daily pounding like Romney. Glad to see he's in a town hall event too. He needs to keep being fed facts so he can be more credible when the debates come. For him, a step by step process. He's lost a lot of time going without funding his GOTV effort but hopefully Reince and others will help close the gap.
Hillary belongs in jail, not running for President.
Same thing for the person occupying the White 'One World' House now.
Dick Morris: How Hillary Clinton Lives Like Royalty!
Video: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/videos/hillary-clinton-net-worth-corruption-dick-morris-video/
Campaign slogans and personal philosophy can be interestingly the same throughout history. Some want to dominate the world and cash in, others want to 'change' and cash in on the world. The "One World' concept never changes much.
Dick Morris: How Hillary Clinton Lives Like Royalty!
Video: http://www.nationalenquirer.com/videos/hillary-clinton-net-worth-corruption-dick-morris-video/
Campaign slogans and personal philosophy can be interestingly the same throughout history. Some want to dominate the world and cash in, others want to 'change' and cash in on the world. The "One World' concept never changes much.
It will never happen. He had his day and it didn't work out. He knows it. BO was re-elected again because of the superior Alinsky blueprint GOTV effort. Alinsky prodigy, Shrillary, has the BO machine combined with her own built up from the years she's been cashing in on the young and dumb.
Campaign slogans and personal philosophy can be interestingly the same throughout history. Some want to dominate the world and cash in, others want to 'change' and cash in on the world. One world concept never changes much.
We'll see what happens over there. The immigration issue into free benefits and housing are destroying Londonstan/England.
Why Benghazi Makes a Difference
Lewis Morris · Jun. 29, 2016
The release of the final report1 from the House Select Committee on Benghazi spoke volumes about the lack of concern Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the rest of the administration have for American national security. The report, which was completed despite every effort of Obama’s White House and congressional Democrats, points out in no uncertain terms that the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his colleagues could have been prevented. But Obama’s craven political narrative was paramount, and Clinton now declares “it’s pretty clear it’s time to move on.” She has the White House to win, after all.
The report rightfully castigates the administration for failing to provide needed security for the American embassy in Libya despite the repeated reports from Benghazi about security threats in the area. Those security threats, by the way, were created by the Obama-Clinton policy of decapitating Libyan leadership and leaving a vacuum in its place.
What is worse, however, is the cover-up2 that Obama, Clinton and their cronies engaged in to protect their own skins.
The attack on the American facility in Benghazi was a political inconvenience for Obama, and it was treated as such. Taking place on September 11, 2012, in the midst of Obama’s re-election campaign, the terrorist attack proved false his narrative that al-Qaida had been “decimated.”
The administration was so invested in that story that they were caught flat-footed when emergency calls came from the Benghazi compound. Rep. Trey Gowdy, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, noted3, “At the time of the mortar attack, at 5:15 am, not a single wheel of a single U.S. military asset was headed towards Libya. So this was seven hours after the initial attack, and the world’s most powerful military can’t get a single wheel turning towards the region.”
Instead of owning up to its intelligence failure and its inability to protect Americans in the field, Obama chose to blame the attack on a YouTube video. This claim, which Clinton trotted out on the night of the attack — after she had already told the Egyptian prime minister that it was al-Qaida.
Then-UN ambassador Susan Rice followed by trumpeting the video story in media interviews, but it quickly fell apart under scrutiny. But ever the team player, Rice stuck to the story, and she was later rewarded by being named National Security Advisor.
It’s virtually certain Rice was given her marching orders by Obama, though she was not given any intelligence information about the situation that preceded the attack or the details of what actually took place.
When that story came apart, and Clinton sat before Congress to explain, she literally shrugged and shouted at congressional Republicans, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”4
What Clinton knew or what she failed to understand about the developments in Libya in 2012 will likely be forever a point of speculation. Her private email server, which the State Department and the White House let her have despite numerous security questions, has been wiped clean of anything that would truly compromise her political future.
The Benghazi committee’s final report concludes5 that the administration was more concerned with Obama’s re-election campaign than protecting personnel in Libya and certainly more than admitting their mistakes after the fact.
The report states unequivocally, “What we did find was a tragic failure of leadership — in the run up to the attack and the night of — and an administration that, so blinded by politics and its desire to win an election, disregarded a basic duty of government: Tell the people the truth.”
There was no mention by American personnel in Libya about a video fomenting unrest, or of any protests related to it. What is noted in the final report, however, in voluminous detail, is the fact that the administration ignored calls for stepped up security in Benghazi and ignored concerns about increased unrest, again, fomenting in the wake of Obama and Clinton’s failed Libya policy.
Yet the Leftmedia has been triumphantly running headlines declaring6 “no new evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton.”
It can only be surmised that Obama and Clinton hoped that when the 3:00 a.m. call came that Americans overseas were under attack that the whole thing would blow over. The president and his secretary of state hoped that the inconvenience of Americans under fire would not derail Obama’s chances for re-election, and that the timing of the attack would not refute the narrative that Obama had defeated Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.
Democrats released their own report7 Monday ahead of the official House report, and took several hundred pages to chastise House Republicans, Mitt Romney, and even Donald Trump for creating a so-called partisan witch-hunt to embarrass Obama and Clinton. Truth be told, those two have done that all on their own. The worst point of all is that four brave Americans died so that Obama and Clinton could protect the sham that is their political careers.
“A lot of people tell pollsters they don’t trust me,” Clinton admitted earlier this week. “I personally know I have work to do on this front.” As this damning report makes clear, she’s earned every ounce of that distrust.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/43503
Why Benghazi Makes a Difference
Lewis Morris · Jun. 29, 2016
The release of the final report1 from the House Select Committee on Benghazi spoke volumes about the lack of concern Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the rest of the administration have for American national security. The report, which was completed despite every effort of Obama’s White House and congressional Democrats, points out in no uncertain terms that the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three of his colleagues could have been prevented. But Obama’s craven political narrative was paramount, and Clinton now declares “it’s pretty clear it’s time to move on.” She has the White House to win, after all.
The report rightfully castigates the administration for failing to provide needed security for the American embassy in Libya despite the repeated reports from Benghazi about security threats in the area. Those security threats, by the way, were created by the Obama-Clinton policy of decapitating Libyan leadership and leaving a vacuum in its place.
What is worse, however, is the cover-up2 that Obama, Clinton and their cronies engaged in to protect their own skins.
The attack on the American facility in Benghazi was a political inconvenience for Obama, and it was treated as such. Taking place on September 11, 2012, in the midst of Obama’s re-election campaign, the terrorist attack proved false his narrative that al-Qaida had been “decimated.”
The administration was so invested in that story that they were caught flat-footed when emergency calls came from the Benghazi compound. Rep. Trey Gowdy, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, noted3, “At the time of the mortar attack, at 5:15 am, not a single wheel of a single U.S. military asset was headed towards Libya. So this was seven hours after the initial attack, and the world’s most powerful military can’t get a single wheel turning towards the region.”
Instead of owning up to its intelligence failure and its inability to protect Americans in the field, Obama chose to blame the attack on a YouTube video. This claim, which Clinton trotted out on the night of the attack — after she had already told the Egyptian prime minister that it was al-Qaida.
Then-UN ambassador Susan Rice followed by trumpeting the video story in media interviews, but it quickly fell apart under scrutiny. But ever the team player, Rice stuck to the story, and she was later rewarded by being named National Security Advisor.
It’s virtually certain Rice was given her marching orders by Obama, though she was not given any intelligence information about the situation that preceded the attack or the details of what actually took place.
When that story came apart, and Clinton sat before Congress to explain, she literally shrugged and shouted at congressional Republicans, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”4
What Clinton knew or what she failed to understand about the developments in Libya in 2012 will likely be forever a point of speculation. Her private email server, which the State Department and the White House let her have despite numerous security questions, has been wiped clean of anything that would truly compromise her political future.
The Benghazi committee’s final report concludes5 that the administration was more concerned with Obama’s re-election campaign than protecting personnel in Libya and certainly more than admitting their mistakes after the fact.
The report states unequivocally, “What we did find was a tragic failure of leadership — in the run up to the attack and the night of — and an administration that, so blinded by politics and its desire to win an election, disregarded a basic duty of government: Tell the people the truth.”
There was no mention by American personnel in Libya about a video fomenting unrest, or of any protests related to it. What is noted in the final report, however, in voluminous detail, is the fact that the administration ignored calls for stepped up security in Benghazi and ignored concerns about increased unrest, again, fomenting in the wake of Obama and Clinton’s failed Libya policy.
Yet the Leftmedia has been triumphantly running headlines declaring6 “no new evidence of wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton.”
It can only be surmised that Obama and Clinton hoped that when the 3:00 a.m. call came that Americans overseas were under attack that the whole thing would blow over. The president and his secretary of state hoped that the inconvenience of Americans under fire would not derail Obama’s chances for re-election, and that the timing of the attack would not refute the narrative that Obama had defeated Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.
Democrats released their own report7 Monday ahead of the official House report, and took several hundred pages to chastise House Republicans, Mitt Romney, and even Donald Trump for creating a so-called partisan witch-hunt to embarrass Obama and Clinton. Truth be told, those two have done that all on their own. The worst point of all is that four brave Americans died so that Obama and Clinton could protect the sham that is their political careers.
“A lot of people tell pollsters they don’t trust me,” Clinton admitted earlier this week. “I personally know I have work to do on this front.” As this damning report makes clear, she’s earned every ounce of that distrust.
https://patriotpost.us/articles/43503
Whole Foods Goes From Defrauding Consumers To Endangering Them
By Henry I. Miller and Jeff Stier
Like a petty criminal who progresses to increasingly more serious crimes, Whole Foods Market’ violations of state and federal law have been escalating. They’ve gone from defrauding their customers to adopting food preparation practices that actually endanger them. And that’s not all.
Known sardonically as “Whole Paycheck” for their outrageous prices, Whole Foods has been guilty of widespread cheating. New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) investigators found last year that the company systematically ripped off unwitting customers by “routinely” overstating the weight of pre-packaged foods–including meats, seafood, dairy and baked goods. The co-CEO called these thefts “mistakes.”
That travesty followed the $800,000 settlement the previous year with the City Attorneys of Los Angeles, Santa Monica and San Diego after Whole Foods stores were found not to be accounting for the weight of containers at their already over-priced salad bars.
Whole Foods bills itself as “America’s Healthiest Grocery Store,” even trademarking the term.
Yet in a devastating June 8 warning letter–one of the most severe compliance actions that the FDA has at its disposal–the FDA said Whole Foods was manufacturing, packaging and storing food in ways that promoted contamination with microorganisms that cause food poisoning.
Among the long list of serious problems identified during multiple inspections in February at a 70,000-square foot facility that supplies prepared foods and other products to 74 stores across eight states were foods like pasta and mushroom quesadillas prepared or stored in places where condensation was dripping from ceilings, a doorway and a fan.
In addition, the company kept dirty dishes near food, did not supply hot water at some hand-washing sinks and allowed high-pressure hoses used for cleaning to spray food-preparation areas.
Last year, Whole Foods had to recall batches of its curry chicken salad and a pasta salad from East Coast stores after the products were found during a routine inspection of the same plant to be contaminated with a nasty bacterium called Listeria.
So Whole Foods is certainly not the safest grocery store for consumers. But does it live up to the claim that it is the healthiest?
Whole Foods’ disingenuousness in communicating with customers is as bad as its deficient food preparation and storage. Central to the company’s inflated pricing are the misleading representations about its organic food offerings.
On its webpage, Whole Foods purposefully perpetuates the myth that organic food is more nutritious than conventionally grown produce. It asks rhetorically, “[I]s organic food more nutritious? This question has been the source of a lot of discussion in the past few years…and we’re feeling pretty optimistic about some of the new research.”
The company must have a low threshold for optimism, because it cites shoddy, cherry-picked research from biased sources.
For instance, it singles out “leading research” by the Organic Center, an outfit directed by organic food and supplement makers including Mike Ferry, the president of Horizon Organic, and Meg Hirshberg, the wife of organic activist, Stonyfield co-founder and chairman Gary Hirshberg.
Whole Foods then directs consumers only to the Organic Trade Association, the Rodale Institute (whose motto is, “organic pioneers since 1947”), and “research” from a Washington State University webpage. The WSU link isn’t even research; it’s an essay that argues that the United States Department of Agriculture should “prohibit the use of manure from non-organic farms,” in order to allow organic food marketers “to support their claims of addressing climate change.”
The WSU harangue has nothing to do with Whole Foods’ claim that organic food is more nutritious. And not surprisingly, Whole Foods fails to acknowledge evidence that debunks the organic-is-healthier hoax. For example, a widely-publicized, peer-reviewed analysis published in 2012 in the Annals of Internal Medicine by researchers at Stanford University’s Center for Health Policy aggregated and analyzed data from 237 studies to determine whether organic foods are safer or healthier than non-organic foods. They concluded that fruits and vegetables that met the criteria for “organic” were on average no more nutritious than their far cheaper conventional counterparts.
This sort of deception and false advertising by Whole Foods should be the basis for action by state and federal regulators.
Given the huge price premium for organic foods (and other products, including linens and clothing), one might well ask, “Why organic?” Dan Glickman, the Secretary of Agriculture when rules for organic certification were formulated, provided the answer:
“Let me be clear about one thing. The organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.
That is worth repeating: The USDA organic designation has nothing to do with food safety, nutrition or quality.
Regulators should crack down not only on Whole Foods’ overcharging (a crime that the criminal code calls “larceny by false conveyance”) and serious health-related violations of the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, but also on the company’s deceptive representations of organic products, which is obviously for the purpose of bilking consumers by persuading them to buy higher-priced, higher profit-margin items.
Consumers deserve honesty, respect and integrity. They’re not getting it from Whole Foods.
Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution; he was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology.
Jeff Stier is a senior fellow and the director of the Risk Analysis Division at the National Center for Public Policy Research.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2016/06/29/whole-foods-goes-from-ripping-off-consumers-to-endangering-them/#2421579a49a9
Whole Foods Goes From Defrauding Consumers To Endangering Them
By Henry I. Miller and Jeff Stier
Like a petty criminal who progresses to increasingly more serious crimes, Whole Foods Market’ violations of state and federal law have been escalating. They’ve gone from defrauding their customers to adopting food preparation practices that actually endanger them. And that’s not all.
Known sardonically as “Whole Paycheck” for their outrageous prices, Whole Foods has been guilty of widespread cheating. New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) investigators found last year that the company systematically ripped off unwitting customers by “routinely” overstating the weight of pre-packaged foods–including meats, seafood, dairy and baked goods. The co-CEO called these thefts “mistakes.”
That travesty followed the $800,000 settlement the previous year with the City Attorneys of Los Angeles, Santa Monica and San Diego after Whole Foods stores were found not to be accounting for the weight of containers at their already over-priced salad bars.
Whole Foods bills itself as “America’s Healthiest Grocery Store,” even trademarking the term.
Yet in a devastating June 8 warning letter–one of the most severe compliance actions that the FDA has at its disposal–the FDA said Whole Foods was manufacturing, packaging and storing food in ways that promoted contamination with microorganisms that cause food poisoning.
Among the long list of serious problems identified during multiple inspections in February at a 70,000-square foot facility that supplies prepared foods and other products to 74 stores across eight states were foods like pasta and mushroom quesadillas prepared or stored in places where condensation was dripping from ceilings, a doorway and a fan.
In addition, the company kept dirty dishes near food, did not supply hot water at some hand-washing sinks and allowed high-pressure hoses used for cleaning to spray food-preparation areas.
Last year, Whole Foods had to recall batches of its curry chicken salad and a pasta salad from East Coast stores after the products were found during a routine inspection of the same plant to be contaminated with a nasty bacterium called Listeria.
So Whole Foods is certainly not the safest grocery store for consumers. But does it live up to the claim that it is the healthiest?
Whole Foods’ disingenuousness in communicating with customers is as bad as its deficient food preparation and storage. Central to the company’s inflated pricing are the misleading representations about its organic food offerings.
On its webpage, Whole Foods purposefully perpetuates the myth that organic food is more nutritious than conventionally grown produce. It asks rhetorically, “[I]s organic food more nutritious? This question has been the source of a lot of discussion in the past few years…and we’re feeling pretty optimistic about some of the new research.”
The company must have a low threshold for optimism, because it cites shoddy, cherry-picked research from biased sources.
For instance, it singles out “leading research” by the Organic Center, an outfit directed by organic food and supplement makers including Mike Ferry, the president of Horizon Organic, and Meg Hirshberg, the wife of organic activist, Stonyfield co-founder and chairman Gary Hirshberg.
Whole Foods then directs consumers only to the Organic Trade Association, the Rodale Institute (whose motto is, “organic pioneers since 1947”), and “research” from a Washington State University webpage. The WSU link isn’t even research; it’s an essay that argues that the United States Department of Agriculture should “prohibit the use of manure from non-organic farms,” in order to allow organic food marketers “to support their claims of addressing climate change.”
The WSU harangue has nothing to do with Whole Foods’ claim that organic food is more nutritious. And not surprisingly, Whole Foods fails to acknowledge evidence that debunks the organic-is-healthier hoax. For example, a widely-publicized, peer-reviewed analysis published in 2012 in the Annals of Internal Medicine by researchers at Stanford University’s Center for Health Policy aggregated and analyzed data from 237 studies to determine whether organic foods are safer or healthier than non-organic foods. They concluded that fruits and vegetables that met the criteria for “organic” were on average no more nutritious than their far cheaper conventional counterparts.
This sort of deception and false advertising by Whole Foods should be the basis for action by state and federal regulators.
Given the huge price premium for organic foods (and other products, including linens and clothing), one might well ask, “Why organic?” Dan Glickman, the Secretary of Agriculture when rules for organic certification were formulated, provided the answer:
“Let me be clear about one thing. The organic label is a marketing tool. It is not a statement about food safety. Nor is ‘organic’ a value judgment about nutrition or quality.
That is worth repeating: The USDA organic designation has nothing to do with food safety, nutrition or quality.
Regulators should crack down not only on Whole Foods’ overcharging (a crime that the criminal code calls “larceny by false conveyance”) and serious health-related violations of the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, but also on the company’s deceptive representations of organic products, which is obviously for the purpose of bilking consumers by persuading them to buy higher-priced, higher profit-margin items.
Consumers deserve honesty, respect and integrity. They’re not getting it from Whole Foods.
Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution; he was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology.
Jeff Stier is a senior fellow and the director of the Risk Analysis Division at the National Center for Public Policy Research.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2016/06/29/whole-foods-goes-from-ripping-off-consumers-to-endangering-them/#2421579a49a9
Out of the Brexit Turmoil: Opportunity
Europe should not treat Britain as a prison escapee but as a potential compatriot. And the U.S. has a vital role to play.
By: Henry A. Kissinger
June 28, 2016 6:03 p.m. ET
The cascade of commentary on Britain’s decision to leave institutional Europe has described the epochal event primarily in the vocabulary of calamity. However, the coin of the realm for statesmen is not anguish or recrimination; it should be to transform setback into opportunity.
The impact of the British vote is so profound because the emotions it reflects are not confined to Britain or even Europe. The popular reaction to European Union institutions (as reflected in public-opinion polls) is comparable in most major countries, especially France and Spain. The multilateral approach based on open borders for trade and the movement of peoples is increasingly being challenged, and now an act of direct democracy intended to reaffirm the status quo has rendered a damning verdict. However challenging this expression of popular sentiment, ignoring the concerns it manifests is a path to greater disillusionment.
Brexit is a classic illustration of the law of unintended consequences. The British government sought a Remain vote to end, once and for all, domestic disputes about Europe in a minority of the Conservative Party and among fringe populist groups. Many backers of the Leave campaign were surprised by their success, having understood their political mission initially in much less sweeping terms.
All these elements have been overwhelmed because the European vision elaborated over decades has been developing a sclerotic character. Internal debates of Europe have increasingly concentrated on structural contradictions. In the process, the vision that motivates sacrifice is weakening.
The founders of European unity understood the ultimate scope of their project. It was, on one level, a rejection of the worst consequences of European divisions, especially the traumatic wars that had killed tens of millions of Europeans in the 20th century alone. But it was also an affirmation of the values by which Europe had become great.
The Europe of the founders’ youth had thrived by the elaboration of the nation-state, which on one hand competed for pre-eminence, but at the same time evolved a common culture. Its principles of democracy and constitutionalism were spread around the world, even while respect for the dignity of the individual had been violated under colonialism. The European vision sought to maintain the dynamism reflected in Europe’s historical achievements while tempering the competition which had, by 1945, nearly led to their destruction.
Too much of the Europe of today is absorbed in management of structural problems rather than the elaboration of its purposes. From globalization to migration, the willingness to sacrifice is weakening. But a better future cannot be reached without some sacrifice of the present. A society reluctant to accept this verity stagnates and, over the decades, consumes its substance.
Inevitably a gap arises between the institutions and their responsibilities, which accounts for increasing populist pressures. The deepest challenge to the EU is not its management but its ultimate goals. In a world in which upheavals based on conflicting values span the continents, a common act of imagination by Europe and its Atlantic partners is badly needed.
Instead, European leadership is now faced with an unexpected challenge. Under the terms of its charter, the EU is obliged to negotiate with a principal member over the terms of withdrawal. Britain will want to maintain extensive ties with Europe while lifting or easing the constraints of its many legislative and bureaucratic requirements. The EU leadership has almost the opposite incentive. It will not wish to reward Britain’s Leave majority by granting Britain better terms than it enjoyed as a full member. Hence a punitive element is likely to be inherent in the EU bargaining position.
Many of us who have grown up with and admired the vision of European unity hope that the EU will transcend itself, by seeking its vocation not in penalizing the recalcitrant but by negotiating in a manner that restores the prospects of unity. The EU should not treat Britain as an escapee from prison but as a potential compatriot.
Punishing the U.K. will not solve the question of how to operate a common currency in the absence of a common fiscal policy among countries with disparate economic capacities, or of how to define a union whose ability to achieve common political strategies lags fundamentally behind its economic and administrative capacities.
By the same token, Britain needs to put forward the concept of autonomy for which its people voted in a manner that embraces ultimate cooperation. Britain and Europe together must consider how they might return, at least partially, to their historical role as shapers of international order.
In recent decades, Europe has retreated to the conduct of soft power. But besieged as it is on almost all frontiers by upheavals and migration, Europe, including Britain, can avoid turning into a victim of circumstance only by assuming a more active role. These vistas cannot yet be discussed at a geopolitical level, but the EU’s leaders should be able to form discrete and discreet panels for exploring them. In this manner, the Leave vote can serve as a catharsis.
The United States has encouraged the European Union from its beginning but has had difficulty adjusting to the achievement that followed. When the EU idea was first put forward by Jean Monnet at the end of World War II and advanced by the Marshall Plan, the U.S. was the indispensable contributor for international security and economic progress. Given the recovery of contemporary Europe, the American role needs to be redefined to a new kind of leadership, moving from dominance to persuasion.
The manner in which the U.S. administration and other advocates of Remain sought to influence the Brexit vote illustrates the point. The threat that without the support of Europe, a solitary Britain would move to the end of the line in negotiations with Washington reversed the historical sequence of that relationship. The “special relationship” is founded in the origins of America, in a common language and in a comparable system of political values reinforced by fighting together in common wars. The idea of the special relationship was enunciated by Winston Churchill not as a refutation of a multilateral world, but as the guarantor of its values in the hard times sure to follow World War II.
That special relationship is needed for the Atlantic world to traverse the present crisis. A disintegrating Europe could subside into an impotent passivity that will shrivel the entire Atlantic partnership, which represents one of the greatest achievements of the past century. Britain, in whatever mutually respectful legal status it arranges with Europe, is an essential element in this design. Its history and emotion are Atlantic; its current necessity requires as well a link to Europe. Today’s established international order was founded upon conceptions that emerged from the British Isles, were carried by Europe around the world, and ultimately took deep root in North America. American leadership in reinvigorating the contemporary order is imperative.
The Brexit vote has unleashed the anxieties of two continents and of all those who rely upon the stability that their union of purpose provides. The needed restoration of faith will not come through recriminations. To inspire the confidence of the world, Europe and America must demonstrate confidence in themselves.
Mr. Kissinger served as national-security adviser and secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/out-of-the-brexit-turmoil-opportunity-1467151419
Related Articles
A New American Deal for Europe
Winner’s Remorse May Loom for Brexit Backers
The Backlash That Became Brexit
The Fraud Goes On
By Dr. Thomas Sowell
Last week the Supreme Court of the United States voted that President Obama exceeded his authority when he granted exemptions from the immigration laws passed by Congress.
But the Supreme Court also exceeded its own authority by granting the University of Texas an exemption from the Constitution's requirement of "equal protection of the laws," by voting that racial preferences for student admissions were legal.
Supreme Court decisions in affirmative action cases are the longest running fraud since the 1896 decision upholding racial segregation laws in the Jim Crow South, on grounds that "separate but equal" facilities were consistent with the Constitution. Everybody knew that those facilities were separate but by no means equal. Nevertheless, this charade lasted until 1954.
The Supreme Court's affirmative action cases have now lasted since 1974 when, in the case of "DeFunis v. Odegaard," the Court voted 5 to 4 that this particular case was moot, which spared the justices from having to vote on its merits.
While the 1896 "separate but equal" decision lasted 58 years, the Supreme Court's affirmative action cases have now had 42 years of evasion, sophistry and fraud, with no end in sight.
One sign of the erosion of principles over the years is that even one of the Court's most liberal judicial activists, Justice William O. Douglas, could not stomach affirmative action in 1974, and voted to condemn it, rather than declare the issue moot.
But now, in 2016, the supposedly conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the University of Texas' racial preferences. Perhaps the atmosphere inside the Washington Beltway wears down opposition to affirmative action, much as water can eventually wear down rock and create the Grand Canyon.
We have heard much this year about the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of the great Justice Antonin Scalia — and rightly so. But there are two vacancies on the Supreme Court. The other vacancy is Anthony Kennedy.
The human tragedy, amid all the legal evasions and frauds is that, while many laws and policies sacrifice some people for the sake of other people, affirmative action manages to harm blacks, whites, Asians and others, even if in different ways.
Students who are kept out of a college because other students are admitted instead, under racial quotas, obviously lose opportunities they would otherwise have had.
But minority students admitted to institutions whose academic standards they do not meet are all too often needlessly turned into failures, even when they have the prerequisites for success in some other institution whose normal standards they do meet.
When black students who scored at the 90th percentile in math were admitted to M.I.T., where the other students scored at the 99th percentile, a significant number of black students failed to graduate there, even though they could have graduated with honors at most other academic institutions.
We do not have so many students with that kind of ability that we can afford to sacrifice them on the altar to political correctness.
Such negative consequences of mismatching minority students with institutions, for the sake of racial body count, have been documented in a number of studies, most notably "Mismatch," a book by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., whose sub-title is: "How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It."
When racial preferences in student admissions in the University of California system were banned, the number of black and Hispanic students in the system declined slightly, but the number actually graduating rose substantially. So did the number graduating with degrees in tough subjects like math, science and engineering.
But hard facts carry no such weight among politicians as magic words like "diversity" — a word repeated endlessly, without one speck of evidence to back up its sweeping claims of benefits. It too is part of the Supreme Court fraud, going back to a 1978 decision that seemingly banned racial quotas — unless the word "diversity" was used instead of "quotas."
Seeming to ban racial preferences, while letting them continue under another name, was clever politically. But the last thing we need in Washington are nine more politicians, wearing judicial robes.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.
https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/06/16/the-fraud-goes-on
The Fraud Goes On
By Dr. Thomas Sowell
Last week the Supreme Court of the United States voted that President Obama exceeded his authority when he granted exemptions from the immigration laws passed by Congress.
But the Supreme Court also exceeded its own authority by granting the University of Texas an exemption from the Constitution's requirement of "equal protection of the laws," by voting that racial preferences for student admissions were legal.
Supreme Court decisions in affirmative action cases are the longest running fraud since the 1896 decision upholding racial segregation laws in the Jim Crow South, on grounds that "separate but equal" facilities were consistent with the Constitution. Everybody knew that those facilities were separate but by no means equal. Nevertheless, this charade lasted until 1954.
The Supreme Court's affirmative action cases have now lasted since 1974 when, in the case of "DeFunis v. Odegaard," the Court voted 5 to 4 that this particular case was moot, which spared the justices from having to vote on its merits.
While the 1896 "separate but equal" decision lasted 58 years, the Supreme Court's affirmative action cases have now had 42 years of evasion, sophistry and fraud, with no end in sight.
One sign of the erosion of principles over the years is that even one of the Court's most liberal judicial activists, Justice William O. Douglas, could not stomach affirmative action in 1974, and voted to condemn it, rather than declare the issue moot.
But now, in 2016, the supposedly conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the University of Texas' racial preferences. Perhaps the atmosphere inside the Washington Beltway wears down opposition to affirmative action, much as water can eventually wear down rock and create the Grand Canyon.
We have heard much this year about the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of the great Justice Antonin Scalia — and rightly so. But there are two vacancies on the Supreme Court. The other vacancy is Anthony Kennedy.
The human tragedy, amid all the legal evasions and frauds is that, while many laws and policies sacrifice some people for the sake of other people, affirmative action manages to harm blacks, whites, Asians and others, even if in different ways.
Students who are kept out of a college because other students are admitted instead, under racial quotas, obviously lose opportunities they would otherwise have had.
But minority students admitted to institutions whose academic standards they do not meet are all too often needlessly turned into failures, even when they have the prerequisites for success in some other institution whose normal standards they do meet.
When black students who scored at the 90th percentile in math were admitted to M.I.T., where the other students scored at the 99th percentile, a significant number of black students failed to graduate there, even though they could have graduated with honors at most other academic institutions.
We do not have so many students with that kind of ability that we can afford to sacrifice them on the altar to political correctness.
Such negative consequences of mismatching minority students with institutions, for the sake of racial body count, have been documented in a number of studies, most notably "Mismatch," a book by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., whose sub-title is: "How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It."
When racial preferences in student admissions in the University of California system were banned, the number of black and Hispanic students in the system declined slightly, but the number actually graduating rose substantially. So did the number graduating with degrees in tough subjects like math, science and engineering.
But hard facts carry no such weight among politicians as magic words like "diversity" — a word repeated endlessly, without one speck of evidence to back up its sweeping claims of benefits. It too is part of the Supreme Court fraud, going back to a 1978 decision that seemingly banned racial quotas — unless the word "diversity" was used instead of "quotas."
Seeming to ban racial preferences, while letting them continue under another name, was clever politically. But the last thing we need in Washington are nine more politicians, wearing judicial robes.
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com.
https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/06/16/the-fraud-goes-on