Thursday, March 27, 2014

CA. Senator Gun Running to Islamo Terrorists

OMG!  A Democrat.  From San Francicso  Go Figure.


If Guns Are Outlawed
Only California State Senators
and Muslim Terrorist Friends
Will Have Guns



SAN FRANCISCO – A California state senator who advocated gun control legislation asked for campaign donations in exchange for introducing an undercover FBI agent to an arms trafficker and told him how to get shoulder-fired automatic weapons and missiles from a Muslim separatist group in the Philippines, according to court documents unsealed Wednesday.

The allegations against State Sen. Leland Yee were outlined in an FBI affidavit in support of a criminal complaint. The affidavit accuses Yee of conspiracy to deal firearms without a license and to illegally import firearms. He was arrested Wednesday.

[Full Story]


I will bet anyone $733,650 Yuan that Leland Yee is being run by the PRC.
Marc Miller

Jummy Suffers from Stockholm Syndrome

The Man Who Lived Too Long
Carter Blames Jews for Obama’s Snubs



The Fifth Estate in Mascarade

   At The Cinema                           



SPOOKS REDUX







I think I mentioned that MoSup, particularly, missed watching two (or more) episodes of White Collar as we supped each night.  I suggested that she would probably get just as caught up by Spooks (MI-5), and I was right.  It's been a few years since I watched the series, so I am able to re-enjoy most of them,  although there are no Holy MFS! moments for me. 

Last night we watched episode 20, "A Prayer for My Daughter." Because I'm not immersed in British politics (although I'm becoming more so, as I watch more and more BBC stuff), I didn't have my antennae up the way I do with anything Hollywood.  I eventually did catch on to SPOOKS leftist tilt, but missed in the first go-around what every Brit caught in #20; the bad guy, a 
murdering media mogul, not only resembled Rupert Murdoch, he was BBC's character assassination target, something that continues in real life.

I am reminded of this after posting the previous Koch Brothers targeting.  Progressives are pricks in any language .

Influential United Nations negotiator Patricia Norton (Jan Chappell) is kidnapped and later found murdered. Because Adam was fond of her, he discovers that a shadow organisation called the November Committee, in which media mogul David Swift (Ruppert Murdoch) is a key member, was involved as they wanted her to cease any peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian territories.

KOCH-The Real Thing



Meet The Press                                   




So in the Post’s view, it is acceptable to publish articles that are both literally false (Koch is the largest tar sands leaseholder) and massively misleading (the Keystone Pipeline is all about Koch Industries), if by doing so the paper can “stir and inflame public debate in this election year?”

This is an article in Powerline by John Hinderaker.  It was posted to Facebook by Jack Cashill.  Nothing here will surprise anyone, just reinforce what we already know.  
Der Christmas Skoonj

The Washington Post Responds To Me, and I Reply to the Post

On Thursday, the Washington Post published an article by Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin titled “The biggest lease holder in Canada’s oil sands isn’t Exxon Mobil or Chevron. It’s the Koch brothers.” The article’s first paragraph included this claim:

The biggest lease holder in the northern Alberta oil sands is a subsidiary of Koch Industries, the privately-owned cornerstone of the fortune of conservative Koch brothers Charles and David.

The theme of the article was that the Keystone Pipeline is all about the Koch brothers; or, at least, that this is a plausible claim. The Post authors relied on a report by a far-left group called International Forum on Globalization that I debunked last October.

So Thursday evening, I wrote about the Post article here. I pointed out that Koch is not, in fact, the largest leaser of tar sands land; that Koch will not be a user of the pipeline if it is built; and that construction of the Keystone Pipeline would actually be harmful to Koch’s economic interests, which is why Koch has never taken a position on the pipeline’s construction. The Keystone Pipeline, in short, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Koch brothers.

My post garnered a great deal of attention, and Mufson and Eilperin undertook to respond to it here. It isn’t much of a response: they don’t deny the truth of anything I wrote, and they don’t try to sustain the proposition that Koch is even in favor of the pipeline, let alone the driving force behind it. They lamely suggest that if Koch leased 2 million acres, rather than 1.1 million as they reported on Thursday, then Koch might be the largest leaseholder. But they make no attempt to respond to the official Province of Alberta maps that I posted, which clearly show that Canadian National Resources, Ltd., for example, leases more acreage than Koch.

The Post’s response attempted to explain “Why we wrote about the Koch Industries [sic] and its leases in Canada’s oil sands.” Good question! What’s the answer?

The Powerline article itself, and its tone, is strong evidence that issues surrounding the Koch brothers’ political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in this election year. That’s why we wrote the piece.

So in the Post’s view, it is acceptable to publish articles that are both literally false (Koch is the largest tar sands leaseholder) and massively misleading (the Keystone Pipeline is all about Koch Industries), if by doing so the paper can “stir and inflame public debate in this election year?” I can’t top Jonah Goldberg’s comment on that howler:

By this logic any unfair attack posing as reporting is worthwhile when people try to correct the record. Why not just have at it and accuse the Kochs of killing JFK or hiding the Malaysian airplane? The resulting criticism would once again provide “strong evidence that issues surrounding the Koch brothers’ political and business interests will stir and inflame public debate in this election year.”

Let me offer an alternative explanation of why the Washington Post published their Keystone/Koch smear: 1) The Washington Post in general, and Mufson and Eilperin in particular, are agents of the Left, the environmental movement and the Democratic Party. 2) The Keystone Pipeline is a problem for the Democratic Party because 60% of voters want the pipeline built, while the party’s left-wing base insists that it not be approved. 3) The Keystone Pipeline is popular because it would broadly benefit the American people by creating large numbers of jobs, making gasoline more plentiful and bringing down the cost of energy. 4) Therefore, the Democratic Party tries to distract from the real issues surrounding the pipeline by claiming, falsely, that its proponents are merely tools of the billionaire Koch brothers–who, in fact, have nothing to do with Keystone one way or the other. 5) The Post published its article to assist the Democratic Party with its anti-Keystone talking points.

Which frames a very interesting contrast. The Keystone Pipeline is by no means the only energy-related controversy these days. “Green” energy is also highly controversial. “Green” energy is controversial, in part, because, unlike the Keystone Pipeline, it harms the consumer: solar and wind energy are inefficient, and therefore raise energy costs to consumers. “Green” energy is also controversial because it harms taxpayers: because they are inefficient, solar and wind energy can survive only through taxpayer-funded subsidies. Further, the federal government has invested in numerous “green” energy projects that have gone bankrupt, sticking taxpayers with the tab. Solyndra is only one of a number of such debacles.

“Green” energy is also controversial because it has been used to enrich government cronies. Let’s take, for instance, the billionaire Tom Steyer. Steyer has made much of his fortune by using his government connections to secure support for uneconomic “green” energy projects that have profited him, to the detriment of consumers and taxpayers. See, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. As is explained here, Tom Steyer is a bitter opponent of the Keystone Pipeline. His financial interests, in “green” energy and perhaps also in pre-pipeline oil sources like BP, stand to benefit if Keystone is killed.

Haven’t heard much about Tom Steyer, you say? Maybe that’s because he isn’t heavily involved in politics. Heh–just kidding. Steyer, as you probably know, is one of the biggest donors to the Democratic Party and its candidates. This year, he has pledged to contribute $100 million to the campaigns of Democratic candidates, as long as they toe the line on environmental issues–which includes, presumably, taxpayer support for “green” energy and opposition to Keystone.

So the Post could have written a very different story about the Keystone Pipeline. The Post could have written that opposition to the pipeline is being funded in large part by a billionaire who has a personal financial interest in the pipeline not being built. And that’s not all! The billionaire is a political crony who has used his connections in Washington to get rich and to fleece consumers and taxpayers. Now, with Keystone, he is doing it again! How is that for a story that would “stir and inflame public debate in this election year”?

The Post, of course, didn’t write that story. But the Post has written about Tom Steyer. Not only that–what a coincidence!–Juliet Eilperin has written about Steyer. In this February 2013 puff piece, to which Mufson also contributed, she promoted Steyer’s campaign to be named Energy Secretary:

John Podesta, who chairs the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, said Steyer has “got the right skill set, the understanding and attitude to lead an energy transformation in this country.”

“I think he would be a fabulous choice for energy secretary,” Podesta added, “and I’ve let my friends in the administration know that.”

Here is a thought experiment: imagine Juliet Eilperin writing about a campaign to get Charles Koch named Secretary of Energy. Eilperin went on to describe a public appearance by Steyer in glowing terms:

On Sunday, he spoke to a crowd that organizers estimated at 35,000, gathered on the Mall to call for a stronger national climate policy.“I’m not the first person you’d expect to be here today. I’m not a college professor and I don’t run an environmental organization,” he said. “For the last 30 years I’ve been a professional investor and I’ve been looking at billion-dollar investments for decades and I’m here to tell you one thing: The Keystone pipeline is not a good investment.”

The move stems from an uncomfortable conclusion Steyer has reached: The incremental political victories he and others have been celebrating fall well short of what’s needed to avert catastrophic global warming.

There is lots more, all of it adoring. Of course, neither Steyer nor Eilperin mentioned that killing Keystone, capping carbon emissions and so on would all benefit Steyer financially.

So we have a contrast that couldn’t be clearer: the Washington Post published a false story about support for Keystone because it fit the Democratic Party’s agenda. It covered up a similar, but true story about opposition to the pipeline (and about “green” politics in general) because that, too, fit the Democratic Party’s agenda. I don’t think we need to look any further to connect the dots.

And yet, a still deeper level of corruption is on display here. Juliet Eilperin is a reporter for the Washington Post who covers, among other things, environmental politics. As I wrote in my prior post, she is married to Andrew Light. Light writes on climate policy for the Center for American Progress, a far-left organization that has carried on a years-long vendetta against Charles and David Koch on its web site, Think Progress. Light is also a member of the Obama administration, as Senior Adviser to the Special Envoy on Climate Change in the Department of State. The Center for American Progress is headed by John Podesta, who chaired Barack Obama’s transition team and is now listed as a “special advisor” to the Obama administration. Note that Ms. Eilperin quoted Podesta, her husband’s boss, in her puff piece on Tom Steyer.

Oh, yes–one more thing. Guess who sits on the board of the Center for American Progress? Yup. Tom Steyer.

This kind of incest is common in Washington. You can’t separate the reporters from the activists from the Obama administration officials from the billionaire cronies. Often, as in this instance, the same people wear two or more of those hats simultaneously. However bad you think the corruption and cronyism in Washington are, they are worse than you imagine. And if you think the Washington Post is part of a free and independent press, think again.




A quick search on Koch Bros reveals the full intensity of hatred and fear they generate amongst the Left establishment.  Which of course manifestly makes them American patriots of the highest rank.



 

Maryland, Our Toilet Bowl

Maryland My Toilet Bowl



 
THE NEWS MEDIA ARE  NOT REPORTING ON THIS, LET YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY KNOW.
Bathroom Bill passes Committee, going to a House Vote - Please Contact Your Delegate Now
A colleague in the know said that unless a miracle happens, Maryland’s version of the bathroom bill will pass this year, and likely will be voted out of the House of Delegates any day now. That miracle can only happen if you and people like you take action today by contacting your Delegate and forwarding this email to other people so that they can take action.

The bill is just like the bill that California passed last year. It would allow men to use the women’s bathroom and women to use the men’ s bathroom based on what sex they happen to feel they are at the moment.

Can you take a few minutes right now to try to stop the “Bathroom Bill”?  Please contact your Delegate now. 



I did just contact my two delegates, but they're both Republicans who 1) have nothing to do with this, and 2) are so outnumbered by Democrats as to be toothless.  I know, 99% of you live outside MD, but this is cathartic for me, and will also serve to warn you about MD. Gov. Martin O'Malley's (aka the White Obama) coming presidential bid. 


Pacifica Radio Blows Up



Summer Reese

A treasure trove of lefty greed, arrogance, self importance, corruption and incompetence.
-Donald Vieraitis




On March 13, after weeks of rumors, Pacifica Radio's board of directors voted to fire its executive director, Summer Reese, during what was essentially a conference call. But nothing is as simple as all that in the oldest and oddest public radio network in the country.

Pacifica has a long and storied history, and still features such leading liberals as Amy Goodman, the widely known host of Democracy Now! (on which journalists Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill are frequent guests), but it has fallen on hard times of late. Listenership, according Reese, is "extraordinarily low." During an average 15-minute period, just 700 people listen to its Los Angeles station, 90.7 FM KPFK, for at least five minutes, according to Nielsen Audio, which monitors radio ratings.
Four days later, Reese sent an email to the entire Pacifica staff announcing that she was not recognizing the board's authority: "I want to assure you that I am in possession of a signed and valid contract for three years of employment from the board of directors and that I fully intend to complete that contract."

And so it was that Reese marched to the Pacifica national office in Berkeley on March 17, bolt cutters in hand, removed a padlock placed on the front doors over the weekend, and essentially occupied the building. When newly appointed interim executive director Margy Wilkinson showed up, Reese and 12 of her compatriots — including Reese's mother, a longtime anti-war and civil rights activist — refused to let Wilkinson, her husband and two of her allies pass.

"You're all going to be personally liable — and I'm going to enjoy your houses!" Reese shouted at them, according to former board member Sasha Futran, who backs Wilkinson.

Later Reese read for all the staff, in her deep and booming voice, from the Book of Joshua: "Whosoever he be that doth rebel against thy commandment, and will not hearken unto thy words in all that thou commandest him, he shall be put to death: only be strong and of a good courage."

"I feel like I've ended up in an insane asylum," Futran told L.A. Weekly a few hours later, still in disbelief.

"I'm not leaving the building until this is resolved by either the Attorney General's Office or the court," Reese told the Weekly. "I don't want these people to destroy Pacifica." [Full Barrel of Fun]


During an average 15-minute period, just 700 people listen
Just Freaking Precious



So this guy

So this Guy ...


 





Here is that picture











Blame cuzzin ricky





Brad's Benefactory Boondoggle




                      —   you berk



Brad's Benefactory Boondoggle
 
 ...
The houses are the work of an organization called the Make It Right Foundation, created in 2007 by the actor Brad Pitt. The group has pledged to build 150 new homes in the area, and so far it has finished about 100. And the first thing to say about the project is: good for them. Much praise should go to people who help others rebuild homes and lives after such a terrible disaster. Here's hoping they will continue.

At the same time, what becomes clear after looking at the houses along the Industrial Canal is that they are the product of the same spirit of moral uplift and edification that in an earlier era led missionaries to house and feed the unfortunate while requiring they listen to a sermon or a series of Bible verses. The only difference is that now the sermon is about the environment.
In a defense of the project, New Orleans-based architectural writer Martin Pedersen argued that Make It Right has been "aspirational from the start. It was never about building the most houses, the most expediently; never about rebuilding an entire neighborhood ... It was about building for returning residents 150 affordable LEED Platinum houses by some of the world’s best architects. It was also about creating a model for sustainable development."

That's another way of saying the Make It Right enterprise is really about eco-evangelism. It's not enough to house the homeless. The victims of Katrina — in this case, a very small number of them — must also be shown the benefits of photo-voltaic panels and special concrete and eco-decking (some of which, unfortunately, has already begun to rot). They may be trying to rebuild their lives, but they're living in someone else's agenda.

[Full article]

My sense is that Brad Pitt's heart was in the right place, as is almost always the case with Liberals.  But, he may be trying to rebuild  lives, but the Liberals insidious, "poor sods, they can't help themselves" mindset will lead to unintended consequences.