Do you recall a time, a few years back, when the media wouldn’t shut up about a supposed outing of an agent? Yup, the left and the media were pissed.

I bet you could just imagine the firestorm of coverage that would result if instead of a former Secretary of State leaking a name it was our President….right?

Guess not:

Just a week ago the establishment media was aflutter with news that a CIA double-agent had thwarted a new type of underwear bomb attack targeting U.S. flights in a plot devised by al-Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula.

But as the week progressed, a developing bombshell story got buried under President Obama’s gay marriage announcement. Not only is the supposed CIA asset not a CIA asset at all, but the entire operation was exposed prematurely and the double-agent’s life was immediately threatened by an intelligence leak that very well may have come out of the White House for political gain.

As the story broke, the establishment media was more than happy to attribute the intelligence coup to the CIA and the Obama administration, describing the mole as a “CIA informant.”

It turns out that wasn’t true. The double-agent hadn’t been recruited and placed by the CIA, but by British intelligence, who also managed the operation. In fact, the Americans had only recently been made aware of the joint British-Saudi effort.

The leaks about the operation from the American side have infuriated British intelligence officials, who had hoped to continue the operation. The leaks not only scuttled the mission but put the life of the asset in jeopardy. Even CIA officials, joining their MI5 and MI6 counterparts, were describing the leaks as “despicable,” attributing them to the Obama administration.

As the stillborn investigation into the leaks continues (stillborn, because if the leaks are in fact traced to the White House, there will be no repercussions), the zeal with which the establishment media trumpeted the supposed CIA coup won’t likely be surpassed by the more important story of how the Obama administration attempted to score political points at the expense of one of the most important intelligence operations since 9/11.

Wait, for “political gain?”

Wasn’t the left and the media very upset that non-spy Valerie Plame’s name was uttered by Richard Armitage for “political gain?”

Weren’t there hearings and trials and all that? Or was I just imagining that?

And here we had a Yemeni deep cover agent that we may get once in a generation:

One US official has noted that “this operation could have gone on for some time … when it was cut off by a leak”. Even once the agent turned up in Saudi Arabia, it was clear that his intelligence was helping to target a spate of crucial drone strikes within Yemen – including one that killed AQAP’s head of external operations, a man responsible for the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.

If the group learnt of their member’s defection from the media, who knows what countermeasures they took? How did that stymie further arrests or airstrikes? AQAP’s chief bomb-maker, Ibrahim Al-Asiri, might even have escaped as a result.

After all, the agent was reportedly evacuated from Yemen two weeks before the appointed date for his attack. He might have remained quietly operational for that entire period, contacting his colleagues and passing on their location. This leak appears to have frustrated a painstaking and risky operation, of the sort that cannot come around very often.

But the Obama administration deliberately scuttled that huge undercover operation, and put the life of a British agent in jeopardy to boot. For what? To boost his re-election hopes. This wasn’t some non-spy desk jockey at the CIA. This was someone who had infiltrated al-Qaeda for god’s sake!

But the MSM and the left are ignoring it.

At least one Democrat lawmaker isn’t

Senator Diane Fienstein:

“AQAP is the number-one threat to our country. … The leak really did endanger sources and methods, and the leak, I think, really has to be prosecuted.”

Congressman Peter King:

“This was more secret than any operation I’m familiar with — even more classified than bin Laden. … That’s why I’m saying the FBI should do a full and complete investigation, because this really is criminal in the literal sense of the word to leak out this type of sensitive, classified information on really almost unparalleled penetration of the enemy.”

Congressman Mike Rogers:

“This has been a damaging leak. We shouldn’t underestimate what really happened here. When you jeopardize our foreign-service liaison partners, any of them that may or may not have been involved, or you jeopardize the conclusion of wrapping up all of the people involved, that’s dangerous to our national security.”

Paging Patrick Fitzgerald….paging Patrick Fitzgerald

Exit thought….ya think they will make a movie about this?

No…we’re not talking about America’s merriest, happy warrior-in-chief.

Toni Morrison named Bill Clinton America’s first “black” president in the same sense that Barack Obama is being heralded by Newsweek (are they merely trying to compete with Time’s cover?) as America’s first “gay” president. But who was America’s first actual gay president? It certainly wasn’t Abraham Lincoln.

Well, here’s the straight “news”:

Tina Brown would like you to think that our 44th commander in chief is the “First Gay President.” Jim Loewen would like you to know that title actually belongs to our country’s 15th leader, James Buchanan. After taking a moment to smack Newsweek for the “cheap sensationalism” of its buzzy cover, Loewen imparts a history lesson. “Buchanan was gay, before, during and after his four years in the White House,” he writes for Salon. And the country was well aware of it.

Loewen on the subject of “chronological ethnocentrism”:

Loewen’s intention isn’t just to give you a new trivia tidbit: It’s to explain why Buchanan isn’t lauded as such, and what that means. Quite simply, our “touching belief in progress” is the problem. “We must be more tolerant now than we were way back in the middle of the 19th century! Buchanan could not have been gay then, else we would not seem more tolerant now.” Loewen urges us to embrace a more complex national history, one in which “we all moved backward” for about 50 years beginning in 1890, particularly in terms of race relations. “If we can rid ourselves of the fantasy that we are always getting better, then maybe we can create a nation that actually becomes more tolerant,” he writes. “Then we might—again—elect a real gay president.” Click for his entire column.

Not to make more out of this than is warranted, Loewen concludes:

President Obama’s change of heart about gay marriage remains significant. It does show increasing tolerance compared to our recent past. During the nadir of race relations, that terrible period between 1890 and about 1940 when white America went more racist in its thinking than at any other time, the U.S. also clamped down on beards, liquor (briefly) and, yes, homosexuals. As Jackie Robinson was not the first black player in Major League Baseball, but rather the first after the nadir, so President Obama is not our “first gay” president (Forgive me: I cannot seem to retype Newsweek’s silly headline without putting quotation marks around the words), but only our “first” since the nadir.

Remembering that James Buchanan was homosexual complexifies our national narrative, to be sure, but it is a complexity that we need.

Daily Beast:

Obama has twice been called the first woman president: first in 2008, by Newsweek’s Martin Linsky, and then again by The Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker in 2010. The argument in both cases was that Obama’s wisdom, values, and management style were similar to that of a female leader. In 2009 the Associated Foreign Press asked if Obama was the first Asian-American president while, the same year, Geraldo Rivera suggested he might be the first Hispanic president. Then, in 2011, New York magazine declared him the first Jewish president. “Expectations were high that editor Tina Brown would do something typically attention-grabbing to mark this occasion, but this effort seems, well, cliché,” Randall writes. “It wasn’t going to be long before someone outed our first black, female, Jewish, Hispanic, Asian-American president as gay.”

That’s just so….”gay”.

When will the sexual, ethnic, and religious identity of our president cease to matter?

As an aside and afterthought…now I’m curious to know who was America’s merriest of presidents?

He was injured- just as he said he was.

A medical report compiled by the family physician of accused Trayvon Martin murderer George Zimmerman and obtained exclusively by ABC News found that Zimmerman was diagnosed with a “closed fracture” of his nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury the day after he fatally shot Martin during an alleged altercation.

Zimmerman faces a second degree murder charge for the Feb. 26 shooting that left the unarmed 17-year-old high school junior dead. Zimmerman has claimed self defense in what he described as a life and death struggle that Martin initiated by accosting him, punching him in the face, then repeatedly bashing his head into the pavement.

Also today, a trove of documents are being examined by lawyers for both the defense and prosecution as part of discovery in Zimmerman’s trial — including 67 CDs worth of documents, video of Martin on the night of the shooting, his autopsy report and videos of Zimmerman’s questioning by police.

Zimmerman’s three-page medical report is included in those documents that the defense could use as evidence.

And it also turns out that, contrary to the “Official Report of the Funeral Director”, Trayvon Martin had bloody knuckles- as one might suffer when punching someone else in the face.

WFTV has confirmed that autopsy results show 17-year-old Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles when he died.

The information could support George Zimmerman’s claim that Martin beat him up before Zimmerman shot and killed him.

The autopsy results come as Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara continues to go over other evidence in the case.

O’Mara wouldn’t comment on the autopsy evidence, but WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said it’s better for the defense than it is for the prosecution.

WFTV has learned that the medical examiner found two injuries on Martin’s body: The fatal gunshot wound and broken skin on his knuckles.

When you compare Trayvon’s non-fatal injury with Zimmerman’s bloody head wounds, the autopsy evidence is better for the defense, Sheaffer said.

“It goes along with Zimmerman’s story that he acted in self-defense, because he was getting beaten up by Trayvon Martin,” Sheaffer said.

The injury to Martin’s knuckle also fits with Zimmerman’s story that before he shot and killed Martin, Martin had broken his nose and knocked him to the ground, slamming his head on the sidewalk.

It continues to fall into place for Zimmerman. The big problem for him is that this execrable, disgusting, racist administration is likely to hunt Zimmerman down for eternity until they find him guilty of something- even if it turns out to be littering.

WFTV has learned charges against George Zimmerman could be getting more serious.

State prosecutors said Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, profiled and stalked 17-year-old Trayvon Martin before killing him, so the FBI is now looking into charging him with a hate crime.

Zimmerman admitted to killing Martin in February during a confrontation. However, he claims the shooting was in self-defense. He’s facing a second-degree murder charge, which carries a maximum possible sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. But if Zimmerman is charged and found guilty of a federal hate crime involving murder, he could face the death penalty.

Eric Holder is very sensitive about anyone who offends “my people” and could give a damn about anyone else. There is NOTHING to indicate George Zimmerman profiled Trayon Martin simply because of his race. In fact, there is potent evidence to the contrary:

Though civil rights demonstrators have argued Zimmerman should not have prejudged Martin, one black neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account.

“Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. I’m black, OK?” the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. “There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood,” she said. “That’s why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin.”

None of that will matter to this cretinous Attorney General or his equally miserable boss. George Zimmerman is more black than Elizabeth Warren is Cherokee. But since the left wing media has Zimmerman characterized as a cracker, that will be his fate and Shylock Holder will seek his pound of flesh.

Rarely has this country has so badly needed a change in leadership. And you are still a blithering idiot to believe anything Barack Obama says. An absolute moron.

Just what planet are these kangaroos from:

Click here to view the embedded video.

THE Kuala Lumpur Tribunal on War Crimes sat for five days in the courtroom at the Al-Bukhary Foundation to listen to charges against George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez, David Addington, William Haynes II, Jay Byber and John Choon Yoo of the United States for the torture of detainees held in the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo detention camps.

Many would ask of what use is this hearing by a toothless tribunal.

The answer is that the international community has failed in the proper implementation of international laws to which all countries have officially subscribed. Worse still, the laws are applied only against weak countries and their leaders who are judged and punished.

~~~

The prosecution team of the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal cited the Geneva Convention on torture 1949, the Convention against Torture 1984, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter, the US Constitution itself and the rules of conduct of the US military to prove that the treatment of the prisoners constituted torture as understood and accepted by international laws.

The acts were cruel, inhuman and degrading. The accused were proven to have authorised, connived in the commission of acts of torture and cruel, degrading and inhuman acts against victims in violation of international laws, treaties and conventions.

The prosecution also gave details of the action by the accused, through their memos, approvals and directives for the torture of the prisoners.

Former president George W. Bush declared that al-Qaeda was not a party to the conventions or agreements and was, therefore, not protected by them. Further, it was argued that should these prisoners capture American personnel, they would treat their captives in the same way.

The defence in mitigation said that the situation after the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers rendered existing conventions, treaties and laws invalid. The accused were entitled to act in contravention of all laws, treaties and conventions.

After four days of hearings, the tribunal adjourned to consider the verdict. On the fifth day, that is, 24 hours after the hearings ended, the tribunal gave a 19-page written judgment, finding that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had “engaged in a web of instructions, memos, directives, legal advice and action that established a common plan and purpose, joint enterprise and/or conspiracy to commit the crimes of torture and war crimes, including and not limited to a common plan and purpose to commit the following crimes in relation to the “war on terror” that was launched by the US and others in Afghanistan and Iraq:

TORTURE;

CREATING, authorising and implementing a regime of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatments;

VIOLATING, customary international law;

VIOLATING, the Conventions against Torture 1984;

VIOLATING, the Geneva Convention III and IV 1949;

VIOLATING, the common article III, the Geneva Convention of 1949; and

VIOLATING, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter.“

Yes, we cannot enforce the decisions of the Kuala Lumpur tribunal. But the world must know through the hearings that the leaders of a country that frequently takes the high ground to lecture the world on human rights, the rule of law, etc are no better, but are worse than the many leaders and countries they condemned as not adhering to acceptable behaviour, practice and respect for the norms of modern civilisation.

Malaysia had the Internal Security Act. Malaysia did detain people without trial. But it should be noted that there is a law providing for this. The US government of former president Bush detained people before there was any law providing for such detentions.

Malaysia never sanctions torture. Certainly, the Malaysian government never spelt out the kind of torture that could be inflicted on the prisoners. But the US leaders knowingly sanction torture and describe the kind of torture to be carried out, even as they condemn others of being oppressive against their own people.

It is a pity that not many people attended the hearings. They would be horrified at what the leaders of the foremost democracy in the world have sanctioned and are guilty of.

That in this day and age, there are still leaders of governments who break laws and legalise behaviour incompatible with modern civilisation is mind chilling. That this country is the greatest military power in the world is truly frightening.

~~~

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal is a court of conscience. It may not have the power to have its findings implemented. But there can be no doubt that without the hearing before the tribunal, the crimes of the leaders of powerful countries will never be exposed to the world.

The findings of the court will be communicated to all governments, will be broadcast to the whole world through the Internet, and via international non-governmental organisations.

The people of the US are well known for their insularity. They know little about the world beyond their borders. They believe that they are always right.

Recall as well that former president Bush cancelled his trip to Switzerland last year due to threats from human rights groups. In 2009, Spanish prosecutors sought to indict “the Bush Six”. In 2008, Vincent Bugliosi came out with a book, detailing a legal framework for how he’d go about prosecuting George W. Bush. In 2006, filmmakers fantasized about the assassination of President Bush.

At least there’s some level of consistency here in their condemnation:

“Right now Guantanamo is still open, people are still being held there and are still being tortured there.”

In response to questions about the difference between the Bush and Obama Administrations, he added: “If President Bush was the President of extra-judicial torture then US President Barak Obama is the President of extra judicial killing through drone strikes. Our work has only just begun.”

After the guilty verdict reached by five senior judges was delivered, Mohamad said: “Powerful countries are getting away with murder.”

One of the most typically heard human rights-related comments about the Tribunal’s recent success in the post 9/11 reign of terror leads the comments on Press TV’s breaking news coverage of this event: “Obama and his cohorts need also to be tried for crimes against humanity.”

Thoughts?

Hear it?

It’s getting louder.

The sounds of a election come nearer.

And it’s making a particular President wet his pants.

Reacting to the stinging criticism from two members of Congress in a key election state Barack Obama modified his “All of the Above” energy website.

The Obama campaign changed its website Thursday night to include a reference to “clean coal” in the president’s “all-of-the-above” energy plan after Republicans lawmakers criticized the omission.

Under the heading “President’ Obama’s approach to energy independence,” an entire section on the campaign website was altered from “fuel efficiency” to “clean coal.” The sections now appear as: oil, natural gas, clean coal, biofuels, wind, solar and nuclear.

Earlier this week, Rep. Ed Whitfield, a Republican from Kentucky who chairs a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, criticized the president for excluding coal and hydropower, two energy resources that together provide for more than half of the country’s electricity, from his “all-of-the-above” energy plan.

“This administration has been openly in the business of putting coal out of business,” Mr. Whitfield said. “And for the president to run around talking about an ‘all of the above’ energy policy, even on his campaign website, and to not mention coal as an important energy sector is unbelievable to me.”

Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio Republican, on Wednesday tweeted his disappointment about the exclusion of coal, saying Mr. Obama was “out of touch [with Ohio’s] needs.”

In what has to be an act of desperation the Obama website was changed from this

to this

Let’s have a close look at what the newest version says:

“President Obama has set a 10-year goal to develop and deploy cost-effective clean coal technology.”

Obama’s coal industry goals can be properly summarized this way:

1. Bankrupt the coal industry.
2. See #1
3. See #2
4. See #3
5. See #4

Anything else he says is but pablum meant for the liberal (i.e. weak, gullible) mind expressly for the purposes of re-election. Obama knows well liberals suffer from CRS syndrome (Can’t Remember Sh*t) and will have forgotten everything he and Biden have said about the coal industry in the past.

Not me. I remember what Obama said. Here he is saying he would bankrupt the coal industry:

Click here to view the embedded video.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

And did someone mention Joe Biden?

Click here to view the embedded video.

No clean coal for you!

Anyone with half a brain will see right through this current ruse. The problem is, Obama supporters come up short on the brain thing. Obama has been conducting the war on coal for some time.

With the country focused on this week’s high drama at the Supreme Court, President Obama’s EPA quietly released long-delayed regulations to apply global warming rules never authorized by Congress to new coal-fired power plants.

That Obama’s EPA would release a rule to destroy coal-fired electricity while the president gives stump speeches about an “all of the above” energy policy is an insult to the American people.

This rule will effectively block any new coal-fired power plants from being built in America, and a second round of related rules – expected after the election, of course – will shut down existing coal-fired power plants.

The result will be steeply higher electricity prices, lost jobs, and lower standards of living. Remarkably, this is all done in the name of global warming, but even EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson admits it will have no discernible impact on global temperatures. Obama’s EPA is crippling the U.S. economy not to accomplish anything, but just to enjoy a nice, warm, green feeling of self-satisfaction.

Consequently, coal plants are being shut down with no energy substitutes in sight.

Edison International (EIX) plans to shut down at least two aging coal-fired power plants in what could be a growing wave of retirements as low natural-gas and electricity prices and stricter pollution rules make many of these facilities unprofitable.

Edison will shut down its two Chicago coal-fired power plants — one this year and one by 2014 — rather than install pollution-control equipment to comply with state pollution limits, the company said. Edison said it also would likely shut down a third coal plant in Waukegan, Ill., and possibly others. …

Companies are increasingly announcing plans to shut down aging coal plants as the cost of installing pollution-control equipment can exceed the value of the plant.

If you believe Obama has a goal for clean coal that ends anywhere else but in bankruptcy, you’re an idiot.

I was, the other day, trying to explain the word "fair" to a friend. Suddenly it occurred to me that I was trying to explain the definition from a statistics perspective, and that was the cause of the miscommunication. In statistics, the word "fair" means that probabilities of occurrence does not change each time an action or process (trial) is conducted. If a process is "fair," then exact probabilities of occurrence can be calculated regardless of initial conditions. We statisticians (besides being weird) understand the word "fair" because it has a very precise, unchanging meaning.

That is the reason why, in a Craps game, "loaded" dice always have the same appearance as regular dice, and that they are slipped into the game only when "serious" money is being wagered and the sucker cannot alter his wagering accordingly. Loaded dice are not fair from a wagering perspective because they alter probabilities of occurrence, thereby increasing the probability that the sucker will lose his wager. Besides, even without loaded dice, craps probabilities favor the person running the game. All he has to do is make the payoff, not welsh, if an individual sucker gets lucky.

That difficulty, the definition of "fair,"occurs quite often. As Jim Yardley said, "’Fair’ is one of those warm, fuzzy words that allows the listener to define it to his own personal taste – and the definition changes from one specific case to another."

For example, Obama, during the Democrat Party primary debate, said that he would raise capital gains rates — not because it would increase revenue, but because it was "fair." During the debate, Obama said, "…I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness." He continued, "…I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair…."

The "problem" is that Obama did not define, precisely or otherwise, his definition of "fair." As Yardley says, we are left with, in this case, Obama’s definition – "and the definition changes from one specific case to another." One thing you will never hear Obama explain is precisely what he means when he uses the word "fair."

In his 2012 State of the Union speech, Obama said, "… or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share…." But nowhere does he define what he means by "fair shot" or "fair share." I guess that he wants us to trust that his definition will be "fair."

We are all familiar with the "Buffett Rule."   It states, according to the White House, "No household making more than $1 million each year should pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle class family pays. This is the Buffett Rule – a simple principle of tax fairness that asks everyone to pay their fair share." The site continues, "Warren Buffett, for example, pays a lower effective tax rate than his secretary, and that’s not fair." Please notice that, in the White House definition, there is an inconsistency. The rule states, "…pay a smaller share…." Then the White House definition offers, "… effective tax rate…." So, which definition applies? How can we be "fair" if the rule is arbitrary?

It is quite disingenuous to use the word "fair" when referring to the "Buffett Rule" tax situation. Buffett contributes much more as an absolute amount than his secretary. "Fairness" means an equal share is paid by all – thus fairness would mean that Buffett and his secretary pay exactly the same absolute amount of tax. And that is what the Buffett Rule says – reread it. Will it be "fair" for Buffett and his secretary to pay the same amount, the same share? Whose tax amount will increase and whose will decrease in order to preserve "fairness?"

According to his 2011 income tax return, Obama doesn’t technically fall under the Buffett Rule – his income was "only" $789,684. If you believe that the amount was his entire income, I hold the deed to certain bridge in NYC in which you may be interested! Anyway, Obama’s secretary, Anita J. Breckenridge, earned $95,000 in 2011. Yet she paid a higher effective tax rate than did Obama. And Obama made substantially more than she did. Her tax rate was not much higher than Obama’s but it was still higher. Is that "fair?"

Dr. Walter E. Williams, in "Devious Taxation," wrote, "…the top 1 percent of American income earners paid almost 37 percent of federal income taxes. The top 10 percent paid about 70 percent of federal income taxes, and the top 50 percent paid nearly 98 percent. Roughly 47 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. Here’s my fairness question to you: What standard of fairness dictates that the top 10 percent of income earners pay 70 percent of the income tax burden while 47 percent of Americans pay nothing?" It sure doesn’t sound like everyone, as Obama said in the State of the Union speech, "does their fair share."

As Gary Wickert, in "Defining ‘Fair’ in Obama’s ‘Paying a Fair Share’ Rhetoric" wrote: "Precisely what our president means by "fair" remains unclear – clouded in social envy, class warfare, and populist rhetoric. But one thing is certain. The so-called wealthy are paying a disproportionately higher amount of taxes even when compared to their share of the income – far more than their "fair share."

Further, the statistical definition of a "fair game" is one that has an expected value (EV) of zero. For example, consider the wager in which a person tosses a "fair" coin and wins $1 if heads appears and loses $1 if tails appears. The EV = 0.5*$1 + 0.5*(-$1) = 0. In this game, the word "fair" refers to the fact that each time the coin is tossed the probability of the face appearance remains at 50%. We could, even if the coin was weighted so that heads appeared (say) 70% of time, adjust our wagering so as to make this a "fair game." The key concept is that the probability of occurrence remain unchanged each time the coin is tossed.

This is how Obama sees the US and world economy – a zero-sum. In order to be "fair," Obama wants to redistribute assets that the rich obviously stole from the poor, the defenseless. He even formalized his view. On the world economy, R.A., in "Free exchange," wrote that Obama said in his State of the Union speech: "Don’t let other countries win the race for the future." About this statement, R.A. says, "A zero-sum world is a world without hope, and if Mr Obama is convinced that’s what we’re in then I don’t see much need for him to stick around."

Obama chides corporations that are "sitting on" vast quantities of cash. They are waiting for a precise definition of "fair." They will not get that definition until November, 2012, when Obama is voted out of office.

The bottom line is, as Jim Yardley says, that the listener (and, in this instance, the declarer) gets to use the word "fair" and define it to his personal taste. And, with Obama, the definition is constantly changing.

But that’s just my opinion.

"It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so." – Ronald Reagan

Cross-posted at RWNO, my personal web site.

The term “disinformation” is derived from the old Soviet Union:

Disinformation is mostly commonly described as false information created by governments in wartime for military purposes and by totalitarian governments for political purposes in peacetime. Rumors, lies, and other forms of disinformation were made public by the Soviet Union to discredit the United States, the latter being the context in which the word is generally applied. The KGB coined the Russian word dezinformatsiya; it came into the English language as disinformation. The technique of disinformation goes back at least to 1918 with the end of World War I. Disinformation as a KGB weapon began in 1923 when I. S. Inshlikht, deputy chairman of the GPU, then the name of the KGB, proposed the establishment of a special disinformation office to conduct active intelligence operations.

Barack Obama is operating his own personal KGB with the express intent of spreading disinformation on private citizens in order to destroy them.

Kimberly Strassel’s article “Trolling for Dirt on the President’s List” describes the harassment and smearing of a Romney supporter and donor.

Three weeks ago, an Obama campaign website, “Keeping GOP Honest,” took the extraordinary step of publicly naming and assailing eight private citizens backing Mr. Romney. Titled “Behind the curtain: a brief history of Romney’s donors,” the post accused the eight of being “wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records.” Mr. VanderSloot was one of the eight, smeared particularly as being “litigious, combative and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement.”

Vandersloot vigorously denies the accusations but Barack Obama insisted on sliming him.

Mr. VanderSloot has said his attackers have misconstrued facts and made false allegations. In February he wrote a long reply, publicly stating that he has “many gay friends whom I love and respect” who should “have the same freedoms and rights as any other individual.” The Obama campaign’s response, in April, was to single out Mr. VanderSloot and repeat the slurs.

Obama’s KGB is hunting down Vandersloot’s children as well.

“There’s been a ton of electronic media… that have lodged all kind of innuendo in my direction, accused me of all kinds of bad things. People have called my children. They’ve been surfing their LinkedIn sites. They’ve been asking interviews of my kids.“

Vandersloot and his children are not the first victims. The Koch brothers found themselves targets of Obama’s pogrom.

In just about 24 hours, Mitt Romney is headed to a hotel ballroom to give a speech sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, a front group founded and funded by the Koch brothers.
[...]
Those are the same Koch brothers whose business model is to make millions by jacking up prices at the pump, and who have bankrolled Tea Party extremism and committed $200 million to try to destroy President Obama before Election Day.

For the response of the Koch brothers to this assault, go here.

Then something else in Stressel’s article caught my attention.

About a week after that post, a man named Michael Wolf contacted the Bonneville County Courthouse in Idaho Falls in search of court records regarding Mr. VanderSloot. Specifically, Mr. Wolf wanted all the documents dealing with Mr. VanderSloot’s divorces, as well as a case involving a dispute with a former Melaleuca employee.

Divorce records. Hmm.

When I asked what his interest was in Mr. VanderSloot’s divorce records, he hesitated, then said he didn’t want to talk about that. When I asked what his relationship was with Fusion, he hesitated again and said he had “no comment.” “It’s a legal thing,” he added.

Fusion dodged my calls, so I couldn’t ask who was paying it to troll through Mr. VanderSloot’s divorce records. Mr. Simpson finally sent an email stating: “Frank VanderSloot is a figure of interest in the debate over civil rights for gay Americans. As his own record on gay issues amply demonstrates, he is a legitimate subject of public records research into his lengthy history of legal disputes.”

I have seen Obama’s KGB do this in the past. Obama KGB Commissar David Axelrod has been able to magically come into possession of the sealed divorce records of both former Obama opponents Blair Hull and Jack Ryan. The Chicago Tribune (where Axelrod used to work) then began publishing accusations based on information contained in those sealed records- first on Obama primary opponent Hull and then GOP opponent Jack Ryan.

At the intersection of all of these events is Commisar David Axelrod:

Axelrod is known for operating in this gray area, part idealist, part hired muscle. It is difficult to discuss Axelrod in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. As the 2004 Senate primary neared, it was clear that it was a contest between two people: the millionaire liberal, Hull, who was leading in the polls, and Obama, who had built an impressive grass-roots campaign. About a month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune revealed, near the bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection. In the following few days, the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory. The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had ”worked aggressively behind the scenes” to push the story. But there are those in Chicago who believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story. They note that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull.

Now Obama endeavors mightily to gain possession of Vandersloot’s divorce records no doubt with the singular desire to destroy his life and the lives of his children.

Obama’s former doctor is quoted as saying

“I think there is too much of the University of Chicago in him. By which I mean he’s academic, lacks passion and feeling, and doesn’t have the sense of humanity that I expected.”

He even suggests that Obama is “Messianic.”

I have opined that Obama is a sociopath and nothing disabuses me of that notion. These are the most scurrilous people ever to infect the White House.

Yesterday I linked an article regarding how President Obama is aggressively going after the military vote (a constituency that traditionally tends to vote Republican).

Reuters is reporting that if the election were held today, President Obama would indeed win the military vote by as much as 7 points:

Mack McDowell likes to spend time at the local knife and gun show “drooling over firearms,” as he puts it. Retired after 30 years in the U.S. Army, he has lined his study with books on war, framed battalion patches from his tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, a John Wayne poster, and an 1861 Springfield rifle from an ancestor who fought in the Civil War.

But when it comes to the 2012 presidential election, Master Sergeant McDowell is no hawk.

In South Carolina’s January primary, the one-time Reagan supporter voted for Ron Paul “because of his unchanging stand against overseas involvement.” In November, McDowell plans to vote for the candidate least likely to wage “knee-jerk reaction wars.”

Disaffection with the politics of shock and awe runs deep among men and women who have served in the military during the past decade of conflict. Only 32 percent think the war in Iraq ended successfully, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll. And far more of them would pull out of Afghanistan than continue military operations there.

Read the rest.

Thomas Ricks:

Reuters says veterans report being tired of our wars, are angry about the foolishness of invading Iraq, and worried by the situation with Iran. One says he likes how Obama handled Libya.

On the other hand, 37 percent of vets asked said they disapprove of the way Obama has handled the presidency, vs. just 27 who approve, and everyone else up in the air. So the poll numbers leave me a bit confused.

Mitt Romney is a Republican version of John Kerry, I think — a rich politician from Massachusetts who doesn’t really know who he is but (as James Carville has put it), was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.

A U.S. soldier cries as he watches the live televised inauguration ceremony for President Obama, in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone. Ali Al-saadi-AFP/Getty Images

I guess smartphones are now going to have to come with smartusers:

Avid texters beware: Fort Lee, N.J. police said they will begin issuing $85 jaywalking tickets to pedestrians who are caught texting while walking.

“It’s a big distraction. Pedestrians aren’t watching where they are going and they are not aware,” said Thomas Ripoli, chief of the Fort Lee Police Department.

Ripoli said the borough, which is home to approximately 35,000 residents, has suffered three fatal pedestrian-involved accidents this year. He hopes his crackdown on people who display dangerous behavior while walking will make his town safer, but not everyone is on board with the idea of issuing $85 tickets.

~~~

Two professors at Stony Brook University in New York conducted a study on walking and texting. They found texters are 60 percent more likely to veer off line than non-texters.

“We want to raise awareness that a real disruption occurs because of texting,” Eric Lamberg, co-author of the study, told Long Island Business News. “Texting disrupts your ability much more than does talking.”

So walking and talking on the phone is still okay? How about reading a book and walking? Isn’t that a walker distraction as well? Dan Seifert notes that walking and chewing gum at the same time is still allowed. Phew!

3 “idiot” (I don’t really know if they were idiots or not) pedestrians vs. about 35,000 potential walkers each day. Is it really necessary to create a new law that affects the rest of society to protect people and society from the lack of sound judgment on the part of the few? Is this not a case of an over-reaction law? Or does it make sound sense? Texting and walking, texting and running, texting and doing just about anything at the same time….potentially hazard to society?

With apparently 74 pedestrian crashes last year in Ft. Lee, maybe this is unique to Ft. Lee residents? Looks like it’s the problem of jaywalking in general that’s at issue in that town:

Pedestrians contributed to 20 percent of all traffic fatalities in New Jersey in 2010, the last year for which complete state police statistics have been compiled. Only distracted driving contributed to more deaths — 23 percent.

Combining both factors — as happens when a driver on a cellphone meets a texter on foot — too often leads to trips to hospitals or morgues, yet cops traditionally give breaks to walkers.

“If you give a pedestrian a ticket, he looks at you like you have two heads,” said Fair Lawn Patrolman Tim Franco, who heads the New Jersey Police Traffic Officers Association. “But when you have a serious public safety situation, as in Fort Lee, I’m glad they’re doing this.”

As statewide traffic figures suggest, almost every town has a serious pedestrian safety problem. That’s why the Legislature passed a law in 2009 requiring drivers to stop — not simply yield — to walkers at painted crosswalks.

Dozens of towns, including Fort Lee, Bergenfield and Paramus, sent decoy cops to high-traffic intersections to enforce the law. A state-funded study of the Montclair sting suggested that motorists continued to give walkers the right of way long after the program ended.

But not everybody believes this change suggests success. Drivers often complain that the law has emboldened pedestrians to cross streets — at crosswalks and elsewhere — as if they always have the right of way, sometimes long after traffic lights turn against them.

Indeed, fatality statistics suggest that the biggest pedestrian safety issue isn’t at crosswalks. state police figures for 2010 showed 60 percent of pedestrian deaths occurred either in places where crossing was prohibited or because of unspecified “other pedestrian action in roadways.” That’s cop-speak for doing something stupid, like leaping over a barrier or some other form of jaywalking. Figures for 2009 were similar.

The law seems to be backing itself with a study by Erik M. Lamberg and Lisa M. Muratori, and published in Gait & Posture:

Abstract

Cell phone use among pedestrians leads to increased cognitive distraction, reduced situation awareness and increases in unsafe behavior. Performing a dual-task, such as talking or texting with a cell phone while walking, may interfere with working memory and result in walking errors. At baseline, thirty-three participants visually located a target 8m ahead; then vision was occluded and they were instructed to walk to the remembered target. One week later participants were assigned to either walk, walk while talking on a cell phone, or walk while texting on a cell phone toward the target with vision occluded. Duration and final location of the heel were noted. Linear distance traveled, lateral angular deviation from the start line, and gait velocity were derived. Changes from baseline to testing were analyzed with paired t-tests. Participants engaged in cell phone use presented with significant reductions in gait velocity (texting: 33% reduction, p=0.01; talking: 16% reduction, p=0.02). Moreover, participants who were texting while walking demonstrated a 61% increase in lateral deviation (p=0.04) and 13% increase in linear distance traveled (p=0.03). These results suggest that the dual-task of walking while using a cell phone impacts executive function and working memory and influences gait to such a degree that it may compromise safety. Importantly, comparison of the two cell phone conditions demonstrates texting creates a significantly greater interference effect on walking than talking on a cell phone.

One of the co-authors of the study:

“We were looking at whether texting had more disruptions than talking on a cell phone,” Lamberg said.

Researchers asked participants to walk to a point 8 feet away and then asked them to return and repeat the exercise while texting, as well as talking on cell phones.

The researchers found “gait velocity is reduced when using a cell phone while talking or texting,” that “navigational errors occur when texting while walking” and “texting while walking produces greater interference than talking on a cell phone.”

“Cell phone use among pedestrians leads to increased cognitive distraction, reduced situation awareness and increases in unsafe behavior,” according to the abstract of the study in Gait and Posture online. “Performing a dual-task, such as talking or texting with a cell phone while walking, may interfere with working memory and result in walking errors.”

Participants who texted while walking “veered off course, demonstrating a 61 percent increase in lateral deviation and 13 percent increase in distance traveled.”

Lamberg said this shows the impact such distractions have on walking, an activity that seems automatic.

For many people, doing anything that requires diverting brain power for the sake of multitasking obviously reduces attention from one thing in order to engage in another. Some people are good at multitasking. Others are not. You don’t need a study to prove that someone enngaged in something more than simply walking will be less alert. But the purpose of the clinical research wasn’t to study pedestrian & traffic safety issues:

“We are using the findings to help physical therapy patients improve true functional walking,” he said, noting some tasks may affect their gait or certain aspects of memory. “In rehabilitation, we should use this as a tool to prepare our patients to be more ready to function in a natural environment.”

He said patients going through rehabilitation might even be told to text or talk while walking as they seek to regain their stride.

“We think using dual-task methodology is a way to challenge people during rehabilitation,” Lamberg said, noting, at a minimum, people might be prepared for this dual tasking. “Using cell phone use as part of a gait-training paradigm isn’t common in physical therapy.”

~~~

“We want to raise awareness that a real disruption occurs because of texting,” Lamberg said of the bigger picture. “Texting disrupts your ability much more than does talking.”

Should texting while walking be banned? That’s not the idea behind the research.

“Absolutely not,” Lamberg said. “I think it’s just to raise an awareness to this issue, that it does disrupt your ability to walk naturally.”

Here are a couple of examples of really dumb laws:

Greene, NY: It’s against the law to eat peanuts and walk backwards down the street while a concert is playing

Marion, OH: It’s a violation to eat a donut while walking backwards.

In Devon Connecticut:

It is unlawful to walk backwards after sunset.

While in Hartford you aren’t allowed to cross the street while walking on your hands (was this a frequent problem?).

Of course, there are tons like them.

So do we need more and more cumbersome laws to protect people from their own idiocy?

Who’s responsible: Alexa or the state of New York:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Or both? And does this incident require more legislation?! Or just more common sense on the part of both the city workers and Alexa?

Even malls can be dangerous:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Dumb solution idea? Legislate a fountain ban on malls or the city in general (after all, pedestrians also exist outside of malls- and they could sue!); or, or course, create a law banning texting while walking in a mall.

That lady who fell in could have seriously embarrassed hurt herself! Let’s legislate before that happens to someone else!

While we’re at this, why aren’t we banning swimming pools instead of guns?