Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
November 21, 2012
In news that will satisfy anyone interested in the CIA talking points about the Benghazi attacks who is not Senator John McCain, intelligence officials are now coming forward and saying that the changes to those CIA talking points — the ones that McCain and his posse of Senators are so angry about — were measured choices made by ... intelligence officials, not the White House. Shawn Turner, the spokesman for the National Intelligence Director James Clapper, confirmed in a CNN report that the changes like "al Qaeda" and "terrorist" being scrubbed from the unclassified talking points came from the intelligence community. He said:
And as to why they did this, an anonymous official told CNN what David Petraeus had said last week: that these were measured changes that were done strategically as to not tip off the terrorist networks...
The Los Angeles Times has the report with an anonymous intelligence official who echoed the same points. McCain's office yesterday pivoted from grilling Susan Rice about her comments to Sunday talk shows in the wake of the Benghazi attacks to attacking the idea that the words "al Qaeda" shouldn't have been scrubbed from the unclassified CIA talking points given to Rice. "I participated in hours of hearings in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence last week..." his statement reads (omitting the fact that he missed a closed Senate briefing to hold a press conference about how upset he was at the lack of information.) "Senior intelligence officials were asked this very question, and all of them – including the Director of National Intelligence himself – told us that they did not know who made the changes," concludes the statement. Well, now we have our answer.
But judging by McCain's axe to grind, we don't expect that it will exactly satisfy him.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/11/so-whos-ruining-benghazi-talking-points-mccain-today/59229/
So, Who's Ruining the Benghazi TALKING POINTS for McCAIN Today?
In news that will satisfy anyone interested in the CIA talking points about the Benghazi attacks who is not Senator John McCain, intelligence officials are now coming forward and saying that the changes to those CIA talking points — the ones that McCain and his posse of Senators are so angry about — were measured choices made by ... intelligence officials, not the White House. Shawn Turner, the spokesman for the National Intelligence Director James Clapper, confirmed in a CNN report that the changes like "al Qaeda" and "terrorist" being scrubbed from the unclassified talking points came from the intelligence community. He said:
The intelligence community made substantive, analytical changes before the talking points were sent to government agency partners for their feedback ...There were no substantive changes made to the talking points after they left the intelligence community.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/19/official-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points-made-by-intel-community/
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/19/official-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points-made-by-intel-community/
And as to why they did this, an anonymous official told CNN what David Petraeus had said last week: that these were measured changes that were done strategically as to not tip off the terrorist networks...
"First, the information about individuals linked to al Qaeda was derived from classified sources," the official said. "Second, when links were so tenuous - as they still are - it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. Third, it is important to be careful not to prejudice a criminal investigation in its early stages."
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/19/official-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points-made-by-intel-community/
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/19/official-changes-to-benghazi-talking-points-made-by-intel-community/
The Los Angeles Times has the report with an anonymous intelligence official who echoed the same points. McCain's office yesterday pivoted from grilling Susan Rice about her comments to Sunday talk shows in the wake of the Benghazi attacks to attacking the idea that the words "al Qaeda" shouldn't have been scrubbed from the unclassified CIA talking points given to Rice. "I participated in hours of hearings in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence last week..." his statement reads (omitting the fact that he missed a closed Senate briefing to hold a press conference about how upset he was at the lack of information.) "Senior intelligence officials were asked this very question, and all of them – including the Director of National Intelligence himself – told us that they did not know who made the changes," concludes the statement. Well, now we have our answer.
But judging by McCain's axe to grind, we don't expect that it will exactly satisfy him.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/11/so-whos-ruining-benghazi-talking-points-mccain-today/59229/
November 19, 2012
Netanyahu Caught On Video Admitting He Manipulates America
AddictingInfo:
"...The Israeli leadership, and particularly Benjamin Netanyahu, seem to feel that they have the US in exactly the position they want us, wrapped around their little fingers. In this video, Netanyahu is caught telling a group of people that we will get out of their way, that we will be “moved in the right direction” and that he has no fear of us.
While Netanyahu is wrong that 80% of Americans support him, the American support is unwavering, despite the fact that far more Palestinians have been killed or injured in the latest round of attacks than Israelis.
Netanyahu was a friend and vocal supporter to Mitt Romney during the last election. It’s extremely rare for a foreign leader, especially of an allied country, to take sides in America’s elections. The political risk is simply too great. But as Netanyahu arrogantly anticipated, the political risk for a sitting American president to turn against Israel is probably greater.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/19/netanyahu-caught-on-video-admitting-he-manipulates-america-video/
"...The Israeli leadership, and particularly Benjamin Netanyahu, seem to feel that they have the US in exactly the position they want us, wrapped around their little fingers. In this video, Netanyahu is caught telling a group of people that we will get out of their way, that we will be “moved in the right direction” and that he has no fear of us.
While Netanyahu is wrong that 80% of Americans support him, the American support is unwavering, despite the fact that far more Palestinians have been killed or injured in the latest round of attacks than Israelis.
Netanyahu was a friend and vocal supporter to Mitt Romney during the last election. It’s extremely rare for a foreign leader, especially of an allied country, to take sides in America’s elections. The political risk is simply too great. But as Netanyahu arrogantly anticipated, the political risk for a sitting American president to turn against Israel is probably greater.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/19/netanyahu-caught-on-video-admitting-he-manipulates-america-video/
November 19, 2012
Two interesting new studies have come out during this election season, which might have liberals and conservatives at odds more than ever. Last year, a study done at Brock University suggested that a lower I.Q. goes hand in hand with both racism and conservative beliefs.
The findings are published in Psychological Science and the study is entitled “Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact.” Essentially, the study examines the impact of cognitive ability on social attitudes like prejudice and conservatism. The authors predicted that a lower cognitive ability, as measured by the subject’s intelligence quotient or I.Q., would lead to greater social prejudice in adulthood. The authors also hypothesized beforehand that the social prejudice would lead the subjects to endorse “right-wing ideologies”, namely “social conservatism” and “right-wing authoritarianism.”
Turns out, the authors were right on all counts. In the U.K., people with lower I.Q.’s in childhood were accurately predicted to be racists in adulthood and were also generally politically conservative. A second set of data from the U.S. found that people with lower cognitive abilities possessed more homophobic sentiments. Interestingly, the results were controlled for education and socioeconomic status, making the results applicable to a wider spectrum of people. The authors wound up suggesting “a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.”
The lead author, Dr. Gordon Hodson, believes that the results are cyclical: people with lower I.Q.’s tend to be more prejudiced, which leads them more readily toward conservatism, which is resistant to change, which eventually, leads to more prejudice. Another recent study gives us an idea of why these results might be so: ProCon.org assembled a list of 13 different peer-reviewed studies which conclude that liberals and conservatives might not just have different talking points, they actually have different brains.
Each of the studies examined different elements of dissimilarity between liberals and conservatives and had interesting results. Democrats, it seems, have a greater tolerance for uncertainty have because of their larger anterior cingulate cortexes, and Republicans are more sensitive to fear, because of their larger right amygdalas.
Psychiatrist Greg Appelbaum also found that conservatives are more likely to avoid individual self-harm, while liberals are more likely to avoid collective group harm. The researchers said it was important to keep in mind that it might not be that a person’s predisposition to certain neurological markers leads to their political affiliation and in fact, it may be a “chicken or the egg issue”, where a person’s political affiliation can actually change their physiological traits.
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/19/are-liberals-smarter-study-indicates-the-answer-is-yes/
.
Are Liberals Smarter? Study Indicates The Answer Is YES
Two interesting new studies have come out during this election season, which might have liberals and conservatives at odds more than ever. Last year, a study done at Brock University suggested that a lower I.Q. goes hand in hand with both racism and conservative beliefs.
The findings are published in Psychological Science and the study is entitled “Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes: Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact.” Essentially, the study examines the impact of cognitive ability on social attitudes like prejudice and conservatism. The authors predicted that a lower cognitive ability, as measured by the subject’s intelligence quotient or I.Q., would lead to greater social prejudice in adulthood. The authors also hypothesized beforehand that the social prejudice would lead the subjects to endorse “right-wing ideologies”, namely “social conservatism” and “right-wing authoritarianism.”
Turns out, the authors were right on all counts. In the U.K., people with lower I.Q.’s in childhood were accurately predicted to be racists in adulthood and were also generally politically conservative. A second set of data from the U.S. found that people with lower cognitive abilities possessed more homophobic sentiments. Interestingly, the results were controlled for education and socioeconomic status, making the results applicable to a wider spectrum of people. The authors wound up suggesting “a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.”
The lead author, Dr. Gordon Hodson, believes that the results are cyclical: people with lower I.Q.’s tend to be more prejudiced, which leads them more readily toward conservatism, which is resistant to change, which eventually, leads to more prejudice. Another recent study gives us an idea of why these results might be so: ProCon.org assembled a list of 13 different peer-reviewed studies which conclude that liberals and conservatives might not just have different talking points, they actually have different brains.
Each of the studies examined different elements of dissimilarity between liberals and conservatives and had interesting results. Democrats, it seems, have a greater tolerance for uncertainty have because of their larger anterior cingulate cortexes, and Republicans are more sensitive to fear, because of their larger right amygdalas.
Psychiatrist Greg Appelbaum also found that conservatives are more likely to avoid individual self-harm, while liberals are more likely to avoid collective group harm. The researchers said it was important to keep in mind that it might not be that a person’s predisposition to certain neurological markers leads to their political affiliation and in fact, it may be a “chicken or the egg issue”, where a person’s political affiliation can actually change their physiological traits.
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/19/are-liberals-smarter-study-indicates-the-answer-is-yes/
.
November 19, 2012
Rubio sells himself as a fresh face to represent a battered and stale Republican brand, but that sales pitch relies on his biography—not his policy:
If Rubio actually wanted to take a page out of the Democratic playbook, he might actually consider proposing some of their policies. Instead, he offered pretty much exactly the same thing that Republicans have been delivering for decades: conservative policy 101. For example:
Do less! Not more! Sound familiar? Well:
But wait, there's more:
So, less government, don't tax the rich, jingoistic American exceptionalism, and the guy's initials are MR. Are you sure we're not talking about Mitt Romney here, because this stuff sure sounds familiar. What exactly makes Rubio different? Apparently this:
So I guess Republicans believe that if they nominate a Cuban-American who talks about the need for immigration reform (but doesn't actually go into any detail about what that would mean), then all their problems are solved and they don't have change any of their other policies? Because that seems to be exactly the promise Marco Rubio is offering.
cont'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/19/1163072/-Marco-Rubio-2016-The-Great-Right-Hope
.
Marco Rubio 2016: THE GREAT RIGHT HOPE!
I....err....hmm...I think it reads better this way!!
It's not even December of 2012, but Marco Rubio is already in Iowa:
And so it begins again.
Thirty-eight months before the next presidential vote is cast, Marco Rubio on Saturday night became the first of the potential 2016 contestants to swoop in to this first caucus state and test the GOP’s new rallying cry to broaden its appeal.
Seven hundred people turned out to see the Florida senator at the annual birthday fundraiser bash for GOP Gov. Terry Branstad. Rubio had the spotlight all to himself — he said he was merely here to help the governor mark his 66th birthday, but no one believed it for a minute.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84002.html
Thirty-eight months before the next presidential vote is cast, Marco Rubio on Saturday night became the first of the potential 2016 contestants to swoop in to this first caucus state and test the GOP’s new rallying cry to broaden its appeal.
Seven hundred people turned out to see the Florida senator at the annual birthday fundraiser bash for GOP Gov. Terry Branstad. Rubio had the spotlight all to himself — he said he was merely here to help the governor mark his 66th birthday, but no one believed it for a minute.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/84002.html
Rubio sells himself as a fresh face to represent a battered and stale Republican brand, but that sales pitch relies on his biography—not his policy:
Taking a page out of the Democrats’ playbook on Saturday, the Florida senator wove his personal story into direct appeal to the middle class. “Our workers are not making as much as they made in the same jobs 25 years ago,” he said. “My father was a bartender. My mother was a maid at hotel. They were able to provide for us a standard of living. …”
If Rubio actually wanted to take a page out of the Democratic playbook, he might actually consider proposing some of their policies. Instead, he offered pretty much exactly the same thing that Republicans have been delivering for decades: conservative policy 101. For example:
To jump-start the country, he spoke of lower taxes, fewer government regulations on businesses, job training and a stronger nuclear family.
Do less! Not more! Sound familiar? Well:
And in a clear swipe at President Barack Obama’s commitment to raise taxes on the nation’s wealthiest, he said: “The way[s] to turn our economy around is not by making rich people poorer, but make poor people richer.”
But wait, there's more:
“If America declines, there is nothing to take our place,” he said. “What country is going to serve as an inspiration?”
So, less government, don't tax the rich, jingoistic American exceptionalism, and the guy's initials are MR. Are you sure we're not talking about Mitt Romney here, because this stuff sure sounds familiar. What exactly makes Rubio different? Apparently this:
“Something has to happen,” Branstad said in an interview. “That’s why Marco Rubio is a great choice for our party. America is the land of immigrants and he represents the American dream.”
So I guess Republicans believe that if they nominate a Cuban-American who talks about the need for immigration reform (but doesn't actually go into any detail about what that would mean), then all their problems are solved and they don't have change any of their other policies? Because that seems to be exactly the promise Marco Rubio is offering.
cont'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/19/1163072/-Marco-Rubio-2016-The-Great-Right-Hope
.
November 19, 2012
-...After election day, Anonymous followed up with a press release announcing that they had hacked into Rove’s lurching ORCA fail whale behemoth of a computer system to block Rove’s vote tampering scheme in Ohio, but DC blogger Wonkette snarks:
“If Anonymous hacked ORCA and caused it to explode miserably on Election Day, how could Anonymous ever prove that ORCA was actually a vote-thieving program? If they hacked in, couldn’t they have planted code to make it look like Rove was gonna fraud the election?”
(Though she then swiftly adds, “Not that we believe for a second that Rove wasn’t trying to fraud the election.”)
http://wonkette.com/489966/anonymous-claims-it-stopped-karl-rove-from-hacking-the-election-by-hacking-orca-we-think
Yet some writers — including this one — believe Anonymous’ claims are within the realm of possibility, and imbued with a ringing sense of “truthiness” that we just “feel in our gut.” In his “Anonymous Saved The Election?” piece, my fellow AI editor Nathaniel Downes — who’s also a computer whiz and knowledgeable about Anonymous’ various exploits — displays Anonymous’ letter, translates it from Geek to plain English, and ventures that the details seem too specific and authentic for someone to just make up.
Bondibox from Daily Kos writes,
A long article from Democratic Underground sardonically inquires, “Hmmm … Why Was Karl Rove So Adamant that Romney Not Concede Ohio?” and then segues into the messy aftermath, investigation, and possible murder following the 2004 election — which many believe should have resulted in challenger John Kerry (D-MA) unseating GOP incumbent President George W. Bush.
On October 26th 2008, Stephen Spoonamore — a computer expert and professional colleague of Rove’s IT guru, Michael Connell — wrote in his four-page sworn affidavit:
“During the evening and early morning on the 2004 General Election in Ohio, on my own computer I was watching the results of incoming counties and precincts. I believed there was a more than likely chance County Tabulators had been programmed to manipulate votes.”
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/Filed%20ExhG%20Spoon%20Decl%20Oct.pdf
Spoonamore further explained that the abrupt increase in Bush votes and decrease in Kerry votes followed a data pattern which “resembled a fraud technique called an Intelligent Man In the Middle, or KingPin Attack,” adding that the design of Rove’s and Connell’s SmartTech computer system was ideal for KingPin attacks. Craig Unger’s best-selling Boss Rove, Inside Karl Rove’s Secret Kingdom of Power confirms Spoonamore’s testimony:
As does Steven F. Freeman’s report for the University of Pennsylvania Center for Organizational Dynamics, The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy:
http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/ExitPoll.pdf
On October 31st 2008, Judge Marbley ordered Connell to file a deposition concerning his knowledge of the GOP’s computer system and possible vote tampering, and then summoned him to testify in court. Connell’s court appearance was scheduled for late December, but it never took place. On December 19th he unexpectedly died in a suspicious plane crash when the experienced pilot’s plane ran out of gas and crashed into a house in Akron, OH. According to John Byrne’s 2008 article in Raw Story, a friend of Connell’s had warned him not to fly his plane due to possible sabotage, and Connell had already cancelled two flights because he believed his plane had been tampered with. Connell had also reportedly requested protection from the court.
Raw Story‘s Larisa Alexandrovna added:
“He has flown his private plane for years without incident. I know he was going to DC last night, but I don’t know why. He apparently ran out of gas, something I find hard to believe. I am not saying that this was a hit nor am I resigned to this being simply an accident either … Mr. Connell has confided that he was being threatened, something that his attorneys also told the judge in the Ohio election fraud case.”
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Karl_Roves_IT_guru_Mike_Connell_1220.html
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/19/did-karl-rove-really-try-to-hack-election-2012-videos-conspiracy-theory/
Did Karl Rove Really Try To HACK ELECTION 2012? (Videos) (Conspiracy Theory)
-...After election day, Anonymous followed up with a press release announcing that they had hacked into Rove’s lurching ORCA fail whale behemoth of a computer system to block Rove’s vote tampering scheme in Ohio, but DC blogger Wonkette snarks:
“If Anonymous hacked ORCA and caused it to explode miserably on Election Day, how could Anonymous ever prove that ORCA was actually a vote-thieving program? If they hacked in, couldn’t they have planted code to make it look like Rove was gonna fraud the election?”
(Though she then swiftly adds, “Not that we believe for a second that Rove wasn’t trying to fraud the election.”)
http://wonkette.com/489966/anonymous-claims-it-stopped-karl-rove-from-hacking-the-election-by-hacking-orca-we-think
Yet some writers — including this one — believe Anonymous’ claims are within the realm of possibility, and imbued with a ringing sense of “truthiness” that we just “feel in our gut.” In his “Anonymous Saved The Election?” piece, my fellow AI editor Nathaniel Downes — who’s also a computer whiz and knowledgeable about Anonymous’ various exploits — displays Anonymous’ letter, translates it from Geek to plain English, and ventures that the details seem too specific and authentic for someone to just make up.
While some might consider this a random letter, or a jump to claim responsibility, if you step back and study the letter carefully a very clear message comes out.
They cite specific numbers. They state precisely how many tunnels are there. They cite how many passwords were attempted. But, there are key words which look innocent but, to a computer engineer, are very much a trigger.
These phrases are (our emphasis):
" We noticed these tunnels were strategically placed to allow for tunnel rats to race to the sewer servers from three different states.."
Now, to a normal person a rat is just that: a furry animal or a slang term for a scoundrel. But to a computer person, a rat is something radically different, a r.a.t. hack. The Remote Administration Tool hack is a method of remotely accessing a machine as if it were local. Using such a hack, you would have full access to the machine, at a level someone physically at the machine may not have. A “sewer server” is a term used to denote a hack over a secured tunnel, known as a Secured SHell (SSH), using a form of encryption designed to make it appear to be innocent background traffic.
This is not some general discussion, making claims in order to claim. They have released clear and specific details on what exactly was done, information which the people behind Orca can verify. Even more telling, however, is the name the group used for their denial of service attack: The Great Oz
“Oz” refers to the land in the classic movie, The Wizard of Oz; more currently, it refers to the television show Oz,which is about a prison. And the actions the group took was to attempt to hack the election into jail, locking it away. It broke, absolutely. We reported on the failures of Orca and its public face earlier. What Anonymous is claiming is that Orca’s public face was a farce, a lie. It was not to coordinate poll challengers so much as to steal the election.
The little cherry on top, however, is the hint that Anonymous not only blocked the operation, but kept copies of the code and data from Orca and are planning on leaking it to wikileaks. If and when this happens, you know AI will be there.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/17/anonymous-saved-the-election-text/
They cite specific numbers. They state precisely how many tunnels are there. They cite how many passwords were attempted. But, there are key words which look innocent but, to a computer engineer, are very much a trigger.
These phrases are (our emphasis):
" We noticed these tunnels were strategically placed to allow for tunnel rats to race to the sewer servers from three different states.."
Now, to a normal person a rat is just that: a furry animal or a slang term for a scoundrel. But to a computer person, a rat is something radically different, a r.a.t. hack. The Remote Administration Tool hack is a method of remotely accessing a machine as if it were local. Using such a hack, you would have full access to the machine, at a level someone physically at the machine may not have. A “sewer server” is a term used to denote a hack over a secured tunnel, known as a Secured SHell (SSH), using a form of encryption designed to make it appear to be innocent background traffic.
This is not some general discussion, making claims in order to claim. They have released clear and specific details on what exactly was done, information which the people behind Orca can verify. Even more telling, however, is the name the group used for their denial of service attack: The Great Oz
“Oz” refers to the land in the classic movie, The Wizard of Oz; more currently, it refers to the television show Oz,which is about a prison. And the actions the group took was to attempt to hack the election into jail, locking it away. It broke, absolutely. We reported on the failures of Orca and its public face earlier. What Anonymous is claiming is that Orca’s public face was a farce, a lie. It was not to coordinate poll challengers so much as to steal the election.
The little cherry on top, however, is the hint that Anonymous not only blocked the operation, but kept copies of the code and data from Orca and are planning on leaking it to wikileaks. If and when this happens, you know AI will be there.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/17/anonymous-saved-the-election-text/
Bondibox from Daily Kos writes,
“The skeptics among us might be quick to dismiss this story, but I say not so fast. We do know that Anonymous exists, and they have been adept at penetrating servers … And frankly they have proven themselves to be less bullshit prone than our politicians and broadcast media outlets.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/17/1162678/-Anonymous-claims-it-stopped-Karl-Rove-from-hacking-the-vote
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/17/1162678/-Anonymous-claims-it-stopped-Karl-Rove-from-hacking-the-vote
A long article from Democratic Underground sardonically inquires, “Hmmm … Why Was Karl Rove So Adamant that Romney Not Concede Ohio?” and then segues into the messy aftermath, investigation, and possible murder following the 2004 election — which many believe should have resulted in challenger John Kerry (D-MA) unseating GOP incumbent President George W. Bush.
On October 26th 2008, Stephen Spoonamore — a computer expert and professional colleague of Rove’s IT guru, Michael Connell — wrote in his four-page sworn affidavit:
“During the evening and early morning on the 2004 General Election in Ohio, on my own computer I was watching the results of incoming counties and precincts. I believed there was a more than likely chance County Tabulators had been programmed to manipulate votes.”
http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/Filed%20ExhG%20Spoon%20Decl%20Oct.pdf
Spoonamore further explained that the abrupt increase in Bush votes and decrease in Kerry votes followed a data pattern which “resembled a fraud technique called an Intelligent Man In the Middle, or KingPin Attack,” adding that the design of Rove’s and Connell’s SmartTech computer system was ideal for KingPin attacks. Craig Unger’s best-selling Boss Rove, Inside Karl Rove’s Secret Kingdom of Power confirms Spoonamore’s testimony:
“The Ohio vote was counted in Ohio, at 11:13 p.m. at night, the entire Ohio voting system crashed. A minute later they came up. In that minute, all the votes had been re-routed through a server system in Tennessee, and so all the vote totals flowed back into the system in Ohio, and John Kerry lost, even though the exit polls showed him winning.”
As does Steven F. Freeman’s report for the University of Pennsylvania Center for Organizational Dynamics, The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy:
http://www.appliedresearch.us/sf/Documents/ExitPoll.pdf
“Most Americans … sat down to watch the evening television coverage thinking John Kerry won the election. Exit polls showed him ahead in nearly every battleground state, in many cases by sizable margins … But then, in key state after key state, counts showed very different numbers than the polls predicted; and the differentials were all in the same direction.”
On October 31st 2008, Judge Marbley ordered Connell to file a deposition concerning his knowledge of the GOP’s computer system and possible vote tampering, and then summoned him to testify in court. Connell’s court appearance was scheduled for late December, but it never took place. On December 19th he unexpectedly died in a suspicious plane crash when the experienced pilot’s plane ran out of gas and crashed into a house in Akron, OH. According to John Byrne’s 2008 article in Raw Story, a friend of Connell’s had warned him not to fly his plane due to possible sabotage, and Connell had already cancelled two flights because he believed his plane had been tampered with. Connell had also reportedly requested protection from the court.
Raw Story‘s Larisa Alexandrovna added:
“He has flown his private plane for years without incident. I know he was going to DC last night, but I don’t know why. He apparently ran out of gas, something I find hard to believe. I am not saying that this was a hit nor am I resigned to this being simply an accident either … Mr. Connell has confided that he was being threatened, something that his attorneys also told the judge in the Ohio election fraud case.”
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Karl_Roves_IT_guru_Mike_Connell_1220.html
cont'
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/19/did-karl-rove-really-try-to-hack-election-2012-videos-conspiracy-theory/
November 19, 2012
SAY THAT AGAIN?? WHAT WAS THAT YOU SAID?....I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA: Sorry, I Couldn't Resist!!
SAY THAT AGAIN?? WHAT WAS THAT YOU SAID?....I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!
November 19, 2012
* all enhanced bold lines are my expression and not that of the letter's author.
Open Letter To MISOGYNIST John Boehner From A Feminist
* all enhanced bold lines are my expression and not that of the letter's author.
Dear John Boehner,
I must admit, in the past, I have referred to you as ‘John of Orange’ and I have also made fun of you for crying all the time. I mean, you ARE kind of orange and you DO cry a lot. But this isn’t why I am writing to you. I’m writing to you because I am an American woman and I voted for Obama. I voted for equality—equality for all, not just women. I think this idea of equality must be very frightening and disturbing to you. You see, you’re an old-timer, stuck in the stale belief that men are somehow superior to women, blacks, gays, Hispanics and anyone who is not a white male. There are many ways to illustrate this point, but the most recent, and frankly very disturbing, example of your fear, is your refusal to cooperate with a bipartisan coalition of Senate Leaders and extend the Violence Against Women Act.
Really Boehner??? I wonder why this is? Is it just because you hate that our black president was re-elected and wish to punish victims of domestic abuse? Do you just hate all women? Are you afraid that if men who beat women are punished—somehow your penis shrinks and you are less of a man? Boehner, how is it that you can believe misogyny will prevail? Were you not PAYING ATTENTION on November 6? Women kicked your collective Teapublican asses. Just ask Elizabeth Warren and Claire McCaskill.
If you haven’t noticed Boehner, women are really pissed off. Men like you have wanted to shove trans-vaginal ultrasound probes up our vaginas. You want to rob us of equal pay. You are FINE with the fact that a rapist can sue for the custody of his rape child in thirty-one states—even though he was not punished for RAPING the woman. (Of course, it WAS probably her fault. She has breasts and we all know she’s asking for it.) You want to take away Planned Parenthood clinics that provide preventive care and cancer screenings and you scream lies that they are abortion mills. Women have made it clear to you Neanderthals that we are over your idiotic bullsh*t.
The fact that you and other GOP leaders take cues from Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Hannity proves that down deep, you are all sincere cowards. Sad, little, tiny men who believe that because you are elected male officials, somehow you are above everyone else. I believe that 2014 will be your wake-up call and you’ll be scratching your head wondering what the hell happened—just like Romney and Ryan are doing.
Your party and its refusal to let go of all of the things that made you guys LOSE this election—misogyny, racism, inequality and the belief that the Koch Brothers and Karl Rove would be your successful Sugar Daddies—will prove to be your ultimate demise.
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Albert Einstein
If you guys would only learn and work with the president for the benefit of all, you might keep your seats while doing a good thing. You still have time to be a positive leader, one who initiates positive and progressive growth for all Americans. But you won’t and actually, that’s what I am hoping for and counting on. Because the more you guys obstruct and refuse to acknowledge that your views and strategy are outdated, the more chance we have of a Democratic majority in the House in 2014.
So, Boehner, have another scotch and soda after your spray tan and pretend that women aren’t paying attention.
Sincerely,
Kimberley A. Johnson – Feminist, Activist & Liberal Woman for Equality
Kimberley A. Johnson – A.K.A. The Anti Coulter is the author of The Virgin Diaries and an activist for women’s rights. Like her on Facebook, Twitter or friend her on FB HERE. Vist ARKStories to check out all of her books
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/18/open-letter-to-misogynist-john-boehner-from-a-feminist/
I must admit, in the past, I have referred to you as ‘John of Orange’ and I have also made fun of you for crying all the time. I mean, you ARE kind of orange and you DO cry a lot. But this isn’t why I am writing to you. I’m writing to you because I am an American woman and I voted for Obama. I voted for equality—equality for all, not just women. I think this idea of equality must be very frightening and disturbing to you. You see, you’re an old-timer, stuck in the stale belief that men are somehow superior to women, blacks, gays, Hispanics and anyone who is not a white male. There are many ways to illustrate this point, but the most recent, and frankly very disturbing, example of your fear, is your refusal to cooperate with a bipartisan coalition of Senate Leaders and extend the Violence Against Women Act.
Really Boehner??? I wonder why this is? Is it just because you hate that our black president was re-elected and wish to punish victims of domestic abuse? Do you just hate all women? Are you afraid that if men who beat women are punished—somehow your penis shrinks and you are less of a man? Boehner, how is it that you can believe misogyny will prevail? Were you not PAYING ATTENTION on November 6? Women kicked your collective Teapublican asses. Just ask Elizabeth Warren and Claire McCaskill.
If you haven’t noticed Boehner, women are really pissed off. Men like you have wanted to shove trans-vaginal ultrasound probes up our vaginas. You want to rob us of equal pay. You are FINE with the fact that a rapist can sue for the custody of his rape child in thirty-one states—even though he was not punished for RAPING the woman. (Of course, it WAS probably her fault. She has breasts and we all know she’s asking for it.) You want to take away Planned Parenthood clinics that provide preventive care and cancer screenings and you scream lies that they are abortion mills. Women have made it clear to you Neanderthals that we are over your idiotic bullsh*t.
The fact that you and other GOP leaders take cues from Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Hannity proves that down deep, you are all sincere cowards. Sad, little, tiny men who believe that because you are elected male officials, somehow you are above everyone else. I believe that 2014 will be your wake-up call and you’ll be scratching your head wondering what the hell happened—just like Romney and Ryan are doing.
Your party and its refusal to let go of all of the things that made you guys LOSE this election—misogyny, racism, inequality and the belief that the Koch Brothers and Karl Rove would be your successful Sugar Daddies—will prove to be your ultimate demise.
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Albert Einstein
If you guys would only learn and work with the president for the benefit of all, you might keep your seats while doing a good thing. You still have time to be a positive leader, one who initiates positive and progressive growth for all Americans. But you won’t and actually, that’s what I am hoping for and counting on. Because the more you guys obstruct and refuse to acknowledge that your views and strategy are outdated, the more chance we have of a Democratic majority in the House in 2014.
So, Boehner, have another scotch and soda after your spray tan and pretend that women aren’t paying attention.
Sincerely,
Kimberley A. Johnson – Feminist, Activist & Liberal Woman for Equality
Kimberley A. Johnson – A.K.A. The Anti Coulter is the author of The Virgin Diaries and an activist for women’s rights. Like her on Facebook, Twitter or friend her on FB HERE. Vist ARKStories to check out all of her books
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/11/18/open-letter-to-misogynist-john-boehner-from-a-feminist/
November 18, 2012
On ABC’s This Week Nancy Pelosi stood by the president’s insistence that the rich by made to pay their fair share.
Pelosi Said:
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been making it crystal clear that any deal that cuts Social Security will not pass the Senate. Reid said, “I’ve made it very clear. I’ve told anyone that will listen, including everyone in the White House, including the president, that I am not going to be part of having Social Security as part of these talks relating to this deficit.”
If congressional Democrats are unified, President Obama’s hand to play in these negotiations grows even stronger. One of the problems in the two previous negotiations with congressional Republicans was that the Democratic side of the Senate was divided. Too many senators, including Reid himself, put their own reelection first. Harry Reid weakened Obama’s hand previous by actively looking to cut a deal, even if that deal was bad for Democrats.
People who worry that Obama is going to “cave” in these negotiations don’t seem to understand that every negotiation is different. Political climates change, and leverage shifts. Obama and the Democrats have all the leverage. They can do nothing and get what they want. It is the Republican signature issue of the Bush tax cuts that is on the line this time. This isn’t 2010. It looks like Democrats are unified, and out to make Republicans pay a high price for their negotiating tactics of the past.
http://www.politicususa.com/pelosi-reid-obamas-back-social-security-cuts-taxes-raised-rich.html
Pelosi and Reid Have OBAMA's BACK: No Social Security Cuts & Taxes MUST Be RAISED On The RICH
Both Democratic leaders in the Senate have President Obama’s back on the fiscal cliff. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are both emphatic about the wealthy paying more taxes, and no cuts being made to Social Security.
On ABC’s This Week Nancy Pelosi stood by the president’s insistence that the rich by made to pay their fair share.
Pelosi Said:
“Well, no, I mean, the president made it very clear in his campaign that there is not enough — there are not enough resources. What you just described is a formula and a blueprint for hampering our future. You cannot go forward — you have to cut some investments. If you cut too many, you’re hampering growth, you’re hampering education, our investments for the future,” Pelosi said. ” If it’s going to bring in revenue, the president has been very clear that the higher income people have to pay their fair share.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/nancy-pelosi-no-fiscal-cliff-deal-without-tax-rate-hike-for-wealthy/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/nancy-pelosi-no-fiscal-cliff-deal-without-tax-rate-hike-for-wealthy/
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been making it crystal clear that any deal that cuts Social Security will not pass the Senate. Reid said, “I’ve made it very clear. I’ve told anyone that will listen, including everyone in the White House, including the president, that I am not going to be part of having Social Security as part of these talks relating to this deficit.”
If congressional Democrats are unified, President Obama’s hand to play in these negotiations grows even stronger. One of the problems in the two previous negotiations with congressional Republicans was that the Democratic side of the Senate was divided. Too many senators, including Reid himself, put their own reelection first. Harry Reid weakened Obama’s hand previous by actively looking to cut a deal, even if that deal was bad for Democrats.
People who worry that Obama is going to “cave” in these negotiations don’t seem to understand that every negotiation is different. Political climates change, and leverage shifts. Obama and the Democrats have all the leverage. They can do nothing and get what they want. It is the Republican signature issue of the Bush tax cuts that is on the line this time. This isn’t 2010. It looks like Democrats are unified, and out to make Republicans pay a high price for their negotiating tactics of the past.
http://www.politicususa.com/pelosi-reid-obamas-back-social-security-cuts-taxes-raised-rich.html
November 18, 2012
JOHN McEGG-ON-FACE NEEDS TO PUBLICLY APOLOGIZE TO SUSAN RICE!!
Asked about Senator Reid’s brutal letter to him in which Reid denied McCain’s calls to head a special committee to investigate Benghazi, McCain said at a press conference at the Halifax International Security Forum, “I’m concerned about four Americans who died. Their families need to know the circumstances, why it happened, how it happened, and where responsibility lies. That’s all. That’s all that we’re seeking. We’re not seeing a confrontation with anyone. We’re not trying to quote ‘take on anyone.’”
McCain claims that he knew better than the entire intelligence community (also known in Republican circles as “the administration” now) and thus he is not taking back his criticism of Susan Rice. The Senator said, “No, because I knew it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. People don’t go to spontaneous demonstrations with mortars and RPGs.”
To date, no one has asked McCain how he can “know” with such certainty what happened in Benghazi when he was not there, and when he clearly did not read the intelligence reports sent to him that Rice based her comments on, or attend the briefing in which he could have more fully informed himself.
In McCain world, it was simple; he knew because there were mortars and RPGs there. And yet, it was not so simple. Shocking, I know. There were actually two attacks, and the intelligence community seems to think at this point that they may have been two separate attacks – perhaps one spontaneous and one planned or some combo thereof. Furthermore, Petraeus suggested that Rice’s talking points were the unclassified version of what happened, something McCain should have grasped for obvious reasons since he claims to be an expert at national security. Perhaps he expected us to send a cable to the suspects on day one. But never mind McCain’s big talk on RPGs (you have to feel for the guy, clinging to his days as The Military Guy), what is really important here is that he now says he is not seeking a confrontation with anyone. From lies and calling for a Watergate-esque investigation to “We’re not trying to quote ‘take on anyone,’” McCain is backpedaling. Not so fast, Senator.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/mccain-backpedal-begins.html
The McCain BACK-PEDDLE on Benghazi BEGINS
JOHN McEGG-ON-FACE NEEDS TO PUBLICLY APOLOGIZE TO SUSAN RICE!!
The question we must ask ourselves is what next? Oh, but Sunday looms! We can’t have Sunday shows with McCain carrying neo-con water for the hawks. Any bets on whether the media will ask Senator McCain upon what evidence he based his allegations that the administration lied to the public on purpose? A statement that was in line with the unclassified (important note there that the Senator may wish to ponder) assessment of the intelligence communities is not a lie. New information is not a lie or a cover up.
The cover up would be if we were not told about the new information.
The cover up would be if we were not told about the new information.
Asked about Senator Reid’s brutal letter to him in which Reid denied McCain’s calls to head a special committee to investigate Benghazi, McCain said at a press conference at the Halifax International Security Forum, “I’m concerned about four Americans who died. Their families need to know the circumstances, why it happened, how it happened, and where responsibility lies. That’s all. That’s all that we’re seeking. We’re not seeing a confrontation with anyone. We’re not trying to quote ‘take on anyone.’”
McCain claims that he knew better than the entire intelligence community (also known in Republican circles as “the administration” now) and thus he is not taking back his criticism of Susan Rice. The Senator said, “No, because I knew it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. People don’t go to spontaneous demonstrations with mortars and RPGs.”
To date, no one has asked McCain how he can “know” with such certainty what happened in Benghazi when he was not there, and when he clearly did not read the intelligence reports sent to him that Rice based her comments on, or attend the briefing in which he could have more fully informed himself.
In McCain world, it was simple; he knew because there were mortars and RPGs there. And yet, it was not so simple. Shocking, I know. There were actually two attacks, and the intelligence community seems to think at this point that they may have been two separate attacks – perhaps one spontaneous and one planned or some combo thereof. Furthermore, Petraeus suggested that Rice’s talking points were the unclassified version of what happened, something McCain should have grasped for obvious reasons since he claims to be an expert at national security. Perhaps he expected us to send a cable to the suspects on day one. But never mind McCain’s big talk on RPGs (you have to feel for the guy, clinging to his days as The Military Guy), what is really important here is that he now says he is not seeking a confrontation with anyone. From lies and calling for a Watergate-esque investigation to “We’re not trying to quote ‘take on anyone,’” McCain is backpedaling. Not so fast, Senator.
cont'
http://www.politicususa.com/mccain-backpedal-begins.html
November 17, 2012
‘The new rule would change this simple bit. When the rule of cloture is invoked, a vote is taken on the measure and should it not pass a simple majority, the bill is killed. If, however, a Senator invokes the rule of cloture, and when the vote is taken it does not pass on the 3/5?s majority, but does on simple majority, the floor is immediately opened up for debate. Four calls for debate will go out, and if nobody steps up to debate, the cloture would be voted on again, this time only needing a simple majority to pass’.
Some are calling this the Mr. Smith rule, after the classic movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington starring James Stewart. This simple rule change, the tying of cloture to the debate, is one long needed in Washington. As a result, now if a minority party wishes to block a measure, they will have to go on the record as being against it, with footage of it. Now they just can go “no cloture” and can avoid the political fallout of things like blocking the jobs act or stimulus bill.
To remind people what a filibuster properly is, below is an example of a true filibuster, at 8 hours, 34 minutes, Senator Bernie Sanders took to the floor on December 10th, 2010, to filibuster the tax-cut extension deal. This is what a filibuster will mean now, not the farce it has become:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SandersF
http://thelastofthemillenniums.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/what-congress-does-filibuster-reform-now-official-reid-presents-new-filibuster-rule/
Filibuster Reform Now Official – Reid Presents New Filibuster Rule
This is the most important piece of legislation the Senate will debate all year.
If they don’t pass filibuster reform, we will simply have gridlock.
And the American people want governing.
‘To understand what is happening, you first need to understand the issue at hand’.
‘Right now, to pass a cloture measure, that is to close a bill to debate and then vote on it, you need 60 votes’.
‘In the past Senators wishing to block bills had to by debating endlessly. To address this, a rule was put into place in 1975 which allowed a 3/5 majority of senators sworn in to end debate’.
‘It rarely caused issues, until recently when the GOP began invoking the rule of cloture on every single piece of legislation, but then did not stand up to debate’.
‘In other words, they abused the rule intended to stop endless debate without actually debating’.
‘They would force a cloture vote, but there would be no debate for which to invoke cloture at all.
‘In 2011, when the new Senate was convened, Senator Reid met with the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and made a deal to limit the abuse of the filibuster in the new session’.
‘The handshake deal lasted for 40 days, with Senator Hutchinson of Texas invoking the rule on February 15?.
‘After that, 108 more cloture motions were filed, and of those 109, 70 had the majority vote. In the end, only 38 passed cloture and the bills voted’.
‘So much for the handshake deal’.
‘After Mitch McConnell lied to Harry Reid’s face, violating the agreement, the Senate Majority Leader will use the transition in January to the next congress as an opportunity to fix the rules so blatantly abused by the Republicans’.
If they don’t pass filibuster reform, we will simply have gridlock.
And the American people want governing.
‘To understand what is happening, you first need to understand the issue at hand’.
‘Right now, to pass a cloture measure, that is to close a bill to debate and then vote on it, you need 60 votes’.
‘In the past Senators wishing to block bills had to by debating endlessly. To address this, a rule was put into place in 1975 which allowed a 3/5 majority of senators sworn in to end debate’.
‘It rarely caused issues, until recently when the GOP began invoking the rule of cloture on every single piece of legislation, but then did not stand up to debate’.
‘In other words, they abused the rule intended to stop endless debate without actually debating’.
‘They would force a cloture vote, but there would be no debate for which to invoke cloture at all.
‘In 2011, when the new Senate was convened, Senator Reid met with the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and made a deal to limit the abuse of the filibuster in the new session’.
‘The handshake deal lasted for 40 days, with Senator Hutchinson of Texas invoking the rule on February 15?.
‘After that, 108 more cloture motions were filed, and of those 109, 70 had the majority vote. In the end, only 38 passed cloture and the bills voted’.
‘So much for the handshake deal’.
‘After Mitch McConnell lied to Harry Reid’s face, violating the agreement, the Senate Majority Leader will use the transition in January to the next congress as an opportunity to fix the rules so blatantly abused by the Republicans’.
‘The new rule would change this simple bit. When the rule of cloture is invoked, a vote is taken on the measure and should it not pass a simple majority, the bill is killed. If, however, a Senator invokes the rule of cloture, and when the vote is taken it does not pass on the 3/5?s majority, but does on simple majority, the floor is immediately opened up for debate. Four calls for debate will go out, and if nobody steps up to debate, the cloture would be voted on again, this time only needing a simple majority to pass’.
Some are calling this the Mr. Smith rule, after the classic movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington starring James Stewart. This simple rule change, the tying of cloture to the debate, is one long needed in Washington. As a result, now if a minority party wishes to block a measure, they will have to go on the record as being against it, with footage of it. Now they just can go “no cloture” and can avoid the political fallout of things like blocking the jobs act or stimulus bill.
To remind people what a filibuster properly is, below is an example of a true filibuster, at 8 hours, 34 minutes, Senator Bernie Sanders took to the floor on December 10th, 2010, to filibuster the tax-cut extension deal. This is what a filibuster will mean now, not the farce it has become:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SandersF
http://thelastofthemillenniums.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/what-congress-does-filibuster-reform-now-official-reid-presents-new-filibuster-rule/
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 02:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923