“There’s always conflicting recollections of facts,” FBI Director Comey said.
It was a year ago and Comey was explaining why Hillary’s close aide, Cheryl Mills, not only received an immunity agreement in exchange for turning over her laptop, but a pass on lying to the FBI.
The FBI Director claimed that Mills had to receive immunity because the laptop might be protected by attorney-client privilege. Mills, like Hillary Clinton, had worked as a lawyer. But they were both government officials working for the State Department. Hillary wasn’t Mills’ client. The government was.
Comey and his people knew the law. They chose to ignore it to protect a key Hillary aide from rolling over. Mills was the woman Hillary would send in to clean up her dirty laundry. Mills had taken point on the email server cover-up. If anyone knew where the bodies were buried, she did. Instead not only did she get an immunity agreement, but the FBI also agreed to destroy the computers after the search.
Mills had told the FBI that she didn’t know about Hillary’s email server. But the FBI had notes and emails proving that Mills was lying. And when Comey was asked about it, he came out with, “There’s always conflicting recollections of facts.”
No doubt.
That is what the lawyer of the woman who had been caught lying to the FBI might have been expected to argue. But there were no charges, instead the FBI Director was presenting her defense.
George Papadopoulos and Michael Flynn were charged with lying to investigators. But lying to investigators isn’t a crime when you’re Hillary Clinton.
Or one of her associates.
Hillary Clinton had told the FBI that she had no idea that the “C” stood for confidential. Instead of laughing in her face or arresting her, the FBI boss testified personally to her truthfulness.
Hillary Clinton, Mills and Huma Abedin made what appear to be false statements to the FBI.
Had Mills been working for Trump, the same number would have been run on Mills as on Flynn and Papadopoulos. But the men interviewing Mills didn’t want her to sing. They wanted her to keep quiet.
Mills and Abedin were interviewed by the FBI’s Peter Strzok and the DOJ’s David Laufman. Strzok was exchanging pro-Hillary and anti-Trump messages in an extramarital affair with a woman working for FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe. McCabe’s wife had received a sizable amount of money from a Clinton ally. Laufman, whose counterintelligence section was heading the investigation, is an Obama donor.
Mills’ lie made it more urgent to hand her an immunity agreement on any pretext. The immunity agreement wasn’t leverage for her testimony. It was leverage to keep her from testifying. The obstruction of justice was coming from the inside.
Strzok received input on the Comey letter exonerating Clinton. The Mills interview killed two birds with one stone. A key Hillary aide got immunity and the evidence would be destroyed.
This wasn’t an interview. It was a cover-up.
It’s why Comey sounded like Mills’ lawyer. And why so many Clinton associates got immunity agreements. Why the FBI agreed to destroy evidence. Why there were no recordings of Hillary’s testimony. And why lying to the FBI wasn’t a crime when it came to Hillary and her aides.
But the double standard kicked in when the Clinton cover-up crew went after Trump.
While Mills received an immunity agreement based on an imaginary attorney-client privilege that didn’t exist, Manafort was denied attorney-client privilege with his actual attorney.
The double standard isn’t surprising when you look at who was doing the interviewing.
Strzok and Laufman had also interviewed Hillary. No recordings were made of the session. But Comey testified that it’s a “crime to lie to us”.
Not for the Clintons and their associates.
Hillary had told her interviewers that she hadn’t received training on handling classified information, but she signed a document testifying that she had. Hillary claimed that she hadn’t carried a second phone, but an aide, Justin Cooper, who made the server possible, testified that indeed she did.
Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills told the same lie.
These are the kinds of misstep that Team Mueller would have used to hang a Trump associate. But Comey testified that Hillary Clinton did not lie.
And that meant he was lying.
Not only did Clinton’s people lie to the FBI. But the head of the FBI had lied for them.
I predict Flynn will be exonerated from all this. And with Mueller’s teams past, other cases he has and will put forward may fall apart. NOT because he is wrong, but because of the tactics used (like with Enron and the like).
Very rarely to I laud this guy. (Hat-Tip to DAILY WIRE) But he is in a slim minority of Leftists that have [even if VERY late] spoken the truth about Pocahontas. LIKE when he says Trump is racist. He doesn’t have any proof of this, like I clearly show of Obama.
John and Ken discuss Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s actions in Libya creating modern day slave bazaars. Obviously what happened in the vacuum was Islam was just given space to apply the Quran. Take note that the five nations in this article are Muslim: “Top 5 African Countries Where Slavery Is Still Uncontrolled.”
Trust in the media is at an all-time low. But should it be? Why do fewer and fewer Americans trust the mainstream media. Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, author of The Smear, explains.
Here are some portions of the LARGE and EXCELLENT article at THE ATLANTIC JOURNAL:
…In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.” In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that “immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.” That same year, a Democratic senator wrote, “When I see Mexican flags waved at proimmigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”
The blogger was Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator was Barack Obama.
Prominent liberals didn’t oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to America’s economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America’s welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, “immigration is an intensely painful topic … because it places basic principles in conflict.”
Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone. The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all.
“A decade or two ago,” says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “Democrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.” How did this come to be?
[….]
A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. “The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,” Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. “If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.”
[….]
Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found FWD.us to promote a similar agenda.
This combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration’s costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way. In July 2015, two months after officially announcing his candidacy for president, Sanders was interviewed by Ezra Klein, the editor in chief of Vox. Klein asked whether, in order to fight global poverty, the U.S. should consider “sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders.” Sanders reacted with horror. “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he scoffed. He went on to insist that “right-wing people in this country would love … an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.”
Sanders came under immediate attack. Vox’s Dylan Matthews declared that his “fear of immigrant labor is ugly—and wrongheaded.” The president of FWD.us accused Sanders of “the sort of backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.” ThinkProgress published a blog post titled “Why Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda.” The senator, it argued, was supporting “the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect.”
Sanders stopped emphasizing immigration’s costs. By January 2016, FWD.us’s policy director noted with satisfaction that he had “evolved on this issue.”
But has the claim that “immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs” actually been proved “incorrect”? A decade ago, liberals weren’t so sure. In 2006, Krugman wrote that America was experiencing “large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages.”
It’s hard to imagine a prominent liberal columnist writing that sentence today. To the contrary, progressive commentators now routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits.
Obviously some are (to answer my own question). Who is perfect? What the press and many following them do is make opinions after viewing skewed or twisted fact. This will be a post I will return to and add to as the election cycle continue. Enjoy.
This has been a fun week for me. It allows me to explain to people I like how their opinions are often mislead by not lining up their thinking with the facts. A unfounded trust of media sometimes misleads these persons, or an underlying bias. I will change the names of the people involved to keep their identity (as many are friends) private and the embarrassment level low.
In conversation with a friend the term kook was used in referencing Michele Bachmann. I footnoted that as I was surprised because she is a self-avowed Republican and must know of all the attacks leveled at Reagan, a person whom she admires. However, when I posted the following video for her and mentioned this demeaning term, she wrote:
Here is her first response:
Yes, and I stand by my opinion. She is a ranter and a raver. Ha I think he has a crush on her ;)…one can be a conservative kook. I am. No one said she is not bright, one can be bright and a kook. The left respects us as much as we respect them, not at all, we demonize them they demonize us, around and around we go. It is tiresome and a waste of time when there is so much real work to do in this country.
Another lovely lady added:
Michelle Bachmann is an embarrassment to me! And ya don’t get ANY MORE conservative than ME!!!!
I politely continue the conversation:
Okay, for both you ladies. You have stated some things (“[s]he is a ranter and a raver,” and, “Michelle Bachmann is an embarrassment”). Please, since I do not know as much about her as you ladies about her, enlighten me. [A generalization is a good one if it points to reality.] A side note. I would respectfully disagree — also — with the point that demonization is of equal value between Left and Right (How Does the Left View the Right?). Chris Matthews, Michael Moore, and others can walk onto a campus and give a speech and be treated like celebrity’s. Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, have to employ personal body guards and the university has police in large numbers. From gatherings on the Mall in Washington (union/Democratic meetings leave it in shambles — Tea Partiers leave it cleaner than when they found it), to supposed violence/racism at Tea Parties compared to the Left’s gathering [the most recent was the teacher unions joining forces in L.A. with common-and-on (Welcome To Los Angeles). The conservative Republican has a different demeanor than that of their compatriot on the Left. Why, because the largely secular left has as their religion, not the Judeo-Christian ethic, but the “Rousseaulian animal” which they are founded on. Or as Ann Coulter points out, the “mob mentality.” A great quote I just added to my quotes page from a book I am reading is this (see my notes):
There is a Liberal sentiment that it should also punish those who take more than their “fair share.” But what is their fair share? (Shakespeare suggests that each should be treated not according to his deserts, but according to God’s mercy, or none of us would escape whipping.)
The concept of Fairness, for all its attractiveness to sentiment, is a dangerous one (cf. quota hiring and enrollment, and talk of “reparations”). Deviations from the Law, which is to say the Constitution, to accommodate specifically alleged identity-group injustices will all inevitably be expanded, universalized, and exploited until there remains no law, but only constant petition of Government.
We cannot live in peace without Law. And though law cannot be perfect, it may be just if it is written in ignorance of the identity of the claimants and applied equally to all. Then it is a possession not only of the claimants but of the society, which may now base its actions upon a reasonable assumption of the law’s treatment.
But “fairness” is not only a nonlegal but an antilegal process, for it deals not with universally applicable principles and strictures, but with specific cases, responding to the perceived or proclaimed needs of individual claimants, and their desire for extralegal preference. And it could be said to substitute fairness (a determination which must always be subjective) for justice (the application of the legislated will of the electorate), is to enshrine greed—the greed, in this case, not for wealth, but for preference. The socialistic spirit of the Left indicts ambition and the pursuit of wealth as Greed, and appeals, supposedly on behalf of “the people,” to the State for “fairness.”….
….But such fairness can only be the non-Constitutional intervention of the State in the legal, Constitutional process—awarding, as it sees fit, money (reparations), preferment (affirmative action), or entertainment (confiscation)….
….”Don’t you care?” is the admonition implicit in the very visage of the Liberals of my acquaintance on their understanding that I have embraced Conservatism. But the Talmud understood of old that good intentions can lead to evil—vide Busing, Urban Renewal, Affirmative Action, Welfare, et cetera, to name the more immediately apparent, and not to mention the, literally, tens of thousands of Federal and State statutes limiting freedom of trade, which is to say, of the right of the individual to make a living, and, so earn that wealth which would, in its necessary expenditure, allow him to provide a living to others….
…. I recognized that though, as a lifelong Liberal, I endorsed and paid lip service to “social justice,” which is to say, to equality of result, I actually based the important decisions of my life—those in which I was personally going to be affected by the outcome—upon the principle of equality of opportunity; and, further, that so did everyone I knew. Many, I saw, were prepared to pay more taxes, as a form of Charity, which is to say, to hand off to the Government the choice of programs and recipients of their hard-earned money, but no one was prepared to be on the short end of the failed Government pro-grams, however well-intentioned. (For example—one might endorse a program giving to minorities preference in award of government contracts; but, as a business owner, one would fight to get the best possible job under the best possible terms regardless of such a program, and would, in fact, work by all legal and, perhaps by semi- or illegal means to subvert any program that enforced upon the pro-prietor a bad business decision.)*
Further, one, in paying the government to relieve him of a feeling of social responsibility, might not be bothered to question what in fact constituted a minority, and whether, in fact, such minority contracts were actually benefiting the minority so enshrined, or were being subverted to shell corporations and straw men. †
*No one would say of a firefighter, hired under rules reducing the height requirement, and thus unable to carry one’s child to safety, “Nonetheless, I am glad I voted for that ‘more fair’ law.”
† As, indeed, they are, or, in the best case, to those among the applicants claiming eligibility most capable of framing, supporting, or bribing their claims to the front of the line. All claims cannot be met. The politicians and bureaucrats discriminating between claims will necessarily favor those redounding to their individual or party benefit—so the eternal problem of “Fairness,” supposedly solved by Government distribution of funds, becomes, yet again and inevitably, a question of graft.
David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing, 2011), 116-117, 122, 151, 154.
Here is one for you Sean, I personally think it shameful and not in the spirit of her Christianity that in one old anti-gay speech of hers in ’04 she singles Melissa Etheridge out, she expressed the hope that a breast-cancer-stricken Melissa Etheridge would take advantage of her illness to quit being a lesbian. I have more current faux pas’ but that one sticks with a person.
My response:
….Now on to the Ethridge thing which is one of ten listed of her craziest statements floating about the internet. Note that I am not here to defend lists against her, I doubt she will ultimately be the nominee, but this is a prime example of why one should investigate beyond pop-culture things said of Republicans (or for that matter, Democrats) filtered through the Huffington post or the Daily Kos which ends up digested by mainstream audiences.
Here is the Left’s understanding of her statement:
Michele Bachmann hopes Melissa Etheridge’s cancer will teach her to stop being gay
Here is the fuller quote about this 2004 point:
“Unfortunately she is now suffering from breast cancer, so keep her in your prayers. This may be an opportunity for her now to be open to some spiritual things, now that she is suffering with that physical disease. She is a lesbian**.”
In that same speech she intimated a bit more about her views saying that, “almost all, if not all, individuals who have gone into the lifestyle have been abused at one time in their life, either by a male or by a female.” Let me post a statement by a lesbian pro-choice pundit on this topic:
◆ … and now all manner of sexual perversion enjoys the protection and support of once what was a legitimate civil-rights effort for decent people. The real slippery slope has been the one leading into the Left’s moral vacuum. It is a singular attitude that prohibits any judgment about obvious moral decay because of the paranoid belief that judgment of any sort would destroy the gay lifestyle, whatever that is…. I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite represents the most serious problem facing our culture today…. Here come the elephant again: Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood — molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult. The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is, instead of the ‘coming-of-age’ experience many [gays] regard it as being. Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS. — Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (Roseville: Prima, 2003), 90, 99.
Every lesbian that felt close enough to share their thoughts on this issue with my mom during her hippie days to her trailer park days has been abused, usually by a male family member. And the two homosexual men I have been close enough to talk about their positions on same-sex marriage and their past have intimated a sodomistic experience at a very young age; one by a stranger, and the other by a family member. (They are both against same sex-marriage by-the-by, as are many homosexuals… just not the vocal part of that community.) That is not to say this has been the case in all homosexual experiences, as the last caller intimates via the Michael Medved Show (load and listen at the 15-minute mark: Observations About Public Perception of Homosexuality).
I believe Bachmann had this larger thought in mind (as she has most likely read every book by Tammy Bruce) when talking about this topic as well as the hope that one reflects on spiritual things more when sick than when not,
“But pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world” — C.S. Lewis.
Mind you she may not be very well spoken on issues that I have written an entire chapter on (Roman Epicurean’ism – Natural Law and Homosexuality), but she certainly didn’t say or mean what the Left accuses her of. Yeah? Can you see the subject/object distinctions? I am sure that if pressed on the issue by a knowledgeable person she would admit the only real sin is rejecting the finished work on the Cross offered by God through His Son. Which is the hope she intimated — not so clearly — in her speech.
** Just to be clear… I do not think cancer is caused necessarily by sin… we ALL are guaranteed with a 1-to-1 stat in regards to life and death. This will NOT change via a lifestyle choice. There are [though] serious health issues that are often ignored from this lifestyle, more is said on this via a post and under the heading, “Homosexuality and the Public Health”
After some other posts I end with this:
I wanted to wrap this topic of conversation up by showing how many bumper sticker mantras/beliefs enter into what we view as fact and what we base opinions off of. Opinions should always be based on truth, or what we can best understand as truth. The truth of the example given above is ACTUALLY that Bachmann asked her audience to pray for Melissa Etheridge, and tried to encapsulate what any apologist of the faith may try to point out — that God will at times use our toughest trials to evolve our spiritual thinking in leaps and bounds. I would agree that Michele Bachmann may not be able to make the point as eloquent as a “CS Lewis.”
[….]
For those who wish to understand how such thinking — as exemplified herein — becomes mainstream understanding, I will recommend a dated book that is one of the best at explaining this phenomenon:
That is a great read for fellow bibliophiles here. Much, Much thought.
Example Two
Obama’s $2-Million a Day Trip
After some fun I asked this of another friend who posted info on Bachmann’s “gaffes”:
…. Tell me, what most bugs you about Bachmann besides your ad hominem attacks.
He responded in large, but I will shorten the response:
Bachman’s ideology bugs me. Her extreme “Christian” values. My first impression of her was her HUGE lie about Obama’s 2 Million dollar a day” trip to India- she lied right to the camera! She’s just a miserable angry bitch to me, and you could only say “Obama Sucks” soooo many times without offering anything of value in return before it gets stale.
I respond:
I don’t think that was a lie Greg? I think people may have said some things based on bad information, this is different than a lie. For example, liberals tend to say Bush lied about WMDs. If he “lied,” then so did the French, German, Russian, Israeli Saudi Arabia, and Jordanian intelligence as well as the CIA. This would also make Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John F. Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Robert Byrd, and others liars (for more info, see my PAGE on WMDs). This is one word that is thrown around by libs almost as much as the race card. It would be like me saying Obama lied when he said there were 57 states. There has to be some leeway here on both side, yeah?
So before going further, let’s get this straight, if Michele Bachmann got her info from a source of good standing and repeated it, she would be wrong, and not a liar, right?
So news orgs and financial sites like http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/, and http://www.ndtv.com/, as well as the http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ basically said the following in some manner:
A top official of the Maharashtra Government privy to the arrangements for the high-profile visit has reckoned that a whopping $200 million (Rs 900 crore approx) per day would be spent by various teams coming from the US in connection with Obama’s two-day stay in the city. “A huge amount of around USD 200 million would be spent on security, stay and other aspects of the Presidential visit,” the official said in Mumbai.
Michele Bachmann then picked this up (maybe a staff member?) and ran with it. She didn’t lie Greg. Stop it. She was mistaken and took some bad information that the Indian press ran with. Right? This is your first main point and we need to reach agreement on this so that I [we] may know this conversation is one that maturely takes facts into consideration and changes our thoughts on the matter to fit the facts. Again, the main issue here is media bias… why would the press run with this and blame Bachmann as they did? Yes she said it, but she was not the author of this info. One of the most recent examples is this thanking by Michelle Obama to the press for leaving her kids alone and mediaites telling Michele Bachmann to her face all of her 23 foster children will be investigated (PJ MEDIA).
So she didn’t lie, right Greg?
He then retorts:
”a half truth is a while lie”. The false claim is in the same vein as John Kyl’s “over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is aortions” – selective information meant as slander, and not for any other purpose other than to spread lies, and just now on the news Michele wouldn’t address her “misstatements” other than she’s a “serious candidate”. You’re just trying to polish a turd with me on the Obama India trip, I’m not buying it.
I stay on topic after he rambles on on a myriad of topics:
(Stay focused.) We are still talking about one of your first points (outside of your use of “extremist” in describing a conservative woman of faith) and haven’t even made it to a second yet. Back up what you say, or, when what you believe doesn’t fit the facts – lay your pride aside and say, “you know, I may have jumped the gun with that.”
Okay, Bachmann didn’t even use a “white lie” when she passed on that information. She sisn’t twist any of it, she didn’t know it was false… she or her handlers ran with it based on the fact that it came from typically reliable sources:
Even as far back as Oct 23 the Economic Times said, “There will be US naval ships, along with Indian vessels, patrolling the sea till about 330-km from the shore. This is to negate the possibility of a missile being fired from a distance,” the officer said. (Economic Times)
So, are you willing to say on this point you may have jumped the gun? …. (My Facebook video [June 28, 2011] transferred to my YouTube):
Example Three
Believing Scientists Holding Nobel Prizes
He never answered my direct and clear questions or answered the evidence that challenged his embedded bias. Instead he used a tactic that 16-years of discussions on the www. have taught me… change the subject and bombard the person with many questions or topics… all at once. However, in his posting a “top-ten” list from online, I chose this one and then posted:
7. “There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design.” -Rep. Michele Bachmann, Oct. 2006
I respond:
Okay, since you are dodging my question/statement, I will give an example from your list. I guarantee that more than half of those can be explained away using the same common sense I did in the position above that you seem to not want to engage in, the example I gave of Melissa Ethridge near the beginning, and this one.
Bachmann said…. this: “There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design.”
Okay, Nobel Laureates who believe in I.D. or some form of it:
Here Uncommon Descent has a few listed, please, see their post for more info on each of these gentleman:
Nobel Laureate and Intelligent Design proponent: Dr. Brian Josephson (winner of the Nobel prize for Physics, 1973)
Nobel Laureate and Old Earth creationist: Dr. Richard Smalley (winner of the Nobel prize for Chemistry, 1996)
Abdus Salam (1926-1996), a winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics
Sir John Eccles (1903-1997), winner of the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1963.
Nobel Laureate Ernst Boris Chain (1906-1979), winner of the 1945 Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology
Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958), winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1945.
Guglielmo Marconi (1874–1937), winner of the 1909 Nobel Prize in Physics
1) Charles Hard Townes, winner of a Nobel Prize in Physics and a UC Berkeley professor; 2) Nobel Laureate Eugene P. Wigner (1963, physics); 3) I would argue that Einstein accepted a form of I.D.; 4) Richard E Smalley, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in chemistry, as asked to present the keynote address at Tuskegee University’s 79th Annual Scholarship Convocation/Parents’ Recognition Program; 5) Max Plank, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 6) Werner Heisenberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 7) Erwin Schrödinger, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 8) Robert Millikan, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 9) Arthur Schawlow, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 10) William Phillips, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 11) Sir William H. Bragg, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 12) Guglielmo Marconi, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 13) Arthur Compton, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 14) Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics; 15) Alexis Carrel, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; 16) Sir John Eccles, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; 17) Joseph Murray, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; 18) Sir Ernst Chain, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; 19) George Wald, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology; 20) Sir Derek Barton, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry; 21) Christian Anfinsen, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry; 22) Walter Kohn, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry; 23) T. S. Eliot, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 24) Rudyard Kipling, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 25) Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 26) François Mauriac, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 27) Hermann Hesse, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 28) Sir Winston Churchill, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 29) Jean-Paul Sartre, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 30) Sigrid Undset, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 31) Isaac B. Singer, Nobel Laureate in Literature; 32) Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 33) Theodore Roosevelt, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 34) Woodrow Wilson, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 35) Nelson Mandela, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 36) Kim Dae-Jung, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 37) Dag Hammarskjöld, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 38) Martin Luther King Jr., Nobel Laureate for Peace; 39) John R. Mott, Nobel Laureate for Peace; 40) Nathan Söderblom, Nobel Laureate for Peace.
Of course there are many scientists who were or are leaders in technology/science, literature and the like that are believers in some form of Intelligent Design. The example I give (and have given to you in past discussions is….
1) The guy most credited in getting us to the moon, Wernher von Braun: von Braun began work at the US Army Ordinance Corps testing grounds at White Sands, New Mexico. In 1952 he became technical director of the army’s ballistic-missile program. It was in the 1950’s that he produced rockets for US satellites (the first, Explorer 1, was launched early 1958) and early space flights by astronauts. He held an administrative post at NASA from 1970-1972 as well. We would have never made it to the moon if it were not for von Braun.
2) Dr Raymond V. Damadian is one that’s invention was key in diagnosing me with Multiple Sclerosis. He invented the MRI and his first working model is forever in the Smithsonian Institution‘s Hall of Medical Sciences
The MRI scanner has revolutionized the field of Medical Science. In 1977, Dr. Raymond Damadian invented the MRI scanner. The recipient of the 2001 Lemelson MIT achievement award, and the 1988 National Medal of Technology from President Ronald Regan, his name stands among those of the greatest inventors in the National Inventors Hall of Fame. Join us in this rare personal interview of Dr. Damadian as he describes the invention and comments on multiple scientific controversies related to the origin of life. His answers will surprise you and leave you pondering your own worldview. See amazing Medical MRI images and state of the art animations. Expand your mind.
3) Benjamin S. Carson, M.D., one of the world’s foremost pediatric neurosurgeons, is professor and chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University Medical School. Born on September 18, 1951, in Detroit to a single mother in a working class neighborhood, Ben showed promise from a young age. A graduate of Yale and the University of Michigan Medical School, he was rated by a Time issue titled “America’s Best” as a “super surgeon.” Dr. Carson was also selected by CNN and Time as one of the nation’s top 20 physicians and scientists, and by the Library of Congress as one of 89 “living-legends.”
These three men are young earth creationists (YEC) and support their claims by evidence and faith. One last point here are lists found on my blog
A few other examples of current men of science who are young earth creationists:
Professor Dr Bernard Brandstater—pioneer in anesthetics. Amongst many other achievements, he pioneered assisted breathing for premature babies with prolonged incubation and developed an improved catheter for epidural anesthesia, both adopted around the world.
Prof. Stuart Burgess—a world expert in biomimetics (imitating design in nature). He is Professor of Engineering Design, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK) and leads the Design Engineering Research Group at the university. Dr Burgess is the author of over 40 papers published in science journals, and another 50 conference proceedings. He has also registered 7 patents and has received various awards, the Wessex Institute Scientific Medal being the most recent.
Professor Dr Ben Carson—pioneer pediatric neurosurgeon. He was long-term director of pediatric neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. He was the first surgeon to successfully separate conjoined twins joined at the head and also pioneered surgery to cure epilepsy in young children, and much else. He has been awarded 51 honorary doctorates, including from Yale and Columbia universities in recognition of his outstanding achievements. He is a member of the Alpha Honor Medical Society, the Horatio Alger Society of Distinguished Americans, and sits on numerous business and education boards. In 2001, CNN and Time magazine named Ben Carson as one of the nation’s 20 foremost physicians and scientists. In that same year, the Library of Congress selected him as one of 89 ‘Living Legends’. In February 2008, President Bush awarded Carson the Ford’s Theater Lincoln Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the USA’s highest civilian honors.
Dr Raymond Damadian (see above)—largely responsible for developing medical imaging using magnetic resonance (MRI). He has been honored with the United States’ National Medal of Technology, the Lincoln-Edison Medal, and induction into the National Inventors Hall of Fame alongside Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright brothers. In 2001 the Lemelson-MIT program bestowed its lifetime achievement award on Dr Damadian as “the man who invented the MRI scanner”. It is commonly recognized that he was discriminated against in not at least sharing a Nobel Prize for his work (two others shared the award), although Damadian was the discoverer that diseased tissue would have a different signal from healthy.’
Dr John Hartnett—developed the world’s most precise atomic clocks, which are used in research and industry around the globe. He is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award (DORA) fellow at the University of Adelaide, where he is an Associate Professor. In his relatively short career, he has published more than 200 papers in scientific journals, book chapters, and conference proceedings.
Dr Raymond Jones—solved the major problem of the indigestibility of Leucaena (a tropical legume) for grazing cattle in Australia, among other achievements. This research has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to the Australian beef industry. He was honored with the CSIRO Gold Medal for Research Excellence, and the Urrbrae Award.
Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu—many pioneering contributions, especially in sickle cell disease management. He is Kwegyir Aggrey Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics, University of Cape Coast, Ghana, and Consultant Physician Genetic Counsellor in Sickle Cell and Other Haemoglobinopathies, Phoenix Hospital Group, London, UK. Ironically, sickle cell disease is often incorrectly held up as a ‘proof of evolution’ in science textbooks. Dr Konotey-Ahulu has received many awards in recognition of his work.
Dr John Sanford—has been granted over 30 patents arising from his research in plant breeding and genetics. His most significant scientific contributions involve three inventions, the biolistic (`gene gun’) process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization. A large fraction of the transgenic crops (in terms of both numbers and area planted) grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators. Dr Sanford was honoured with the Distinguished Inventor Award by the Central New York Patent Law Association in 1990 and 1995)
Dr Wally (Siang Hwa) Tow—groundbreaking research in ‘molar pregnancy’, a poverty-related disease. He was invited to lecture in some fourteen top Obstetrics-Gynaecology departments in America in 1962-3, including leading universities such as Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Columbia, New York, UCLA, Cornell, and Stanford. He was awarded the William Blair Bell Lectureship by the RCOG in recognition of the importance of this work. He served as Professor and Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National University of Singapore.
Don Batten, “Creationist Contributions to Science,” Creation 36(4):1 September 2014, 17-18. See also, creation bios.
What if people have the war in Iraq backwards? What if George W. Bush and the U.S. military won it, and Barack Obama and the Democrats gave it away? Well, we don’t have to wonder what if, because Pete Hegseth, who served in Iraq, explains what happened.
There is a war against cars in America. Regulators want Americans out of cars and onto trains, buses, and bicycles. Why? Because of what cars represent — freedom. Automotive expert Lauren Fix (“The Car Coach”) explains.
Ahhh…the freedom of being able to hop in your car and drive down a highway! When you hit the road, one thing is clear: cars embody the American spirit.
(I am changing some of my “Pages” to “Posts,” so some of this info is older to my site)
This is a discussion between myself and a black, lifelong Democrat. He intimated to me that he would never vote Republican because of the party’s racism. Okay. I asked him to provide me with one example or evidence of racism from Republican leaders. He offered me “birthirism.” Birthers are people who believe Obama was born in Kenya, and thus, not able to be President. Let us begin
What are our options with birtherism? Options:
a) Either the conspiracy theories are true, or; b) He lied to gain access and recognition at Occidental College/Harvard/Columbia an/or at his publisher… similar to Elizabeth Warren; c) The media made this up whole cloth.
Why do I only allow for the above two options? Let me explain and then we will continue with the response.
FIRSTLY, I truly believe Obama was born in Hawaii. In other words, I am NOT a birther in the true sense of the words meaning.
That being said, I do believe he lied about this in order to get more opportunities for educational as well as more opportunities to get published. I say this BECAUSE of the following evidence, which is: that only a few months after Obama threw his hat officially into the 2008 Presidential run, his publisher scrubbed their site of the following. And mind you, the following could not have happened without Obama’s consent/knowledge:
Obama’s literary agent changed Barack Obama’s bio page in April 2007, two months after he announced his run for President of the United States in February 2007. Before that, Obama’s bio said he was born in Kenya.
So, we can rid option “c” from above… we now know this was not a “hit job” by a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Here is an highlighted portion of the above which was on Obama’s publishers website from 1995-to-2007(to the right).
The media is not that smart to foresee into the future like that and plant said evidence with full-knowledge of Obama. So we have “a” and “b” left.
a) Either the conspiracy theories are true, or; b) He lied to gain access and recognition at Occidental College/Harvard/Columbia an/or at his publisher… similar to Elizabeth Warren;
Again, to be clear, I reject birtherism (“a”), but doing so doesn’t mean that common sense can say the following:
Obama was the first “birther.”
In 2003 for instance, when his publisher published Barack Obama’s book, Dreams of My Father, they wrote that Barack Obama was born in Kenya in their own promotional material (Gateway Pundit). Either way there is “some splainin’ to do Lucy.”
Back to the aforementioned Elizabeth Warren. Ann Coulter’s comments on Warren:
“Warren’s lie is outrageous enough to someone like me, who isn’t a fan of race-based affirmative action programs. Still, she is a liar, and she stole the credit of someone else’s suffering. For liberals, it should be a mortal sin: Elizabeth Warren cheated on affirmative action.”
If true of Obama… he would be doubly guilty of this mortal sin. One commentator on my FaceBook made this astute point that “Either way, Joe Wilson was right! He lies!”
BACK to the options.
a) Either the conspiracy theories are true, or; b) He lied to gain access and recognition at Occidental College/Harvard/Columbia an/or at his publisher.
We know the more modern theory was started by the Hillary camp during the contentious campaign between her and Obama (audio to the right). We also have the long-form birth certificate… as well as the birth announcements of Obama from Hawaii when he was born (from two papers: [1961] Honolulu Advertiser; and, [1961] Star Bulletin). So we can exclude “a,” that the conspiracy theories are true.
So, I am inclined to believe “b,” but more importantly… over the years I have been inundated with the “racist” label by those assuming I am a “birther.” So this is why I wanted to expand my thinking on this.
Let us expose the “racism” portion of this a bit more with an example from ThinkProgress (the title of the article is “9 Most Racist Moments of the 2012 Election“) that racism is in the root cause of this conspiracy rather than hyperbole. For instance they quote in their #1 example the son of a Republican, Jason Thompson:
Jason Thompson told a crowd of supporters at a brunch that “we have the opportunity to send President Obama back to Chicago — or Kenya.” Thompson is the son of former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson, who is now running for Senate. In attendance at the brunch was Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee.
In the original challenge by a friend, he stated that Republicans have racist tendencies, provable by their support of birther conspiracies. So my new question is this:
“If Obama used this canard [that he was born in Kenya] in order to receive more accolades or recognition at Harvard and/or his publisher, would this be evidence that he is racist”?
This is obviously hyperbole. But let’s say Jason really believed Obama was born in Kenya… I still cannot see “racism” in this remark. But this claim of racism cuts both was, as we will see. So, here are the four areas I will compare this “racism” claim made about being a birther and this being the best example a life-long Democrat can use to show “Republican racism.”
1) Dem vs. Repub % of belief in conspiracies;
2) what type of conspiracy?;
3) Who believed these conspiracy theories;
4) What is my point?
1) PERCENTAGES
(Speaking to my Democratic detractor) You are aware, I am sure, that the birther story was first started by a Democrat and the story made popular via Hillary Clinton.
For instance, Politico says this in one of their classic articles:
…Where did this idea come from? Who started it? And is there a grain of truth there? The answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama. The theory’s proponents are a mix of hucksters and earnest conspiracy theorists, including prominently a lawyer who previously devoted himself to ‘proving’ that the Sept. 11 attacks were an inside job. Its believers are primarily people predisposed to dislike Obama. That willingness to believe the worst about officials of the opposite party is a common feature of presidential rumor-mongering: In 2006, an Ohio University/Scripps Howard poll found that slightly more than half of Democrats said they suspected the Bush Administration of complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks….
So not only would Obama in 1995 would have to of intimated the idea that he was born in Kenya in 1995, here [above] Politico traces the “birther” beginnings to a Democrat. Let us digest this a bit.
I am combining the above with polls from Rasmussen (and others compiled at WIKI) that show an amazing thing. What is this “amazing thing,” you rightly ask?
Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.
Not sure? Not sure? To be clear, Democrats by over a majority believed Bush either knew directly or they said they were [basically] “still on the fence.” Here is more:
I’ve been looking for a good analogue to the willingness of Republicans to believe, or say they believe, that Obama was born abroad, and one relevant number is the share of Democrats willing to believe, as they say, that “Bush knew.”
There aren’t a lot of great public numbers on the partisan breakdown of adherents to that conspiracy theory, but the University of Ohio yesterday shared with us the crosstabs of a 2006 poll they did with Scripps Howard that’s useful in that regard.
“How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?” the poll asked.
A full 22.6% of Democrats said it was “very likely.” Another 28.2% called it “somewhat likely.”
That is: More than half of Democrats, according to a neutral survey, said they believed Bush was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks….
What is the percentage of Republicans that believed (at it’s height of belief) Obama was not born in America?
31% of Republican think/thought that Obama was not born in the states…
How many Democrats?
15% of Democrats believe the same… [well as 18% of Independents]
However, a third who believe him to be born out of the country approve of him (ABC-News and my RPT post).
2)WHAT KIND OF CONSPIRACY?
So we have two conspiracies to compare and contrast: 9/11 culpability, and birtherism. What do they show? Are their differences? Let’s work through these. One, birtherism, has a belief held that a person was born out of country, and that other people covered this up.
In other words… when Obama was a child/infant other adults made this happen. He, Obama, was powerless to affect it. Obviously, he was an infant or child. In fact, assuming the conspiracy true and giving the most leeway of the options behind it… Obama may not have known about this until his Presidential run.
What about 9/11?
This conspiracy asserts that a leader of these United States knew of the coming attack and allowed it to happen, thus killing fellow citizens and going to war over it [for oil, a myth]. Thus, murdering more Americans in a war over a conspiracy to profit.
Many of these Democrats also believe Bush was involved in making this happen (HotAir). So this conspiracy would be considered — if we had an evil scale — much more “evil” because it is an American in the highest office basically directly culpable for the death of innocent people.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist for an outside observer to say, “whoa, whoa, whoa… calm down DEMOCRATS! Yeah this other conspiracy [birtherism] is nuts, but it doesn’t posit such an overtly evil act.”
in other words a much larger number of Democrats are on the “fringe” and would be called racist if they were Republicans, for their crazy opposition to a black President. LIKE Republicans are called racist for their birtherism position. Which would also include the 15% of Democrats being equally racist who believe in this birther theory.
3) MAGAZINES, PUNDITS, AND LEADERS
Here is what the Left believes to be a radical, extreme right pundit, Ann Coulter. Her point is instructive, which is, no one in the major influence of the conservative/Republican believes this conspiracy (see Ann Coulter reject birtherism — to the right):
NOTE: not a single mainstream right-wing talk show host believed this (I should stipulate that I listen to Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, and Larry Elder). None of these conservative talk show hosts believed this. In fact, Michael Medved typically takes calls that disagree with him — which led to some great excoriation of this birther conspiracy (here are some of those calls).
I tackled the subject back in 2010 on my old blog, it on my old blog as well as my new site. And I am as conservative as you can get!
The next LOGICAL question becomes who in congress or Democratic leadership believed Bush knew? To name a few: Rep. Dennis Kucinich; Rep. Cynthia McKinney; Congressman Alan Grayson, etc.
4) What Is My Point?
Simply my point is this:
1) The complexity of the seemingly simple “around the cooler” accusation that birtherism equals racism is never addressed. If Republicans are painted as racist, then so to must Democrats since a large percentage of them are “birthers,” not to mention Obama was the O.G. birther and recent birtherism was pushed by Hillary Clinton’s camp.
Simply painting your opponent as bigoted or racist sounds good if one wishes to label and dismiss opposing viewpoints. It is the easy way out for the lazy of mind.
2) If such beliefs make Republicans racist or bigoted, how much more are Democrats with their larger fringe group pushing a theory that infers Bush was personally involved with this act?
3) Since almost all major conservative/Republican magazines, pundits, radio hosts, and Congressmen reject “birtherism,” and many more liberal/Democratic magazines, pundits, radio hosts, and elected-officials believed their own 9/11 theories AND birtherism to some extent… how does this paint the people pushing these conspiracies?
In other words, Republicans at least say Obama was lying about his place of birth in order to get special preference in educational and publishing opportunities; at most saying that Obama later found out about other peoples lies in getting him over to America as a child and tried to cover it up for his Presidential run.
On the other-side of the coin, you have Democrats saying that [at least] Bush knew about the pending attack and allowed it to happen in order to financially profit from a war[s]. At most they say he was actually involved in the taking down of the Trade Towers in order to go to war. BOTH options Bush is culpable for the murder of innocent and military lives.
Charles Krauthammer called former President Barack Obama’s “Profile in Courage” acceptance speech “complete moral condescension” during Fox News’ Monday night airing of “Special Report With Bret Baier.”
“It’s been a full 100 days but it’s nice to be reminded of why we should be grateful as a nation that he is gone,” Krauthammer said about Obama’s Sunday night speech. “There are a lot of arguments you can make on either side of the debate about Obamacare but notice how it was complete moral condescension. The other guys are cowards because I, and the people who support me, and oppose the legislation, stand with the poor and the afflicted and all of that and the others are on the side of the rich and powerful. That is nonsense.”
Claiming that Obama always assumed he was “on the side of angels” during his presidency, Krauthammer said a firm goodbye to the former president.
“Obama did that all through his presidency — always assuming he was on the side of the angels and always the one who was willing to go against public opinion when it was completely the opposite,” Krauthammer said. “He reminded us, reminded me, it’s been 100 days, but good riddance, Mr. President.”…….
