Jon Stewart In 2000 Interview: “I Would Say I’m More Of A Socialist”

This is the same guy who swore to Bret Baier he wasn’t a Leftist? He's a snide arrogant guy. Do you think he would want to increase the freedoms for people around him? Think about it

Obama wants Israel to have illegal immigrants from Hezbullah just like the US has

(Carl) wondes what they'll think of this in Arizona or Texas. The US State Department has slammed Israel for its treatment of asylum seekers.

The report, entitled 2011 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, stated that though the government has ceased the practice of immediately returning African asylum seekers arriving via Egypt, it "continued to deny many asylum seekers individual refugee status determinations, which impacted their ability to work or receive basic social services, including health care."
The reports says that Israeli law allows most asylum seekers access to temporary asylum, however, refers to complaints regarding accessibility to the system and reports of discrimination.
Citing United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) data, the report says that out of 4,603 new asylum applications submitted during 2011, the government rejected 3,692, approved one and, 6,412 remained pending.
The US also viewed negatively government officials' use of the term "infiltrators" to refer to asylum seekers, as well as officials who directly associations asylum seekers with the rise in crime, disease and terrorism. Interior Minister Eli Yishai was specifically flagged as an instigator.
Meanwhile, as the report was released, Yishai reiterated his views, telling channel 10 that "all infiltrators must be imprisoned, with no exceptions," and that the state must transmit a message to them all, that Israel does not accept them.

Just think: The United States Obama administration wants Israel to be just like the United States, and have Hezbullah agents infiltrating as 'refugees' from Africa, just like the US has Hezbullah agents infiltrating from Mexico.
If you think that last statement is an exaggeration, consider this from YNet.

The report says that while Israel's laws "provide for the granting of temporary asylum and the government has established a system for providing temporary protection for most asylum seekers, there were complaints about the system’s accessibility and reports of discrimination."
The current laws, the report added, "Allow the Ministry of Interior to reject applications without appeal even at the registration stage, and exclude 'enemy nationals' from receiving asylum. The regulations fail to establish an independent appeal process."

You got that? The mean, bad Israelis exclude 'enemy nationals' (like 'Palestinians,' Syrians and Iranians) from receiving asylum. Oh the horror! /sarc
And look what everyone else gets:

While "recognized refugees receive social services, including access to the national healthcare system," the report noted that the government does not provide asylum seekers with public social benefits such as health insurance.
The report does, however, mention that in 2011 Israel granted temporary protection to refugees, primarily to Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers, and at times to asylum seekers from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, and Somalia.

They get access to the national healthcare system. Hello - we have socialized medicine here. So what does it mean to say that we don't provide them with health insurance? Many Israelis have no healthcare beyond the national healthcare system. Why isn't the State Department worried about them?
Sorry but this report is ridiculous. There's no reason Israel has to provide benefits that are going to encourage more people to come here illegally. Every country has the right to protect its own borders. And thank God our leadership does not include Obama.

If Israel... and the United States just let everyone in... then there would be no incentive to come at all... because it would be a huge ghetto hell. It's disgusting to cry bigotry at people that everyone says they hate... but we all know they are just jealous because the Jews take care of their own... which is something everyone else doesn't. You don't help people by reinforcing their poor values within your own borders.

Elizabeth Warren Listed as 'Woman of Color' by Harvard Journal in 1993

(Breitbart News) has uncovered exclusive new evidence that in the spring of 1993, three years before Harvard Law School first publicly stated she was “a woman of color,” Elizabeth Warren likely made that claim while teaching at Harvard, and at approximately the same time the faculty was considering her for a tenured position. Warren, now running for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, told Politico as recently as May 15 that she had “no idea” why a Harvard Law School spokesman called her a “woman of color” in a 1996 Harvard Crimson article and a 1997 Fordam Law Review article. However, a 1993 issue of the Harvard Women’s Law Journal suggests that she knew very well indeed.(MORE)

Fauxcahontas How!

Rape Conviction Overturned When Supposed Victim Recanted — What About the Civil Damages Award?

John David Galt(Comment):

When an innocent accused person finds it in his best interest to plead guilty (or no contest), any person or system that regards that plea as "voluntary" is sick.
This is why we need a blanket ban on plea bargaining. Every defendant who is bullied into giving up his day in court has been cheated by the system, whether he did the crime or not.

(....why yes they do!) 
(You see how the feminists have been controlling the issue?)

The Los Angeles Times reports:

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge has reversed the 2002 rape and kidnapping conviction of former Long Beach Poly football standout Brian Banks.
Banks, now 26, was wrongly convicted of the charges based on the testimony of Wanetta Gibson, an acquaintance.
Gibson testified that Banks raped her on the Poly campus. Banks said the encounter was consensual.
Rather than face a prison term of from 41 years to life, Banks accepted a plea deal that [led to his spending 5 years in prison].
Gibson sued the Long Beach Unified School District, claiming the Poly campus was not a safe environment, and won a $1.5-million settlement.
Nearly a decade later, Gibson contacted Banks on Facebook, met with him and admitted that she had fabricated the story.

The AP account adds a twist:

According to documents in the case, she met with Banks and said she had lied; there had been was no kidnap and no rape and she offered to help him clear his record.
But she subsequently refused to repeat the story to prosecutors because she feared she would have to return a $1.5 million payment from a civil suit brought by her mother against Long Beach schools.
She was quoted as telling Banks: “I will go through with helping you but it’s like at the same time all that money they gave us, I mean gave me, I don’t want to have to pay it back.”

It’s not clear whether she ultimately did repeat the story to prosecutors, or whether the prosecutors got her admission some other way. In any event, I assume that — absent some statute of limitations barrier (a subject on which I’m not knowledgeable) — what’s left of the $1.5 million will indeed have to be paid back. (Thanks to Robert Dittmer for the pointer.)
This, by the way, raises again a difficult problem with he-said-she-said rape cases, where civil liability is available. I suspect that in a typical such case, one factor that cuts in the prosecution’s favor is “Why would she lie?” A defendant has ample reason to lie by saying that nonconsensual sex was actually consensual — his liberty is at stake. But a complainant in many cases has much less reason to lie by saying that consensual sex was actually nonconsensual; sure, in some situations there might be possible motivations for lying, but they are usually not nearly as strong as the defendant’s motivation.
Yet when the complainant can get millions of dollars in damages, either from a rich defendant on an intentional tort theory, or from some other entity — such as an employer or a school district — that could be held liable on a negligence theory, the complainant now has lots of reason to lie. Of course, this by no means that such a complainant will be lying, just as the defendant’s incentive to lie doesn’t mean that all defendants who testify that they’re innocent are lying. But it does, I think, make the defense’s case stronger and the prosecution’s case weaker.
The jurors don’t know for sure who’s telling the truth. But once they know that the complainant has a potential motive to lie, they’ll be less inclined to believe her — and at least to conclude that there’s a reasonable doubt about whether she’s telling the truth. If you were a juror and the evidence against the defendant besides the complainant’s testimony was weak, wouldn’t you be influenced by evidence that the complainant has a possible financial motive for making up the charges?
What to do about this, though, is not clear. Even if negligence liability against employers, school districts, and others for crimes by their employees or on their property is cut back — some people have argued that it should be — a victim could still sue a rich defendant, or even an upper-middle-class defendant who has some assets that could be seized. If someone physically attacks you, you’re entitled to get compensation from him. But this very possibility makes it harder to criminally prosecute rapists. I don’t know of a good solution to the problem, absent perfect lie detection technology or pervasive recordi

via volokh.com

Cunt