Friday, May 4, 2012

The Men in Julia’s Life

By now, everyone has read over the ad (slide show, whatever) from Obama’s campaign on the life of Julia, a composite figure who will supposedly get cradle-to-grave government care under the Obama regime. Of course, the only mention of a male in Julia’s life is her son Zachary, whom she has at the age of 31. There is an implied father but we never hear about him. And then there is this:
From cracking down on gender discrimination in health care costs to fighting for equal pay, President Obama is standing up for women throughout their lives.
Now, let’s see what happens to the men in Julia’s life.

The nonexistent husband or boyfriend, let’s call him Fred, has led a pretty sad life under the administration, as will her son, Zachary. Here is what they can look forward to from Obama’s “crack down on gender discrimination”:

Three years old: Put in Head Start where feminized teachers tell the parents the boy moves around too much and needs Ritalin.

Seventeen years old: After years of being told he is a perverted, good-for-nothing loser for being male, and hating school because he never learned to read well, he decides not to go to college. Or if he does finally decide to go, he finds himself sitting through lectures on why men are to blame for the ills of the world. Luckily, he sees a good-looking girl and approaches her. They get drunk one night and have great sex. The next week, however, he is summoned by the college administration and told that he raped this girl and is expelled from school without much evidence or any due process due to Obama’s “Dear Colleague Letter.”

Twenty-five years old: With no degree and a charge of rape that never stood up in court, he still has trouble getting a job and decides to become self-employed. With all the regulations and rules under the Obama administration, he has trouble getting set up but finally manages. No loans for him, as he’s not special enough like Julia.

Age 30: He meets a woman named Julia and they date for a while. Maybe things are turning around for him. They have sex and Julia tells him she is on the pill. A few months later, she is pregnant; he wants to get married but she can get better treatment with child support and the government paying her way and says “hell no.” Julia sues for child support. The next thing you know, she is living well and the man in her life is living part of the time on the streets and the other part in jail since he can’t afford the $1000 a month child support payment when his business is slow.

Age 37: He rarely sees his son, Zachary, and Julia has turned him against his father anyway. Zachary wants little to do with him.

Age 65: Enrolls in Medicare but is denied a prostate exam. He is male, don’t ya know. Gets prostate cancer but it is advanced due to not catching it in time.

Age 67: Dies broke after using his money first for Zachary and then to pay for Julia and other women’s upkeep in the Obama economy.

Age 68: Another statistic while the New York Times grumbles that not enough men are dying early like Julia’s guy.

Zachary at 37 doesn’t want to end up like his dad and, after years of facing his own discrimination for the crime of being born male in Obama’s regime, he starts a movement to get revenge on the system that has oppressed him and his father. Civilization is never the same.


Wondering why there’s little or nothing left in the bank before next payday? It is because of the hopeless change!


After three years of Obama ...Here's your change!
3-31-12 gas here is (reg) $4.13
January 2009
% chg
Avg. Retail price/gallon gas in U.S.
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel)
Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel)
Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. Fob
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall
Unemployment rate, blacks
Number of unemployed
Number of fed. Employees
Real median household income
Number of food stamp recipients
Number of unemployment benefit recipients
Number of long-term unemployed
Poverty rate, individuals
People in poverty in U.S.
U.S. Rank in Economic Freedom World Rankings
Present Situation Index
Failed banks
U.S. Dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate
U.S. Money supply, M1, in billions
U.S. Money supply, M2, in billions
National debt, in trillions
Just take this last item: In the last two years we have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire nation's history. Over 27 times as fast. Metaphorically speaking, if you are driving in the right lane doing 65 MPH and a car rockets past you in the left lane. 27 times faster, it would be doing 7,555 MPH! Sources: (1) U.S. Energy Information Administration; (2) Wall Street Journal; (3) Bureau of Labor Statistics; (4) Census Bureau; (5) USDA; (6) U.S. Dept. Of Labor; (7) FHFA; (8) Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller; (9) RealtyTrac; (10) Heritage Foundation and WSJ; (11) The Conference Board; (12) FDIC; (13) Federal Reserve; (14) U.S. Treasury So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 29 months -- so you'll have about 11 months to come up with an answer. Every statement in this email is factual and directly attributable to Barrack Hussein Obama. Every bumble is a matter of record and completely verifiable.

Occupy and Tea Party – Does the Media Tell You The Truth? ^ | 5.4.12 | AJ

Take a look at what goes on at a Tea Party gathering. Lydia Ortega, Brian Sussman, Mimi Steel and Neil Mammen were speakers at California's Silicon Valley Tea Party.

Silicon Valley Tea Party - 15 April 2012 - Lydia Ortega (A Professor at San Jose State University!)
Silicon Valley Tea Party - 15 April 2012 - Brian Sussman
Silicon Valley Tea Party - 15 April 2012 - Mimi Steel
Video that Mimi Steel referenced in her speech:
SFBAY CAPR-Mark Levin-CA War On Suburbia-4-9-12
Silicon Valley Tea Party - 15 April 2012 - Neil Mammen
Take a look at what goes on at an Occupy gathering in California's Oakland May Day Mayhem.
MAY DAY MAYHEM IN OAKLAND: Occupy continues on their Destructive Path

Who do you stand with? Do you stand with those who want to preserve and restore our free markets, property rights and Liberty? Or do you stand with the vile and violent Occupiers who want to destroy America (or, as Obama calls it, "transform America")?
Obama, his administration and specific Congressional Representatives have voiced their support for Occupy, so we know who they stand with. Will you be voting against them in the 2012 election?
Let's get right down to it... it's time to believe what you see with your own eyes, not what the propaganda media feeds you. Does the media tell you the truth? No.
Ask your family, friends and neighbors to watch these videos so they can see the dramatic difference between Occupy and the Tea Party. Then ask them if they knew the difference before they saw these videos.
It's time for everyone to decide who they stand with - and then stand! And vote accordingly!

Postal Service: House must act to stem mail losses!

AP via KnoxNews ^ | 5/4/12 | HOPE YEN, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — With financial losses mounting, the nearly bankrupt U.S. Postal Service is urging the House to quickly pass legislation that would give it wide authority to close thousands of low-revenue post offices, reduce labor costs and end Saturday delivery.

At its meeting Friday, the Postal Service's board of governors said that a bill passed by the Senate last week doesn't go far enough to give the agency the latitude it needs. That bill would provide the Postal Service with an $11 billion cash infusion to help pay down ballooning debt but halt the immediate closing of up to 252 mail-processing centers and 3,700 post offices.

The Postal Service called the closings a critical part of its cost-cutting plan to save some $6.5 billion a year and regain profitability by 2015. Anxious for legislative action but uncertain when the House may act, the mail agency says it will proceed with its planned closings after May 15, but in a "methodical and measured" way that considers the special needs of rural communities.

"The bottom line is that the Senate bill does not provide the Postal Service with the flexibility and speed that it needs to have a sustainable business model,"

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Web put off-limits to Social Security claims judges! (those judges say would help in uncovering fraud)

The Washington Times ^ | Thursday, May 3, 2012 | Stephen Dinan

The Social Security Administration last month told its disability-claims judges they are no longer to seek out information from websites when deciding cases — taking away a tool some of those judges say would help in uncovering fraud.

Agency officials said reviewers can't trust information posted online, and also said the mere act of typing in queries could compromise protected private information, so they shouldn't try to access anything.
Social Security's ban covers all Internet sites, including social media such as Facebook.

But Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican and a top taxpayer watchdog, said avoiding the Internet means giving up a valuable anti-fraud weapon — one that he said even federal courts have relied upon in some disability cases.

"If an individual claims to be disabled, and then publicly posts a picture participating in a sport or physical activity on a social media website, such information should be used by [adjudicators] to determine if the claimant was truly disabled," Mr. Coburn wrote in a letter last week to Social Security Commissioner Michael J. Astrue.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Why Obama can't match the Reagan recovery

CNNMoney ^ | 5/4/2012 | Charles Riley

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- April's jobs report was, in a word, disappointing. The economy added only 115,000 jobs. Hiring slowed. More than 340,000 workers dropped out of the labor force.
April's report, which follows lackluster numbers for March, is particularly bad news for President Obama's campaign staff in Chicago.

Election forecasters have long argued that a swiftly improving economy in the months leading up to Election Day represents Obama's best chance for an easy re-election romp.

After all, that's the playbook Ronald Reagan used to steamroll Walter Mondale in 1984. Reagan was able to capture a whopping 525 electoral votes, in part because the economy was rapidly climbing out of a recession as voters went to the polls.

But now, it looks like the Obama team will have to set aside hopes of a Reaganesque recovery. That's because job growth is following a familiar pattern: strong in the winter, weak in the spring.

A few months ago, it looked like the labor market was starting to gain some traction. The economy added 200,000+ jobs from December through February.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Did Americans of the Past, Understand Money Better, than the Americans of Today?

 by pinochet

When young Americans read the history of the New Deal Era in the 1930s, they ask themselves how the FDR administration could have imposed a 90 percent top tax rate on rich Americans. From the New Deal Era to the 1970s, Americans believed in tax and spend policies. From the 1980s, Americans adopted borrow and spend policies.

Tax and spend policies are more moral and more justified, than borrow and spend policies. In the old days, Americans believed that all spending had to be paid for, and that one could not spend money that he did not have. Americans viewed borrow and spend policies as being extremely immoral, because they did not believe in imposing financial burdens on their children and grandchildren.

Americans were mostly hostile to indebtedness, and believed in living within their means. Personal bankruptcy was viewed as a sign of moral weakness. The most common debt obligations were home mortgages, and people did not take out loans just to buy the junk we are importing from China. The idea of printing money to cover federal budget deficits was unthinkable. America was the world's largest lending nation, and did not have to borrow money from any country. I think there is a direct link between the decline in personal morals since the 1950s, and the increase in bad ways of managing money.

Has pouring money down the “re-elect a Democrat Congress” sewer finally bled private unions out? ^ | May 4, 2012 | Kevin "Coach" Collins

The Department of Labor classifies almost half of America’s private union pension funds as either “endangered” or “critical” because they are so grossly underfunded.

Among the unions on this list are the Democrats’ favorite piggy banks; “the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), the International Brothers of Electrical Workers, the Laborers International Union of Northern America, the International Association of Machinists, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, the International Union of Operating Engineers and the National Plumbers Union.”

On average all private union pensions are almost 40% underfunded. In real life terms this means less than 1 of every 160 private union workers has a pension plan that can actually meet its contractually required monthly payouts.

Drunk with self delusion about the chance to create of a “Socialist Worker’s Paradise” since Barack Obama beat a rather weak Republican candidate in 2008 unions, both private and public, have been shoveling money into Democrat campaigns around the country.
Immediately after the 2008 election they donated heavily to try to unseat Georgia Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss in a runoff election and lost. Then in 2009 they poured millions into the campaigns of Democrat’s in Virginia and New Jersey trying to win governor’s races and lost.
By 2010 panic and desperation set in and private unions raided every available source of money in their control – most likely including pension funds – to hold the House and Senate.
They held the Senate but only because they redirected their contributions from dying Congressional Democrat campaigns and lost the House in record numbers. The SEIU put up $44 million and the National Education Association gave the Democrats $40 million of their members’ money.
No one in the media asked where this money came from, but we can guess……
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Eric Holder’s contempt of Congress citation takes shape - It’s go time.

HUMAN EVENTS ^ | 05/03/2012 | John Hayward

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, is preparing contempt of Congress charges against Attorney General Eric Holder for his failure to cooperate fully with the investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, the Obama Administration’s deadly gun-running program. Warnings were issued, deadlines have passed, and it’s just about “go time.”

To this end, Issa has prepared an extensive staff briefing(PDF) on the case, along with a draft of Holder’s contempt citation. A press release from the House Oversight Committee says the briefing paper “explains what happened in Operation Fast and Furious, the hardships faced by the family of fallen Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in getting truthful answers about his death, how agents who blew the whistle on the reckless operation have faced retaliation, and the carnage in Mexico that Fast and Furious has helped fuel.”

Among the lowlights of this paper are the ATF’s discovery that two of the top ostensible “targets” for the operation that pumped thousands of American guns into the hands of Mexican cartel killers were actually FBI informants; Holder’s failure to provide documents in 12 of the 22 categories set forth in House subpoenas; the stone walls thrown before Agent Terry’s family as they investigate his death; an ATF whistleblower whose career was ruined on the pretext of punishing him for downloading $8 worth of applications to his smartphone; the appearance of Fast and Furious guns at crime scenes across Mexico, including the murder of a state Attorney General’s brother; and the dismaying decision of Patrick Cunningham, criminal division chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona, to take the Fifth instead of testifying before Issa’s committee.
At 44 pages in length, Issa’s briefing paper is one of the most comprehensive summaries of the Fast and Furious scandal you can read online. Issa appeared on Fox News this morning to discuss the case against Eric Holder, noting his reluctance to “say to the Administration that we’ve come to the end.” He was very blunt about saying Holder’s Justice Department has lied to his committee.
In the middle of his appearance, the Justice Department released a statement – read to Issa while he was sitting in the studio – that said they’ve offered just about all the compliance they’re going to. The Congressman did not seem terribly surprised to hear it. Further stonewalling, he said, would be like Richard Nixon offering to release the Watergate tapes in fifty years, and the “drop dead date” for DOJ compliance with those House subpoenas is “immediately.”

People ask, why all the talk about dogs and contraceptives? The reason is: so they won't have to talk about jobs!

Breitbart ^ | 05/03/12 | Vincent Giandurco

[Today] the Labor Department will release its April employment report. If the rate goes down, the administration will brag a bit, but they won't dwell on it. They know that the unemployment rate does not reflect the actual number of people who need work. Did you ever wonder how many of them are really out there?

Let's put it in pre-recession, real numbers perspective. In July 2007, at the peak of the bling-years boom, there were 146.1 million people employed, 7.1 million unemployed, and 4.5 million working part-time "for economic reasons," which, added to the unemployed, gives the number for "underemployed” (U6). There were 78.7 million people not in the labor force. The unemployment rate was 4.6%.

Last month, in March 2012, there were 142 million employed, 12.7 million unemployed, 7.7 million U6, and 87.9 million "not in the labor force". The unemployment rate is now (supposedly) 8.2%.

With 154.7 million in the labor force, 1% represents about 1.55 million people. The unemployment rate is 3.6% higher, so there ought to be about 5.4 million less people working than five years ago.

That's not true. There are indeed 5.6 million more unemployed, but there are also a staggering 9.2 million more people "not in the labor force," most often because they can't find a job. That means the total number of additional people actually out of work compared to 2007 is 14.8 million, or 9.7% of the labor force. Add that to the original 4.6%, and the actual rate of unemployment is about 14.3%. 

Also, there are 3.2 million more people working part-time jobs because they can't find full-time work.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Sickly Job Growth Sets Up Unhappy Choice for Obama!

By /

“14.5 percent”
-- U.S. unemployment rate in April including those who have given up looking for work, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The U.S. economy added a sickly 115,000 jobs in April, but as discouraged workers continued to leave the labor force, the benchmark unemployment rate nudged down from 8.2 percent to 8.1 percent.
The more important number, the size of the potential labor force that is not employed, remained at a crushing 14.5 percent. Economists are alarmed not only at the puny jobs number in April but at the fact that the difference between the two figures, 6.4 percent, stands near an all-time high.

Having 6.4 percent of the nation’s employable adults out of economic circulation is big trouble. For older adults in that category, they may never be able to return to work. For younger adults, it means a lifetime of lower wages and slower advancement if they eventually get back in the hunt and find a job.
In April, about 522,000 Americans left the labor force, making the addition of 115,000 jobs look all the more alarming. In 2011, about 2.7 million Americans left the work force while only 945,000 came in.

This is similar to what Europe, which has alternated between recession and stagnation for a decade, has experienced. Long-term unemployment begets permanent unemployment. Permanent unemployment begets lower economic output, higher welfare costs and eliminates hopes for more rapid growth.

Liberals and conservatives disagree sharply about how to solve this downward cycle, but both advocate forms of economic defibrillation for a patient in cardiac arrest. The left is calling for big stimulus spending – a round of borrowing and government spending to jolt the economy back to life. Conservatives want tax cuts and deep government spending cuts to spur investments and rein in massive federal debts.

The concern for President Obama is that not only will he have to talk more about the economy and his previous policies as the cycle continues, but that he may have to offer a new prescription to reverse the trend. The president has been calling for the nation to stay the course and give his prior policies a chance to work, meanwhile focusing on ancillary issues like income inequality and green energy.
If Obama is forced to make a broader policy prescription it will be a very bad. He can hardly call for another deficit-fueled stimulus given the low estimation in which voters hold his 2009 one. But neither can he move right and suddenly embrace tax cuts and austerity.
There is good news here though: The utter uselessness of the old baseline unemployment rate may have finally been fully exposed. The baseline is a useful indicator in times of growth or recession, but not during periods of stagnation.

Power Play Index: Obama + 15
If we take a broad perspective on which states are up for grabs – including unlikely swing states like Missouri (almost certainly Republican) and Michigan (almost certainly Democratic) we find Obama leading with 196 electoral votes to Romney’s 181 with 161 in the toss-up category.
(Toss-up states include: CO, FL, IA, MI, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA and WI)

The Day in Quotes
“Dear Mr. President, Welcome to Ohio. I have a simple question for you: Where are the jobs?”
-- Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney writing in the Cleveland Plain Dealer ahead of an Obama campaign stop at Ohio State University.
“A decision to use destructive force preemptively will be taken if the situation worsens.”
-- Nikolai Makarov, chief of staff for Russia’s military, speaking at a Moscow summit on missile defense with Western nations, talking about proposed U.S.-NATO missile defense installations in Eastern Europe.
“The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security. Rising sea levels, severe droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.”
-- Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in a speech to the Environmental Defense Fund, as quoted by The Washington Examiner.
“For over a year, the Department has issued false denials, given answers intended to misdirect investigators, sought to intimidate witnesses, unlawfully withheld subpoenaed documents, and waited to be confronted with indisputable evidence before acknowledging uncomfortable facts.”
-- Draft of a contempt of Congress citation against Attorney General Eric Holder being circulated by House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa concerning the “Fast and Furious”

“It is very dangerous here.”
-- Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng talking to the Associated Press about reports that his friends and fellow foes of forced abortions and sterilizations have been beaten by authorities for trying to visit him since being returned to Chinese authorities by U.S. embassy officials.
“I believe the most important thing is that we respect each other and treat each other as equals and have accommodated each other's major concerns."
-- Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in remarks at the outset of economic negotiations with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
"We believe that the China U.S. relationship is stronger than it's ever been. We have developed a very open and honest relationship where we can discuss our differences, and we remain committed to bridging those differences whenever and wherever possible."
-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao at Beijing’s Great Hall of the People.
“Yeah, I think, marginally so.”
-- Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, when asked by radio host Laura Ingraham if presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney would be a better president than Barack Obama.
“$94 million”
-- Amount spent through the end of March by President Obama’s re-election campaign, according to an analysis by Bloomberg News.

And Now, A Word From Charles
“This is a very strong ad. Unlike the ads about John Kerry, it's not about one story or another story. This ad shows the words Obama has used himself. So the facts are not in dispute. It hits at several levels. It isn't just that Obama has turned a positive into a negative by attacking and using it as a partisan weapon, which diminishes him also but diminishes the solemnity of the event that was national event and he appropriated it for himself. It's the narcissism. And that is the deeper issue -- how they quote Obama using the first personal pronoun in the announcement of the event. ‘It's all about me. I did this.’ What about the guys out there that did it and risked their lives?”
-- Charles Krauthammer on “Special Report with Bret Baier.”

Chris Stirewalt is digital politics editor for Fox News, and his POWER PLAY column appears Monday-Friday on

Read more:

Obama assembling de facto propaganda ministry - Administration reveals plans to buy media broadcasts

WND ^ | May 3, 2012 | Steve Peacock

Obama assembling de facto propaganda ministry:

The U.S. State Department is planning to “buy” media broadcasts, as the Obama administration assembles a de facto propaganda machine, according to documents that reveal the president’s plans moving closer to the 2012 election.

According to information WND located via routine database research, State’s Bureau of Public Affairs is soliciting the help of “global news coverage service providers” to create and disseminate department “news.”

The selected contractor will provide “full-time, 24/7 service,” the Statement of Work for the plan said.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Welcome to the Stag-Nation ^ | 5-4-12 | Bob Krumm

This is what a stagnant economy looks like. The gain of 115,000 jobs is less than enough to keep up with population increases, and was below the median economic forecast for April. The only reason that the unemployment rate “fell” to 8.1% is because the labor force participation rate keeps dropping.

If you stop looking for work, you aren’t unemployed. But you’re not employed either. You’re just “missing.” You don’t count.

Welcome to the country we now live in: the Stag-Nation.


Labor force participation rate drops by a staggering 522,000 to the lowest level since 1981. That, btw, was two years before Mr. Mom, a movie about the entry of women into the workforce, forced there by the bad economy. This economy is so bad that women are kicked out of the workforce to a rate not seen in over 30 years.

I wonder what Julia’s going to do now.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Five Myths About Living Together Before Marriage

Christian Post ^ | 05/04/2012 | Dan Delzell

So you think there are advantages to living together rather than getting married. Before you close your mind any tighter on the issue, check out these five myths:

Myth #1
Living together first will tell us if we are right for one another.
No it won't. You are comparing apples to oranges. Just because one tastes good or bad to you doesn't mean the other will taste the same. Marriage is a totally different proposition than simply living together. Marriage is built upon a promise before God to remain faithful to one another. Living together involves no such promise. You could fail at living together with someone you may have succeeded with in marriage. It all depends upon how much both people are relying on God for assistance and love. By the way, the divorce rate of couples who live together first is significantly higher than for those who do not.
If your partner will not commit to you for life, don't deceive yourself into thinking that he or she will be willing to make that commitment at some later point. Marriage is a promise to stay together. Living together for many couples lasts about 18 months, give or take. At the end of that year and a half, you still have no idea how your partner might have done if you both had taken the plunge and made a lifetime commitment to one another. Now you will never know. You settled for the easy way in and the easy way out. Your shot at true love with that person gets blown away with the wind if you decide to shack up first.
Living together prepares people to find reasons not to get married. Marriage, on the other hand, is based on unconditional love and a lifetime commitment. It is not an "audition" for marriage like you have with cohabitation. All of us are imperfect and bound to slip up at various times during the audition. Talk about conditional "love." It's "I love you" now....and "I will really love you" once you prove you are worthy. You better walk on eggshells in that situation. It's get pretty dicey in a hurry....and awkward.
Myth #2
Living together will show us if we are sexually compatible.
Like us on Facebook
No it won't. That would be true if you were animals....say dogs for example. You are human beings. You both have a soul. Sex between dogs is only physical. Sex between human beings was designed to be physical, emotional, and spiritual. God designed it in such a way that sex outside of marriage will never produce what I would call a "spiritual orgasm." That is why it leaves you still feeling empty after the physical orgasm has gone away. Without a spiritual union through Christ, sexual compatibility is only measured in a superficial way.
If you have not yet had sex in marriage while both of you are born again and living for Christ, then you have no idea what you are missing. It is the total package....body, soul, and spirit. No wonder people without that union are often drawn to continue experimenting sexually to try to satisfy their hunger for a spiritual union in sex. That hunger can be satisfied, but only in marriage and only when both the husband and the wife are believers in Christ.
Myth #3
We are just as committed to each other as a married couple.
No you're not. Neither of you are "all in." You are both "hedging your bets." You are both still "kicking the tires." Your "commitment" is conditional. It's not "for better or worse." Instead, it's "for better or....see ya, wouldn't wanna be ya." Anyone in that situation must surely feel the pressure to perform. You have been given a trial run by your partner. Aren't you lucky.
Deep down, you know in your heart that marriage is far more than a piece of paper. It is a promise before God to love and cherish your spouse for life. People who only shack up also make a promise, sort of. "I promise to do my best....and to watch you very closely to determine if you are worth it. If it doesn't work out....oh well. It's not like we were married or anything."
Myth #4
Our friendship won't suffer by moving in together.
That's what you think. Your friendship will soon become tense and uncomfortable. You went from courtship to "no man's land." You're not married, but you're not really dating either. How boring....and unnatural. No wonder the comfortable feelings of friendship soon turn into the awkward feelings that come with shacking up. It's "friends with benefits....minus the unconditional friendship." There is always the fear of being kicked to the curb if you don't measure up. No security. No deep peace. Hence, you end up with a strained relationship that is fraught with angst. Not exactly the ingredients of a healthy friendship.
Myth #5
We can love one another just as much without marriage.
No you can't. God says so. It would be true if you had evolved from a monkey. In that case, the Bible would only be a storybook filled with fantasies. As it is, you did not evolve from a monkey. You were created by God in His image. He consists of three Persons in One God....Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You too are a being that is three in one....body, soul, and spirit. Monkeys are not three in one. God did not institute marriage between monkeys. God did not promise to bless a union of monkeys.
You have no idea how much love can fill your heart for your partner until you receive God's love in Christ and get on the "marriage train" for life. Comparing living together to marriage is comparing apples to oranges....and maybe even to know, the kind monkeys eat.
Dan Delzell is the pastor of Wellspring Lutheran Church in Papillion, Neb. He is a regular contributor to The Christian Post.


JEFFHEAD.COM ^ | May 4, 2012 | Jeff Head

President Barack Hussein Obama is certainly a President of firsts. Here's a fairly comprehensive list: (Read them and weep for our nation)

  • 1st half African-American President in history.
  • 1st President to claim that under his presidentcy the, "rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
  • 1st President to rack up over 5 trillion dollars in debt in less than four years.
  • 1st President to have the national debt exceed 10, 11 , 12 , 13 ,14 and 15 trillion dollars.
  • 1st President to spend a trillion dollars on shovel ready jobs that he later admitted never existed.
  • 1st President to invest/loan hundreds of billions to solar energy firms going bankrupt, then re-write the loans so the taxpayers were in last place when they did go bankrupt and his supporters walked away with their pockets full.
  • 1st President to have coninuous 8% or higher unemployment for over a continuous three year period.
  • 1st President to preside over a period where over 45% of the American public paid no taxes.
  • 1st President to have over 45% of the American people on Government assistance.
  • 1st President to preside over a cut in the credit rating of the United States.
  • 1st President to have 17 vacations in his first four years.
  • 1st President to issue an unlawful recess appoint when the Senate was not in recess (against the advise of his own Justice Department).
  • 1st president whose Attorney General presided over an illegal sale of thousands of illegal weapons to the Mexican drug cartels.
  • 1st President whose Attorney Genral blatantly dismissed charges against New Black Panthers who were filmed wearing camo uniforms and wielding Billy Clubs initmidating voters during the 2008 elections. Simply dropped the charges.
  • 1st President to call for our ally, Israel to retreat back to the pre-war 1967 borders.
  • 1st President to actively support the overthrow of an allied leader, at peace with Israel, in Egypt and support his replacement by militant Islamics, the Muslim bortherhood.
  • 1st President to sue a State for requiring valid IDs to vote.
  • 1st President to halt deportation of illegal aliens in order to issue them temporary work permits.
  • 1st President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing Oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
  • 1st President to sign into law a bill that permits the government to "hold anyone suspected of being associated with terrorism indefinitely, without due process. No indictment. No judge or jury. No evidence. No trial
  • 1st President to appoint 45 czars to issue directives in lieu of legislation
  • 1st President to bypass Congress and implement the DREAM ACT be executive fiat.
  • 1st President to threaten a private Auto Company (Ford) after it publically made light of bailouts to GM and Chrysler.
  • 1st President to threaten insurance companies after they publically complained that the President's health care legislation was why the had to increase rates.
  • 1st President to terminate America's ability to put a man in space.
  • 1st President to require private companies to disclose their political contribution records before being able to bid on government contracts
  • 1st President to golf over 90 times in his first four years.
  • 1st President to have 22 personal assistants/servants for the 1st lady.
  • 1st Presidnet to have a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000/year at taxpayer expense.
  • 1st President to publically threaten the Supreme Court while it was deciding a case...particular a case regarding his own initiative.
  • 1st President to propose taking over the entire health industry, which proposal and legislation is what the Supreme Court is deciding on.
  • 1st president to defy a Federal Court order to cease implementing his "Health Care Reform" law.
  • 1st President to tell a private manufacturing company which state it could or could not locate a factory in.
  • 1st President to refuse to comply wuith a Congressional Oversight Committee supoena
  • 1st President to withdraw an existing coal permit to a private company that had been properly applied for and granted years earlier.
  • 1st President to take over a US Auto Company and determine who its executives would be.
  • 1st President to aborgate US Bankruptcy law so he could turn the company over to his Union supporters.
  • 1st President to issue an Executive Order making his educational, travel, and health history a national security secret.
  • 1st President to fire an inspector General of Ameri-corps for catching a friend of the president in a corruption case.
Yep...this is the list of "1st"s this President, Barack Hussein Obama, has accomplish3ed in his first four years.

Voting machine concerns bubble up as WI recall elections near !

The Wisconsin Reporter ^ | 5-4-12 | Kirsten Adshead

MADISON — You might be forgiven for thinking John Washburn is paranoid.
Plenty of people do, Washburn admits with some humor.
The Germantown man, who tests computer software for a living, estimates that, when he gets to discussing the perils of electronic voting machines, about 70 percent of people think just that.
Twenty percent think there might be something to his worries, Washburn said.
And about 10 percent — those who do some digging — start to believe.
“Quite frankly, I’m not really concerned by (being called paranoid), because it’s highly correlated with how much people have checked my claims,” he said.
Washburn’s fears — that Wisconsinites and, really, voters nationwide, are putting too much faith in a questionable voting system — may be unfounded.
But he’s not the only one worried.

Vote stealer

As part of a University of California-Santa Barbara study in 2007 that reviewed electronic voting machines similar to some used in Wisconsin, researchers designed software they said “developed a virus-like software that can spread across the voting system, modifying the firmware of the voting machines. The modified firmware is able to steal votes even in the presence of a Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail.”

In March, using machines like some used in Wisconsin, Palm Beach County in Florida mistakenly declared the wrong winners in two city council races due to a computer glitch from those machines.
Reid Magney, spokesman for the Government Accountability Board, the state's elections watchdog, said Palm Beach officials didn’t follow the correct procedures, and he isn’t worried about the Wisconsin voting machines.
“They caught the error after the fact," he said. "They should’ve caught it beforehand if they (were) doing the required" testing.
Wisconsin is on the cusp of unprecedented recall elections of Gov. Scott Walker, Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch and four state GOP senators — elections the Wall Street Journal recently called “perhaps the second-most important election of 2012.”
Can Wisconsinites trust the machines to correctly tabulate their votes?
“Everything is fallible,” said Jim Mueller, an attorney with the nonprofit Wisconsin Citizens for Election Protection.
Are vote-machine companies operating on the up-and-up, or are they programming and installing machines that, when necessary, could do their political bidding?
“Are they? Possibly not. Could they? Yes,” Washburn said. “But the more disturbing part is that there’s no evidence to say that it is or is not happening.”
'A technical issue'
Washburn has been studying Wisconsin’s voting systems for six years, has been a regular visitor to GAB meetings when related issues come up and has filed lawsuits against municipalities as he has used open records requests to access voting machine memory card data.
His latest concern is that some communities, particularly in northern Wisconsin, may be using uncertified voting-machine systems.
If true, the allegations could lead to possible criminal prosecution, although that appears unlikely.
The GAB investigates those kinds of accusations, but said it believes Washburn is wrong in his assertion that communities need to have their voting systems recertified after swapping out an optical scan Insight machine for touchscreen Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Edge machines.
Voting machines have to go through numerous tests involving election officials and the public before being certified for use.
Here's a quick primer:
These are the types of machines being used for Wisconsin elections, said according to GAB campaign finance and elections supervisor Ross Hein:
•The AutoMARK is a ballot-marking device. A voter inserts an optical scan ballot into the system, the ballot is generated on the screen, the voter makes selections and casts the ballot, and then the system marks the ballot to be returned to be counted by optical scan equipment. •The optical scan system allows a voter to complete a paper ballot by marking an arrow or filling in an oval. The ballot is inserted into the optical scan system and is tabulated. •The touchscreen system allows a voter to select candidates by pressing on the touchscreen. The choices are printed out on a VVPAT — voter-verified paper audit trail required by state law for the voter to review. Once the voter is satisfied, the ballot is cast and the DRE will tabulate all votes. Washburn contends that if a municipality changes its voting system — meaning a particular combination of machines — that system as a whole must be recertified, even if the GAB previously approved the specific machines in question.
His belief is based on this:
GAB Administrative Code 7 states that an application for approval of any electronic voting system must include, among other things: “Reports from an independent testing authority accredited by the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) demonstrating that the voting system conforms to all the standards recommended by the federal elections commission.”
NASED standards, however, state that “in order to maintain its status as a NASED Qualified system, the hardware and software must be identical to the hardware and software tested . … Should it differ even slightly, it would not meet the definition of a NASED Qualified system and may render the system in noncompliance with state’s certification process … .”
Asked whether communities, including some in Barron County that swapped out an Insight for Edge machines, were allowed to do that without recertification, Hein said in an email that, “In this case of Barron County, yes, as long as the system is certified. … Also, they can also use separate Wisconsin-certified systems at a polling place, but the systems cannot be interconnected. The results have to be provided separately.”
Asked whether there have been instances when municipalities have replaced machines improperly, resulting in an uncertified system, Magney said, "We're not aware of any improper swapping."
He did say that GAB staff will address some concerns about voting machines, including questions about whether the state's voting machines are too old, as part of a report at the GAB meeting on May 15.
Use of an uncertified voting system, Hein said, would violate statute and administrative code, likely lead to an investigation by the GAB and could lead to “additional judiciary action.”
Washburn admits the certification question is “a technical issue.”
But he said the certification issue speaks to larger concerns that the GAB isn’t doing enough to ensure election laws are being followed.
Washburn objects to statements from GAB Elections Division Director Nat Robinson that the GAB sees county and municipal clerks as “partners,” instead of focusing on election-law enforcement.
“It’s easy enough to not find problems when you’re not looking for them,” Washburn said. “But the fact that I didn’t look, doesn’t mean there aren’t problems.”
Robinson recently told Wisconsin Reporter that “We don’t wield a club over our partners. Local election officials are our partners.”
But he said GAB does follow up with clerks to enforce the law when necessary.
"We regularly review clerk's actions, receive complaints about clerks and other election officials and follow up on them," Magney said.
Faith in safeguards
Election officials said they don’t take their responsibilities lightly and say the system has enough safeguards to ensure the security of Wisconsin elections.
Administrative code lays out an extensive process for voting-machine approval, including multiple tests by election officials and the public, culminating in a vote for approval by the judges who sit on the GAB.
Election officials also do spot checks of the equipment.
“I’ve conducted numerous recounts since we’ve had these machines and have yet to find a single discrepancy,” Barron County Clerk DeeAnn Cook said.
Cook said smaller communities in the county opted to exchange Insight machines for Edge machines because the Insight machines are more expensive to program, and most voters prefer the touchscreen technology.
It cost $6,000 to program the Insight machines for the state Supreme Court recount last year, she said — a pricey sum for a little-used machine at a time when the continuous cycle of recalls and recounts are stretching local governments’ coffers thin.
“Our acceptance of those (machines) in this area has been very, very high, and I think a lot of it is because they’ve proved themselves over and over again with the recount,” she said.
For people like Mueller and Washburn, it still feels like too much faith in a system designed by out-of-state companies that control the technology and, thus, the power.
“They’re not sworn in. They’re not subject to our laws,” Mueller said. “They’re the ones that are actually counting our ballots because the machine tabulations (are) being taken as gospel.
“With the big election (the Walker recall) on the line now, we’re hoping that we can ensure that no election fraud can occur."

Obama flirts with disaster, negotiates with Taliban! ^ | May 4, 2012 | Michael Dorstewitz

One day, a scorpion reached a river he wanted to cross. He saw a frog on the other side and called out, "Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?" "How do I know that if I help you, you wont try to kill me?" asked the frog hesitantly.

 "Because," the scorpion replied, "If I try to kill you, then I would die, too, for you see I cannot swim!" So the frog agreed. He swam over, and the scorpion crawled onto the frog's back. Halfway across the river, the frog felt a sharp sting and felt himself grow numb. "You fool!" croaked the frog. "Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?" The scorpion shrugged and said, "I couldn’t help myself. It’s my nature."

On the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death, President Barack Obama highlighted a security agreement he and Afghan President Hamid Karzai had signed that purported to usher in "a future in which the war ends, and a new chapter begins."

The president also said his administration is in direct negotiations with the Taliban. As Obama winged his way back home, two explosions erupted in Kabul, killing six and wounding 17. The Taliban immediately took credit for the suicide bombings. So much for negotiations.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

So, the Obama State Department declares the “War on Terrorism” finished!

Terror Trends Bulletin ^ | 4 May 2012 | Unknown

Late last week a State Department spokesman uttered “The war on terror is over.”

That utterance was followed up by President Obama’s surprise trip to Afghanistan (“coincidentally” on the anniversary of the operation that killed Osama Bin Laden, or so we are told…). While in Afghanistan, Obama gave a political speech aimed at folks back home in America in which he echoed the sentiments of his State Department spokesman in essentially declaring Al Qaeda beaten.

Before we deconstruct this politically motivated fantasy, we should probably point out that we are not now, nor were we truly ever engaged in a “war on terrorism.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Ball In Obama's Court: TransCanada reapplies for oil pipeline!

Fox News| Associated Press

The Canadian company that wants to build the disputed Keystone XL pipeline in the U.S. submitted a new application for the project Friday after changing the route to avoid environmentally sensitive land in Nebraska.

TransCanada said it applied again to the State Department for permission to build the pipeline to carry oil from so-called tar sands in western Canada to a company hub in Steele City, Nebraska. From there, the project would link up with other pipelines operated by the company to carry oil to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast.

President Barack Obama blocked the pipeline earlier this year, citing uncertainty over the Nebraska route -- a decision that drew fire from Republicans. TransCanada initially proposed a new route last month that would veer east around the groundwater-rich Sandhills region before looping back to the original route.

State Department approval is needed because the $7 billion pipeline would cross a U.S. border. The department confirmed Friday the application for the new route had been received.
The pipeline filing came on the same day as a disappointing report on U.S. job growth. The Labor Department said employers pulled back on hiring in April for the second straight month, evidence of an economy still growing only sluggishly, though the overall jobless rate slipped to 8.1 percent as more people gave up looking for work.
Obama is under pressure to support the pipeline from Republicans and business and labor leaders who argue it would create jobs; the State Department estimates it could result in up to 6,000 new jobs.
"The multi-billion dollar Keystone XL pipeline project will reduce the United States' dependence on foreign oil and support job growth by putting thousands of Americans to work," said Russ Girling, TransCanada's president and chief executive officer. "Keystone XL will transport U.S. crude oil from the very large Bakken supply basin in Montana and North Dakota, along with Canadian oil, to U.S. refineries."
"Our application for a presidential permit builds on more than three years of environmental review already conducted for Keystone XL," Girling added. "It was the most comprehensive process ever for a cross-border pipeline and that work should allow our cross border permit to be processed expeditiously and a decision made once a new route in Nebraska is determined."
The pipeline's opponents, including Democrats and environmental groups, say it would transport "dirty oil" from tar sands in Alberta, Canada, that would require huge amounts of energy to extract. They also worry about a possible spill. The pipeline would travel through Montana, South Dakota, Kansas and Oklahoma, in addition to Nebraska.
In blocking the pipeline in January, Obama said there was not enough time for a fair review before a looming deadline forced on him by congressional Republicans. The action did not kill the project but put off a tough choice on the once-obscure pipeline, which has become a flashpoint in the bitter partisan political fight over jobs and the environment and a focus of the presidential campaign between Obama his likely Republican opponent, Mitt Romney.
Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman signed a bill last month that allows the state to proceed with its review of the proposed pipeline through his state, regardless of what happens at the federal level.
A senior State Department official said U.S. officials would conduct a thorough review of the new application, with a final decision not expected until early next year -- well after the presidential election.
Officials will use previous studies to the extent possible, the official said, but will need to complete a new environmental assessment, especially since the route has changed since TransCanada first applied for the pipeline in 2008.
The State Department review is likely to include hiring an outside consultant, a point of contention in the original review conducted by the agency. Democratic lawmakers complained that the firm that conducted the review, Cardno Entrix, had a conflict of interest because of previous work with TransCanada.
The department's acting inspector general found no conflict of interest or improper political influence but said the State Department could have done a better job evaluating some concerns about the project and should improve its oversight of contractors.

Read more:

Global Warming Melts Away

American Thinker ^ | May 3, 2012 | Randall Hoven

Wondering where things stand on global warming? Let's go to the science of it. And by "science" I mean physical observations. Nothing complicated. What do thermometers say? What's happening with polar ice caps? And carbon dioxide?

In the following analysis I use publicly available data as provided by government scientists at places like NASA, the U.K. Met office, and NOAA. This is the data we're told to use and trust. I'm using it and trusting it.

Measured Temperatures. The two charts below show recent global temperatures (NASA/GISS data) in units of hundredths of a degree above the 1951-1980 average. The lines are linear regression trends for the extent shown. March 2012 was the most recent month of data at the time of writing.

Based on NASA/GISS data going back to 1880:
The trend of annual mean temperatures since 1880 is warming of 0.59 degrees Celsius per century. The trend over the last nine years (since 2002) is one of cooling. There has been no statistically significant (at 95% confidence level) warming in 14 years (since 1997). The trend in March temperatures for the last 12 years (since 2000) is one of cooling. There has been no statistically significant warming in March for 17 years (since 1995). March 2012 was the coolest March in 13 years (since 1999).
Based on NASA/GISS data going back to 1880:
The trend of annual mean temperatures since 1880 is warming of 0.59 degrees Celsius per century. The trend over the last nine years (since 2002) is one of cooling. There has been no statistically significant (at 95% confidence level) warming in 14 years (since 1997). The trend in March temperatures for the last 12 years (since 2000) is one of cooling...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Swing-State Voters Oppose Obamacare

National Review Online ^ | May 3, 2012 | Ammon Simon

Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, Randy Barnett points out a new Quinnipac poll of swing-state voters in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The poll is consistent with previous polling data on Obamacare, indicating that striking down all or part of Obamacare would not do great damage to the Supreme Court’s public image and perceived credibility.

According to the poll, 53 percent of Florida voters, 52 percent of Ohio voters, and 46 percent of Pennsylvania voters think Congress should try to repeal the health-care law. This is notable for how far voters are willing to go in their opposition to Obamacare, when offered that stark choice. A similar result comes when the voters are asked if they want the Supreme Court to overturn the health-care law. Fifty-one percent of both Florida and Ohio voters, along with 46 percent of Pennsylvania voters want to see the health-care law overturned.

Consistent with previous polling data, opposition to Obamacare cuts across party lines. Only 44 percent of Florida voters, 42 percent of Ohio voters, and 39 percent of Pennsylvania voters in the same poll were would be Romney supporters.

The polls in each state had a margin of error of +/- 2.9 percent. 

Al Sharpton's Anti-Arpaio Segment Shows White House 'Scared'

WND ^ | 03 May 2012 | WND Staff

A segment on Al Sharpton’s MSNBC show deriding the findings of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigation of Barack Obama’s presidential eligibility shows the White House fears coming revelations, according to WND senior writer Jerome Corsi.

Corsi, who has probed Obama’s eligibility for four years, said “it’s obvious that the White House is scared.”

The segment by Sharpton on his daily “PoliticsNation” show April 27 was an attempt to get out ahead of the news, Corsi said.

The White House is “front-running the story, putting it out through a surrogate trying to ridicule Arpaio’s investigation, because they know how much damage he is about to do to the president,” he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

spiking the ball

Posted Image

Last one off the cliff...

Posted Image

Print more!

Posted Image

Move Out you slaves!

Posted Image the employment office

Posted Image


Posted Image


Posted Image a new address

Posted Image

so cool

Posted Image

Economic Recovery

Posted Image

cleaver piece of art

Posted Image


Posted Image

End Badly

Posted Image

The Greek Lifestyle

Posted Image


Posted Image

Launching a new slogan

Posted Image


Posted Image

Budget Free

Posted Image

Real Climate Change

Posted Image

Gutting Medicare Advantage

Posted Image

Buying Obama: How the UAW Got the Best Investment Returns in History ^ | May 4, 2012 | John Ransom

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent expose by Sharon Terlep about how Obama’s economic policies end up as bad investments- for the rest of us.

You know? The 99 percent non-bailout people.

OK, it’s really not about that.

It’s about how even the worst union workers and plants under the UAW bailout got bailed out, while great workers at productive plants got the shaft- because they weren’t UAW shops.
Reports Terlep:

In the end, "we had to take care of our own members," says Cal Rapson, the former UAW vice president leading negotiations with GM. "It was unfortunate what happened to the others. But there wasn't enough to go around."

There never is enough when you’re a union boss and you are getting an $80 billion bailout.
That’s supposedly why we elect a president of the United States.
The president is supposed to be the president of ALL of us. But as Obama has made increasingly clear, he’s only the president of Trayvon Martin and Sandra Fluke and Eric Holder, and the half the Keystone pipeline that he himself squashed as well as Bob King, titular president of the UAW.
Because the truth is, as president of the United States, Obama has made a real fine UAW president.
I don’t think there is a special interest, a lobby or a donor who Obama wouldn’t screw over in order to take care of the 1 percent of workers who represent the UAW:
Despite being one of GM's most productive and cooperative factories, Moraine was closed following the company's 2007 labor pact with the United Auto Workers union. Under a deal struck by the UAW during GM's bankruptcy two years later, Moraine's 2,500 laid-off workers were barred from transferring to other plants, locking them out of the industry's rebound.
Oh, yes. The Moraine plant was a union shop, just not UAW. Instead the folks at the Moraine were represented by the International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers.
Right: Who?
That’s what Obama thought too.
Since 1990, the UAW has given $27,371,075 to Democrat candidates and $184,500 to Republicans according to the database
In other words, while GM and Chrysler shareholders and bondholders got the shaft, the UAW realized a 292,200 percent return on their investment from the money that they have invested in Democrat politicians.
The International Union of Electronic, Electrical, Salaried, Machine and Furniture Workers? They got no return at all. Perhaps because they aren’t listed as a donor for any candidates.
But that’s far better than the negative return that taxpayers are seeing from the bailout;
bailouts that tended to favor Obama’s biggest donors in 2008- financial services and unions.
The latest inspector general report says total bailout losses so far equal about $133 billion, with about 19 percent of that loss coming from the automotive industry.
Over time, some of that money may be recouped, but total losses are expected to be from $50 billion to $75 billion, and they could be higher.
The total bailout cost for automakers to taxpayers is expected to be about $25 billion.
Thanks Obama.
That plan is really working out for some of you.

4 years later, race is still issue for some voters (MSM and Rats play the race card, again)

msnbc ^ | 5/4/2012 | SABRINA TAVERNISE/NY Times

This is the land of die-hard Democrats — mill workers, coal miners and union members. They have voted party line for generations, forming a reliable constituency for just about any Democrat who decides to run for office.

But when it comes to President Obama, a small part of this constituency balks.

“Certain precincts in this county are not going to vote for Obama,” said John Corrigan, clerk of courts for Jefferson County, who was drinking coffee in a furniture shop downtown one morning last week with a small group of friends, retired judges and civil servants. “I don’t want to say it, but we all know why.”
A retired state employee, Jason Foreman, interjected, “I’ll say it: it’s because he’s black.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Ruling on health care law may affect Medicare [BO Tries to Intimidate SCOTUS]

Boston Globe ^ | 5/4/12 | Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar

... In papers filed with the Supreme Court, administration lawyers have warned of “extraordinary disruption’’ if Medicare is forced to unwind countless transactions that are based on payment changes required by more than 20 separate sections of the Affordable Care Act.

Opponents say the whole law must go. The administration counters that even if it strikes down the insurance mandate, the court should preserve most of the rest of the legislation. That would leave in place its changes to Medicare as well as a major expansion of Medicaid coverage.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...


The New American ^ | 5/3/2012 | Larry Greenley

One of the most successful grassroots campaigns during the past year has been the Stop Agenda 21 movement both at the local level and state level. However, we haven't heard as much about Agenda 21 implementation at the national level.

Of course, there were President Bill Clinton's establishment of the President's Council on Sustainable Development by executive order in 1993 and President Obama's "Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance" executive order in 2009. And, many federal agencies have been incorporating sustainability into various aspects of their organizations. Still, virtually all Stop Agenda 21 grassroots activity has been focused on the local and state levels.
The establishment of Clinton's President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) started a pattern of denial by federal government agencies regarding any connection with the United Nations Agenda 21. Even though the PCSD was clearly established in 1993 in support of the UN's Agenda 21 and its Sustainable Development proposals from the UN's '92 Earth Summit in Rio, the PCSD's statements and documents never referred to the UN and Agenda 21.

We have evidence that federal officials were taking pains to make the PCSD appear to be completely separate from the UN's Agenda 21 because J. Gary Lawrence, an advisor to the PCSD, said the following in 1998:
Participating in a UN advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society.... This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’ and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’ by undertaking LA21 [Local Agenda 21]. So, we call our processes something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management or smart growth.
This helps explain why virtually all federal activities in pursuit of sustainability rarely make any reference to the UN or the UN's Agenda 21, even though these federal activities are very much in sync with the UN's Agenda 21.
Nonetheless, there have been very significant developments regarding sustainability at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) beginning with its 40th anniversary in late 2010. On November 30, 2010, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson stated: "Today I am formally requesting President Cicerone and the National Academies convene a committee of experts to provide to the U.S. EPA an operational framework for sustainability that applies across all of the agency’s programs, policies, and actions."
Jackson added: "Today we have a new opportunity in front of us. We have an opportunity to focus on how environmentally protective and sustainable we can be. You see, it’s the difference between treating disease and pursuing wellness."

The National Academies of Science (NAS) responded with a detailed study, Sustainability and the U.S. EPA (aka the "Green Book"), which cost the EPA $700,000, and which was published in August 2011. The NAS also produced a five-minute video (see video also below) about this project.
Here are some excerpts from the 286-page "Green Book":
• "The [UN’s World Commission on Environment and Development] called upon the UN General Assembly to transform its [1987] report into a global action plan for sustainable development. The nations of the world did precisely that at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, or 'Earth Summit,' in Rio de Janeiro. These nations, including the United States, endorsed a global sustainable development action plan, known as Agenda 21, and a set of 27 principles for sustainable-development, called the Rio Declaration. Together, these agreements modify the definition of development by adding a third pillar — environmental protection and restoration — to the economic and social pillars of development."
• "First, the committee recommends that EPA formally adopt as its sustainability paradigm the 'Three Pillars' approach of 'Social,' 'Environment,' and 'Economic' dimensions of sustainability.”
• "Sustainability impact assessment is used to analyze the probable effects of a particular project or proposal on the social, environmental, and economic pillars of sustainability.”
Thus, the "Green Book" acknowledges that the nations of the world, including the United States, "endorsed a global sustainable development action plan, known as Agenda 21" at the '92 Earth Summit in Rio. Next, the NAS committee recommended that "EPA formally adopt as its sustainability paradigm the 'Three Pillars' approach of 'Social,' 'Environment,' and 'Economic' dimensions of sustainability.” Which would make the EPA sustainability paradigm exactly in sync with the three pillars of sustainable development agreed upon at the '92 Earth Summit. Finally, the NAS proposed a new tool for EPA, the sustainability impact assessment, that would be "used to analyze the probable effects of a particular project or proposal on the social, environmental, and economic pillars of sustainability.”
Therefore, it is apparent that the NAS "Green Book" is positioning the EPA to become the premier federal agency for implementing Agenda 21 in the United States.

EPA spokesman are wary in this highly-charged, election-year political climate about making any definitive statement regarding whether and how soon the EPA would adopt the "Green Book" sustainability methodology. However, it is clear from listening to the audio of the November 30, 2010, meeting where the EPA commissioned the NAS to produce a new "operational framework for sustainability" for the EPA that the EPA sees the "sustainability paradigm" as the future for the agency.
Moreover, just to keep it real for those of us accustomed to the American way of life, here is what Maurice Strong, Secretary-General of the UN Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, said in his opening speech to the attendees: “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class — involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.” (Emphasis added.)

Based on Strong's remarks, it doesn't take much of an imagination to predict just how much downward pressure on our standard of living would be exerted by a sustainability oriented EPA.

It also doesn't take too much talent at connecting the dots to understand that an EPA based on sustainability, an EPA that wants to pursue wellness, not treat disease, an EPA that wants to use "sustainability impact assessments" to analyze the probable effects of a particular project or proposal on the social, environmental, and economic dimensions of sustainability — that would be an EPA that would aspire to regulate in detail virtually every aspect of our lives, thus completely destroying our freedom and prosperity.

The point of all of the above is that even though the EPA is already guilty of vastly over-regulating us, an EPA based on an operational framework of sustainability would be much worse.

There's currently no legislation in Congress to stop the EPA from implementing the UN Agenda 21 concept of sustainability. Realistically, given the makeup of Congress, there's virtually no chance that a bill could be passed this year to stop EPA implementation of Agenda 21.
However, in light of the rapid growth of the Stop Agenda 21 movement over the past year, and the changes that will occur with the elections in November, Congress could very well be more likely to initiate and pass anti-Agenda 21 legislation in 2013. Click here if you would like to send a message to your Representative and Senators about this issue.