Monday, February 25, 2013

11 states with more people on welfare than employed!

WND ^ | 2/25/13 | Michaeld Savage

Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year 2011, between food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average U.S. household below the poverty line received $168.00 a day in government support. What’s the problem with that much support? Well, the median household income in America is just over $50,000, which averages out to $137.13 a day.

To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30.00 an hour for a 40-hour week, while the average job pays $25.00 an hour.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Ted Cruz on America's Economic Problems [tellin' it like it is!]

Brody File/CBN ^ | January 25, 2013 | David Brody

In a one-on-one interview at his home in Houston, Texas, Sen. Ted Cruz tells the Brody File that President Obama is, “the most radical president we’ve ever seen.” But he also adds that when it comes to our current economic troubles, “an awful lot of Republicans, failed to stand for principle and contributed to getting us in this mess.”
Cruz also points out the following about politicians in Washington: “There are a lot of people in Washington, I think, who desperately, desperately want to be in elected office.”
Sen. Ted Cruz: We’ve got a job and right now I think the U.S. Senate is the battlefield. Unfortunately, Republicans are in the minority. This last election did not turn out as I had hoped, but I nonetheless think that if we had principled, effective conservatives who make the case that the most effective engine, for economic opportunity, the most effective engine for climbing the economic ladder, for helping those with nothing to achieve anything has been free markets, has been limited government has been the incredible, American system. If we make that case, we can preserve that system. And I think that’s what the stakes are.
And so, my focus every day is on the substance of winning the fight, stopping the out of control spending and deficits and debt so that our kids aren’t crushed with those debts and getting the economy growing again. You know in the last four years under President Obama, our economy has grown 1.5 percent a year. That’s less than half the historical average. The historical average since World War II has been 3.3 percent. If we can’t get the economy growing, we can’t solve any of these problems.
If you want to get the 23 million people who are struggling to find jobs back to work, get the economy growing. If you want to transform our federal balance sheet, change it from the train wreck it is right now, get the economy growing.
And so, every day in the Senate, my focus is championing small businesses, entrepreneurs, championing economic growth, because ultimately, economic growth is what provides opportunity, it’s what enables people, like my dad, to climb the economic ladder, to climb from nothing to achieve prosperity. That’s my focus, and I try to pay attention to nothing else, but focusing on that.
David Brody: Too many people choosing politics over principle?
Cruz: That’s exactly right. Look, I mean there are a lot of people in Washington, I think, who desperately, desperately want to be in elected office. There’s an old line that ‘Politics is Hollywood for ugly people.’ And there’s an element of truth to that. You see those in elected office who, the prospect of not being in elected office is terrifying to them.
And one of the sad realities is that it has been career politicians, in both parties, who’ve gotten us in this mess. I think President Obama is the most radical president we’ve ever seen, but I think an awful lot of Republicans, failed to stand for principle and contributed to getting us in this mess, and I think what we’ve seen in 2010 and to some degree in 2012 is a new generation of leaders stepping forward that are committed to fixing these problems.

Texas To Block Cops From Enforcing Federal Gun Laws!

Freedom Outpost ^ | 24 February 2013 | Tim Brown

New legislation in the Texas State legislature, sponsored by Steve Toth (R-Dist. 15), looks to stop Texas law enforcement officials from confiscating so-called “assault weapons” and high capacity magazines. The legislation is called the Firearm Protection Act.

Toth’s proposal would create a Class A misdemeanor for police officers enforcing any new federal gun regulations. It also would establish cause for the state attorney general to sue anyone who seeks to enforce new federal gun regulations. It is one of several states-rights measures being offered by conservative state lawmakers nationwide in response to federal gun control proposals.

“There’s a federal law, there’s a 30-round magazine right in front of you – what do I do?” Toth said in an interview.

Toth, in a press release, wrote, “The ‘Firearms Protection Act’ or HB 1076 would make any federal law banning semi-automatic firearms or limiting the size of gun magazines unenforceable within the state’s boundaries. Any municipality, county, or special district trying to enforce a federal gun ban could face monetary holdings by the state and misdemeanor charges under this proposal.”

According to Toth:

The ‘Firearm Protection Act’ would do the following: • Supports and protects our local sheriffs and law enforcement officers working hard to protect Texan’s 2nd Amendment Rights • Sends a clear message to Washington by supporting and protecting Texans from the Federal Administrations unconstitutional overreach • Addresses local Texans concerns for their personal safety

“I believe this administration has now realized they have woken up a giant. All over the United States, Americans are crying out for something to be done to protect their 2nd Amendment rights. The American people understand this is not just about gun rights, but about all constitutional rights. They understand once you compromise one Constitutional right, all others can be in jeopardy”, said Representative Toth.

Sheriff Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff said, “”The federal government is not our boss. If there’s any place that that’s applicable and true, it’s the state of Texas.”

Attorney General Greg Abbot helped draft the bill. Along with Abbott, who has already filed over twenty-three suits against the Federal Government, Representative Toth will continue to stand with other Texans to encouraging the promotion of personal responsibility and liberties while actively guarding against outside parties attempting to erode the freedoms enjoyed by Texans so that the people of Texas may have more confidence in their government.

Administration goes skeet shooting.

FNN - Future News Now | 2-24-13 | Retired Texas Vet

FNN exclusive: The Obama administration, still smarting from the disclosure of their previous fake skeet shooting, scheduled a skeet shooting session with reporters and cameras invited.
Obama, aka "The One", had Reggie Manlove as his partner for the session. Obama had his Roy Rogers outfit on: Mom jeans, Roy Rogers boots with matching buckskin shirt and white hat and Reggie had his Dale Evans outfit on: leopard skin pattern leotards, Dale Evans boots with matching pink silk blouse with yellow scarf and dayglow orange hat.

Ande4rson Cooper and Chrissy Matthews both had to leave early after wetting themselves due to their extreme excitement over Reggie's outfit. Slow Joe was asked to leave the range after practicing his home defense moves with his shotgun that resulted in a nearby cell tower and electrical transformer being damaged. Slow Joe was reported as saying, "but I did put a scare into them"!

Wolf Blitzer was present to retrieve skeet that were shot, before Candy Crowley could eat them, but was not needed due to crafty skeet being able to evade all of the shots in spite of the automatic assault shotguns being used.

PETA was protesting the shoot because of the possible harm to the defenseless skeet and Reggie's leopard skin leotards. Although no skeet were wounded or killed, Jay Carney declared that the shoot was a success and that "His Arrogance" was pleased with his and Reggie's performances and style.

Will new fed guidelines force companies to hire more employees with criminal pasts?

Foxnews ^

Employers could be pressured to hire more workers with a criminal background under recent guidelines issued by the federal government. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidelines warn businesses about rejecting minority applicants who have committed a crime and recommend they eliminate policies that “exclude people from employment based on a criminal record.”

The EEOC says civil rights laws already prohibit different treatment for job applicants who are of a different ethnic background but have identical criminal histories. The update was issued out of concern that employers might disproportionally exclude minorities from getting hired because more African Americans and Hispanics are getting arrested and going to prison, according to the guideline report.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

FORMER LAWYERS? [Barak & Michelle]

Uncle Sam's Misguided Children ^

I knew they had both lost their law license, but I didn't know why until I read this.
This is 100% legit. I check it out at Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It's the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois ; and they are very strict. (Talk about irony.) Even I, at the advanced age of almost 65, maintain (at the cost of approximately $600/year) my law license that I worked so hard and long to earn.
Big surprise.
Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S. President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address.
Consider this:
1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" your license five seconds before the state suspends you.
2 Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993. after a Federal Judge gave her the choice between surrendering her license or standing trial for Insurance fraud!
3. Facts.Source:
4. A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago .
5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school-but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008.
6. "He did not hold the title of Professor of Law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.
Source: ;
7. The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence ... not the Constitution.
8. The B-Cast posted the video:
9. Free Republic : In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.
10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech?
When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight. Keep this moving -- educate others

Splitting the Difference on Illegal Immigration (They can stay, but they can't become citizens.)

National Affairs ^ | Winter 2013 | PETER SKERRY

In the controversy over illegal immigration that has roiled our politics for decades, the image of "living in the shadows" has been invoked by all sides. For immigrant advocates, "the shadows" are where the undocumented are harassed by overzealous law-enforcement officers and exploited by unscrupulous landlords and employers. For many other Americans, "living in the shadows" conjures vaguely sinister intruders using public services to which they are not entitled and preying on law-abiding Americans through illicit activities and crime.
Yet regardless of one's views on the issue, this imagery is profoundly misleading. It helps to perpetuate the myths and exaggerations that have made our immigration debate so fruitless. Undocumented immigrants are hardly mere victims of economic or political forces beyond their control. But neither are they dangerous criminals or public charges lurking on the fringes of our society. Rather, they are responsible agents who have made difficult choices in a complicated and risky environment — an environment for which all Americans bear some blame.
These choices produce both beneficial and negative consequences for the nation and for the immigrants themselves. And our policies must contend with both sets of effects. If we are to find our way to a solution, we must examine the genuine predicament of the millions of illegal immigrants in our midst without ignoring the legitimate concerns millions of Americans have about their presence.
If we succeeded in removing the hyperbole and stereotypes from the immigration debate, our politics might open itself to a balanced approach to the problem: legalization for as many undocumented immigrants as possible, but citizenship for none of them. Under this proposal, illegal immigrants who so desired could become "permanent non-citizen residents" with no option of ever naturalizing...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Death Panel Advocacy on This Week

The National Review ^ | February 24, 2013 | Wesley J. Smith

Liberals screamed when Sarah Palin warned about “death panels” during the run up to the passage of Obamacare. But many really want health care rationing based on invidious methods of medical discrimination–as I have repeatedly reported here. I was just watching This Week and Steve Rattner–former adviser to Obama Treasury Dept. who has written in favor of death panels–alluded to them again. In a discussion on medical spending and cost control, he said (my transcription:)

Rattner: Here is a small question for the country…Right now most Americans do not see price in deciding whether to use healthcare…When people go on Medicare, they really don’t see price, they tend to consume more than they otherwise would. Twenty-six percent of all Medicare spending is last year of life. We don’t know how much of that is really efficacious spending. These are really tough moral questions for the country but we are going to have to deal with them.
Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal caught the reference:

Strassel: What you are getting to though is the fundamental question: Are you going to let consumers make those choices about end of life decisions, or are you going to have Medicare make a decision about what procedures you can have and how much they will pay, and government make those choices. That’s the moral question...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


 by Nextrush

The games the politicians play are a pathetic joke.

Debt continues to pile on top of debt with "crisis" deadline after "crisis" deadline upon us.
We end up with "imperfect deals" that do nothing to balance the books, just continue the slow and painful descent into eventual financial collapse.
These sick austerity policies that include tax increases and spending cuts at the same time are already ruining Europe and now the United States is going down the same road.
Obama and the RINO's use emotional issues to drive wedges that scoop us masses of people to support them.
The RINO's can get us angry with liberals in the media, how our tax dollars are wasted, the Second Amendment issue and the list goes on....
but the RINO's refuse to offer a firmly balanced budget as an alternative to Obama's debt busting agenda.
But of course, the question is how do you get there??????
Ideas to put on the table as alternatives to falling into the Medicare-Social Security cut trap.....
If the GOP isn't interested in such a notion, maybe we need a new party that will be.

Back on the Internet; Sequestration and the Coming Depression.

The View From Chaos Manor ^ | February 23, 2013 | DR. Jerry Pournelle

The President has excoriated the Republicans for not bailing us out of the sequestration which is going to end life as we know it. He says the only way out is to keep borrowing more money – the sequestration was his idea on how to insure that we did some spending cuts when we raised the debt ceiling, but he has forgotten that I guess. Now the only hope for the nation is to raise taxes. Supposedly on the rich because there are plenty of tax rises that will affect us all coming inevitably.
The notion is to blame the coming Depression – and that looks to be inevitable – on the sequestration, although we will be spending more next year than we did last year, and more the year after that than we will this year: the sequestration will not be a “cut” in the budget, merely a diminution of the increase that is automatically built into the budgets we don’t pass any more. And Obamacare will cost a lot of money, the 2% increase in salary tax (as opposed to income tax which hits what’s left after the 12 to 20% salary tax), inflation, raise in minimum wage, and other economic disincentives will cost more, and the incentive to expand a business is lowered, fewer businesses start – maybe we won’t hit a full Depression, but the probability is there. We are doing it to ourselves.
Minimum wages of course hit those entering the work force; they don’t yet know how to make money for their employer, and as we make it harder and harder to fire incompetent people, the reluctance to hire them to earn more than they are worth in the hopes that they will learn to produce enough to earn their starting salaries — well, you get the idea. And the schools which ought to be teaching people to be worth at least minimum wages have not been doing that – it is unlikely they will get better at it so that graduates will be worth a higher minimum wage.
Ah. Well.

I cannot tell a lie!

Quiet Please

Higher Gas

The Sky

Unconditional Surrender

Stop the monster

Manufactured Crises

You're Screwed!

War Heroes?

Your creation is back!

Happy Resident's Day

Anti-Rape Masks

Liberal astroturf group offering $9 to $11 per hour to join its gun-control campaign! ^ | february 24, 2013 | Patrick Howley

The liberal organization Progressive USA Voters, which is housed in the same progressive Denver office building as a chapter of the infamous left-wing astroturf group ProgressNow, is offering an hourly wage of between $9 and $11 to join its gun-control campaign in Chicago, according to a flyer that was photographed and posted to Reddit Friday.

“Join the Campaign to Stop Gun Violence” reads the flyer, which also notes, “Hourly Wage: $9-11/hr.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Attack of the Uppity Conservative Hispanics ^ | February 25, 2013 | Kurt Schlichter

There is nothing the liberal establishment hates more than members of the minority groups it considers its political chattel who step off the grounds of the progressive plantation. And right now, it is beginning a long-term de-legitimization campaign, with its media overseers fully engaged, because that Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have dared to forget their place.
The liberal establishment is driven not just by anger. It’s driven by fear.
It’s easy to see why the media blew up the story of Marco Rubio’s radical decision to take a drink during his state of the union response – he gave a good speech, and we can’t have that. While Obama’s monologue was a nightmarish death march of progressive nonsense honed through countless focus groups to appeal to the low-info voters who make up the liberal base, Rubio’s talk was clear, concise and conservative. The media’s problem wasn’t that Rubio’s speech was bad; the problem was that it was good.
Accordingly, the media erupted in a tsunami of blatant hydrationism.
Then Ted Cruz showed up in the Senate and dared ask tough questions, like “Why is this guy qualified to be the Secretary of Defense?” and “What the hell are you thinking?” The media, suddenly guardians of Senate civility and tradition, were aghast that Cruz failed to sit silently as Anglo Senators gently stroked the nominee. When John McCain rebuked Cruz for failing to know his place, the media suddenly remembered why it used to love the grizzled maverick in the first place – because McCain lives to slam conservative Republicans.
And then Cruz dared to not care!
Oh, there was also a Hispanic Democrat senator who was under investigation by the FBI for banging underage hookers in violation of a federal sex tourism law he helped pass and for getting flown to the Dominican Republic for his festivals of pedophilia by the doctor who he helped get a half-billion dollar port security contract.
But, more importantly, Marco Rubio got thirsty.
What we are seeing is a preemptive strike by the liberal establishment’s pet media on two up-and-coming conservative superstars. It will continue. Liberals fear them because of their Latin heritage, but here’s the funny part – for conservatives, where their parents came from is just gravy.
It’s the conservatism, stupid.
Sure, Rubio is trying to make something happen with immigration. However, unlike the president and the GOP’s shamnesty crowd, he’s actually serious when he says he wants to secure the border first. What he will find is that most of the hacks nodding their heads when he talks and pretending to agree with him are not.
Watch for Rubio to pull out when he realizes that these frauds have zero intention of securing the border – he already dissed His Majesty’s leaked insta-amnesty plan. Rubio, who made immigration reform possible, will be the one to kill it, and the fact that he won’t compromise his conservative principles to make it happen will actually strengthen his conservative bonafides.
But liberals, projecting their bizarre notions upon the rest of humanity as they are wont to do, think that the Hispanic thing is whole reason Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are so popular with right-wingers. After all, that’s how liberals judge people – identity group affiliation.
So do some Republicans – witness the post-election Hispanic panic. Of course, these political geniuses – fresh off their latest round of failure last November – are ready to go all-in on a whole new level of defeat trying to appeal to the allegedly growing category of “Hispanic” voters. Except, though, the demographic isn’t really growing because birth rates among them are in free fall, dropping to the levels of other Americans. But let’s not let facts and data interfere with talking points that make Sunday morning talk show hosts drop their 30-round mags and nod in agreement.
No, the big secret of the success of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz is that these guys are hardcore conservatives. They walk the walk and just happen to hablar the talk.
Look at their backstories – these guys are straight from conservative central casting. They had religious, loving, traditional families that gave them great values and taught them that achievement comes from working to attain their goals, not from getting a check from Tio Sam.
They look good and, unlike certain other Republicans, they can put a sentence together and not sound like borderline morons. Conservatives can watch them ascend to the podium and not have to worry that they might wander off-topic and start offering their insights into how rape is part of the Lord’s plan.
They are popular because they are really, really smart, and they are really, really conservative. The funny thing is, being of Cuban descent; they aren’t really, really “Hispanic” in the American liberal sense. Liberals, whose connection with Hispanic America consists of lecturing their nannies about ensuring that little Bayley is raised in a gender neutral environment and doesn’t make toy guns out of his Legos, think all Hispanics are the same. These bubble dwellers might want to ask a Hispanic about that, assuming they know any who aren’t employed around their house.
The fact is that there is no such thing as a Hispanic-American. There are Americans whose families came from places where they speak Spanish or Portuguese. And there is a special name for people like that.
It’s “Americans.”
If you call my wife, who escaped from Cuba as an infant, a “Cuban-American,” she’ll cut you. She’s proud of her Cuban heritage, but with a father, brother and husband who are all U.S. Army vets – she watched me deploy for over a year when our daughter was six months old – you better not label her anything but “American.”
So, how does the GOP appeal to these voters? Well, first it forgets the nonsense we keep hearing about how Hispanics believe in “traditional values” and “family” and all the rest. Some folks lumped under the “Hispanic” heading believe in those things. Some don’t. Shockingly, to the Beltway experts on all things Latin, these people are not all the same. And their heritage is varied as well. Those hailing from Spain are different from those coming from Mexico or Argentina or Honduras – each nation has different histories, cultures, political traditions. So stop with the condescending stereotypes and start looking at these people as individuals instead of census categories.
Second, we have to be where these folks are. Who are the GOP’s go-to guests on Univision and Telemundo’s news shows to give the conservative viewpoint? You know the liberals are there. I don’t know the answer – I only watch the telenovelas and Sabado Gigante – but it better be somebody. Preferably someone who speaks Spanish, and does so coherently.
The reason the liberals should fear Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz is their conservatism, not their heritage. And if they hold their conservative course, leaders like these will drive the liberals to drink something stronger than just water.