Saturday, April 6, 2013

Learned More re Capitalism Washing Dishes/Changing Tires/Delivering Pizza than I EVER Did in College!

Reaganite Republican ^ | 06 April 2013 | Reaganite Republican


Exactly the same reason Obama doesn't like
small business OR teen workers I guess...
could contaminate the NEA's K-12 brainwashing

As KGB/Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov made clear, America's public education system -which demoralizes kids and keeps them pliable/stupid- has been infiltrated by low standards of achievement/morality + communist doctrine for decades now. The self-hating, unthinking drones it was meant to produce have already helped to elect Barack Obama -as dangerous a
post turtle as there's ever been- to the most powerful office in the world, great.

But 13 years of far-left indoctrination by the neo-Soviet zombies of the NEA are apparently not enough for the Obammunist left... these fiends are bound-and-determined to keep young people -as they enter adulthood- away from small businesses and entrepreneurs, which Ronald Reagan famously stated are 'responsible for most or all of the economic growth in the US'.

Obama's Big Government surge has of course smothered these job-producers, AND provides the added side benefit of keeping impressionable youth away from capitalists, as illustrated in March's 12.6% REAL youth unemployment rate (counting those who have given up looking and left the labor pool). Some see the overall rate as high as 11.6% anyway, due to the lowest labor-force participation rate since 1979 (and you know who was President then).



As for black youth, the true jobless rate crosses the 50% (!) threshold in such Democratic hellholes as Detroit and Vegas- what's the chance any of these people will ever start a business that doesn't involve standing on a street corner with little plastic bags and a gun?

These are kids who will grow up thinking people who work for an honest living are not as clever as them, and will never understand capitalism in any sort of positive way: add this to the breakdown of American families and they'll have no choice but to vote for liberals who will perpetuate the welfare state to which they've been wed.

Yes, the importance of common-sense, hands-on business experience is surely noted by some educators, as internships upon completion of either HS or college have long been valued by employers... yet I would suggest that having a job at 16-18
-before college- GREATLY prepares one studying for a business degree- more likely to actually pay attention because you can relate to what they're talking about.

Today in the US, much of that KGB-initiated damage is permanent it seems, the only possible solution being an abrupt political turn to the right, yet Republicans dither, hem, and haw as ruthless, 'progressive' zealots implement a cradle-to-grave welfare state most of us want nothing to do with.

Startups and small businesses -along with the employment/experience they provide so many- are being crushed by regulation, Obamacare, and taxes, while larger corporatist allies of this foul administration are swimming in gravy. It's going to take a brave and principled conservative to turn all this around, unlike the Vichy Republicans at the top of the GOP now, that's for sure.

Daylight Savings Time


On the morning that Daylight Savings Time ended I stopped in to visit my aging friend.
He was busy covering his penis with black shoe polish.
I said to him, "You dumb shit! - You're supposed to turn your clock back".

What Planned Parenthood has accomplished

Life Site News ^ | 4/5/2013 | Judie Brown

April 5, 2013 (American Life League) - When we look around our country and see people mired in actions that hurt or maim themselves, put their health in jeopardy, or kill an innocent baby, we must wonder where all the morals have gone. We see an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, an increase in the use of emergency contraceptives, and a decrease in the respect for life. This fog is covering us and, unless we take actions to clear it, will envelop and choke us.
Many were in disbelief when a Planned Parenthood lobbyist from Florida, Alisa LaPolt Snow, suggested that babies born alive after abortion were nothing more than subject matter for decisions a mother should be able to make about whether or not her child should live. That act, were it to be performed, is being described as an "after-birth abortion.
The actual transcript of the question and answer session that took place during a legislative hearing in Florida includes the following dialogue:
"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I'm almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?"
Snow responded, "We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician."
Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, "What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving? What do your physicians do at that point?"
"I do not have that information," Snow replied. "I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information."
Is this woman dancing around the obvious or is she walking through the intellectual fog of death? Has her embrace of evil so consumed her that she does not see the harm in infanticide? Well let's examine the facts.
Today in America almost 20 percent of teen births are not defined as the "first child" for such teens. Our children are having children at young ages every year and nobody in public policy is making a positive move to stop this trend.
Furthermore, for the first time in my lifetime, sexually transmitted diseases are at an all-time high. Did you know that more than 110 million Americans have a sexually transmitted infection? A study from the Centers for Disease Control confirms and is the source of this astounding number. In addition, use of the morning-after pill is increasing rapidly and, as a result, the number of sexually transmitted infections among its users is escalating as well. As more and more young women are provided with the various chemicals being recommended to "avoid" pregnancy, the number of STIs will continue to increase, as no form of the pill will protect women from any of these diseases, including the HIV virus.
The ethical question of the day is not whether to halt these trends, or at the very least strive to reverse them, but rather whether or not we should be able to take eggs from aborted females!
So, what exactly is the connection between after-birth abortion-which is actually infanticide-robbing the aborted of their eggs, and the pill with its resulting dire implications? Each of them and all the aberrations in between are the result of decision makers, policy makers, and purveyors of sex-like Planned Parenthood-being overcome by the intellectual fog of death.
When sex for its own sake trumps truth, health, and psychological well-being, what else can we expect, America?
Planned Parenthood's tentacles have been spreading into every nook and cranny of society since its founding in 1916. And while there are some who work diligently to expose the organization and do all within their power to show the horrors of what goes on inside its doors, far too many of those with the power to stop this behemoth are suffering in the fog.
Clearly America is being swept up in a revolution of deconstructed truth and sexual saturation with morbid results.
• A little baby born alive after a failed abortion is a piece of "information";
• Sexually transmitted infections are the norm; and
• Our kids are having children or killing them, depending on their personal choices.
What's wrong with this picture? I fear the fog is too thick for many to answer that question, and it is only growing thicker.
April 5, 2013 (American Life League) - When we look around our country and see people mired in actions that hurt or maim themselves, put their health in jeopardy, or kill an innocent baby, we must wonder where all the morals have gone. We see an increase in sexually transmitted diseases, an increase in the use of emergency contraceptives, and a decrease in the respect for life. This fog is covering us and, unless we take actions to clear it, will envelop and choke us.
Many were in disbelief when a Planned Parenthood lobbyist from Florida, Alisa LaPolt Snow, suggested that babies born alive after abortion were nothing more than subject matter for decisions a mother should be able to make about whether or not her child should live. That act, were it to be performed, is being described as an "after-birth abortion.
The actual transcript of the question and answer session that took place during a legislative hearing in Florida includes the following dialogue:
"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I'm almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?"
Snow responded, "We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician."
Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, "What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving? What do your physicians do at that point?"
"I do not have that information," Snow replied. "I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information."
Is this woman dancing around the obvious or is she walking through the intellectual fog of death? Has her embrace of evil so consumed her that she does not see the harm in infanticide? Well let's examine the facts.
Today in America almost 20 percent of teen births are not defined as the "first child" for such teens. Our children are having children at young ages every year and nobody in public policy is making a positive move to stop this trend.
Furthermore, for the first time in my lifetime, sexually transmitted diseases are at an all-time high. Did you know that more than 110 million Americans have a sexually transmitted infection? A study from the Centers for Disease Control confirms and is the source of this astounding number. In addition, use of the morning-after pill is increasing rapidly and, as a result, the number of sexually transmitted infections among its users is escalating as well. As more and more young women are provided with the various chemicals being recommended to "avoid" pregnancy, the number of STIs will continue to increase, as no form of the pill will protect women from any of these diseases, including the HIV virus.
The ethical question of the day is not whether to halt these trends, or at the very least strive to reverse them, but rather whether or not we should be able to take eggs from aborted females!
So, what exactly is the connection between after-birth abortion-which is actually infanticide-robbing the aborted of their eggs, and the pill with its resulting dire implications? Each of them and all the aberrations in between are the result of decision makers, policy makers, and purveyors of sex-like Planned Parenthood-being overcome by the intellectual fog of death.
When sex for its own sake trumps truth, health, and psychological well-being, what else can we expect, America?
Planned Parenthood's tentacles have been spreading into every nook and cranny of society since its founding in 1916. And while there are some who work diligently to expose the organization and do all within their power to show the horrors of what goes on inside its doors, far too many of those with the power to stop this behemoth are suffering in the fog.
Clearly America is being swept up in a revolution of deconstructed truth and sexual saturation with morbid results.
• A little baby born alive after a failed abortion is a piece of "information";
• Sexually transmitted infections are the norm; and
• Our kids are having children or killing them, depending on their personal choices.
What's wrong with this picture? I fear the fog is too thick for many to answer that question, and it is only growing thicker.

15% of Americans Now Receive Food Stamps!

Town Hall ^ | Apr. 6, 2013 | Heather Ginsberg

With yesterday’s job report, many are trying to pretend that this is a sign that America is on its way up and out of the recession. Liberals are trying to explain that jobs were added, they somehow forget to include that thousands of people left the job market too. And we are now seeing another sign that perhaps, this Obama economy really isn’t helping the American people all that much. 15% of Americans are now on food stamps! This doesn’t seem like a recovery to me!
The number of Americans on food stamps this January was 1.8% higher than January 2012. The food stamp program is now the government’s largest social welfare program. It was no surprise that this program grew when the economy was shrinking, but now that it is supposedly growing, why aren’t people moving off of assistance?
With 47.3 million Americans, or nearly 1 in every 7 people, now receiving food stamps from the government, it seems quite clear that the recovery isn’t getting down the chain to everybody.
Illinois was the only state to see a double-digit year-over-year jumps in use, while Oregon, Maine, Missouri, Texas, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Idaho, North Dakota, Utah and North Carolina all posted annual drops.
Mississippi was the state with the largest share of its population relying on food stamps — 22% — though Washington, DC was a bit higher overall at 23%. One in five residents in Louisiana, Tennessee and George also were food-stamp recipients. Wyoming had the smallest share of its population on food stamps — 7%.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...

7 Reasons Marriage Is Falling Apart in America

Townhall.com ^ | April 6, 2013 | John Hawkins

It's no secret that marriage has been in decline in America, but most people don't realize how quickly it has been crumbling. The numbers are staggering and the sea change in attitude that has gone along with them would shock previous generations of Americans.

"In 1960, two-thirds (68%) of all twenty-somethings were married. In 2008, just 26% were." "To get a sense of how different attitudes were in the 1960s, perhaps this will do it. (M)arried women were asked, ‘In your opinion, do you think it is all right for a woman to have sexual relations before marriage with a man she knows she is going to marry?’ ...Eighty-six percent said no."
The damage to our society caused by this decline in marriage is almost incalculable.


According to the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, children from single-parent families account for 63 percent of all youth suicides, 70 percent of all teenage pregnancies, 71 percent of all adolescent chemical/substance abuse, 80 percent of all prison inmates, and 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children.
A study cited in the Village Voice produced similar numbers. It found that children brought up in single-mother homes “are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home.”

There are no easy fixes for this problem, but before we can even begin to consider solutions, we need to get a better understanding of what has gone wrong. Why is marriage collapsing in America? What are the root causes of the phenomenon? If studies show that married couples are happier, more financially secure and generally better off across just about every variable you can imagine, why are there so many people who are reluctant to get married?

1) The Sexual Revolution: There have always been people who've had sex outside of marriage, but there was a time when that was widely considered shameful. Fifty years ago, a book like The Thrill of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On would have been considered nothing more than obvious common sense. Today, if you write a book like that, you'll end up on TV facing hosts who can't believe there's anyone left who believes in not having sex before marriage. In other words, the promise of easy access to sex used to be a big reason to get married. These days? Fifty nine percent of people polled at MSN Dating said they would have sex within the first three dates and less than 7% said they would wait until marriage.
2) The Inability Of Many Poor Men To Support A Family: There was a time in America where a hard working man with a high school degree and limited skills could still make enough money to support himself, a wife and a child or two. Granted, they might have had to scrape by, but they were able to make it. Unfortunately, as automation and technology have replaced some of those jobs and others have moved overseas to workers in China and India, the economic prospects for many men in this group have plunged. What that means as a practical matter is that a lot of men who would have been married and providing for a family in a previous era are now single and can barely afford to take care of themselves.

3) A "Marrying Up" Gap: Women have always been inclined to "marry up." In a world where female incomes have dramatically increased and there have been more women than men getting college degrees for the last twenty years, that means many ladies believe they have a much smaller pool of potentially acceptable mates than ever before. The male CEO may be content to marry the pretty maid who wants to take care of him, but a female CEO probably isn't going to marry a butler.
4) No Fault Divorce: When Ronald Reagan was governor of California, he signed the nation's first "no fault" divorce bill into law. Later on, Reagan called that act his "greatest regret." It should have been because it led to those laws, which made divorce much easier to get, spreading across the country. As a result, between 1960 and 1980, the divorce rate in America more than doubled. Happily, the numbers have since stabilized, but they ended up almost twice as high as they were before. The more divorces there are, the less attractive marriage becomes because it increases the risk factor. "No fault" or not, divorce is usually a devastating process for everyone involved and the more likely marriages are to end in divorce, the less likely people will be to want to get married in the first place.

5) Increased Economic Options For Women: There was a time when the surest path to economic security for women was to get married. Today, that's not necessarily true. Women on the low end of the pay scale can have the government step in to pay many of their bills. Women with college degrees or in demand skills can make just as much as a man if they're willing to put in the same hours. Those additional economic options make marriage -- and staying in a difficult marriage -- less attractive to women.

6) Marriage has become a much less attractive option for men: There was a time when the man was expected to provide for his wife and kids and in return, he was treated as the king of the castle. Now, men are often treated more like partners than kings. Moreover, if there's a divorce, men know they may not be treated fairly by the court system. Almost every man knows a guy who has had access to his child used as a bargaining chip, who has to pay Draconian child support payments or who has otherwise been generally treated unfairly because of his gender, not the merits. No man wants to end up as the guy paying a huge chunk of his income to a woman who broke his heart while he wonders if he'll be allowed to have access to his own child.

7) Children have become more of an economic hindrance than a help: There was a time when having children was essentially an insurance policy. If you became disabled or too old to work, your kids took care of you. Today, the government fulfills that role. Additionally, the cost of raising a child has skyrocketed. You'll now have to take $235,000 out of your wallet to raise a kid to 17 -- and that doesn't even include college costs. While a married couple can bear this expense much more easily than a single parent, as a practical matter what it means is that less Americans are having children. If you take away the need to have a partner in raising a child, you've removed one of the biggest reasons for marriage to exist in the first place.

Military warned 'evangelicals' No. 1 threat; Christians targeted ahead of Muslim Brotherhood!

wnd ^ | 4/5/13 | Jack Minor

Soldiers in the U.S. military have been told in a training briefing that evangelical Christians are the No. 1 extremist threat to America – ahead of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, KKK, Nation of Islam, al-Qaida, Hamas and others.

“Men and women of faith who have served the Army faithfully for centuries shouldn’t be likened to those who have regularly threatened the peace and security of the United States,” said Col. (Ret.) Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty. “It is dishonorable for any U.S. military entity to allow this type of wrongheaded characterization. It also appears that some military entities are using definitions of ‘hate’ and ‘extreme’ from the lists of anti-Christian political organizations. That violates the apolitical stance appropriate for the military.”

The briefing, which was given to an Army reserve unit in Pennsylvania, came from a U.S. Army Reserve Equal Opportunity training brief titled “Extremism and Extremist Organizations.”
The material mentions neo-Nazis, the KKK and other white supremacist organizations. Pictures are shown on various slides of people in Klan attire and Nazi flags. The significance of gang tattoos, and racist acronyms and the significance of numbers were also discussed.
While the material on gangs and racist organizations is similar to what one might receive from a local police briefing on gang issues, after teaching on neo-Nazis in the military such as Timothy McVeigh, the material makes an amazing link.
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.wnd.com ...

Obama budget to take aim at wealthy IRAs

The Hill ^ | April 5, 2013 | Bernie Becker

President Obama’s budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals – like Mitt Romney – can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts.

The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code.

The senior administration official said that wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.”

Under the plan, a taxpayer’s tax-preferred retirement account, like an IRA, could not finance more than $205,000 per year of retirement – or right around $3 million this year.
Romney, Obama’s 2012 opponent, had an IRA several to many times that amount, leading to questions about how the former Massachusetts governor was able to squirrel away so much money in that sort of retirement account....
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

City Defends Hiring Non-Swimming Minorities as Lifeguards!

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 5 Apr 2013 | John Semmens

While taking some flak for doing so, City of Phoenix officials are standing by their decision to accept non-swimming minorities as pool lifeguards.

“The problem with requiring swimming proficiency as a condition of employment is that minorities would be under-represented among those we hire,” City Parks and Recreation Administrator Alfredo Zote observed. “The Mayor has asked us to strive for a workforce that mirrors the composition of the City’s population. We can’t do that if we impose qualifications that have a disproportionate impact on any racial or ethnic groups.”

As to whether the ability to swim might not be a crucial skill in the performance of the job, Zote demurred. “Few of the annual drownings that occur in our state are at public pools,” he pointed out. “And we can team the non-swimming minority hire with a strong-swimming white hiree. That way the non-swimmer can help spot a potential drowning victim and direct the swimmer to rescue him.”

While Zote acknowledged that he had no idea on whether the new policy would have any negative consequences for the safety of visitors to any of the City’s 23 public pools he did ask that “critics balance any undesired outcomes at the pools with the social gains of our minority hiring policy.

Providing employment for disfavored groups is not without its benefits. Whether their gains in self-esteem outweigh losses in terms of injury or fatalities at our sites is, in my opinion, a judgment call.”

Birther columns are suppressed!

The Amarillo Globe-News ^ | April 5, 2013 | Diana West

Get ready for the last straw.

First, though, I’d like to suggest that anyone reading this column in a local newspaper or news site pat the editor on the back for publishing what in our neo-medieval world of fear amounts to a “forbidden” column.
I am about to say something about the Great Barack Obama Identity/Eligibility Scandal again. This is an urgent topic that doesn’t see the light of day in certain so-called news outlets — and I say that from the experience of watching my own syndicated columns fail to appear when covering news of the White House press conference where the president’s long-form birth certificate was unveiled, courtroom proceedings on Obama’s ballot eligibility, and news of (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s investigators presenting evidence Obama’s online birth certificate is a forgery.
So be it. This was, as noted, the last straw.
I refer to something radio host Sean Hannity said on his show this week. He was speaking in rebuttal to a Democrat arguing that racism was a problem among conservatives. As evidence, the Democrat brought up the “birther issue” — the label used to encapsulate any topic related to Obama’s identity documents and constitutional eligibility.
Erroneously, it is a label that narrowly connotes, and derisively so, only the belief that President Obama wasn’t born in the United States. In fact, the whereabouts of Obama’s nativity is in no way the main bone of “birther” contention, despite the blinkered focus on it by the enforcers of silence.
Of far greater concern to me, for starters, is the purportedly original documentation President Obama belatedly provided the American people to attest to his identity.
I refer to the electronic image of a long-form 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate posted at the White House website. After studying various evidence and demonstrations...
(Excerpt) Read more at amarillo.com ...

Democrats have doubts about Obamacare too!

Washington Examiner ^ | April 4, 2013 | Brian Hughes

President Obama is eager to build public support for his health care overhaul in the few months remaining before its implementation, but waning enthusiasm from Democrats threatens his effort right out of the gate.
Two-thirds of Democrats now believe Obama's health care reforms will either hurt them personally or have no effect on their daily lives, a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday shows. In comparison, just 27 percent of Democratic respondents said the reforms would help them.
The president has long struggled to convince independent and Republican-leaning voters that his health care blueprint would lower premiums and expand insurance coverage.
However, an inability to convince his own party that the reforms have merit suggests an even bigger problem for the president ahead of the 2014 implementation.
"Obama is trying to make the next election a referendum on Republicans," said Democratic strategist Doug Schoen. "But Obamacare will still be a drag on the Democratic ticket. Democrats supported it because Obama was attached to it, but they still have great skepticism about the real impact of the law."
Some Democrats are wary of the health care reforms because they don't go far enough. Party liberals had wanted a single-payer system run by the government. Others have complained about the repercussions of the law on part-time workers, some of whom have had their work hours cut so their employers could avoid mandates under the new law.
The reservations Democrats express aren't because they lack an understanding of what the reforms will do. Just 6 percent of Democrats polled by Quinnipiac said they didn't know how the reforms would impact them personally.
And analysts said that doubts from liberals represent more than a public relations problem for the president. They could signal difficulties ahead for his signature legislative achievement.
"There are two ways it hurts Obama," said Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. "Democrats won't be as likely to go out and fight for Obama again on this issue, and secondly, if this crashes and burns, they're going to turn on him."
The president insists that critics will ultimately embrace the reforms once they are enacted. But the foundation of the law is built on the premise that most people will enroll in it. If they don't, the participation pool would not be large enough to keep premium costs down, analysts said.
Not surprisingly, Democrats still have a more favorable view of the reforms than Republicans and independents.
Just 3 percent of Republicans and 15 percent of independents believe the president's overhaul will help them personally, the poll shows. Even worse for the White House, 68 percent of self-identified Republicans and more than a third of all independents said the reforms would hurt them personally.
However, Obama continues to paint a rosy picture of how people will benefit from the most comprehensive overhaul to the health care system since Medicare was created in 1965.
During a fundraising swing through California on Thursday, Obama said the reforms are "already helping millions of people and will help millions more when it is fully implemented next year."
bhughes@washingtonexaminer.com

Jake Tapper politely calls Barack Obama & Mike Bloomberg pig-ignorant about guns!

Red State ^ | April 5, 2013 | Moe Lane

Before you watch the video below, I invite you to first get a glass of something nice – why not? It’s Friday afternoon; the sun is over the yardarm somewhere - so that you may properly enjoy this next bit from Jake Tapper. He’s reporting on the strange inability of Barack Obama and Mike Bloomberg to publicly understand the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon:

(VIDEO AT LINK ABOVE)

But it might help the advocates of gun control if – in their advocacy for stricter measures – they seemed more familiar with what, exactly, they’re trying to ban. – Jake Tapper, CNN.

The funny part is? Jake’s not even a conservative. For all I know, he’s an advocate for more gun control. It’s just that he’s just not an idiot....

(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...