Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Wealth Gap Among Races Has Widened Since Recession [blacks were hurt worst of all races under Obama]

New York Times ^ | April 28, 2013 | ANNIE LOWREY

the last half-decade has proved far worse for black and Hispanic families than for white families
when it comes to wealth — as measured by assets, like cash savings, homes and retirement accounts, minus debts, like mortgages and credit card balances — white families have far outpaced black and Hispanic ones. Before the recession, non-Hispanic white families, on average, were about four times as wealthy as nonwhite families, according to the Urban Institute’s analysis of Federal Reserve data. By 2010, whites were about six times as wealthy.
The dollar value of that gap has grown, as well. By the most recent data, the average white family had about $632,000 in wealth, versus $98,000 for black families and $110,000 for Hispanic families.
Many experts consider the wealth gap to be more pernicious than the income gap, as it perpetuates from generation to generation and has a powerful effect on economic security and mobility.
Higher unemployment rates and lower incomes among blacks left them less able to keep paying their mortgages and more likely to lose their homes, experts said.
Black families also suffered bigger hits to their retirement savings, the Urban Institute found. With lower earnings and higher unemployment rates leaving them with a thinner safety net to begin with, black families were more likely to take funds out of the market when it was depressed, leaving them out in the cold as the market recovered.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...

The Problem with Social Security Reform is this: The Government Already Stole the Money

Townhall ^ | 04/30/2013 | Bill Tatro

I’ve been waiting in the wings very patiently for the all the uproar to die down before I weighed in on the incredibly stupid 2010 comment made by former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson in which he called me and my fellow senior citizens, “The greediest generation.”
With essentially no lack of antagonism directed toward career politician Simpson for all this time, I definitely feel the need to finally come forward in order to shed more light on the subject. Let me begin by explaining that in addition to being ill-advised, Simpson’s remark also reveals everything that you need to know about career politicians in general, irrespective of their political party affiliation.
I’m fully aware of the argument about those people who are just like my father—he will be 89-years-old in June—receiving more in Social Security benefits than they ever contributed. I also acknowledge the contention that Social Security was never originally designed to be a person’s sole source of income and that life expectancies are much longer today than when the federal program was first introduced in 1935.
In addition, I understand that so-called “career politicians,” especially Alan Simpson, have consistently viewed the Social Security Trust Fund as a honeypot in which they could dip into anytime they saw a potential problem on the horizon—a situation created by their own blundering desire for reelection. Moreover, it is recognized that neither I nor anyone else signed up to support a government that artificially deprives its citizens of a reasonable return on its life savings (ZIRP), thus creating even more dependence for that Social Security check each month.
Therefore, I firmly believe that Alan Simpson along with the other several hundred career senators and congressmen are truly the greedy group.
Nevertheless, it would appear that we are at a standstill since no amount of discussion, argument, or commentary is going to change either Alan Simpson’s opinion or my opinion. Therefore, I have a very simple solution. I am the first of the baby boomers, thus give back to me and my “greedy generation” all the money that we’ve contributed to the Social Security Fund for the past forty-years and I’ll even let the government keep the so-called interest that it supposedly earned. This resolution will eliminate the name calling since I think even a career politician would agree that the return of what is rightfully ours cannot be classified as greed.
I’ll take my money, buy an annuity, and immediately annuitize it which would provide a monthly distribution for both me and my wife, something Social Security simply can’t do. Then, allow Social Security to wither on the vine after taking care of the Greatest Generation. Again, this removes the name calling.
The only problem I foresee is that to give me my money back, the money actually needs to be there. That could present a major difficulty since Alan Simpson and all of his cronies have already stolen the money—and in my opinion that is truly greed.

The reason that liberals hate Christianity, but ignore Islam

Bookwormroom.com ^ | 4-29-2013 | Bookworm

One of the things that’s frustrating for non-liberals and non-Progressives is Leftists’ refusal to look Islam in the face (so to speak). Yes, there are crazy people who are Christians and there are entire Christian sects that are crazy (such as the Westboro Baptists or Warren Jeffs’ polygamist Mormon cult). The fact remains, however, that Christians as a whole, whether they belong to big churches or small ones, do not embrace or practice terrorism to achieve their political or religious goals.

Muslims, by contrast, routinely practice terrorism to achieve goals that are simultaneously religious and political, owing to Islam’s fusion of God and state. Even though it’s remarkably simple to tie Islam to terrorism (9/11, the underwear bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, the attempted Portland Christmas tree massacre, the Boston Marathon bombing), Leftists scurry around like cockroaches exposed to the light in their desperate attempt to avoid acknowledging Islam’s violent heart.
Today, I read one thing and wrote another, both of which address Leftist hatred for Christianity, even though modern Christianity and genuine Judaism (as opposed to the hard Leftism that masquerades as “reform Judaism”) are the most humane, civilizing forces the world has ever seen. With their focus on justice and grace, they rid the world of slavery, ended child labor, advanced women’s status and, in Israel’s case, fought a 60-year war without sinking to the level of her enemies. But the Left truly hates them and seeks to undermine them at every turn.
The article I read on this subject is Benjamin Wiker’s “Why aren’t liberals more critical of Islam?” In it, he posits that, because secularism arose within and in opposition to a Christian Europe and America, Christianity was its original enemy. Giving proof, however, to my repeated claim that “Progressives” are actually profoundly “regressive,” secularists (i.e., Leftists) continue their battle with Christianity despite that particular war having ended long ago. Judaism and Christianity absorbed the better parts of secularism while holding on to their core religious principles.
Because they are locked forever in an ideological time warp, says Wiker, liberals (or Progressives or Leftists or whatever else they call themselves to avoid the taint their ideas leave behind) cannot contemplate the possibility that there is another enemy, greater than their old foe Christianity. Which brings me to a post I did today for Mr. Conservative. It concerns Michael ‘Mikey’ Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and one of the most rabid anti-Christians you will ever meet.
When I wrote the post this morning, it made me uncomfortable that such a venomous man is somehow Jewish, whether genetically or in actual practice. I hate to see that kind of hatred emanate from a group with which I’m affiliated. However, having read Wiker’s essay, I realize that my concern is unfounded. Weinstein’s hostility to Christians isn’t because he’s Jewish, it’s because he’s a Leftist. (Not all Jews are Leftists, and not all Leftists are Jews, but those Jews who are Leftists are amongst the most extreme Leftists. Mikey’s in that category.)
Here’s my Mr. Conservative post. See what you think:
SECNAV prayers with Marines and Sailors at Fallujah in 2006
The Obama government sure knows how to pick ‘em. Right now, the Pentagon is concerned about religious intolerance in the American military. When people who are neither Leftists nor career politicians in thrall to the White House think of intolerance in the military, they think of Major Nidal Malik Hasan who went on an “Allahu Akbar” shooting spree at Fort Hood, killing 13 people and injuring more than thirty. The Pentagon, though, isn’t fooled by these false trails. It knows who the really intolerant people in the military are: Christians.
To that end, the military has brought in Michael Weinstein, Esq., a “religious tolerance” specialist and the man who founded the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (“MRFF”). Michael knows all about tolerance. Or at least, he knows all about tolerance in the Obama era. To Michael (or “Mikey” as he likes to be known), a good way to express tolerance is to call Christians “monsters” or, even better “bloody monsters.”
According to Mikey’s tolerant world view, Christians who serve in the American military are “well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces.” And that’s just Mikey’s throat-clearing.
Troll through an article Mikey wrote in The Huffington Post to justify his tolerant attack on alleged Christian intolerance in the American military, and you’ll learn quickly that the people he’s out to destroy (tolerantly, of course) are “evil, fundamentalist Christian creatures.” They are “bandits” who “coagulate their stenchful substances” in religiously-based organizations that support traditional marriage and oppose abortion. Don’t be fooled by these old-fashioned values, though. In fact, says Mikey, “The basis of their ruinous unity is the bane of human existence and progress: horrific hatred and blinding bigotry.”
What inspired Weinstein’s apopletic rage is the fact that conservatives took offense when the military piggy-backed on a delusional Southern Poverty Law Center screed and identified conservative Christians as the greatest terrorist threat in America. Because these groups use hate-filled language, Mikey says, such as “God Hates Fags” or “Thank God for IEDs,” they’re obviously one step away from committing a bomb attack in a major American city. (It’s so magical. It’s as if 9/11, Fort Hood, and the Boston bombing never happened!)
If Mikey is correct, that toxic, hate-filled rhetoric is all one needs to prove that a person or organization constitutes an imminent danger, then Mikey better start looking over his shoulder. Considering the “evil, fundamentalist Christian creatures,” “bandits (who) coagulate their stenchful substances,” and “monsters” who inhabit his rhetorical world, he looks like he’s ready to blow.
What Mikey can’t comprehend is that, while mainstream Christians and conservatives routinely condemn and distance themselves from organizations such as the Westboro Baptist Church, Mikey gets to disseminate his particular brand of hate-filled, toxic intolerance at a major Progressive internet outlet.
Even worse than the applause he’s getting from the mainstream Left is the fact that he’s been taken on by the Pentagon as a consultant to help develop new policies on religious tolerance in the military. These new policies will include rules for court-martialing military chaplains who use the Christian gospel when they counsel the American troops under their care. Or, as MRFF Advisory Board member Larry Wilkerson told The Washington Post, they essentially sexually assaulting the troops with their God talk.
No kidding. Wilkerson says that “Sexual assault and proselytizing are absolutely destructive of the bonds that keep soldiers together.” Lest there be any misunderstanding, Mikey clarified to The Post what Wilkerson really meant:
This is a national security threat. What is happening [aside from sexual assault] is spiritual rape. And what the Pentagon needs is to understand is that it is sedition and treason. It should be punished.
Mikey hates everything. Or at least he hates everything that has to do with Christianity. He foams at the mouth, spittle flying, when he talks about Christians, imagining them guilty of the most heinous crimes. The problem is that it’s not Christians committing the crimes he imagines. The major terrorist crimes come from the Islamists, something that Mike and his friends on the Left refuse to acknowledge. It’s bad when even arch-liberal Bill Maher calls this denial “liberal bullshit.”
Speaking of committed, though, in a sane world Mikey’s delusions would have him being checked out by psychiatrists as a clear and present danger. In our insane world, psychiatrists are used to disarm our veterans and the delusional, hate-filled, spittle-flecked Mikey gets to work with the Pentagon to create a tolerance policy that ensures that military chaplains will be court martialed for doing their jobs.
If troops are indeed being punished or ostracized because they don’t embrace a particular form of Christianity, the military has to address that. But Mikey makes it clear that, for him, being Christian is the real problem. In that regard, he’s the typical Leftist who says that the First Amendment, rather than giving people the right to worship, means that the Christian religion must be erased from America.
(End of the Mr. Conservative article, beginning of my last comment on the subject.)
As for me, I think that people who are willing to fight and die for their country in a constitutionally-bound military run by civilians, in a nation controlled by the First Amendment, should be allowed to practice their religion without Leftists denying them the comfort of knowing that, as they go into battle, God walks at their side.

Arizona Gov. Brewer Refuses to Stop Using Term “Illegal Immigrant”

Stand With Arizona ^ | 04-30-2013 | John Hill

brewerx-large
It’s a good thing Jan Brewer is a politician and not a journalist. The Associated Press recently struck the term “illegal immigrant” from its lexicon. Not so Arizona’s feisty governor — and she’s not backing down on this one.
Brewer defended her use of the word during an interview with a clearly irritated ABC News Senior National Correspondant Jim Avila, who repeatedly pestered Brewer to change her language, to no avail:
“I’ve heard you use the phrase over and over and over again. They’re insulted by the term, ‘illegal immigrant.’ That that brands a person. What they do is illegal immigration, but the people themselves are not illegals. Have you thought about it at all, with so many Hispanics in your state? To stop using that word — illegal immigrant?”“No, to me they’re illegal immigrants,” Brewer said.
“When you break the law, you’re doing something illegal, that makes you an illegal,” she added. “So they are an illegal immigrant.”
When Avila called her use of the phrase “offensive to some people,” Brewer remained firm in her convictions.
“Well I’m sorry, but I believe that if you break the law and you’re an illegal immigrant and you’re in this country illegally, you are an illegal immigrant,” she said.
She added that the term “illegal immigrant” was considered politically correct for years - as opposed to the more accurate term “illegal alien”, but now suddenly people want to change it. Brewer also expressed that illegal immigrants are people, but that the law must be followed, for the safety of Arizonans. Although the annoying Avila wasted nearly half the interview persisting in trying to get the Governor to abandon the term, the rest of the interview was also news-making, as Brewer said the border was not secure by a longshot, and said that she opposes the 'Gang of Eight' amnesty bill.
Nice to see Arizona's governor stand by the rule of law, and stick to her guns.
Here's the full interview...
Excerpt...click here for the full article.

The GAO IS Now Investigating The DHS Ammo Purchases

Breitbart ^ | 4/29/13 | Debra Heine

Last Thursday, Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who chairs one of the House oversight subcommittees, held a hearing to find out why the Department of Homeland Security has been ordering so much ammunition. "It is entirely ... inexplicable why the Department of Homeland Security needs so much ammunition," Chaffetz said at the hearing.
He revealed that the department currently has more than 260 million rounds in stock.
He said the department bought more than 103 million rounds in 2012 and used 116 million that same year -- among roughly 70,000 agents.
Comparing that with the small-arms purchases procured by the U.S. Army, he said the DHS is churning through between 1,300 and 1,600 rounds per officer, while the U.S. Army goes through roughly 350 rounds per soldier... He noted that is "roughly 1,000 rounds more per person."
Now, according to US News Washington Whispers, the GAO is looking into the ammo purchases.
The congressional investigative agency is jumping into the fray just as legislation was introduced in both the Senate and the House to restrict the purchase of ammo by some government agencies (except the Department of Defense). The AMMO Act, introduced Friday, would prevent agencies from buying more ammunition if "stockpiles" are greater than what they were in previous administrations.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Obama's Policies

Posted Image

SWELL

Posted Image

Left Wing Logic

Posted Image

Good vs. Evil

Posted Image

What Kills?

Posted Image

LOGIC

Posted Image

The Changes of Time

Posted Image

The End?

Posted Image

PC Terms

Posted Image

Frustration Device

Posted Image

The Uniform

Posted Image

Awkward Moment

Posted Image

FLY?

Posted Image

Cold weather causes murder!

Posted Image

Not to worry...

Posted Image

Hypocrisy 101

Posted Image

Where's the president?

Posted Image

Rubio Flushing His Political Aspirations -and the Entire GOP- Down the Toilet!

Reaganite Republican ^ | 30 April 2013 | Reaganite Republican


'You’re a nice guy. That's a problem.

Nice guys are only popular in prison and in the Senate- and for similar reasons.'


Today's Republican Party suffers from a paucity of those who can effectively communicate the conservative message.
So what a shame I might not be able to vote for one of the few who DID possess that gift...

WHAT on God's green Earth are you thinking, dude? Has it yet occurred that you're a DREAM prop for the Democrats here- the hispanic Republican who's marching lockstep with them on a bill that MANY of us see little good in? That you provide conservative 'cover' for a scheme nobody I know can actually stomach? That they're trying to ram-through the 'Gang of 8' immigration bill before the stench reaches the voters' collective schnoz?

If not to yourself, it does seem glaringly obvious to outside observers they felt YOU were just the ticket- the one who could convince all those ig'nant clingers to fall in-line behind McAmnesty, Linseed, and Schmucky Schumer (the snake)- speaking of, do you also think Obama/Reid/Schumer would be pushing this so hard if it was going to 'save the GOP'...?

To be brief, this bill is crap:
We’ve only scraped the surface of this current immigration reform bill and what we’ve scraped off is pure muck.

The promises to secure the border are a joke. The “long and hard” pathway to citizenship – which there shouldn’t be anyway – is bypassed with shortcuts.

Promises that the zillions of people who weren’t invited here in the first place will pay their “back taxes” fall apart when you actually read the language.

Assurances that they won’t be able to cash in on the welfare state and all its goodies are dubious at best. Even those who want desperately to support wise immigration reform, like Hugh Hewitt and Charles Krauthammer, have their doubts.

Contrary what they're saying, a loophole big enough to drive an overpacked Suburban through will actually fast-track millions of illegals for citizenship- with precious few speed-bumps.

A recent Pew Research poll showed fully 1/3 of Mexican adult citizens would come to the USA if allowed! Add to that the kids they'll bring/make on the way and you get the idea of what a 'pathway to citizenship' with feigned DHS border controls will bring.

The bill also hands way too-much power over to DHS... oft-touted 'triggers' in the bill aren't triggers at-all... and it will ensure Democratic Party dominance ad infinitum.

Marco Rubio, you need to unwind your involvement in this noxious scam as fast as you can muster the courage to admit your mistake and move-on: conservatives will NEVER forgive you for it if you don't. I do believe you're a good guy -impressive political talent- and a principled conservative on most other issues.. and I would like to take you seriously in a presidential primary.

But I'm really starting to question your judgement- and yes, naivete... it's simply not a very good bill, it's a big, secretive, unread mess that won't deliver anything like the touts are saying... same as all major Obama-era legislation. Your aggressive campaigning on it's behalf is starting to cast a shadow on your personal credibility... some might even say you've been intentionally misleading.



At minimum, give us all some time to have a look at just what's in there... what lesson did you people learn from Obamacare's passage, hidden tricks, and troublesome implementation anyway- how to bypass congressional and public debate and ram bills down our throat in the dead of night? A principled man might arrive at the opposite judgement- don't you think?

PLEASE distance yourself from this 800-page monster and the RINOs/scheming Dems you're currently in the room with, Senator Rubio- and if you really feel the need to be part of some immigration reform, go talk to Ted Cruz and cook-up something a bit more genuine, effective, and honest... but don't even bother if you're not going to secure the border first.

They clearly need you to get this done... YOU might be the only one who can stop it now- DO IT -show us what you're made of- and you just might earn yourself a spot on that 2016 ticket.

Jason Collins to march in Boston gay pride parade [Sodomy Celebrated Far & Wide]

CBS ^ | 4/30/13

... the White House -- President Obama called him -- along with former President Clinton, the NBA, current and former teammates, a sponsor, and athletes in other sports.
On Monday evening, hours after his story appeared on the web, Collins wrote on Twitter, "All the support I have received today is truly inspirational. I knew that I was choosing the road less traveled but I'm not walking it alone."
... In Monday's story, Collins writes that the Boston Marathon bombing on April 15 "reinforced the notion that I shouldn't wait for the circumstances of my coming out to be perfect. Things can change in an instant, so why not live truthfully?"
And now, Collins and Kennedy say, they will be in Boston on June 8, marching together at the city's 2013 gay pride parade
(Excerpt) Read more at m.cbsnews.com ...