Monday, June 10, 2013

Obama dismisses GOP critics, says healthcare reform is working as planned!

Fierce Healthcare ^ | June 10, 2013 | Ilene MacDonald 

President Obama shrugged off Friday what he coined Republican "fearmongering" and said the healthcare law is working the way it's supposed to, The Hill's Healthwatch reports.
Obama criticized the GOP for using scare tactics over the effects of the healthcare law. He says early results indicate the system is working as intended, although industry experts say the true measure of the law's success will be known once new insurance marketplaces open this fall in states across the country and enrollment for the new coverage options begin.
But Obama pointed to California, as one of several states that shows early success, according to Healthwatch. Californians will be able to choose among 13 insurance companies for coverage at premiums lower than expected. In addition, marketplaces in Washington, Oregon and Vermont are expected to offer affordable premiums. "You can listen to a bunch of political talk out there, negative ads and fearmongering geared toward the next election, or alternatively you can look what's happening in states like California right now," Obama said.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

‘Impeach Obama’ Protest Causes Giant Southern California Traffic Jam

Western Journalism ^ | 6-10-2013 | Timothy Whiteman 

A TEA Party sponsored “Impeach Obama” demonstration on a major Southern California freeway overpass caused traffic to backup at least ten miles, as the organizer apologized for “any small inconvenience” drivers may have dealt with, as reported by the San Diego-based local news portal the Carlsbad Patch on June 9, 2013.
Flying a number of American flag as well as the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party-adopted Gadsen flag, protesters flashed to motorists on the Interstate 5 southbound lanes in Carlsbad, California placards stating “Remember Benghazi,” “Obama Lies” and “Amnesty Hell No!”
Organizers estimated between 25,000 and 30,000 vehicles would drive under the Tamarack Rd. overpass where the protesters set up shop.
By 12:15, the notoriously slow California freeway traffic had become a slow flowing parking lot from the protest site all the way back to the main gate of the sprawling Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, ten miles distant.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trust Deficit Disorder - Viewing Obama Through A PRISM

Cowboy Confessional ^ | 6/10/2013 | Guy Smith 

Who do you trust?
Trust is a fundamental fallacy in politics and government, or in any realm where power is concentrated. This adage is so true that P.J. O’Rourke summarized the American political experience in a book he titled Don't Vote – It Just Encourages the Bastards. Yet trusting politicians aligned with one’s basic beliefs causes such encouragement every election cycle, which in recent history has elected philanderers, dufuses and con men as president. Placing trust in any politician or party (aside from the Libertarians, who seek power in order to dismantle it) invites abuse of power in the present.
The big problem though is not the present, but the future.
Indisputable is the fact that Nazis used German gun registration to disarm their victims. What is less well known is that the gun registration program was not Hitler’s invention but that of the preceding Weimar government. What is enacted by one regime may initially cause no material harm or might even create some social good. Yet the same laws benignly applied by one administration can become a tool of Orwellian abuse under another.
snowden-obama-trustHence, the unfolding saga of Edward Snowden’s strategic leak of PRISM.
Snowden is a youngster being hounded by authorities for publicizing government secrets, which makes Snowden either a hero or traitor depending on your personal trust focus. PRISM and predecessor government surveillance systems are all children of America’s War on Terror and the rape child of 9/11. Aside from fringe civil libertarians, nobody denies the need for surveillance of enemies foreign and domestic. Where folks disagree is who can be monitored and how. Old fashioned police work that begins with probable cause on a specific suspect is positively wholesome. Digital panopticons that bring Big Brother monstrously to life are obvious violations of basic privacy even under alleged checks and balances. The line lay somewhere between these extremes. Tripping over the line does not require actual abuse of an individual – it must merely violate trust and the prerogative to privacy.
In serial disclosures over seven days we have learned that Uncle Sam acquires and analyzes every cell phone call, text message and Internet activity of all Americans. The line has been crossed.
The NSA – which stands for the National Security Agency, but for a long time was known within the beltway as No Such Agency – is an enormous technology consumer. Their data centers make Google’s look minuscule. In the 1990s they bought enough super computers and Field Programmable Gate Arrays to listen for keywords in telephone conversations around the world using the ECHELON system. In short, they snort all available data from whatever source they can, enabling alerts and deep digging by “authorized” agents.
You can trust those agents because their employers (politicians) said so.
Trust is weakest where there are serial violations. A wife might learn to again trust a husband who cheated once, but would be a fool to forgive Bill Clinton. Likewise, one would be a fool to trust the head of the Justice Department, Eric Holder. Under his leadership, Holder has willfully smuggled guns to violent Mexican drug cartels, obfuscated congressional testimony to the point where Congress has taken him to court, and oversaw the FBI sacking your cellphone records. Called Obama’s “sin eater”, Holder (who once infamously suggested that American’s needed to be “brainwashed” about gun control) is at the nexus of every Obama overreach, which may be why Obama – in a Nixonian maneuver – has tried to shield Holder via executive privilege claims.
This is where PRISM becomes a bigger problem than the mere violation of everyone’s privacy.
The NSA triggers investigations at the request of the president’s security departments (much as Obama may have done via IRS investigations of Tea Party non-profits). These queries then tap FBI computers where much of the PRISM data is gathered. Some allege this is a necessary check against random and unwarranted searches since the FBI has the legal authority for accessing domestic information. The NSA has the horsepower to analyze mass data, and the FBI has the authority to collect it.
The FBI is a division of the sin eater’s Department of Justice.
Who do you trust? Snowden trusted Obama until doing so was like Hilary trusting Bill. “I believed in Obama's promises. I was going to disclose it [but waited because of his election]. He continued with the policies of his predecessor.” Therein is the danger of trusting power and politicians, neither of which is inherently safe. Political winds cause voter brushfires, and we see one now ready to burn out of control thanks to Snowden.
(Amusingly, such disclosures also instigate political limbo dancing. California Senator Dianne Feinstein once berated the Bush administration’s use of anti-terror surveillance saying “Just one year after receiving unchecked authority in a little known section added to the PATRIOT Act last spring – the Administration has significantly abused its discretion.” Yet when Obama has caused every digital part of American human existence to be usurped, she says “This is called protecting America.”)
“I believe that at this point in history, the greatest danger to our freedom and way of life comes from the reasonable fear of omniscient State powers kept in check by nothing more than policy documents,” was Snowden’s note to a reporter as they discussed his motivations for shining a light into PRISIM. “Such a direct threat to democratic governance that I have risked my life and family for it.”
Despite exposing state secrets, Snowden may be a man worth trusting.

Obama Is Just Obama

PJ Media ^ | June 10, 2013 | Victor Davis Hanson 

Suddenly, half the country is upset with Obama for the recent flurry of scandals. Even some in the media are perplexed. Why the sudden angst, given that Obama is simply being Obama? We, not he, changed the rules.
Once Barack Obama was elected to the Illinois legislature, his career as a statesman was mostly an afterthought — either voting “present” on controversial legislation (cf. Hillary’s 2008 complaint) or simply showing up to sign off on a straight left-wing agenda. Even his supporters can cite no lasting legislative achievement other than his controversial votes to allow babies born alive from botched abortions to be liquidated. As a political unknown, he got elected and defined his tenure as a legislator into a perpetual effort to find higher office.
Ditto the U.S. Senate. Obama was noted in his brief career mostly for compiling the most partisan record among a diverse group of 100 senators, while making the argument that he worked “across the aisle” and was a model of “bipartisanship.” Because newly elected Senator Obama swore that he would not run for the presidency, we inferred that he would certainly do just that. (Yes, it is axiomatic that when Obama swears ["make no mistake about it"/"let me be perfectly clear"], then we expect what will follow will prove to be the very opposite.)
In the Senate, there was no signature legislation, no principled opposition, not much of anything, except a vote against Justice Alito and some similarly failed efforts at other filibusters to deny nominees an up-or-down vote. He spent most of his brief sojourn attacking George W. Bush for the very protocols that he as president would later embrace. The only thing important was getting elected in the first place as a left-wing senator, and Obama accomplished that in brilliant, if not Machiavellian, fashion — with the help of the leaked divorced records of both his primary and general opponents.
The Man Who Never Was
The saga of Obama is marked by the uncanny ability to soar through the academic and government cursus honorum without ever being held too accountable for what followed. Obama’s selection as editor of the Harvard Law Review broke new ground. But to this day, no one cares much that his record was mediocre with no scholarly work to show for his tenure.
For that matter, ditto also his law career at the University of Chicago: an impressive appointment, but no scholarly book as promised, not even an article, and no distinguished record of teaching. Not much of anything. The point of the Nobel Prize was winning it — not doing anything that might have earned it. Just as there was no foreign policy achievement that preceded the prize, so there was naturally none following it. Why expect anything different now?
The Mind of the Liberal Elite
Obama always has a unique insight into a disturbing pathology among wealthy white liberal elites, who often seek, in condescending fashion, to promote particular aspiring minority candidates into positions of power and influence by virtue of their profile rather than past record. Hence the prep-schooled Barry Dunham returned to the more exotic Barack Obama, an authentic enough “other” fresh out of Rev. Wright’s Church, but also the pet of the Ivy League. Had he been born in Chicago to a Daily ward boss, it would have been a bit much to win statewide office. Had Obama been named Reggie Davis I don’t think the liberal resonance would have been there. Had he intoned like Jesse Jackson — all the time — he would have worried big-money liberals. Had his mannerisms been Al Sharpton-like, that would have been a bridge too far. There is something in the liberal mind that ignores the anti-constitutional transgressions of a smooth Eric Holder, but goes berserk over the comparatively minor obfuscations of a twangy Texan Alberto Gonzalez, perhaps along the lines of “how dare he?” Politics aside, liberal elites would always prefer to hear a Barack Obama fudge than a Clarence Thomas tell the truth.
Obama brilliantly threaded the multicultural, Ivy-League, prep-school, affirmative action, just like us-sorta, yuppie needle. I’ll let you decide whether wealthy liberals practice such racialist paternalism because of feelings of guilt, because of their intrinsic dislike of the NASCAR/Sarah Palin working and middle classes, or as a sort of medieval exemption — the huge “Obama for President” sign on the lawn of the Palo Alto professor means never having to put your kids in schools where some are bused in from East Palo Alto. But what is absolutely non-controversial is that Obama’s prior record as a university undergraduate, a Harvard Law Review editor, a Chicago law lecturer, an Illinois legislator, and a U.S. senator was as undistinguished as his efforts to obtain those posts were absolutely dazzling.
The presidency followed the same earlier script. Obama ran a brilliant campaign both in 2008 and 2012, more inspired even than Richard Nixon’s 1972 CREEP run, or Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America” 1984 touchy-feely pastel effort. In 2008, Obama offered cadences of something known as “hope and change” that were supposed to cure the evils of George Bush — and left everything else to the media. The second time around, he turned a decent Mitt Romney into a veritable greedy ogre from the Utah nuthouse, who did everything from ignoring his African-American garbage man to torturing his poor dog to buying pricey horses for his wife who was found guilty of being an equestrian.
But Obama’s record as president? There is pretty much nothing other than ramming through an unpopular takeover of health care, leveraged by political bribes and deemed unworkable even before it is enacted. A “train wreck” is how its author in the Senate dubbed his own legislative offspring. Otherwise it was golf, down time, and free rein for zealous subordinates to “fundamentally transform America” by any means necessary, usually through administrative fiat and subversions of the vast and always growing bureaucracy.
Obama is now somewhat shocked that a few in the media hold him responsible for lots of bad things that his administration did: destroyed the reputation of the IRS; had a rogue EPA director invent a phony persona; let the HHS secretary shake down PR money from corporations to sell Obamacare; turned the Justice Department into a veritable Stasi enterprise going after the phone records of reporters; reduced the State Department into an arm of the 2012 Obama reelection effort; and helped erode the reputations of both Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice, who advanced campaign narratives about Benghazi that were not just untrue, but were demonstrably false the moment they were presented.
So What?
So where’s the beef? Obama, who was given a pass from Rev. Wright to Tony Rezko, is justifiably confused: who now changed the rules? Why should he suddenly be held accountable in a way he never was prior? He signed up to be a transformational president who was above politics, not someone subject to the vagaries of Washington scandals.
The result of the serial dishonesty is that Obama almost immediately reverted to his natural campaign mode, the soaring rhetoric and non-traditional persona that won him everything on the guarantee that there would be no audit, no assessment, no final appraisal. In other words, Obama never really became president of the United States. He simply kept running for the office against “them” even when he is now “them” holding the highest office. So Pavlovian was his campaign mode that he never quite stopped to wonder why he was running against himself — now damning the very abuses of power that he committed, upset only that someone might be disturbed about a record in a manner that they never were at Harvard, in the Senate, or during his first term.
Quo Vadimus?
Where do the scandals lead? To about three more months of Washington inaction. At some point soon, the Democrats will accept that the novelty of Obama in opposition to the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments has worn off. Who cares to hound out our first black president, our first northern liberal commander in chief in a half-century? Likewise the media will strut a bit to show it is not entirely reptilian, but then will revert to the usual hagiography. Why endanger Obamacare, or “lead from behind,” or the apology tours, or the new 50 million on food stamps by cannibalizing your own?
There are lots of metaphors for Obama. Some cite King Henry II, who dreams out loud for advantageous things to follow, only to shed alligator tears when toadies reify his deadly desires (Becket dead? That was a bit much, wasn’t it?). Others cite the clueless Jimmy Carter, whose agendas proved unworkable and ended up as caricatures of a presidency. I still prefer Chauncey Gardiner of Being There. In January 2012, I wrote the following on these pages:
What got Obama to the presidency was being a man without a past or present, Chauncey Gardiner of Being There — without a college record, a medical record, a scholarly record, or much of a legislative record, the “smartest” president in history without having to say or do anything smart, who “busted hump” his entire life without any proof that he ever did any such thing, who proclaimed himself a greater president than all but three, but left nothing great in his wake, now or in the past. Obama had forgotten that winning non-persona for a time, and so after 2009 fooled himself into thinking out loud that at times he would play a real Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Kennedy, or Reagan.
But now Obama accepts what he was and always will be — Chauncey Gardiner.
And just being there is apparently the way to being president a bit longer.
Nothing has changed in the last 18 months, and the Obama presidency remains what it has been since 2009: a path-breaking candidate who was elected America’s first African-American president; a gifted teleprompted speaker who is as accomplished from a script as he flounders ex tempore; and an opportunist haunted by George Bush and the post-2010 Republican House that are supposed to be responsible for most of what he gets caught for.
Otherwise there is not a lot there—mostly a carnival of McCarthyite (AttackWatch, JournoList, IRS) henchmen and left-wing extremists trying to push through an agenda by any means necessary that the majority of America probably does not welcome.
Obama is perturbed that we question any of this malfeasance. I think he is right to be angry. In his case, we made up the Obama rules that symbolism (not performance) and amnesty (not accountability) count. So why break our covenant with him, and now start asking for concrete and honest accomplishment when the teleprompter was always enough? In 2008, did we ask for the specifics of “the audacity of hope,” or ponder how someone who did not miss a service at Trinity Church (“Yep. Every week. 11 o’clock service”) somehow missed Rev. Wright’s serial racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American rants? That we now want to know the president’s role in Benghazi, or in the IRS, AP, and Fox scandals is something that was just not part of the smartest-president-in-history bargain—as if once upon a time America ever demanded, “What the hell is your hope and change?”

So as they say here in Selma, “Get over it”.

A Male Perspective On Bras

Not sure of your girlfriend's size? There's a few tricks for that.

By Christopher Pilny,

Page 1: A Male Perspective On Bras

It was April of 2010, and, after five years, I’d finally graduated from college. An English major with double minors in biology and chemistry, I’d planned on attending dental school to become an oral maxillofacial surgeon. But after a series of disconcerting events, I ended up taking a job at Victoria’s Secret to spend a year studying women. I was on top of the world, really, no longer worrying about taking the DAT or writing my personal statement. All I had to do now was learn about a couple of bras, and how hard could that be?

I came to realize just how naïve this assumption was two hours into my first day on the job. I was ringing up a customer when she noticed she’d grabbed the wrong size. “Oh, don’t worry about it,” I said. “Let me just call to one of the girls on the floor. They’ll grab it for you.” This is what we were trained to do, and it’s a nice gesture until you realize you have no freaking clue what you’re looking at. It could be a Very Sexy push-up. It could be a Flawless demi. It could be a Cottons full coverage. Or it could simply be a double-pouched water balloon launcher, because, here’s the rub: When you don’t listen to country music, anything with steel guitar and banjo sounds like country music. When you don’t have a discerning palate, anything with pasta and marinara sauce tastes like Italian food. And when you don’t have breasts, anything with two cups and some straps looks like a bra.

It was clear I needed help.

Recognizing the I’m-drowning-over-here tone in my voice, the store manager saw to it that I received schooling in the matter. What resulted was a string of lectures I came to call “The Titorials.” My first was with a girl named Casey, who started me slow, first picking up a bra without padding, having me squeeze it, then picking up a bra with padding and having me squeeze it. “See,” she said, “this is a bra without padding, and this… This is a bra with padding. Feel the difference?” I nodded, squeezing what the FAA would approve as a personal flotation device in the event of a water landing.

My second Titorial was with a girl named Colleen. Seeing as I now understood the difference between a push-up and non-push-up bra, she gave me a more in-depth lesson, walking me through each room, carefully explaining the bra collections within it, and how to tell them apart. It was during this that I started to feel more comfortable feeling like a complete idiot. No matter what sex you are -- male, female or Cher -- selling bras at Victoria’s Secret is really f*cking hard. The Body By Victoria collection, for example, has eight different bras. There’s the full coverage, the unlined full coverage, the demi, the racerback demi, the push-up, the supermodel push-up, the multi-way and the wireless -- which sounds like something that might come with a data plan. Multiply this by the 13 other bra collections in the store, and the only thing that keeps you from having a complete meltdown is the reassurance that each bra has what it is and the size labeled on the band. “If all else fails, it’s there,” Colleen said, which I reassured her all else would absolutely fail.

While the Titorials helped in my quest for bra knowledge, I’ve never been much of an auditory learner. I’m more of a hands-on kind of guy, which can be somewhat tricky when you’re dealing with breasts in a professional setting. As a result, it took me about five months to really feel confident both selling and differentiating the bras in the store.

Because most women didn’t want my help finding a bra, I mainly stuck to helping men, which I found to be relatively easy. Once you got them to focus, they generally had a clear notion of what they wanted to see their wives/girlfriends wearing. The only problem came with sizing. If women were often naively mistaken about their bra size, men were proudly ignorant. They either treated breasts like a trophy bass, exaggerating both size and weight, or they blinked once before saying they had no clue. It was somewhat embarrassing to watch, but I can’t really judge. For years, bra size had been a mystery to me. Yeah, I knew the sizes -- 34A, 36B, 36DD -- and I knew that the bigger the letters got, the better; but I had no idea what they signified. Was 34 the weight in ounces? Did the letters perhaps signify the amount of water a breast displaced if put in a pool? Or were they both just some kind of a visual estimation, based upon the amount of shadow they cast on a wall when a woman walked in front of a lamp?

It turned out to be much simpler than I thought. The number indicated band size, or the circumference of a torso, while the letter indicated cup size. No, I didn’t know how to measure either of these, but it was OK, as I was probably never going to have to do that. That’s what the girls were for. They did the measuring.

Page 2: Inside Story On Bras

Knowing what a bra size meant, however, still didn’t help me with my clueless male customers. I was about to throw in the towel when the missing key to my success was finally discovered. Out of all the things the girls had taught me about bras, they had failed to mention the most important. The method for sizing when a size wasn’t known.

“Wait,” said one of the girls. “No one’s taught you the fruit method, yet?”

“The what?” I said.

“The Fruit Method.”

“No, I don’t... I don’t think so.”

She put her hands on her hips.

“Well, that’s why you’re having so much trouble. The fruit method is what we use when we have men who don’t know their girlfriend’s bra size. It’s simple. You ask them to compare their girlfriend’s boobs to either a lemon, an apple, an orange or a grapefruit, and from that, you can get a rough estimate of their bra size.”

“You’re kidding, right?” I said in disbelief.

“No,” she said, shaking her head. “A lemon is a 34A, an apple is a 34B, an orange is a 34C and a grapefruit is a 36C/34D.”

I stared at her in complete awe. As a learning device, the fruit method was essentially perfect, playing to both men’s innate visual and tactile abilities. Combine this with something we can eat, and it makes for a method that we not only understand, but will employ the rest of our lives.

Now I knew what I was doing, and I was finally ready to put some tits in some cups.

Fortunately, opportunity came knocking rather quickly -- the next day, to be exact. I was on the floor, putting some bras away, when I found a guy staring at a French maid outfit. I asked him if he needed help finding anything and, much to my surprise, he said he did.

“I’m looking for some panties you can untie,” he said. “You know, kind of like a bikini bottom, but a pantie.”

I told him we didn’t have anything like that, but we did have some great see-through lingerie. He agreed that would do just fine.

“Ok, so do you know her size?” I asked.

“Um,” he scratched his head. “I think she’s a small.”

“No,” I said, “I meant, do you know her bra size?”

He looked me, then turned away slightly, raising both hands in front of him, palms facing out, before cupping them and making a squeezing motion.

“Mmm, about this big,” he said.

It took everything I had no to laugh. He was being completely serious.

“Ok,” I said. “Let’s to do this a little differently. If you were to compare your girlfriend’s breasts to a fruit, what would they be? A lemon, an apple, an orange or a grapefruit?”

He paused, thinking.

“An orange,” he said. “She’s probably an orange.”

I told him this meant she was about a 34C, and he raised his eyebrows, looking at me as if I was some kind of jaw-dropping circus act. “You’re good,” he said. “You’re good.” I thanked him, not wanting to make a big deal out of it. It was the best compliment I've ever received.

IRS Caught on Tape Telling Nonprofit: “Keep Your Faith to Yourself”

LifeNews ^ | June 10, 2013 | Steven Ertelt 

The IRS scandal is deepening as a new tape has been released today showing IRS staff making a phone conversation that the Internal Revenue Service placed to a non-profit organization.
Alliance Defending Freedom, a pro-life legal group, made the audio available today of IRS officials telling a group that provides support to women in abusive pregnancy situations to keep its faith to itself. In the recorded phone conversation, an IRS agent lectures the president of the organization about forcing its religion and beliefs on others and inaccurately explains that the group must remain neutral on issues such as abortion.
ADF is providing legal representation for the group which did not receive its tax-exempt status until last week after waiting nearly two and a half years after applying for it.
“The IRS is a tax collector; it shouldn’t be allowed to be the speech and belief police,” said Senior Legal Counsel Erik Stanley. “The current scandal isn’t new but has merely exposed the abuse of power that characterizes this agency and threatens our fundamental freedoms.”
ADF tells LifeNews that, in January 2011, Pro-Life Revolution, which operates from Texas under all three purposes, filed an application for tax-exempt status with the IRS. Four months later, the IRS sent a letter requesting “more information” and an explanation of how the organization’s activities are educational or charitable even though IRS rules specify that an organization need only operate for “one or more” of the three exempt purposes. snip
AD indicates Joseph received a call from IRS Exempt Organization Specialist Sherry Wan in March 2012. Wan told her that, in order to obtain a tax exemption, “You cannot force your religion or force your beliefs on somebody else…. You have to know your boundaries. You have to know your limits. snip

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Suspicions Confirmed: Academia Shutting Out Conservative Professors! ^ | June 10, 2013 | Rachel Alexander 

Conservatives have long suspected there is discrimination against conservative professors in academia, and now there is evidence to prove it. Sociology professor Neil Gross, a self-described liberal, reveals the results of surveys showing this bias in his new book, Why Professors are Liberal and Why do Conservatives Care?
Sociologist George Yancy asked professors if they would be more or less likely to hire someone if they were a Republican, evangelical or fundamentalist. Three-quarters said political affiliation would not affect their hiring decision. But the one-quarter that did say it would influence their decision virtually all said they would favor a Democrat over a Republican. Almost half of the sociology professors surveyed said they would look unfavorably upon evangelicals and fundamentalists trying to get a job in their department!
In a 2005 survey, researcher Gary Tobin asked professors how favorably or unfavorably they felt about various religious groups. Fifty-three percent of academics responded that they regard evangelicals unfavorably. The next highest unfavorable rating was 33 percent regarding Mormons.
Professor Gross performed his own “audit study,” sending in fake applications to upper academia at universities around the country. One set of applicants, the control group, had nothing political listed on their resumes. The other two sets of applicants indicated they had either worked on the McCain or Obama 2008 presidential campaigns. He found, “On average, the DGSs (directors of graduate studies) responded less frequently, more slowly, and less enthusiastically to the conservative applicant.”
The average professor is three times as liberal as the average American, and academia is even more liberal now than it was in the 1960s. Gross provides evidence indicating that feminism greatly increased the drift of college faculty to the left, in every field except engineering. Today, 63 percent of female academics describe themselves as feminists. Seventy-three percent of academics describe themselves as moderates, liberals or radical leftists. Gross admits, “…it would be foolish for anyone with truly antifeminist sensibilities to become a sociologist,” due to how liberal that field has become. The Sex and Gender Section is the second largest section in the American Sociological Association. New departments have emerged like Women’s Studies where conservatives would not even bother applying.
Gross’s thesis is that conservatives self-select other professions, independently choosing not to become professors because academia is so liberal. But this sidesteps the clear evidence Gross provides revealing faculty bias in hiring. Gross cites, yet ignores, a study which found that seven percent of conservative academics report having been the victim of political discrimination. Conservative professor Mary Grabar debunks Gross’s thesis, publishing essays from six white male professors who have been blocked out of higher academia, in her new book, Exiled: Stories From Conservative and Moderate Professors Who Have Been Ridiculed, Ostracized, Marginalized, Demonized and Frozen Out. Most of them cannot obtain well-paying full-time work at four-year institutions, and instead are relegated to “perpetual adjunct status, teaching twice as many classes as the average course load, for wages that work out to be less than minimum wage.”
In the second half of Gross’s book, he tries to understand why conservatives care about this bias. Besides the fact that it is unfair to conservatives who want to become professors, the obvious answer is because many professors insert their political biases into their grading and teaching. Gross correctly answers this question on page three in his book’s Introduction and should have stopped there, “Stick an impressionable twenty-year old in a classroom for fifteen weeks with a charismatic instructor who makes the case that conservatives are heartless or deluded and that the United States has evil designs, and the student is likely to veer left.” Gross interviewed professors on whether they engage in political indoctrination, or “critical pedagogy.” Two of fifty-seven professors he interviewed fully admitted they were guilty of it.
Yet Gross cannot understand the conservative mind, and wastes the second half of the book analyzing stereotypes and red herrings. Professor Grabar reviewed Gross’s book and concluded, “Even as he attempts to look fair-minded, Gross presents caricatured pictures of conservatism.”

Gross attempts to make conservatives look bad throughout the book, but much of it backfires. He asserts, “social conservatives tend to come from lower social class origins in the contemporary American context,” and, “Professors tend to come from better educated, higher income families than other Americans.” However, this just goes to validate the complaint by conservatives that academia is composed of elitist liberals who come from wealthy, connected families.

The good news is not all areas of study are heavily dominated by professors on the left. Economics, criminology, and engineering still have a significant portion of conservative professors, although not quite 50 percent.
To his credit, Gross has attempted to put some semblance of fairness into his book, by daring to expose real biases against conservative professors. And for that he was threatened by the very liberal establishment he is a part of. As a result of his audit study, “Two complained to my institutional review board, and one threatened legal action if his case was not removed from our data set (it was).” It is a sad day for academia when the left is not only shutting down conservatives, but also their own who are speaking up about the suppression of free speech and the free flow of ideas at the universities.

Which one is DAD?

 photo image001.jpg

Do You Trust This Administration?

Heritage Foundation ^ | 6/10/2013 | Amy Payne 

The Obama Administration has a few problems. From Benghazi to the IRS to the phone records of journalists and everyday Americans, it’s not difficult to call up a scandal with investigations pending in Washington.
So immigration reform makes for a nice distraction.
In his weekly address on Saturday, President Obama called immigration reform “an issue that the vast majority of Americans want addressed.”
This sounds like wishful thinking on his part, considering that unemployment is stuck at 7.6 percent and Americans consistently say that the economy is their No. 1 concern.
But Obama was intent on giving the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill a push as the Senate begins to debate it this week.
>>> Reminder: The Top 5 Problems with the “Comprehensive” Immigration Bill
Obama claimed that “This bill would continue to strengthen security at our borders”—which the bill simply does not do, despite promises from lawmakers and attempts at amending the legislation.
What the bill does do is give federal agencies more power. Heritage’s E.W. Richardson Fellow, James Carafano, has revealed:
this bill lavishes billions of additional spending on the [Homeland Security] department with no clear requirements on how the money is spent. At least $2 billion could legitimately be labeled the Secretary’s slush fund. But according to the President, anyone who stands in the way of his immigration agenda is just trying to “stoke fear and create division,” he says.
The truth is, the Obama Administration has already stoked plenty of fear in Americans lately.
They fear that Obamacare will make the health care system worse.
They fear being targeted by an all-powerful IRS.
They fear that the Administration could be digging into their phone calls.
But the President and his allies in the Senate are saying, “Trust us.” They’re asking the American people to trust that their “comprehensive” immigration legislation—which would give sweeping powers to more federal agencies—will work smoothly. That granting amnesty to illegal immigrants before securing the border will have a different effect than it did last time.
What do you think?

USAFA Commencement sans Obama White House representation!

 by jagusafr

Just received this from my mom on forward. Quintessential Obama admin, pleasantly surprising reaction from USAFA Commandant.
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:23 AM Subject: US Air Force Academy Commencement 2013
Good friends of ours from here in Elizabethtown, KY just got back home from a visit to the Air Force Academy, in Colorado Springs where they attended the commencement exercises of the graduating class of 2013. In fact John's grandson was one of the graduates and John, being a retired US Army officer was able to swear in his grandson as a brand spanking new US Air Force 2Lt.
What an honor that must have been for John and his family, but that's not the real story nor is it the historic significance of the 2013 commencement celebration. You see 2013 is the first Air Force graduation on record that has occurred under a Sequester created by a nonfunctioning Congress and an unyielding Obama Administration. Due to operating under this Sequester the ceremonies proceeded as follows:
President Obama regretfully declined the kind invitation of the Commandant of the Air Force Academy to be speak to the graduates and their families on the occasion of their graduation saying he was committed to addressing the graduates at West Point. Instead it was established that Vice President Biden was free and he would come to Colorado Springs. And, as to the request for the usual fly-over by the US Air Force Thunderbirds that was declined again due to the Sequester.
After consultation with his chain of command the Commandant of the Air Force Academy notified the White House that due to the Sequester cancelling the traditional fly-over of the Thunderbirds that he was confident that the nation didn't need the added $1 million + expense to fly Air Force 2, of any configuration or model, and the added expense of the Secret Service and their entourage required when the Vice President traveled. So just cancel the initial request for a speaker from the White House for the commencement.
So the commencement went off as planned sans representation from the Obama Administration. It looked like this:
The featured speaker was an Under Secretary of the Air Force, who is a decorated Viet Nam veteran. The Secretary flew back and forth from Andrews AFB to Peterson AFB In Colorado Springs on routine training flight conducted by the Air Force thus costing the American tax payers nothing.
John tells me that there were nearly as many Air Force General Officers in attendance as there were family members. He thinks a dozen or more 4 Star General, three or four times as many 2 and 3 Stars an untold number of 1 Star Generals. And, of course countless Colonels and below.
Most of these officers were themselves alumni of the Air Force Academy and wanted nothing less than to present a perfect program for the graduating class. Since the Congress and the Obama Administration could not see fit to allow for a fly-over by the Thunderbirds, a number of the senior generals took matters into their own hands. And so, when the speeches, the hats were all thrown into the air, and all the family hugs were all made and it became time for the fly-over a roar of engines was detected from the West of the air strip and parade grounds there at the facility and everyone was treated to a fly-over by the Confederate Air Force. Looking up they saw all kinds of vintage aircraft from B-17s B-24s, B-25s, P-38s, P-51s and others all represented by manufactures such Corsairs, Grumman, Lockheed and Boeing who still provide parts availability for these aircraft, and flown by our hero's from prior conflicts that still see fit to stay active for services such as this. It was a wonderful experience for all who were there.
I am sure you will join me in offering a salute to these serving officers who saw fit not to rob the 2013 graduating class of their day of celebration, and to our heroes who flew the planes for this worthy occasion and oh yes to the many private donors who pitched in and covered the expenses involved in bringing these aircraft in to Colorado Springs from various locations across the country.

Democrat Blames TEA Party for IRS Scandal

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 7 June 2013 | John Semmens 

Representative Jim McDermott (D-WA) blames the TEA Party and similar conservative-oriented groups for the IRS scandal, saying “they wouldn’t have been targeted if they weren’t opposed to the President’s reform agenda. If they were playing or trying to play a constructive role in the transformation of this country they wouldn’t have been singled out by the IRS for intimidation. So, in a way, it’s their own fault.”
McDermott suggested that “if these people genuinely want to help make America better they’ll get on board with the push for social justice. In less than a year the Affordable Care Act goes fully into effect. This complex program will be a major jolt to a lot of people. They could try to help ease the transition.”
“If that’s not the right politics for them surely they could help get people engaged with the First Lady’s ‘let’s get America moving’ fight against obesity,” he added. “Encouraging more exercise and eating vegetables is something everyone can support. Why don’t they do that instead of fighting this Administration?”

Poll: Many Americans blame welfare for ‘persistent poverty’

Posted By Michael Bastasch On 9:12 PM 06/08/2013 In Daily Caller News Foundation | No Comments

Americans blame government welfare programs for persistent poverty more than any other factor, according to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll released this week.
Out of a choice of eight factors, 24 percent of Americans said “too much government welfare that prevents initiative” is the reason for persistent poverty which has become a major concern due to the lagging economy following the recession.
The second most popular answer was “Lack of job opportunities” — 18 percent — and the third most popular answers were “lack of good educational opportunities” and “breakdown of families” — at 13 percent each.
Only 4 percent of respondents said that “lack of government funding” was to blame for persistent poverty, while 3 percent said it was “drugs” and only 2 percent blamed “racial discrimination.”
NBC News and the Wall Street Journal asked a similar question in 1994, when Congress was debating welfare reform. The poll asked about poverty in the inner cities, but did not list welfare programs as a possible response.
The 1994 poll saw “lack of job opportunities” — at 31 percent — as the leading answer and a “breakdown of families” — at 23 percent — as the second most popular response.
The number of families receiving cash welfare has been more than halved since the 1990s, from about 5 million to about 2 million in 2011. However, the number of Americans on food stamps has exploded, from about 27 million in 1994 to about 46 million in 2012.
In April 2013, a record number of people collected federal disability — 10,962,532 which is more than the number of people living in Greece. April was the 195th consecutive month that the number of Americans collecting disability grew, reports CNS News.
CNS News reports: “The last time the number of Americans collecting disability decreased was in January 1997. That month the number of workers taking disability dropped by 249 people—from 4,385,623 in December 1996 to 4,385,374 in January 1997.”
Follow Michael on Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

Article printed from The Daily Caller:

URL to article:

The Five Million Dollar Idiot (Chrissy Matthews)

The Other McCain ^ | June 9, 2013 | Smitty 

Leftists who get worked up about the Growing Gap Between Rich and Poor really ought to organize an #OccupyChrisMatthews movement to protest this truthless waste of TV time whose NBC contract reportedly pays him $5 million a year. If I took notice every time Chris Matthews makes a complete idiot of himself, I’d never have time to write about anything else. He’s a human Stupidity Factory, with no internal mental filter that warns him when he is about to emit a steaming heap of senseless gibberish.
Look, this isn’t about ideology. Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow are more fanatical than Matthews, and I disagree with them on damned near any issue you could name. But Hayes and Maddow — and for that matter, the insufferably smug Lawrence O’Donnell — are intelligent, articulate people. Evil, yes, but intelligent and articulate.
On the other hand, transcending all partisan differences, no one with an IQ above room temperature takes Chris Matthews seriously.
How bad is he? I’d rather watch Martin Bashir, except for the purely comic value of Matthews’s idiotic utterances. And this past week, Matthews managed to say something so incomprehensibly stupid, it was remarkable even for him. The context was the swirl of scandals afflicting the Obama administration. Matthews first suggested that criticism of Susan Rice was raaaaacist:
“Here they are, the old white guys, kicking the hell out of another African-American candidate for something.” . . .

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Resume of NSA Leaker Edward Snowden: Stunning (High school drop-out makes $200K year?)

Doug Ross @ Journal ^ | June 9, 2013 

I'd hate to be in the Public Relations department at government contractor Booz Allen Hamilton this weekend. It's not just the fact that Snowden is/was a Booz employee.
Booz Allen Hamilton, Edward Snowden's employer, is one of America's biggest security contractors and a significant part of the constantly revolving door between the US intelligence establishment and the private sector.
The current of director [sic] of national intelligence (DNI), James Clapper, who issued a stinging attack on the intelligence leaks this weekend, is a former Booz Allen executive.
And it's not just that DNI Clapper is an ex-BAH exec and his statement is just a tad embarrassing.
No, let's examine the reported resume of Snowden (dates are estimated):
• Raised in Elizabeth City, North Carolina and later moved to Maryland.
• Attended a community college, but never completed his coursework and never graduated from high school.
• 2003-2004: U.S. Army, discharged after training accident
• 2005: NSA, Security Guard, University of Maryland.
• 2006: CIA, IT security.
• 2007-2009: CIA, diplomatic cover, Switzerland.
• 2009-2013: NSA Contractor, Dell and later Booz Allen Hamilton.
• Salary: around $200,000.
What? Seriously? So a guy who never even graduated from high school (he later reportedly earned a G.E.D.) and started his professional career as a security guard, got hired by a couple of defense contractors and -- at age 29 -- was making $200K a year?
If this story is true, I don't know what's more bizarre: the leak itself or the sheer profligacy of the federal spending machine.

Obama Launches PR Campaign To Counter Scandals

Superkommissar Maksim

User avatar
With an Eight-Year Plan as ambitious as the Obama regime's, scandal eruptions are going to be a given. Thankfully, the mainstream media is happy to help with damage control. Hand in hand with the Party's PR Directorate, they run a successful campaign of convincing the unwashed masses that they CAN indeed trust their government and that anyone who thinks otherwise is an enemy of the state. I prove my loyalty by submitting this piece of visual propaganda for the Party's PR campaign.

We're from the government and we're here to help.
Your friendly faceless bureaucrats are on the job.
Secretly working to advance the party's agenda.
Mistakes will be made, people will be harassed, and rights will be denied.
No worries... we will not be held accountable.
A public service message from the National Union of Progressive Brownshirts

States consider fees for hybrids to recoup lost gasoline taxes ^ | June 9 2013 | AP 

North Carolina is joining a growing number of states exploring new fees for hybrid and electric car owners to help make up for revenue those drivers aren’t paying in gas taxes on their fuel-efficient vehicles.
The proposal strikes many owners of alternative-fuel vehicles and some advocacy groups as a wrong-headed approach to balancing priorities of promoting U.S. energy independence with sustainable infrastructure funding. But policymakers and some experts argue taxing hybrid and electric vehicle owners is a matter of making sure all drivers help maintain the roads they use and construct new ones.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Two Party System


Too New?


The Way




That Look!


The Scandal Du Jour


Judgement at Obamaberg!


Gotta go!


Here's A Thought...


The Branches


Give it up!


Pants on fire?


Weiner-Fluke 2016




Oooh, Chris!


New Uniforms


The End


The Chicago Way


Affirmative Action


The Progressive Logic


The Foibles and Foolishness of Barack Obama Go Beyond Ignorance ^ | June 10, 2013 | John Ransom 

So it comes to this: After all that has been said about Barack Obama, in the end there is very little to say.
You are either willing to overlook Barack Obama’s foibles and foolishness; or you aren’t.
There is no middle ground.
There is no saying for example “Well he’s kind of new in the job,” or “This is an example of one bad apple in his Cabinet,” or “The president didn’t know about it.”
Going into his second term, you either knew what we had in Barack Obama or you didn’t.
For myself, I’ve never been willing to overlook the least ready of all presidents; nor have I ever been willing to give the least steady of presidents a free pass on issues.
Getting past his ideology, however, I was certainly willing to be dazzled, like everyone else.
I was prepared for the post-racial America; for a Great Communicator, who at least on some things, would lift us all up together.
I was looking forward to a day when race, creed, ethnicity, didn’t have to be the issues that drove us apart.
I was impressed when Obama defended private insurance against Hillary’s single payer system; I was impressed that he was willing to tangle with Jesse Jackson, Sr. during the 2008 campaign. He put his prestige on the line to talk about personal responsibility to group that often hears those words like a lecture.
When he was elected, I was willing to celebrate the great racial divide that had been bridged in this country by electing a black man within the living memories of those who helped craft segregation.
In all these things, I was hopeful that the office of the presidency would lift up Barack Obama and with it, the rest of us.
I have, after all, survived many presidents I did not agree with, and could even something find something I could cheer in them.
But what a disappointment this man has been.
There has been no level of discord to which he has not been willing to drive us.
There have been no principles that he has not been willing to abandon.
There has been no opportunity lost to use our country for personal, political ends.
There has been no hesitation in manipulating, gaming, and otherwise using Washington, D.C. as a blood sport.
The deception he perpetrated on the American people is rivaled only by the deception he perpetrated on his party.
And if the stakes weren’t so grave for the country, I would laugh.
Someone is going to have to clean up this mess.
One day the Democrats are going to have to regain the trust of all Americans. They are the Chosen One; they will not get a free pass on spying, or the Boston bombing, or Benghazi, or Eric Holder, or scandals yet to be discovered.
This isn’t socialist Europe.
We all expect to rise.
And when we don’t rise, we’re going to blame someone.
When we get bogged down in the self-love of a man who adores his own reflection in the surface of a teleprompter because, more or less, he can read the same great speech over and over...well let's just say that's not an America built to last.
Since it remains highly unlikely that anyone, anywhere including: 1) members of Congress; 2) the Media; 3) the Democrat Party or 4) European automotive journalists, will ever, anytime hold Barack Obama culpable for his sins, it is certain that eventually some will hold his party responsible instead.
George W. Bush got off lightly, while the rest of us were sent to purgatory.
It’s a cautionary tale of Democrats.
“Jim Jett always used to say that his brother was the damndest scoundrel that was ever borne,” drawled Abraham Lincoln, “but by the infinite mercy of providence he was also the damndest fool.”
It’s the virtue of this Republic that eventually fools are found out.
It remains to be seen what anyone, anywhere will do about this particular fool.

Costs for Obama's state dinners continue to rise

Spero News ^ | 6/10/2013 | Martin Barillas 

For his June 8 meeting with the newly installed Chinese President Xi Jinping, President Barack Obama did not stint on the menu for the banquet arrayed for the leader of Asia’s superpower. Indeed, the costs for Obama’s culinary tastes when entertaining foreign heads of state has continued to rise. For example, when Obama received Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2009, the cost was approximately $487,000 or $1,441 per guest. In 2010, the cost of feting Mexican President Felipe Calderón reached $907,000 or $4,800 per persons, including transportation and other incidental costs.
This year, according to – a Chinese website – the cost of feeding President Xi and other honored guests reached $500,000, all at the cost of the Treasury Department and the American taxpayer.
In January 2011, when Xi’s predecessor – President Hu Jintao – visited the White House, Obama also put on a fabulous banquet that included a red pear salad with goat cheese, followed by a second course of tasty Maine lobster with orange-glazed carrots and black trumpet mushrooms. This was followed by dry-aged rib eye steak festooned with buttermilk crisped onions, along with double-stuffed potatoes and creamed spinach. Of course, there was the inevitable and very American apple pie and ice cream for dessert for the 200 guests. Frequently, White House guests are presented with fresh greens and vegetables from Michelle Obama's garden.
At one time, occupants of the White House went for a very French theme in entertaining their honored guests. First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy even had the diners’ menus printed in French, prompting some observers to wonder whether they had been invited to The United States of Versailles.