Friday, June 14, 2013

Why the mainstream media failed to break Obama scandals!

The Washington Free Beacon ^ | June 14, 2013 | Matthew Continetti

Last week John Nolte of Breitbart observed that the mainstream media had failed to break any of the controversial news occupying Washington. This week Paul Farhi of the Washington Post, without intending to, explained why.

There are four stories harming President Obama’s approval rating, and the heirs of Tarbell and Woodward and Novak uncovered none of them. The long-simmering tale of what happened before, during, and after the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, was all but ignored by media other than Fox until Gregory Hicks’ blockbuster testimony before the House Oversight Committee last month. It was the IRS, in a carefully planned “apology,” that revealed to the world it had targeted the applications of conservative and Tea Party groups for special scrutiny. The Justice Department, not the press, announced it had been scouring AP phone records to plug national security leaks. And Edward Snowden, the contractor who exposed secret intelligence, went to the Guardian, a left-wing British rag, with his scoop. (Only when Snowden’s anti-anti-terror accomplice Laura Poitras suggested, in the words of Guardianwriter Glenn Greenwald, “It would be good to have the Washington Post invested in the leak, so it wasn’t just us—to tie in official Washington in the leak” did the three filtradors approach former Post reporter Barton Gellman.)
Four stories, four separate races in which the establishment press, the major print dailies and the heavily watched network broadcasts, are sweating to catch up. “We are getting big stories wrong, over and over again,” said Scott Pelley, the anchor of the CBS evening news,in a speech at Quinnipiac University in May. Did he, did anybody, read the June 13 Washington Post, I wonder; did Pelley’s eye scan the innocuous headline—“Media, administration deal with conflicts”—and the well-kneaded copy below? If so he would have learned much about life in the capital city.
“Conflicts” is not the best description of Farhi’s subject. His topic is marriages, unions, and blood, legal and romantic and familial connections between individuals where one party works in media and another works in politics. The extent of such links is staggering. Farhi has to interrupt his story to announce, in a parenthetical, that Post reporter Sari Horwitz, who covers the Justice Department, is married to William B. Schultz, who is Kathleen Sebelius’ top lawyer at the Department of Health and Human Services. Ben Sherwood, the president of ABC News, is brother to Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, “a top national security adviser to President Obama.” Another Obama national security aide, Ben Rhodes, is brother to David Rhodes, president of CBS News. One of CNN’s top D.C. hacks is married to Tom Nides, whose upward career trajectory has taken him from the office of Democratic congressional powerbroker Tony Coelho to, where else, Fannie Mae, Credit Suisse, and Morgan Stanley, as well as a two-year stint as an undersecretary of state for Hillary Clinton. Whose daughter is on contract with NBC.
White House spokesman Jay Carney, who worked for many years at Time magazine, is married to Claire Shipman, a correspondent for ABC News. The White House correspondent for NPR, Ari Shapiro, has been married to former White House counsel Michael Gottlieb since 2004. Longtime NPR personality Michele Norris went on leave in 2011, when her husband Broderick Johnson, a corporate lawyer who served in the Clinton White House, joined the Obama reelection campaign as a full-time adviser. Wall Street Journal political reporter Neil King is married to Shailagh Murray, who serves as communications director for Vice President Joe Biden, and who used to report on Congress for the Post. Savannah Guthrie of NBC recently became engaged to Mike Feldman, a former Gore aide who is now part of the Democratic Glover Park Group consultancy. Syndicated columnist Connie Schultz is married to Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio.
Tracing these associations is enough to keep busy any student of the caste. Assurances from mainstream media outlets that “they’ve worked out the conflicts” that might arise from deep ties between reporters, editors, and government employees, Farhi reports, “hasn’t stopped a few eyebrows from being raised.” You can guess whose eyebrows are those. Farhi quotes the great Mark Steyn, who wrote onNational Review Online in May, “The inbreeding among Obama’s court and its press corps is more like one of those ‘I’m my own grandpaw’ deals.” The journalists, though, aren’t laughing. “Such insinuations make media types bristle.”
And oh, how they bristle. “There is zero evidence, zero, that [Sherwood’s relationship to his sister] has had any impact on our coverage,” ABC spokesman Jeffrey Schneider tells the Post. Employing the old reporter mind trick of using paraphrase to inject one’s viewpoint into an article, Farhi writes of “media types” who “take exception to the notion that complicated judgments about the news—often made by others within an organization—have anything to do with personal favorites or familial relationships.” Media types take precautions. Work is “closely monitored.” Recusals are sometimes demanded. Journalists can be reassigned.
The mainstream media says it goes to great lengths, then, to avoid the whiff of bias, to guard against a reputation for compromised integrity. But there are no prophylactic measures against living in a shared culture, attending the same schools, uttering the same clichéd small talk, and breathing the same atmosphere of conventional wisdom. What matters here are not the relationships themselves but the closed and impenetrable bubble in which they exist. Why would network executives and New York Times editors put resources into investigating Benghazi when their friends and relatives and trusted informants tell them the only people who care about the story are the cranks at Fox? Why would journalists adopt an adversarial relation to the government for which their spouses, relatives, romances, friends, and social betters work? No specific conflict can be easily identified because all of the bias occurs prior to the actual manufacturing of news: in the punches pulled, in what stories are selected, in what position is assumed by writers and editors, in which experts are judged knowledgeable, “objective,” “straight-shooters” and which are not.
So closed-minded is the community of right-thinkers who live in the Northeast corridor, who work at our banks and universities and media outlets and governments, that the slightest hint of alternative thinking causes them to spasm in revolt. At times the revolt can be petty and snarky and mocking, as in this recording of journalists laughing at Weekly Standard writer John McCormack’s serious questioning of Nancy Pelosi on late-term abortion. At times the revolt is furious and unrelenting, bringing political measures such as boycotts, firing, even legislation to bear to suppress dissent—as in the hysteria that has accompanied discussions of Charles and David Koch possibly buying theLos Angeles Times. What unites these reactions is the shared sense of tribal affiliation. We, the objective, the rational, the scientific, must not be tainted by the faithful, the irrational, the zealous.
Overprotective, over-solicitous, making excuses, indulgent, sympathetic, understanding, partial, antagonistic to outsiders—this is how the mainstream media has behaved during the years Barack Obama has been president. And it is exactly how you would behave, too. If your family were at stake.

Obama OKs Shipment of Arms to Al-Qaeda in Syria

The New American ^ | 6-14-2013 | Joe Wolverton, II, J.D. - Opinion/Editorial

June 14, 2013

As The New American has chronicled since it was first proposed, the National Defense Authorization Act purportedly authorizes the president of the United States to deploy the armed forces to apprehend and indefinitely detain anyone suspected of providing support to terrorists. Section 1021 of the NDAA reads in relevant part:
Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C.1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
And, finally:
Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
A plain reading of Section 1021 reveals, then, that anyone who is found to have “substantially supported” al-Qaeda or associated forces can be detained by the military until the end of the War on Terror.
If the laws passed by Congress apply only to the American people and not to the president or members of Congress themselves (15 senators recently voted to arm Syrian rebels), then the United States has become an aristocracy, whose ruling class is not governed by the laws they pass.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...

16 ways you know you went to a crappy public school

buzzfeed ^ | June 7, 2013 | Bruce Deitrick Price

How many stars on the American flag? You’re guessing “a lot.”
Can dolphins communicate? You think, of course they can. They’re a footbal team, they have to communicate.
The three states of water? You guess Oregon, for sure, because it’s rainy there.
Gravity? You wonder what’s the big deal about gravity? If something is heavy, it’ll fall.
A camel can walk a long way without what? A map?
The language Shakespeare wrote in? You’re thinking French? Maybe Shakesperean.
When multiplying 6 x 7, you need a calculator. But you can’t think of any good reasons for doing this.
A rolling stone gathers no moss? Okay, but why would it want to?
People asked, where’s Alaska and you said, off the coast of California. You saw it on a map. Alaska was in a box near San Diego.
Name two oceans? 11 and 12.
Which came first, the Supremes or the Supreme Court? You’re not sure. You want to know if that’ll be on a test.
Clouds are made of what? Smoke.
How many feet in a mile? Dude, seriously, what’s the point?
You appeared on Jay Leno’s Jaywalking and couldn’t answer his dumb questions.
You can’t read your diploma.
You have really high self-esteem.
. .
[See related "20: THE QUIZZ" --What Students Should Learn www.improve-education.org/id37.html ]

An IRS Out of Control

American Center for Law and Justice ^ | June 14, 2013 | Jay Sekulow

The Internal Revenue Service is out of control.

With each day, it gets worse.

Let's start with the IRS scheme to secretly target conservative groups.

We know this scheme was widespread and had the approval and participation of top IRS officials in Washington. In addition to correspondence being sent out of the Cincinnati office, our clients also received questionnaires from the Washington, D.C. office as well as two offices in California - El Monte and Laguna Niguel.
Further, we have letters signed by Lois Lerner herself - 15 letters from her to our clients - demanding additional information that was beyond the scope and constitutionality of what the IRS is permitted to ask.
We're moving forward with our federal lawsuit against the IRS representing 25 conservative groups that were unlawfully and unconstitutionally targeted by the IRS simply because of their beliefs. In fact, since we filed the suit a couple of weeks ago, we have been inundated with requests from other conservative groups that were also targeted by the IRS. We will be amending our complaint in the next few weeks adding additional plaintiffs to our lawsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at aclj.org ...

As Domestic Scandals Mount Obama Seeks Refuge in Syrian Diversion

sharia unveiled ^ | 14June2013 | Schuyler Montague

Plagued by one scandal after another on the home front, Barack Obama’s administration announced late Wednesday that he had concluded the Syrian government had used chemical weapons. According to an internal memorandum, Assad’s government is being alleged to have utilized the nerve agent sarin gas in small amounts. This contradicts all previous findings within the international community at large and the investigations by UN inspectors in May of this year. The UN report, based on evidence and witness testimony concluded that the Syrian Rebels supported by the Obama administration, Turkey and Nato were clearly responsible for releasing sarin gas on the Syrian citizens. Additionally, evidence has been accumulating since that points the finger of responsibility at the FSA (Free Syrian Army) Rebels. Just two weeks ago, members of the terrorist organization Jabhat al-Nusra, a group strongly allied with the FSA Rebels were apprehended transporting two kilos of Sarin gas from Turkey to Syria. Just recently, a video was released by FSA Rebels showing them in a laboratory manufacturing Sarin gas and issuing a threat of genocide against the citizens loyal to Bashar al-Assad.
continue reading here...
http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2013/06/14/as-domestic-scandals-mount-obama-seeks-refuge-in-syrian-diversion/
(Excerpt) Read more at shariaunveiled.wordpress.com ...

The Buck Never Reaches Obama

Townhall.com ^ | 6/14/2013 | David Limbaugh

The Obama administration's handling of its multiple scandals paints a picture of those who believe they are above the law. There's a pattern of arrogance, dismissiveness, denial, scapegoating, stonewalling, lying, false professions of ignorance, assurances of accountability and punishing whistle-blowers.


The numerous parallels in the administration's handling of the Fast and Furious and Internal Revenue Service scandals alone are too striking to be coincidental. The recurring theme is that the buck never stops at the Obama White House.

With Fast and Furious, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives adopted an ill-conceived, indefensible plan to deliberately walk guns into Mexico with the hope that they would end up at scenes of crimes perpetrated by Mexican drug lords and thus lead to their arrests.

Under the plan, ATF agents were instructed to reject their training and not follow the weapons but wait until after crimes had been committed and people had been injured or killed with the weapons and then try to link them to the drug lords.

When the murder of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry led to the outing of this operation, everyone in the administration denied knowledge and approval of it.

The Department of Justice blamed U.S. attorneys and "rogue" ATF agents, though they are under the DOJ umbrella anyway. The ATF blamed Main Justice. The White House professed total ignorance ...
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...

Congress Can't Weasel Out of Obamacare

Commentary Magazine ^ | June 13, 2013 | Jonathan S. Tobin

During the course of the long, contentious and often under-handed battle to pass ObamaCare, Congress did do one honorable thing: it included the Grassley Amendment in the legislation that ensured that the government could not offer members of the House and Senate and their staffs any insurance plans but those created by the bill or those that were part of the exchanges set up in association with it.

The principle was clear. If Congress, acting at the behest of President Obama, was going to shove this unpopular idea down the throats of an unwilling nation, those involved in making the law were going to have to live with it the same as the rest of the country.

But three years later and with only six months to go before this provision goes into effect, it appears a new bipartisan consensus has emerged in the Congress about the misnamed Affordable Care Act: they want no part of it.

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

Someone is Watching YOU!


Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

More to Learn about Lerner's Abuses

Townhall.com ^ | 6/13/2013 | Carol Platt Liebau

Recall that as head of the Enforcement Office at the FEC, it seems that Lois Lerner spearheaded the harassment of conservative groups, specifically the Christian Coalition.

Well, according to George Will, Lois Lerner had her finger in at least one other pie, specifically the US Senate race between Democrat Dick Durbin and Republican Al Salvi:

In the fall of 1996, at the campaign's climax, Democrats filed with the Federal Elections Commission charges alleging campaign finance violations by Salvi's campaign. These charges dominated the campaign's closing days. Salvi spoke by phone with the head of the FEC's Enforcement Division, who he remembers saying: "Promise me you will never run for office again, and we'll drop this case." He was speaking to Lois Lerner.

After losing to Durbin, Salvi spent four years and $100,000 fighting the FEC, on whose behalf FBI agents visited his elderly mother demanding to know, concerning her $2,000 contribution to her son's campaign, where she got "that kind of money." When the second of two federal courts held that the charges against Salvi were spurious, the lawyer arguing for the FEC was Lois Lerner.
If, indeed, Holly Paz has been fired, why is Lois Lerner still on (taxpayer-paid) administrative leave?


The Government Oversight and Reform Committee should call in the Christian Coalition, Al Salvi, and anyone else who has been victimized by Lerner, hear their stories, and then call her back to respond. Would she take the Fifth (again)?!

Obama’s ‘Social Innovation’ Slush Fund: Funneling millions of taxpayer dollars to left-wing groups.

National Review ^ | 06/14/2013 | Michelle Malkin

We all know now what the vengeful Obama IRS has been doing to conservative nonprofits the past four years: strangling them in the crib. But do you know how much pampering and largesse far-left welfare-state charities have received while limited-government groups suffered? You don’t know the half of it.
Before President Obama took office, I warned that Democrats planned to steer untold amounts of taxpayer dollars to his shady community-organizing pals. The Dems’ 2008 party platform proposed the creation of a “Social Investment Fund Network” to subsidize “social entrepreneurs and leading nonprofit organizations [that] are assisting schools, lifting families out of poverty, filling health-care gaps, and inspiring others to lead change in their own communities.”
Investigative journalist James O’Keefe’s pioneering work helped bring down the fraudsters of ACORN. But a thousand other ACORN-style knockoffs have metastasized in the shadows. Not long after Obama took office, big-government Democrats and Republicans handed him the $6 billion mandatory “volunteerism” package known as the “SERVE America Act.” The boondoggle fueled legions of new government “volunteers,” including a Clean Energy Corps, an Education Corps, a Healthy Futures Corps, a Veterans Service Corps, and an expanded National Civilian Community Corps for disaster relief and energy conservation. In addition to creating thousands of make-work jobs and boosting bloated national-service bureaucracies, the legislation also carved out a left-wing slush fund known as the Social Innovation Fund. In its four-year existence, SIF has doled out $140 million to 20 handpicked grant-making organizations, which in turn have chosen 197 “promising nonprofits” for government support.
Obama promised “accountability” measures to ensure the money is spent wisely. But who has been assessing the effectiveness of the spending? As I reported at the outset, it’s interest-conflicted foxes in the social-entrepreneurship community guarding the government-grant henhouse.
Among the lucky winners of these crony SIF monies: Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), which received $4.2 million and had employed Patrick Corvington, former head of the Corporation for National and Community Service; and social-welfare outfit New Profit Inc., which received $5 million and had employed former SIF Executive Director Paul Carttar. New Profit’s conflicts of interest are gobsmacking. Nonprofit Quarterly noted that SIF “owes its existence at least in part to New Profit, which in 2007 put together a coalition of nonprofit groups called America Forward to advocate for, among other things, the creation of a federal fund.”
The inspector general overseeing SIF, AmeriCorps, and other SERVE Act programs agreed with critics that the Social Innovation Fund grant-application process lacked transparency, lacked a policy on handling staff conflicts of interest, and failed to fully document grant-award decisions. Another IG audit released just last week revealed that a prominent SIF grantee, the progressive Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, “fail[ed] to remove two of its employees, who were known by CEO management to have criminal histories that made them ineligible, from working on the SIF grant.
As Paul Light, a public-policy professor at New York University who served on a review panel for the fund, told National Public Radio: “It’s not clear yet what taxpayers have gotten for the money.” The phony-baloney statistics that SIF bureaucrats tout to show how many have been “served” simply demonstrate the Nanny State “entrepreneurs’“ real agenda: maximizing the number of government dependents and rewarding social-welfare operatives.
The Obama administration’s politicization of charity — or the “Solyndra-ization of philanthropy,” as the Manhattan Institute’s Howard Husock calls it — has created a permanent taxpayer-backed pipeline to Democratic partisan outfits masquerading as public-interest do-gooders. There’s nothing “innovative” about underwriting the same failed dependency-inducing community-organizing fronts while persecuting others based on ideology.
It’s self-SERVE-ing Chicago business as usual.
— Michelle Malkin is the author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies.

NSA: Lies And More Lies

Market Ticker ^ | 06/14/2013 | Karl Denniger

The head of the country’s National Security Agency testified Wednesday that surveillance has stopped “dozens” of potential terrorist attacks by looking at the phone records, emails and other Internet searches of people suspected of terrorism-related incidents. I will note that there was not one challenge to Alexander's statement. This means, incidentally, that The Senate is intentionally complicit in his lie. Why do I level this charge? Because terrorism, and attempted terrorism, is a crime and to the extent that it occurred in the United States those crimes would result in arrests, indictments, prosecutions and convictions, none of which are or can be classified or otherwise deemed "secret." Therefore, either Alexander lied directly to Congress or he can produce a list of all of his "dozens" of "thwarted" attacks in the form of a list of the persons inside the United States who have been arrested, indicted, prosecuted and convicted of terrorism-related charges, all of which can be backed up with court records and news stories.
(Excerpt) Read more at market-ticker.org ...

The 25 Most Dangerous Cities In America (Circa 2013)

Business Insider ^ | 06/13/2013 | ANMARGARET WARNER, ERIN FUCHS AND GUS LUBIN

Violent crime rose in the U.S. in 2012 for the first time in six years, according to preliminary crime data released by the FBI.
Business Insider analyzed the report to determine the cities with the most violent crime per capita. In the three years we have published this ranking, many cities have repeatedly made the list.
From the decaying Rust Belt, Flint, Mich. emerged as the most dangerous city in 2012, 2011, and 2010, according to our analysis.
Detroit, Mich.; Oakland, Calif.; and St. Louis, Mo. were also consistently among the most dangerous cities.
To improve our ranking and understand its limitations, we consulted several experts.
The main problem with the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, according to UCLA professor Mark Kleiman, is that some cities have broader boundaries and include safer, suburban areas in their crime reports. The center of the city might be crime-ridden, but the safer outskirts skew the overall picture.
Another problem with the UCR is that different police precincts have different ways of classifying aggravated assault versus "simple assault," Carnegie Melon's Alfred Blumstein told us.
Despite these problems, the UCR remains the definitive source of crime data in America. "There is no perfect system, but this is best that we have," says criminal justice professor Tod Burke.
Our preliminary 2012 ranking includes all cities with a population over 100,000. We compared the cities' rates of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, and robbery against 2011 national averages, with the percent deviations averaged to determine overall ranking for violent crime. We did not count aggravated assault due to inconsistent reporting of this crime.
We have included a brief discussion of crime in each city and will add to it any useful insight or responses shared in the comment section or by email.
Now with no further ado ...
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...

Answering Greg Gutfeld's Question

American Thinker ^ | June 14, 2013 | Jeanne C Minton

Greg Gutfeld opened the June 6th broadcast of The Five by talking about the IRS scandal and asking "What can we do as Americans right now? This seems like a golden opportunity to go after a bloated bureaucracy, clean it out and create something."
The answer is to spark a national protest demanding limited government by doing 3 things:

First, unhide our taxes.

Even the 47% who don't pay federal income tax pay taxes. During the 2012 Presidential campaign, Mitt Romney said "There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president, no matter what..." and "These are people who pay no income tax." Obama's media machine, including Stephen Colbert, immediately exploited the opportunity to further brand Romney as a typical out-of-touch rich guy. Romney defended his remarks as inelegant, but should have followed the advice of his father to be bold. Rather than dismissing them as a given megagroup voting bloc for the other side, why not recruit them?
People are unaware of how enormous the average person's total tax burden is because it's either hidden or dispersed across a wide spectrum of goods and services. Fair Tax advocates speak about hidden (embedded) taxes in mind-numbing detail, putting everyone to sleep. Keep people awake by making it simple. Arnold Schwarzenegger's short and memorable 2003 rant helped him win California's governorship: "From the time they get up in the morning and flush the toilet, they are taxed. When they go get a coffee, they are taxed. When they get in their car, they are taxed. When they go to the gas station they are taxed. When they go to lunch, they are taxed. This goes on all day long. Tax. Tax. Tax. Tax. Tax."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Detroit Suspends Payments on Unsecured Debt (Sticking It To Bondholders … Like GM)


June 14 (Bloomberg) — Detroit will suspend payments on unsecured debt, beginning with a $39.7 million installment due today, Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr said as he outlined a plan to avoid a record municipal bankruptcy. The city would create a regional water agency and retirees would see pensions reduced to cover liabilities under the deal, Orr offered to more than 100 creditors and employee-union representatives today in a hotel at Detroit Metro Airport. The city also would spend $1.25 billion over a decade to improve services and eliminate blight.
Here is Orr’s proposal to creditors. detprop.
According to Orr’s 66-page proposal, unsecured debt includes:
— $5.7 billion in post-retirement benefits.
— $2 billion for unfunded liability for the general employees pension.
— $1.43 billion in pension obligation certificates.
— $1.4 billion in unfunded police and fire pension liabilities.
— $369.1 million in unlimited tax general-obligation bonds.
— $265 million in unsecured loans.
— $161 million in limited tax general-obligation bonds.
— $33.6 million in notes and loans.
Detroit, where officials struggle to provide public safety and even street lights, joins California cities Stockton and San Bernardino in trying to stick bondholders with a loss. Jefferson County, Alabama, on June 5 reached an agreement to end the current record municipal bankruptcy by offering its largest creditors 60 percent of what they’re owed.
So, Detroit is “restructuring” its debt rather than pursuing an outright default … yet.
Loaning money to Detroit is an extraordinarily bad idea. Just ask GM bondholders.

Detroit To Default Today, "Shared-Sacrifice" To Follow

Zerohedge ^ | June 14, 2013 | Tyler Durden

And so the next casualty of the inevitable municipal collapse appears, which is, as expected, that one-time symbol of all that was right with a (once upon a time) manufacturing America, having since been replaced with the anti-symbol of all that is broken:

Detroit.

DETROIT BEGINS MORATORIUM ON ALL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS FOR UNSECURED FUNDED DEBT
DETROIT TO DEFAULT ON CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION DUE TODAY


And, true to the New Normal America, where the "fairness doctrine" rules supreme under Big Brother's watchful eye, the premise of the upcoming glorious recovery is a well-known one: "the shared-sacrifice." To wit: "The City currently faces approximately $17 billion in total liabilities. Detroit is insolvent...

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

Anger, Envy & Insults

Near Tokyo lived a great Samurai, now old, who decided to teach Zen Buddhism to young people.
One afternoon, a warrior – known for his complete lack of scruples – arrived there. The young and impatient warrior had never lost a fight. Hearing of the Samurai’s reputation, he had come to defeat him, and increase his fame.
All the students were against the idea, but the old man accepted the challenge.
All gathered on the town square, and the young man started insulting the old master. He threw a few rocks in his direction, spat in his face, shouted every insult under the sun – he even insulted his ancestors.
For hours, he did everything to provoke him, but the old man remained impassive. At the end of the afternoon, by now feeling exhausted and humiliated, the impetuous warrior left.
Disappointed by the fact that the master had received so many insults and provocations, the students asked: “How could you bear such indignity? Why didn’t you use your sword, even knowing you might lose the fight, instead of displaying your cowardice in front of us all?”

“If someone comes to you with a gift, and you do not accept it, who does the gift belong to?” – asked the old Samurai.
“He who tried to deliver it.” – replied one of his disciples.

“The same goes for envy, anger and insults.” – said the master. “When they are not accepted, they continue to belong to the one who carried them.”