Friday, July 5, 2013

Americans can stop ObamaCare by targeting its Achilles heel

Coach is Right ^ | 7/5/13 | Doug Book

ObamaCare Exchanges, the online marketplaces for health care in the states, are due to begin enrolling applicants on October 1st of 2013. It’s a date which should begin a most satisfying period in the lives of those who feel for Barack Obama the same overarching contempt he harbours for us. For neither Regime apologists nor media lackeys will be able to prevent the American public witnessing first hand the stunning train wreck that is the Affordable Care Act.
Exchanges are the lifeblood of Obama’s namesake healthcare plan. In each state, it will be the job of an online exchange to enroll applicants, offer comparison shopping for plans, dole out subsidies and tax credits and impose penalties. According to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “exchanges will make it easier for...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Jerk of the Week -Obama ^ | July 5, 2013 | RightWingPatriot

Usually it's pretty easy to pick a Jerk of the Week here at, but this week was a little murkier. I could easily decided on Piers Morgan, the host of a pitifully low-rated CNN show, for his obnoxious Fourth of July tweet. He said, "To Life, Liberty & Happiness - and deep, abiding regret that George III couldn't keep his s**t together. #July4." An absolutely pathetic attempt to make himself relevant. Then there was Bette Midler, who tweeted on the Fourth, "Happy Independence Day! Just think, if we hadn't won that war, today wouldn't be a holiday AND we'd have health care." Sadly, another sterling example of celebrity stupidity. I love how she is oblivious to the notion that she tweets, "Happy Independence Day!" and then bemoans the fact that Americans are still fighting to get out from the oppressive yoke of Obamacare. Folks, you can't buy that much stupid. (If you're George Soros, you can try!)
Celebrity faux-intellectuals aside, my front-runner for Jerk of the Week as Senator Chris Murphy. This sad excuse for a human being lied to the families of the murdered children of Sandy Hook in order to exploit them for political gain. I thought he had it locked up, but President Obama rode in and took the honors. That is why Obama is our Jerk of the Week.
First, Obama won by colluding with Chris Murphy to bring the children's families to Washington by flying them in on Air Force One. Therefore, he has a tremendous share of the blame for their exploitation. Progressive liberals just can't wait to exploit a tragedy, can they? Another reason for Obama taking top honors for being a jerk is the fact that he's giving a National Medal of Arts and National Humanities Medal to Tony Kushner, a playwright. Tony Kushner is much more as he's a virulent hater of Israel, just like Obama. Kushner wrote the screenplay to Munich, Steven Spielberg's anti-Israeli movie that morally equated murdering terrorists to Israeli covert ops sent to kill them. Absolutely pathetic. Kushner even goes as far to say that the world's problems are caused by Israel. He has said, " The existence of the state of Israel, because of the terrible way that the Palestinian people have been treated, is now in great peril and the world is in peril as a consequence of it," and added, "The biggest supporters of Israel are the most repulsive members of the Jewish community." With President Obama, Kushner has found a pal who shares his vitriolic hatred.
One more reason why Obama won Jerk of the Week is his delaying of Obamacare until 2015. This week, Obama pushed back the implementation of the mandate that employers had to provide health insurance or pay a fine. Wonder of wonders, this new date is past the midterm elections in 2014! Everyone knows (unless you're a progressive liberal, which makes you incapable of using logic or reason) that Obamacare will ruin both the economy and our health care system. Facing even large unemployment issues along with massive amounts of employees losing their health insurance over Obamacare, Democrats were facing total annihilation in 2014. Just witness the outrage last January when the Bush tax cuts ended and people would up paying higher payroll taxes. Of course by then, it was too late as the low information voters (i.e., morons) had already re-elected Obama.
The delay in the employer mandate also highlights another aspect of Obama, he ignores the law unless he likes it. Obama acts like an emperor who gets to choose which laws he'll enforce and which ones he does not. Our system does not work that way, but Congress does little to hold Obama and the executive branch accountable. Truly, his is an imperial presidency.

Obama Skips Past Congress Again With Health Mandate Delay

Roll Call ^ | July 5, 2013 | Steven T. Dennis and Matt Fuller

President Barack Obama’s latest legal end run around Congress — delaying enforcement of the employer health mandate — has sparked more questions about whether he’s abusing his executive discretion under the Constitution.
The move announced late Tuesday was the latest in a string of decisions where the president, facing a divided Congress unable to get much done beyond keeping the government running, has taken matters into his own hands.
Where a previous president might have asked for a legislative fix if a mandate was proving too onerous for business, the Obama administration put out a couple of blog posts saying that, in listening to the business community, it decided not to enforce a key part of the 3-year-old health law for another year.
The administration notes that parts of laws are delayed in implementation all the time — including various pieces of the tax code.
A Treasury official said the administration has “longstanding administrative authority to grant transition relief when implementing new legislation like the ACA.”
But three House committees are already looking into the decision, with Republicans complaining about a disturbing trend where the president decides which laws to enforce and which to ignore.
Darrell Issa of California, the chairman of Oversight and Government Reform, called the decision “another in a string of extra legal actions” taken by Obama.
“As a former constitutional law teacher, President Obama must know that this action gets into very questionable constitutional territory,” Issa said in a statement to CQ Roll Call. “It also paves the way for future administrations to simply not enforce parts of Obamacare they don’t believe are functioning well.”
Ways and Means Health Subcommittee Chairman Kevin Brady of Texas announced a hearing July 10 focusing on the administration’s authority to delay enforcement.
And Rep. Phil Roe of Tennessee, the chairman of an Education and the Workforce subcommittee, asked the Congressional Research Service to investigate.
“I believe this administration has made a habit of bypassing Congress and it sets a very dangerous precedent,” Roe said in a statement to CQ Roll Call. “Both Republicans and Democrats should be very concerned, and I will continue to closely monitor these actions and hold the president accountable.”
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said, “If President Obama wants to make changes to Obamacare, he must come to Congress. ... We are a nation governed by laws written by Congress, not memos and blog posts written by bureaucrats.”
In March, Issa complained in a Washington Examiner op-ed that the Obama administration was interpreting the health care law to provide tax credits in health exchanges even if states refused to set them up — contrary to the law’s text.
The fact that most states refused to set up their own exchanges “does not justify the administration’s effort to ignore the plain language of the law,” Issa wrote.
That dispute is currently the subject of a lawsuit filed by the state of Oklahoma.
Meanwhile, critics of the administration suggest the president has increasingly relied on questionable executive actions because he can’t get Congress to bend to his will.
Some executive actions have strong legal precedent — such as a Supreme Court decision affirming the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions, the centerpiece of Obama’s second-term, go-it-alone climate agenda. Others, including aspects of implementing Obamacare and the president’s decision last year to end deportations of young immigrants brought here as children, remain hotly disputed.
“It’s a fascinating transformation for Obama,” said Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University who has become one of the administration’s chief legal critics.
“He rightfully criticized President Bush for violating the separation of powers and using signing statements to rewrite legislation, but Obama has been far more aggressive in circumventing Congress and far more successful in creating an imperial presidency,” he said.
Turley, who was a House page in the late 1970s, remembers lawmakers who fiercely defended the prerogatives of Congress even from the president of their own party.
That is rarely the case today.
Turley cited the president’s decision not to enforce immigration laws with respect to young immigrants as a particularly egregious example — and one that was cheered by top Democrats.
“The president disagreed with Congress on immigration law. His response was to effectively negate the law. . . . That rocks our system to the core,” he said.
“What I find curious is how quiet Democrats have been,” he added. “What if this was a Republican president who simply told agencies that they were no longer going to enforce clean air and clean water regulations? They would cry foul. But there is no functional difference between that and what President Obama has done.”
The administration defended ending deportations of young immigrants as a use of prosecutorial discretion.
House Republicans recently voted for an amendment to prohibit funds from being used to implement that order, pitching it as enforcing the rule of law.
But such an amendment is DOA in the Senate and would be veto bait if it reached the White House.
And as for delaying the mandate, the administration is pointing to regulatory precedent, citing Section 7805(a) of the tax code for justification.
That reads, in part, the “Secretary shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this title, including all rules and regulations as may be necessary by reason of any alteration of law in relation to internal revenue.”
Precedents cited by the administration include an aviation fuel tax Obama signed Aug. 5, 2011, that applied retroactively to July 23, 2011. The administration delayed enforcement until Aug. 9, 2011.
In 2007, a small-business bill made changes to standards for tax return preparers to avoid paying penalties effective May 25 of that year. But the IRS announced it would not enforce the new rules on returns due before 2008.
Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, said Obama appeared to be stretching his authority to the limit.
“It’s less of a frontal assault than it is a flanking maneuver,” he said. “He may be violating the spirit of the law but not necessarily the letter. The legality is up in the air.”
Timothy Jost, a longtime supporter of the health care law and a law professor at Washington and Lee University, defended the mandate decision.
“This is really a question of enforcement and when the administration runs into practical difficulty, it delays enforcement,” he said.
He predicted the administration would get its way in the end.
“I don’t see the courts intervening here. I’m sure Congress will hold hearings but there really isn’t anything they can do.”

Mark Twain, the East German STASI, the NSA, the IRS, and the Correct Meaning of Patriotism ^ | July 5, 2013 | Daniel J. Mitchell

Exactly three years ago, I posted a simple quiz about libertarians and patriotism.

The two questions in that quiz are illuminating since they highlight how libertarians in some cases may differ from conservatives (click here for more on that issue), but I also included this t-shirt, which seems to capture the mindset of a lot of Americans regardless of their political outlook.

Well, it seems that Mark Twain had the same attitude as the young lady in the photo, at least if we can believe the quote in this Steve Breen cartoon.

Simply stated, our loyalty should be to a set of ideals, not to any particular group of people who happen to hold power.

What makes the cartoon so effective, though, is the inclusion of an IRS thug and a snoop from the NSA.

Reminds me of this cartoon about Obama and the Founding Fathers.

But there’s a serious point to discuss. Are we losing our freedoms and giving the state too much power and authority?

According to a recent news report, a former lieutenant colonel for the infamous East German STASI spy agency says the NSA-type snooping ability “would have been a dream come true.”

Wolfgang Schmidt…pondered the magnitude of domestic spying in the United States under the Obama administration. A smile spread across his face. “You know, for us, this would have been a dream come true,” he said, recalling the days when he was a lieutenant colonel in the defunct communist country’s secret police, the Stasi. In those days, his department was limited to tapping 40 phones at a time, he recalled. Decide to spy on a new victim and an old one had to be dropped, because of a lack of equipment. He finds breathtaking the idea that the U.S. government receives daily reports on the cellphone usage of millions of Americans and can monitor the Internet traffic of millions more.

I’ve already written that we do have enemies and that I think it’s okay to spy on those enemies (though I want the government to get judicial approval before spying on Americans).

But I also wrote that spying should be subject to cost-benefit analysis. The NSA info-gathering exercise reminds me of anti-money laundering laws and those laws are a costly failure. They invade our privacyhurt the poor, impose high regulatory costs, and have little or no impact on underlying crimes.

We also need to be concerned about potential misuse of data, whether by people currently in the government or those that will have access to the information in the future.

This is what worries me the most. Simply stated, I don’t trust people in government. Which, rather ironically, means I’m in agreement with a former STASI bigwig.

Even Schmidt, 73, who headed one of the more infamous departments in the infamous Stasi, called himself appalled. The dark side to gathering such a broad, seemingly untargeted, amount of information is obvious, he said. “It is the height of naivete to think that once collected this information won’t be used,” he said. “This is the nature of secret government organizations. The only way to protect the people’s privacy is not to allow the government to collect their information in the first place.”

Hmmm… maybe being warned about the risk of unrestrained government by a former communist spy is the modern equivalent of being called ugly by a frog?

In any event, I suppose Herr Schmidt has first-hand knowledge of the danger of giving government too much information.

P.S. Speaking of first-hand knowledge, it’s somewhat amusing that former communists in Russia and current communists in China have told the Europeans that the welfare state breeds too much dependency.

P.P.S. While this post has touched on libertarians and patriotism, fairness requires me to acknowledge that leftist politicians also believe in a form of patriotism.

They're Hiding From You The Full Cost Of Immigration Reform

Forbes ^ | 07/05/2013 | Jeffrey Dorfman

With the Senate having passed its version of immigration reform, the House is now preparing to act, with the outcome quite uncertain. While much of the debate and legislation is clearly a battle for future political advantage, one issue in the debate is the economic impact of the reform. In debating the economics of this issue many of the facts being used present a very distorted view of the truth by only focusing on a part of the whole picture.
The Congressional Budget Office issued a report this week analyzing an earlier version of the Senate bill. CBO estimated the legislation would reduce the federal deficit by $175 billion over the first ten years. Backers of the legislation quickly trumpeted the report as an additional reason to support the bill. However, both the context and the big picture are missing from the CBO report.
To begin to put the numbers in context, it is worth pointing out that the estimated improvement in the budget amounts to less than one-half of one percent of federal spending and somewhere around two percent of the budget deficit. In other words, while $175 billion sounds big because it is a ten year total it is really too small to be meaningful. Essentially this is rounding error.
As amendments were offered, the economic impact of the legislation changed. Since the CBO report was issued an amendment on border security has been accepted that will increase government costs, reducing the fiscal benefit by at least $30 billion. Even though the bill has now passed, there is no new CBO analysis of the final bill, so the budget impact may continue to be revised.
Also, the CBO report clearly states its numbers are based on the assumption that the legalized immigrants will receive no federal welfare benefits.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The CBO report can be found here:

Put John Kerry on a plane (Kerry vacations while Egypt burns)

Boston Herald ^ | July 5, 2013 | Chris Cassidy, Gayle Fee

U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry — who spent the Fourth of July on sun-splashed Nantucket even as the chaos from a military takeover rocked Egypt — drew fire from Republican critics who said it’s a bad time for the nation’s top diplomat to be seen cavorting on an island getaway.
“It doesn’t look good, and I think it sends the wrong message” said Republican strategist Brad Marston. “If I were advising him, I’d already have him on a plane.”
As first reported on, Kerry, who owns a house and a yacht on the ritzy retreat, was seen yesterday strolling down Federal Street away from July Fourth festivities on Main Street in jeans and a light-colored polo shirt.
Later in the afternoon, Kerry was seen offloading bags from a single-person kayak to a boat in Nantucket Sound after launching from the beach behind his home at 5 Hulbert Ave.
Republicans pounced on the image of the vacationing secretary of state and sought to use it as a symbol of what they deem a big Obama administration failing — the inability to convey a clear message on foreign policy on hotspots like Syria, Turkey and Egypt.
“I would think the secretary of state would interrupt his vacation and at least send a very clear signal — even by flying back to Washington for a day or two — that on our Independence Day we are very concerned about the freedom and democracy that we hope is instilled for some period of time in the Arab World,” said Patrick Griffin, a New Hampshire-based GOP strategist.
Added Republican operative Ford O’Connell: “Egypt’s in a very fragile place, and the U.S. needs to be out front doing what it can to return Egypt to civilian rule. Having the nation’s top diplomat vacationing on Nantucket doesn’t send the right message to the international community.”
Kerry’s staff yesterday insisted he’s fully engaged and has been logging long hours and high miles, including a recent 12-day, 25,000-mile trip to the Middle East and Asia.
Yesterday he dialed into a meeting with President Obama and members of his national security team in the Situation Room, according to the State Department. Kerry also called foreign dignitaries from Egypt, Israel, Norway, Qatar, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.
“Secretary Kerry has been working tirelessly around the clock since he returned from his 10-day trip and there has not been a moment where he has not been focused on doing everything possible to communicate with his team in Washington and in Egypt, within the administration and with his counterparts around the world,” Kerry spokeswoman Jen Psaki told the Herald last night.
Former state Democratic Party chairman Phil Johnston said these days the secretary of state can effectively work out of anywhere in the world.
“The man’s been working 24/7 for weeks to create peace in the Middle East — I think he’s entitled to a day on Nantucket,” said Johnston. “If there’s anything we know about John Kerry, it’s that he’s a very hard worker. The American people don’t need to worry about that.”

'We Don't Live in That World Anymore' ^ | July 5, 2013 | Jonah Goldberg 

Harry Anderson, a magician and comic (made famous by his stint as the judge on the old sitcom "Night Court"), used to have a routine where he'd promise to juggle George Washington's ax. I'm quoting from memory here, but he'd say something like: "I have here George Washington's original ax -- the one he used to chop down the cherry tree." He'd wait a beat, and then add: "Of course, a few years ago the blade broke and had to be replaced. And about a decade before that it got a new handle. But in spirit this is George's ax."
Maybe that's a weird way to get into it, but that bit keeps coming to mind as I listen to pundits, reporters, politicians and activists try to compare every cause under the sun to Jim Crow, slavery and the black experience in America generally.
For instance, in the debate over gay marriage, one commentator after another likens arguments against same-sex marriage to arguments against interracial marriage. They said blacks and whites couldn't marry and now they say men and men can't marry!
Gay marriage is not my chief worry by any means, but this is nonsense on stilts. Indeed, one can be entirely in favor of same-sex marriage and still reject the comparison. For starters, if denying the right to marry is all it takes to be akin to anti-miscegenation laws, then that door is open to virtually any prohibition on marriage. "They said blacks and whites couldn't marry and now they say brother and sister can't marry!" Or, "They said blacks and whites couldn't marry and now they say the defensive line of the Dallas Cowboys can't marry!"
Of course there are important differences between an incestuous or a polygamous marriage and a loving committed relationship between two homosexuals. Indeed, it's instructive that many gay rights activists take offense whenever opponents say that legalizing gay marriage will lead to polygamy, incest or bestiality. They insist such comparisons are ridiculous. And they're right! But it's also ridiculous to equate Jim Crow prohibitions on interracial marriage to prohibitions on gay marriage.
If you can't see the problem, it's this: the whole point of the civil rights movement is that skin color is superficial. Sex -- i.e. male, female -- is actually a real and deep biological difference. You could look it up.
But such distinctions are meaningless in an era when both the handle and the ax of Jim Crow were replaced decades ago. All that's left is parody. Just this week Princeton's Cornel West -- a proud man of the left -- despaired that under Obama "we black folk are just being pushed to the back of the bus."
What bus are you talking about, professor?
When Republicans tried to filibuster the Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lamented, "When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."
That's true! But ... so what? How, exactly is opposition to an evermore disastrous healthcare reform bill akin to denying the humanity of African-American citizens? Is any filibuster threat now tainted by Dixiecrat opposition to civil rights?
The Washington Post reported this week that civil rights activists in Florida are dismayed that the George Zimmerman murder trial in Florida isn't racially divisive enough. "It makes you feel kind of angry and kind of bad that race is not a part of this," Rev. Harrold C. Daniels, told the Post. "It's a missed opportunity."
The "problem," as even the Martin family's attorney concedes, is that there's just not much evidence that Zimmerman was motivated by racial animus. You'd think that would be good news. But it's not because so many people invested in the idea that "Trayvon Martin is Emmett Till!" in the words of one demagogic radio host, and countless other commentators.
When the Supreme Court recently ruled that the Voting Rights Act needed to take into account that blacks now vote more than whites in jurisdictions that are presumed to be racist, many responded as if the Supreme Court reinstated Jim Crow. MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry cried out on Twitter "Damn, that citizenship thing was so great for awhile."
Slavery and Jim Crow were horrible injustices and the civil rights movement was a shining moral triumph. But the light of that movement shouldn't be used to blind us to important distinctions, chief among them: We don't live in that world anymore.

Dissolve the IRS ^ | July 5, 2013 | Andrew Marcus

Back in 2009, James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles secretly taped multiple ACORN employees supplying free tax advice on how to hide income from a brothel staffed by underage girls smuggled in from El Salvador. The ACORN workers told them that the brothel could be characterized as a "school" on the tax forms and, because the sex slaves would be underage, that they could also be claimed as "dependents."
After the scandal broke, Andrew Breitbart referred to it as "the Abu Ghraib of The Great Society." He argued that the scandal exposed the dark underbelly of the Progressive movement: that Progressivism itself was more important than the liberal ideals it supposedly espoused. The entire episode is outlined in some detail in my new film Hating Breitbart which was released digitally nationwide last month.
But if ACORN was the Abu Ghraib of The Great Society, then the current and ever-growing IRS scandal is its 9/11 -- at least if yesterday's dramatic testimony by IRS victims is any indication. Unlike 9/11, however, this wound is self-inflicted. It's almost as if the IRS has flown planes into its own building.
Who knew that the 16th Amendment, which made the income tax constitutional, would ultimately lead to government bureaucrats asking American citizens about their mentors' politics, with whom they freely associate, or the content of their political speeches? It begs the question: did the authors of the 16th Amendment intend for it to subvert the 4th, or did it just turn out that way? The 4th Amendment protects us from unreasonable searches and seizures, including our papers, and yet every year we Americans are required to tell our government how much money we made, how we made it, when we made it, from whom we made it, to whom we gave it, what we bought with it, where we invested it, et cetera ad nauseum -- how is this in any way reasonable?
Oh, but there are deductions! In order to get them, the only thing we need to do is tell the government how much money we gave to charity, how much money we spent on saline solution, how many miles we drove to see doctors, how much money we spent on private health insurance, whether or not we bought a government-endorsed furnace or window, and a thousand other private details from our private lives. That's all! It's so easy most people just hire a professional to manage all the private questions for them, or they purchase computer software to navigate the tangled mess otherwise known as the tax code.
Ah, the tax code! Where brothels can be schools and 14 year-old sex slaves can be claimed, in theory, as dependents! Thousands of pages of indecipherable government-speak that not even the IRS claims to fully understand, riddled with so-called "loopholes." And what are these loopholes, anyway? They are actually blatant examples of government favoritism and special treatment for the special interests that have successfully lobbied for them -- and granted to them by our dear political leaders in Washington.
If you don't have a loophole designed for you, start bundling money for our dear leaders in Washington and get yourself one. But watch out! If you happen to hold the wrong opinions, you might just find that the loopholes have been weaponzied against you, depending, of course, on who's in charge.
To those who claim to represent the 99%, you will find them in yesterday's hearings speaking truth to power. No, these folks weren't throwing garbage cans through Starbucks windows, defecating on police cars, or wearing silly masks to conceal their identity. These are normal, every day middle-class Americans who play by the rules and who made the awful mistake of having a point of view. They complied with tax law, they filled out their forms, they sent in their money -- and then they were targeted by the government, harassed, stifled, silenced, and disenfranchised.
Watch out, Progressives -- the machine of State can be turned against you, too, depending upon how the political winds shift. And that's the point -- this IRS scandal is not just a Tea Party problem, it's an American problem. Not incidentally, this type of abuse is exactly why Tea Party Conservatives call for smaller government -- so that we can all retain our liberty, regardless of which party is in charge. That the IRS has become suicidally abusive is not exclusively the Democrats' fault -- this monster took decades to build, and the Republicans have done more than their fair share, though the Obama administration has certainly taken the IRS to new lows.
The whole sick mess needs to go. The whole thing. Don't worry about throwing the baby out with the bathwater because the baby is dead in the bath. The entire tub is corrupt and is irredeemable. The agency needs to be dissolved.
We need to shift to a revenue raising mechanism that does not require tax professionals to comply with, does not require that we open our personal books to our potential political opponents, and does not include countless loopholes for the well-connected and corrupt. We need to permanently shift to a simple, hands-off, flat consumption-based tax and leave the IRS to the ash heap. Human beings, even well-intended Americans, cannot be trusted with something like an IRS.
The government that is large enough to give you everything you need is also large enough, apparently, to demand the content of your prayers. Let's do ourselves and future generations a favor and return to the good old-fashioned liberty our great-grandparents enjoyed.

Obamacare Strikes: Part-Time Jobs Surge To All Time High; Full-Time Jobs Plunge By 240,000!

Zero Hedge ^ | July 5, 2013

As a reminder: jobs have quantity and quality components. The quantity component was good enough to convince the 10 Year the taper is imminent (if not stocks, which continue to trade dislocated from any and all fundamentals). But how about the quality? In a word: not good. In June, the household survey reported that part-time jobs soared by 360,000 to 28,059,000 - an all time record high. Full time jobs? Down 240,000. And looking back at the entire year, so far in 2013, just 130K Full-Time Jobs have been added, offset by a whopping 557K Part-Time jobs. And there is your jobs "quality" leading to today's market euphoria (if only for now).

And the divergence historically:

Obama Cuckolds John Roberts with ObamCare Delay

The American Thinker ^ | 7-5-13 | Mark J. Fitzgibbons

When Chief Justice John Roberts upheld the Patient Affordability Care Act, many of us considered him derelict in his duty to enforce the Constitution. He engaged in judicial activism to give the appearance of avoiding judicial activism. He wrote:
"Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
In that same opinion, Roberts engaged in the remarkable act of redefining the individual mandate as a tax in order to uphold ObamaCare.
President Obama's bullying the Supreme Court seemed to work on Roberts. Obama may have the last laugh -- yet again -- on the chief justice.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Justice for Trayvon




What Perry Said.


Obama Jobs!




Can't keep up!




LIE, Lie


White support!


Join the NAACAC


Letting him go!


Skip the eulogy!




Get out.




Eye Poke!


You were right!


PLEASE, don't tread on me!


Trust me...


What If George Zimmerman is Found Not Guilty?

Right Side News ^ | July 4, 2013 | Alan Caruba

White people have largely made their peace with the changes that were initiated with the Civil Rights Act that Lyndon B. Johnson signed in AA - Jamie Fox BET Awards1964 in the wake of the Kennedy assassination. The Jim Crow era that included segregated schools and other indignities is long gone, but it took a hundred years past the Civil War to reach that point.
Race has always been a factor in American life dating back to the importation of the first slaves to the colony of Jamestown, Virginia in 1619. One of America’s leading historians, Thomas Fleming recently had a new book published, “A Disease in the Public Mind: Why We Fought the Civil War”, that recounts the problems the Founding Father’s encountered as they sought to fashion the Constitution in 1787. The issue of slavery was an obstacle and, as the Founders feared, it led to the Civil War.
In the years immediately preceding the war, the calls for the abolition of slavery increased at the same time white southerners had spent decades gripped with growing fears of being killed by the slaves who vastly outnumbered them. There were approximately 4,000,000 slaves, mostly in the south, and some 500,000 free blacks, generally in the north. They were a substantial part of the population, but it is little known that only six percent of the southern white population, approximately 316,632, owned slaves. It is even less known that some free blacks owned slaves as well.
Fleming asked “Why did they (the southerners) sacrifice over 300,000 of their sons to preserve an institution in which they apparently had no personal stake?” The answer, generally stated, was that, by 1861 the northern states passionately hated the southern states and vice versa. That was the disease in the public mind.
I cite this bit of history because I keep hearing the question “If Zimmerman is acquitted of killing Trayvon Martin, will there be race riots?” Like the southerners of old, whites, Hispanics and others today are concerned about black violence.
Taking 1964 as a starting point, there were seven race riots that year, three of them in my home state, with others in Philadelphia, Rochester, New York, and Chicago. The famed Watts riot occurred in 1965. Riots continued in 1966, 1967, and most actively in 125 cities in 1968 following the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. They tapered off in the 1970s and 80s. There were five riots in the 1990s and, as the new millennium began there were riots in Cincinnati (2001), Toledo (2005), Los Angeles (2006), and in Oakland (2009).
In the week preceding July 4th, there were reports of black on white violence in Greensboro, Portland, Chicago and other cities around the nation.
AA - White Girl2In 2011 I reviewed a book by Colin Flaherty, “’White Girl Bleed A Lot’—The Return of Race Riots to America.” Flaherty stated that “Race riots are back along with widespread racial crime and violence.” He documented these episodes, noting in particular that “local media and public officials are silent…this denies the obvious: America is the most race conscious society in the world. Few know about it (the violence). Fewer still are talking about it.”
In October the sixth edition of his book will be published by WND Books. When I asked him whether the fear of racial riots after the verdict in the Zimmerman trial is rendered were justified, Flaherty replied that “I have not noticed anyone saying if Zimmerman is acquitted there will NOT be a riot. It seems to be a given, especially since I documented at least a dozen examples of black mob violence following the Trayvon Martin episode.”
“So I cannot predict the future, but I know that cops all over the country will be ready for violence. There is so much black mob violence happening now without any specific precipitating event, it does not seem like a stretch to make sure the cops are ready for more.”
A visit to Flaherty’s website confirms his observations regarding violent attacks. Even the media is beginning to give them more coverage, but blacks are frequently referred to as “urban youths” and other euphemisms.
AA - Rachel JeantelIn a post on his site, “Trayvon, Jeantel and Critical Race Theory”, Flaherty examines the theory, initiated by Derrick Bell. “Critical Race Theory says racism is everywhere,” within the black community, says Flaherty, “And it is permanent. As for any gains made in the courts or in public or private life”, the theory holds that “they are an illusion. And serve White Supremacists who lead a life of White Privilege.”
Given that voters have twice elected a black President, the theory seems absurd, but it is useful to keep in mind that President Obama sat through twenty years of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s racist sermons, the most famous, following 9/11, in which he said “God damn America.”
Following the shooting of Trayvon Martin, Obama said, he “would have looked like my son.” The trial is not going well for the prosecution at this writing and whites are wondering whether the President will say something to warn blacks against any rioting when the verdict comes in.

British Company Is Awarded Contract to Administer Health Rollout

New York Times ^ | July 4, 2013 | By Robert Pear

WASHINGTON — Racing to meet an October deadline, Obama administration officials said Thursday that they had awarded a contract worth as much as $1.2 billion to a British company to help them sift applications for health insurance and tax credits under the new health care law.
The company, Serco, has extensive experience as a government contractor with the Defense Department and intelligence agencies, and it also manages air traffic control towers in 11 states and reviews visa applications for the State Department. But it has little experience with the Department of Health and Human Services or the insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, where individuals and small businesses are supposed to be able to shop for insurance.
Serco will help the Obama administration and states determine who is eligible for insurance subsidies, in the form of tax credits, and who might qualify for Medicaid. Tasks include “intake, routing, review and troubleshooting of applications,” according to the contract.
Several insurance and health policy experts said they were surprised at the selection of Serco because it did not have experience with the exchanges. But that may have helped the company win the contract. In the last six months, federal health officials expressed concern that companies already working with exchanges could have an unfair competitive advantage because they had access to nonpublic information about how the government was setting up its eligibility and enrollment system.
Serco will also help the administration decide who is entitled to exemptions from the tax penalties that can be imposed on people who go without health insurance starting next year. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Serco Group also operates private prisons in the UK and elsewhere. From Wikipedia:Serco has seen a large amount of criticism involving its private prisons and detention centres. In particular, the Union of Christmas Island Workers has said about the Christmas Island detention centre, which hosts many refugees as well as 1,000 children who have tried to immigrate into Australia, "Serco's failure to perform is huge."[64] Serco has been accused of beating prisoners, not adequately maintaining their physical and mental health, and allowing suicide and self-harm incidents to increase over time. Australian ombudsman Allan Asher said to the Australian radio show AM, "In the first week of June when I visited Christmas Island, more than 30 incidents of self harm by detainees held there were reported."[64] Serco, in a company memo leaked to The Australian, blamed the detainees for "creating a culture of self harm," and using it as a "bargaining tool."[64] Serco has been fined for breaches of contract every month it has managed detention centres in Australia, leading to a total of $4 million in fines in early 2011. Also, Serco's Christmas Island detention center was reported by its own former manager to be "typically 15 staff members short every day."[64]

More Americans View Blacks As Racist Than Whites, Hispanics!

Rasmussen Reports ^ | July 3, 2013

Americans consider blacks more likely to be racist than whites and Hispanics in this country.

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of American Adults think most black Americans are racist, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Just 15% consider most white Americans racist, while 18% say the same of most Hispanic Americans. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
There is a huge ideological difference on this topic. Among conservative Americans, 49% consider most blacks racist, and only 12% see most whites that way. Among liberal voters, 27% see most white Americans as racist, and 21% say the same about black Americans.
From a partisan perspective, 49% of Republicans see most black Americans as racist, along with 36% of unaffiliated adults and 29% of Democrats.
Among black Americans, 31% think most blacks are racist, while 24% consider most whites racist and 15% view most Hispanics that way. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at ...