Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Men and women the same? Tell it to the Marines!

Philadelphia Daily News ^ | January 15, 2014 | Kimberly Garrison, Daily News Personal Fitness Columnist 

I KNOW that I will probably get some flack for this, but I just can't hold my tongue any longer on this issue of female Marines participating in combat.
I've been following this story closely for the past two years, and let's just say that this is where the egalitarian rubber meets the road.
If you haven't been following the story, here's the skinny:
More than half of female Marines can't do three pull-ups, and that's the minimum standard that the Marine Corps designated to integrate women into combat jobs. According to the military, eight pull-ups is a perfect score for females, but male recruits must do 20 pull-ups for a perfect score.
If we're all the same, why the gender exception? Shouldn't women be required to do 20 pull-ups, too?
Additionally, female recruits should also be physically capable of climbing a rope, scaling a wall, marching 12 miles with an 88-pound pack and, of course, be capable of throwing a wounded comrade over one's shoulder while running under combat fire to safety.
Now, don't get me wrong. As a red-blooded, equal-rights-loving American womanist and fitness enthusiast, I fully salute any woman who can make the grade by passing this physically and emotionally grueling test. And, sure, there may be a few outliers that can actually achieve it, but they will be the rare exception.
The question is, will those few outliers be enough to make a difference? I doubt it. Should we be tailoring the toughest and most physically demanding military training by gender? Absolutely not!
I get it. We are on this nonsensical egalitarian trip and just don't want to admit the truth - women and men are different.
That's right, folks - women cannot compete physically with men.
Does anyone find this fact surprising?
For example, let's just take WNBA phenomenon Candice Parker, who some say is the best female basketball player. Now, with all due respect to Ms. Parker, does anyone think that she could be a serious contender in the NBA competing against top male basketball players like LeBron, Kobe or Kevin Garnett? Of course not, right? Why? Because even the best female basketball player is no match for her male counterpart, whose sheer physicality would in all probability crush her's 99.9 percent of the time.
Without a doubt, most people would agree that a co-ed NBA is probably a bad idea, just like integrating women into direct ground-combat fighting teams.
Although I am all about equal opportunity, lowering the bar and allowing women to squeak by with the basic minimum fitness requirements is a disservice to all. You're either qualified to do the job, or not. Lowering the standards for political correctness is not just irresponsible, it will, no doubt, prove to be deadly.
Kimberly Garrison is a wellness coach and owner of One on One Ultimate Fitness in Philadelphia. Her column appears Wednesdays.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/living/20140115_Men_and_women_the_same__Tell_it_to_the_marines.html#QgAS8LurcfYmxgoI.99

Why the Sequester Had to Die : It was Too Successful

National Review ^ | 01/15/2014 | Kevin D. Williamson 

Sequester, we hardly knew ye.

The omnibus budget deal slithering its way toward President Barack Obama’s desk for signing abandons the automatic spending cuts that resulted from an earlier fiscal compromise. Why was the sequester abandoned? Like the Gramm-Rudman Act a generation earlier, the sequester had to be stopped for one fundamental, undeniable, bipartisan reason.
It worked.
It did not work perfectly, and it did not balance the budget or put us on course for a balanced budget. But it did play a critical role in nudging the deficit away from “catastrophic existential threat” territory and toward “terrifying money-suck.” It did this in part by forcing Republicans to accept cuts in military spending, which they are not normally much inclined to do. (It goes without saying that the Democrats are categorically hostile to spending reductions.) Because we cannot rely for very long upon the better angels of congressional nature, these statutory limits are always destined to be short-lived, which should be of some concern to us: Experience shows that when Congress agrees to a budget-control deal, the first thing it does is begin looking for opportunities to undermine that deal.
For what? Among the items that will be funded in the deal is a 1 percent pay raise for hourly federal workers, an identical raise for salaried workers already having been approved. The average wage for a single hourly federal worker amounts to more than the average household income in the United States. When the total compensation package is considered, both salaried and hourly federal workers are grossly overpaid — if you doubt that, then let them negotiate wages in an open market and see whether they go up or go down. We should be reducing their wages and, more important, reducing the number of them on the federal payroll: Given the structure of federal compensation, it is more important to reduce headcounts than to reduce individual wages.
Of course, the Democrats have never met a government employee they did not like and wish to see be fruitful and multiply, but the Republicans are suspect here, too: The great majority of federal hourly workers are employed by the Department of Defense, where Republicans, gimlet-eyed in so many other areas, see little opportunity for savings in national security. Our friend Bill Kristol has argued that getting defense funds flowing is reason enough to back a budget deal.
Worse, such defense savings as have been proffered are small beer attached to PR nightmares, such as the reduction in cost-of-living benefits for military survivors and some injured veterans. The biggest, most varied, most expensive national-security apparatus in the history of human civilization, and that’s where we find excess? That is going to be difficult to defend, and unnecessary: A presidential commission already has been empaneled to study the question of compensation and pension reform. Republicans are volunteering for a beating on this issue.
Beyond the substance, there are matters of form here that are disappointing as well: Republicans plan to move forward on the bill immediately, in violation of their earlier pledge to allow at least 72 hours for the review of omnibus spending bills. And the fact that we still have these grand-bargain omnibus spending bills is a testament to Congress’s failure to return to regular order when it comes to appropriations.
Given the relatively weak position of the GOP — Democrats run the Senate and the White House, to say nothing of the media, in which this fight will be adjudicated — any deal was going to be a disappointing compromise, but this is a more disappointing compromise than is necessary. While the excesses of unified Democratic government under the Obama-Reid-Pelosi axis showed that Democrats cannot be trusted to prudently manage the nation’s finances, Republicans have not yet persuasively made the case to the American people that they can do any better, and hoping for a victory by default is foolish. Republicans are not in a great negotiating position at the moment, but it is the same position they’re going to be in when they have to visit the issue again, in the runup to this year’s elections.
Half-a-loaf deals are fine when that’s the best you can get, but this deal on balance leaves the country worse off than it would have been under the sequester — not the sort of loaf you want to be offering up when you’re trying to reclaim your reputation as the party of fiscal rectitude.
— Kevin D. Williamson is a roving correspondent for National Review.

To save America we have to stop listening to Obama’s use of Orwellian “newspeak”

Coach is Right ^ | 1/15/14 | Kevin "Coach" Collins 

Barack Obama’s lies have gone way past ordinary political deviousness. He is a reflexive pathological liar and he is destroying America by use of George Orwell’s “1984” newspeak.
You name it this guy has lied about it. He has been aided in his lies by equally mendacious Democrats and a media that has put its soul on the altar of socialism and sacrificed it to their god King Barack. Democrat lies and media support of their lies are of course nothing new. The party was born of Aaron Burr and Andrew Jackson’s lies.
What’s new is that these soulless Democrats have lost touch with the consequences of their lies. They don’t give a damn what damage their lies do to America.
No honest person believes Hillary Clinton or Obama’s lies about Benghazi. Anyone except the willfully blind acknowledges that Obama directed Fast and Furious and...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

Jimmy Kimmel Savages ObamaCare and Uninformed Young People Who Support It!

Newsbusters ^ | 1/15/14 | Noel Sheppard 

As NewsBusters has been reporting for months, late night comics have been tearing the atrocious rollout of ObamaCare apart.
Conceivably the best job done to date was by ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel who during his opening monologue Tuesday evening absolutely savaged the law whilst ridiculing the uninformed young people in this country that have ignorantly supported something that clearly harms them (video follows with transcript and commentary):....
Really delicious stuff.
However, this raises a question: with the exception of the penis pump issue, everything that Kimmel addressed was known before ObamaCare was enacted.
Certainly, America’s youth are woefully uninformed – but why is that?
Assume for a moment that as this bill was being crafted, and well before it was rammed through both chambers of Congress without one Republican vote, America’s media had actually informed the public about what was in the legislation.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...

Ted Cruz: Obama Administration Is ‘Lawless’

News One ^ | Jan 12, 2014 | News One Staff 

During an interview Sunday on FOX News, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who has been an outspoken critic of Obamacare, accused President Barack Obama of flouting the law during his time in the White House, reports The Hill.

“The pattern we’ve seen under President Obama, disregarding the law, is really one of the most troubling aspects of this presidency,” Cruz said. “When he disagrees with the law…he simply refuses to comply with it.”
Read more from The Hill:
Cruz’s remarks came as the Supreme Court prepares to hear a case Monday challenging a trio of contentious recess appointments the president made to the National Labor Relations Board. Lower courts have deemed them unconstitutional, and Senate Republicans have asked the high court to overturn them.
The recess appointments have been challenged because Obama became the first president to install nominees without a confirmation vote when the Senate was holding brief “pro forma” sessions explicitly intended to block recess appointments.

Cruz contended Democrats made the move to “pack” courts with the president’s nominees who will “rubber-stamp the president’s lawlessness.”
“Democrats are very concerned about courts holding this administration accountable for their lawlessness,” Cruz continued.
Read more at The Hill.
As previously reported by NewsOne, Cruz urged conservative voters to hold Republicans “accountable” for caving and derailing efforts to defund the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).
RELATED: Sen. John McCain To Fox News: GOP To Blame For Gov’t Shutdown [VIDEO]
During an interview with National Review’s Robert Costa, Cruz lamented the “significant number” of Senate Republicans, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky),  who “actively, aggressively, and vocally led the effort to defeat House Republicans.”
“Once Senate Republicans did that, it crippled the chances of this effort, and it caused the lousy deal.” he told Costa.
Continuing on his “fool’s errand,” Cruz sent a sublimal shot to McCain, insinuating that his statement in opposition of holding the government ransom to defund Obamacare would never work:
“As with every decision elected officials make, the consequences of those decisions are up to the American people,” Cruz said. “But I will say this: from day one in office, I’ve urged the American people to hold every elected official accountable, and far too many elected officials are not listening to the American people… when you’ve got 10 to 20 Senate Republicans going on television, day after day after day, saying, ‘we cannot win, this is a fool’s errand, we will lose, nothing will happen, we will surrender,’ and blaming Republicans every step of the way, it eliminates the ability to get a positive outcome.”

Obama Tells Supreme Court: Force Hobby Lobby to Obey HHS Mandate!

Life News ^ | Matthew Clark 

If we wanted your religious beliefs on abortion-pill coverage, we’d give them to you appears to be the latest in an untenable string of arguments from the Obama DOJ over the HHS Mandate.
On Friday, the DOJ filed its response to the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case.
Politico has the latest on the DOJ’s arguments:
In arguments filed late Friday, Justice Department lawyers told the court that an employer’s religious beliefs aren’t a legitimate reason to deny something as important as preventive care to an employee who is entitled to it under the health law.
“The connection is too indirect as a matter of law to impose a substantial burden” on employers’ right to practice their religion, the lawyers wrote in their opening argument defending the contraceptive requirement against Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.
The crux of the Obama Administration’s legal argument seems to boil down to two points:
Opposing forced coverage of abortion pills isn’t a legitimate religious belief; and 2) our pro-abortion agenda is far more important than your silly religious beliefs anyway.
If that sounds like an argument to turn the religious liberty protections of our Constitution on its head, that’s because it is. The moment the government can tell us what is and is not an important part of our faith and further that what we consider to be a sin is far too attenuated to actually be real sin in God’s eyes is the moment we have lost our religious liberty.
This argument comes days after Obama’s DOJ attempted to convince the Court that forcing Catholic nuns to pay for abortion pills in no way violated their faith because all they had to do was sign a form and let someone else violate their faith for them.
The absurdity of these arguments is astounding. There is no stronger principle upon which our nation was founded than religious freedom. If the government can say my religious beliefs don’t count, then what religious liberty can we possible have?
The Supreme Court is set to consider this exact question later this year. At the ACLJ, we are preparing to file a brief on behalf of thousands of concerned Americans and our clients (each of which we have put a stop to the mandate for as their cases continue).

Husbands!

Real Friends!

The website works!

Inauguration 2009

Heavy Toll

Condom

FIRED?

My Green Hat

1497678_10202955313186713_752803116_n.jp

Tax the rich...

obama-hood-tax-rich-screw-poor.jpg

What do you think?

Devil_Angel_on_Shoulder_Healthcare.png

Batshit Crazy!

of0ncz.jpg

We Lost!

ixqkr9.jpg

The Good Life

toon140109.jpg

Parents criticized online for bringing crying baby to restaurant

upi ^ | Jan. 14, 2014 

CHICAGO, A couple dining at an upscale Chicago restaurant were sharply criticized online when their infant spent the evening crying at the eatery.
Chef Grant Achatz of the Alinea restaurant took to Twitter with a question about crying baby etiquette after the infant cried though the dinner service Saturday night at the three-star restaurant, where meals can cost hundreds of dollars, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Tuesday.
"Tbl brings 8mo.Old. It cries. Diners mad. Tell ppl no kids? Subject diners 2crying? Ppl take infants 2 plays? Concerts? Hate saying no, but ...," Achatz tweeted.
The tweet sparked sharp criticism online for the parents, who many said should have known better than to bring an infant to an upscale restaurant.
"IT IS ABSURD TO BRING YOUR BABY TO ALINEA," tweeted Michael Nagrant, who reviews restaurants for RedEye. "You do not take a baby to Alinea. Unless the babysitter canceled last minute and Alinea would not refund your ticket. No other debate."
The restaurant takes reservations by allowing customers to purchase tickets, sometimes months in advance. The tickets are not refundable.
Achatz posted a picture to Twitter Sunday featuring two fish heads on a plate.
"Definitely not baby food," he tweeted.
The furor over the incident led to the creation of a Twitter parody account, @AlineaBaby, which bears a user bio saying, "I'm a baby who likes fine food, fine drinks, and crying."

The Communist Party Hails De Blasio and Obama!

American Thinker ^ | 1/15/2014 | Paul Kengor 

For a long time, the communist left has used the word "progressive" to cloak its agenda. This phenomenon is hardly new. It has gone on since at least the 1930s, not long after the American Communist Party was founded in Chicago.
I know this well, having written at length on the subject. You might have thought this strategy died with the USSR, when we won the Cold War and once >defeated communism. Unfortunately, thanks to the left's takeover of education and media, it continues unabated, and is moving full steam ahead in Barack Obama's fundamentally transformed America, where the far left seems invigorated unlike ever before. The communist left has sudden new energy in the "progressive" mayoral victory of Bill De Blasio, the New York mayor who once raised money for the Nicaraguan communists and honeymooned in Castro's Cuba.
Handy evidence of how communists continue to exploit the "progressive" label isn't hard to find. It's always just a click away at the website of People's World, the house organ of Communist Party USA and successor publication to the Daily Worker (which throughout its existence received Kremlin oversight and funding). People's World is very shrewd in the words it chooses to use, and not use.
Predictably, People's World is thrilled with New Yorkers electing Bill De Blasio. The CPUSA mouthpiece isn't silent in its enthusiasm, though it is carefully avoiding the "c" word (communism) in favor of the "p" word (progressivism). In this, it is not unlike Bill De Blasio himself. Notably, too, People's World links De Blasio's "forward" success and "change" vision with Barack Obama's "progress" (as does De Blasio). Witness two fresh articles:
The first, covering De Blasio's inauguration, was titled…
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

The Two-Tiered System of American Government

Absolute Rights ^ | 1/15/2014 | John W. Whitehead 

We now live in a two-tiered system of governance. There are two sets of laws: one set for the government and its corporate allies, and another set for you and me.
The laws which apply to the majority of the population allow the government to do things like sending SWAT teams crashing through your door in the middle of the night, rectally probing you during a roadside stop, or listening in on your phone calls and reading all of your email messages, confiscating your property, or indefinitely detaining you in a military holding cell.
Then there are the laws constructed for the elite, which allow bankers who crash the economy to walk free. They’re the laws which allow police officers to avoid prosecution when they shoot unarmed citizens, strip search non-violent criminals, or taser pregnant women on the side of the road, or pepper spray peaceful protestors. These are the laws of the new age we are entering, an age of neo-feudalism, in which corporate-state rulers dominate the rest of us. In other words, we have moved into an age where we are the slaves and they are the rulers.
Unfortunately, this two-tiered system of government has been a long time coming. As I detail in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, the march toward an imperial presidency, to congressional intransigence and impotence, to a corporate takeover of the mechanisms of government, and the division of America into haves and have nots has been building for years.
Thus we now find ourselves at a point where, for the first time in history, Congress is dominated by a majority of millionaires who are, on average, 14 times wealthier than the average American. Making matters worse, as the Center for Responsive Politics reports, “at a time when lawmakers are debating issues like unemployment benefits, food stamps and the minimum wage, which affect people with far fewer resources, as well as considering an overhaul of the tax code,” our so-called representatives are completely out of touch with the daily struggles of most Americans--those who live from paycheck to paycheck and are caught in the exhausting struggle to survive on a day-to-day basis.
While Congress should be America's representative body, too many of its members bear little resemblance to those they have been elected to represent. Chauffeured around in limousines, flying in private jets and eating gourmet meals, all paid for by the American taxpayer, they are far removed from those they are supposed to represent.
And then there are the lobbyists, the source of much corruption and exchanging of money in Washington. With an estimated 26 lobbyists per congressman, it should come as no surprise that once elected, even those with the best of intentions seem to find it hard to resist the lure of lobbyist dollars, of which there are plenty to go around.
This lobbying is in turn buoyed by a congressional lifestyle which demands that our representatives spend the majority of their time fund raising for campaigns, rather than responding to the needs of their constituents. In November 2012, the Democratic House leadership offered a model daily schedule to newly elected Democrats which suggests a ten-hour day, five hours of which are dominated by “call time” and “strategic outreach,” including fund raisers and correspondence with potential donors.
When half of one’s time is devoted to asking for money from rich individuals and special interests, there is no way that he can respond to the problems which pervade the country. Even well-meaning Congressmen face a Catch-22 where they are pushed to fundraise to secure their seats, but then once in office, it is basically impossible for them to do their jobs.
What we are faced with is a government by oligarchy--in other words, one that is of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. Yet the Constitution's Preamble states that it is "we the people" who are supposed to be running things. If our so-called "representative government" is to survive, we must first wrest control of our government from the wealthy elite who run it. That is a problem with no easy solutions, and voting is the least of what we should be doing.
How can we change this state of affairs? The government is too big, too powerful, and its overlords too entrenched to willingly give up any of its power or wealth. The wisest option is to employ the tactics of past protest movements such as the Bonus Army, the Civil Rights Movement, and the 1960s anti-war movement, all of which used sleep-ins, sit-ins and marches to oppose government policies, counter injustice and bring about meaningful change.
What these movements had was a coherent message, the mass mobilization of a large cross section of American society, what Martin Luther King Jr. called a philosophy of “militant nonviolent resistance” and an eventual convergence on the nation’s seat of power—Washington, DC—the staging ground for the corporate coup, where the shady deals are cut, where lobbyists and politicians meet, and where corporate interests are considered above all else.
King’s advice still rings true: “We need to put pressure on Congress to get things done. We will do this with First Amendment activity. If Congress is unresponsive, we’ll have to escalate in order to keep the issue alive and before it. This action may take on disruptive dimensions, but not violent in the sense of destroying life or property: it will be militant nonviolence.”
Clearly, it’s time for a mass movement dedicated to change through “militant nonviolence.” If not, the shadow of tyranny that now hangs over us will eventually destroy every last semblance of freedom.
“We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor,” Martin Luther King Jr. warned in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” “It must be demanded by the oppressed.”