Thursday, March 20, 2014

Thousands of Dimes

Ted Cruz blasts Justice Dept.: ‘Height of hypocrisy’ to deny special IRS investigator!

Washington Times ^ | Thursday, March 20, 2014 | Cheryl K. Chumley
Sen. Ted Cruz’s request for the Justice Department to appoint an independent prosecutor to determine the extent of the IRS targeting of conservative groups has been turned down, Politico reported. Mr. Cruz, Texas Republican, called the rejection the “height of hypocrisy,” saying that the current lead investigator — who has a record of campaign and political contributions to the Democratic Party — is “partisan,” loyal to his liberal-leaning causes. “Both Nixon administration Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Clinton administration Attorney General Janet Reno appointed special prosecutors whose integrity was beyond reproach,” Mr. Cruz told Politico. “Eric Holder should do likewise.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...

Democrats and Gun Control

In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound. In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States. In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States. In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States. In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant. In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office. In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office. In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, TX. In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory. In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service. In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US. In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant. In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech. In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others. In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people. In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis. In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown, CT. As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns. Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservative was involved in any of these shootings and murders. SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns. Lends credence to the belief that liberalism is a mental disorder.

The Devious Secret of Obamacare!

American Thinker ^ | March 20, 2014 | Bill Hobson
Adventures in Obamacareland, in which our protagonist is:   encouraged to lie and report that he did not have existing health insurance, making the number of uninsured look higher; discovers new reasons to doubt the numbers of people reported as signing up for Obamacare; and learns that one of the supposed reasons behind the (Un)Affordable Care Act was a total sham. First, a little background. Bill Hobson is not my real name. My spouse was concerned that, if I used my real name, the IRS would come after us. A few years ago I would have considered such thoughts paranoid. Now, under Obama's IRS, I suspect that she might be right. I am a former small business owner and former journalist. I've had individual health insurance policies since 1989, and with the same (major) company for the last fifteen years. As with most folks, I saw my premiums go up incrementally over the years as age and health care costs rose, but nothing like what happened in the past year. I did not want to sign up for Obamacare. But my individual policy -- my spouse is covered separately -- had risen from $330 a month when the administration imposed this diktat to $437 a month going into 2013, an increase which I really couldn't afford. However, my doctor had told me I would require a medical procedure last year costing a significant amount, so I left the plan in place, planning to switch to a lower-cost, higher-deductible policy. I reckoned that this would bring my monthly premium back to the $330 range. The delay would also, I thought, allow the smoke to clear from the Obamacare power grab. Little did I know that, when the smoke lifted, it would reveal a charred landscape.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

What U.S. states have the highest and lowest taxes?

CBS News Moneywatch ^ | 3-19-14 | Kathy Kristof
If you hate paying taxes, pay attention to where you live. Residents of the nation's lowest-tax states pay less than one-quarter of the levies contributed by those in the highest-tax states. And that's even when they earn the same amount and spend the same amount on everything from housing to beer, according to an analysis by personal finance site WalletHub. The site looked at 10 different taxes, from property and state and local income taxes to those on vehicles, food, alcohol, fuel, telecommunications and sales. The total tax hit was based on a hypothetical individual earning $65,596, with a $174,600 home, a $17,547 car and who spends a set amount -- the national average -- on everything from groceries to gas. The result: This individual pays $9,718 in state and regional tax levies if he lives in New York. That's nearly 15 percent of his income. But he pays just $2,364, less than 4 percent of gross income, if he lives in Wyoming. It's worth noting that the WalletHub study differs from other research on the highest tax states because it does not factor in average wages in the various states. The Tax Foundation, for example, also does a ranking of highest tax states. But it attempts to gauge the average tax hit by using state-specific wages. This analysis holds wages and spending constant, allowing Americans to consider just how much or little they'd pay if they picked up their current lifestyle and moved a few states away. Under this analysis, a resident of Connecticut would see that if he moved across the border into Rhode Island -- and had no change in income, housing or spending -- he'd save $2,195 annually in taxes alone. A Californian moving across the border to Nevada, meanwhile, would save $6,139.  10 states with the lowest average annual tax burden:  1. Wyoming, $2,365 2. Alaska, $2,791 3. Nevada, $3,370 4. Florida, $3,648 5. South Dakota, $3,766 6. Washington (state), $3,823 7. Texas, $5,193 8. Delaware, $5,195 9. North Dakota, $5,588 10. New Mexico, $5,822  10 states with the highest average annual tax burden:  1. New York, $9,718 2. California, $9,509 3. Nebraska, $9,450 4. Connecticut, $9,099 5. Illinois, $9,006 6. Wisconsin, $8,975 7. Vermont, $8,838 8. New Jersey, $8,830 9. Iowa, $8,788 10. Maine, $8,622
To see how your state compares, check out WalletHub's full analysis at link here:  CBS News Moneywatch

Hillary Joke of the Week!

 



One day Senator Hillary Clinton went to a primary school in New York to
talk about the world...


Hill droned-on for about an hour, followed with a Q and A session-
one little boy raised his hand.


The Senator asks him what his name is. "Kenneth"

"And what is your question, Kenneth?"

"I have three questions:

First - whatever happened to your medical health care plan?

Second - why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office?

And, Third - whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House?"

Just then the bell rings for recess. Hillary Clinton informs the children that they will continue after recess.

When they resume Hillary says, "Okay where were we? Oh, that's right, question time. Who has a question?"

A different little boy puts his hand up; Hillary points him out and asks him what his name is.

"Larry"

"And what is your question, Larry?"

"I have five questions:

First - whatever happened to your medical health care plan?

Second - why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office?

Third - whatever happened to all those things you took when you left the White House?

Fourth - why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early?

And, Fifth - what happened to Kenneth...?

The Neo-Porn Feminists

National Review ^ | 3/20/2014 | A. J. Delgado
It turns out that, in the rock-paper-scissors game of liberalism, “not judging” beats out “true female equality.” The good folks at Politically Correct Central recently ran into a problem: Their incredibly useful “don’t judge!” mantra (which they have mercilessly hammered us with for many years now) ran into an obstacle: What happens when a woman willingly engages in the porn industry? Liberals, who once decried porn (and rightly so) as a male-dominated nightmare that objectifies women and exploits even its willing participants, have suddenly tiptoed backwards in the wake of Belle Knox, a Duke University freshman who gladly stars in porn films to cover her tuition costs.What to do? thought the puzzled liberals. Standing against the sex industry would sound too “Christian Right”; also, criticizing the woman would effectively be siding with the frat boys who outed her — and, if there is any demographic we liberals hate, it’s male Duke students. (Remember the Duke-lacrosse case?) So, they concluded, let’s not be judgy.
Advertisement
<-- ad="" after="" cutable="" gpt="" old="" p="" test=""> -->

Thus we suddenly found ourselves clicking on bizarre headlines — and watching equally confusing TV segments — in which liberal pundits and writers suddenly were perfectly okay with an industry that is anathema to their alleged values.But the debate over feminism — what it means, as well as who can claim the feminist label —​ had been steaming for quite some time and was bound to explode sooner or later. You see, along the way, feminism became an inconvenience for the Left. Case in point: Some of its favorite celebs, who could always be counted on to publicly slam the Right or Western values, were all too happy to behave in sex-object ways that would make even the worst Mad Men misogynist say, “Tone it down.” Madonna and Miley Cyrus come to mind.Thus, feminism’s definition needed to be twisted, contorted, and —​ basically — changed. And change it did: It became so elastic that the rubber band finally snapped and no one knows what the heck feminism means any longer.Enter poor, confused Katy Perry. The pop starlet rocketed to fame by singing about kissing a girl even though she is not gay or bisexual, thus falsely usurping LGBT sexuality for material gain; she parades around in dresses three sizes too small; and she obsesses over boyfriends — all behaviors that you would think would make a true feminist recoil in horror. But Perry, who had stated in 2012 that she was not a feminist, this week (at the urging of a publicist, no doubt) proudly declared herself one: “A feminist? Um, yeah, actually. I used to not really understand what that word meant, and now that I do, it just means that I love myself as a female and I also love men.”Huh?Bless her heart, though — can we even blame Perry for her confusion? Should we not instead blame the Left, which has taken feminism from one extreme — man-hating, bra-burning hysterics — to another, in which rough, submissive sex on camera, in exchange for money, is now considered edgy and a breaking of yet another glass ceiling?Belle Knox bemoans the “patriarchal” society at Duke, yet praises the (male-dominated, male-fantasy-tailored) porn world as “empowering” and something from which she derives “unimaginable joy.” Come again? And therein lies the ugly paradox of liberals’ so-called feminism. For every magazine issue with an article railing against objectivization of women as merely physical parts, there is a cover featuring a woman with her breasts popping out of a dress; for every woman who chants “Sistas doin’ it for themselves!” and “​We don’t need a man!” there is a woman shrieking at a divorce hearing that she is entitled to half of all her husband’s assets after only a few short years of marriage; for every feminist claiming that marriage is antiquated, there is another whose entire career was made possible by the man she married; for every Beyoncé op-ed about the need for wage equality, there is a lyric where her husband gladly uses the word “bitch.”What happened to a solid definition of feminism, namely “a simple, pure belief in the equality of the sexes”? It has given way to the more useful notion of “not judging”: Nowadays, anything a woman does (provided, of course, she isn’t one of those pro-life nutcases!) is fantastic and worthy of acclaim — criticisms not wanted.Feminists (whatever that means) may exist, but one thing is certain: They are not those who come bearing the title, be they “empowered” porn-star university students or pop divas. The warning “Beware of false prophets” has never seemed so necessary.The “don’t judge” sentiment has wrought a shameless society, in which degrading acts are hailed as feminist. A 27-year-old American medical student is now auctioning off her virginity, hoping to bring in $400,000. A few short years ago, feminists would have railed against this; but now? Don’t judge! Don’t be a hater! This sentiment is routinely drilled into us via pop culture, e.g., Miley Cyrus’s “Can’t Stop” lyrics, complete with a reminder that “only God can judge ya, forget the haters!” (and even a shout-out to the females doing a line of blow in the bathroom). Gloria Steinem, where art thou?Would we be surprised, at this point, to see an op-ed by a self-proclaimed feminist who argues that sleeping with her married boss for a promotion is “liberating” and “empowering”? These days, we should simply ask that if you tell folks you’re a feminist, you should at least have a rational definition of what that is. Or, rather, let’s not even bother: Liberalism already destroyed it. Feminism was just too inconvenient to keep around.

Play pool, anyone?

145624_600.jpg

HISTORY BOOK?

344bcox.jpg

I want my country back!

2hz5r90.gif

Dep Thoughts

eg4du8.jpg

Running with...

35in6yt.gif

Obama's Choices!

2ezogn7.jpg

Are You Pro-Choice?

25ujfwz.jpg

CIA Spying?

a2w3nd.jpg

Drinking from the TOILET!

145654_600.jpg

Where's it goin'?

2dm9yjs.jpg

No Exemption!

2lndb3a.jpg

Fair and Balanced

6p8d48.gif

Special Kind of STUPID!

2lity0h.jpg

Delay ObamaCare!

Binfy6VIMAEAn0W.jpg

Desperate!

5yazih.gif

SINK!

2qw3iih.jpg

So Far!

21od3wx.jpg

Nancy's Lies

145632_600.jpg

Obamacare Needed!

Obamacare_Poster_Artist_Tattoo_2.jpg