Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Reuben Sandwich With A Side Of 500K Lost Jobs

Capitol Confidential ^ | 4/11/2014 | Tom Gantert
Last week, President Barack Obama visited Zingerman’s Deli in Ann Arbor in a self-professed politically motivated press stop. The president is pushing to raise the national minimum wage. Zingerman's co-owner, Paul Saginaw, went to Washington, D.C., in January to lobby for an increased minimum wage. So what was reported about the president's visit to Ann Arbor? Paragraphs of detail on the $14 Reuben sandwich the president ate. What wasn’t reported? That the reason for the visit — to promote increasing the minimum wage — will reportedly result in the loss of around 500,000 jobs, according to a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Michigan Capitol Confidential reviewed nine articles by eight different news organizations covering President Obama's visit to Zingerman's Deli. Each article mentioned that the president wants to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. But it was the level of detail on President Obama's food order that truly was impressive: "Zingerman's corned beef, Switzerland Swiss cheese, Brinery sauerkraut & Russian dressing on grilled, hand-sliced Jewish rye bread" was the second paragraph of an article by WXYZ-TV. The Detroit Free Press reported: "It was initially unclear which pickle the president ordered, but he ruled out the garlic pickle because he has to go to Chicago later today for a fundraiser." The Detroit Free Press did mention the CBO report in the 11th graph of a separate story on President Obama's speech at the University of Michigan. Michigan Radio included comments from Saginaw and President Obama on how raising the minimum wage would be beneficial, but it didn't mention of the CBO report. The Michigan Radio report does say "Republicans" believe the proposal "will reduce the number of jobs." The Ann Arbor News food and dining reporter staked out the deli on the off chance she would get to meet the president. Her column also mentioned the president’s campaign to increase minimum wage. Although the stories were color pieces describing the scene created by the arrival of the President of the United States, every one of them mentioned his agenda for raising the minimum wage, but none mentioned the CBO report of a major drawback — the loss of jobs. Charles Owens, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, said there is nothing stopping Zingerman's owner from paying his workers above the minimum wage. "And he doesn't need an act of Congress to do it," Owens said. "In fact, any employer — and many do — who wants to pay more than the minimum wage can do so right now. Not every business in the USA has the benefit of a captive audience of well-to-do clientele because he is located in a university city where much of the standard of living is subsidized by the government through taxpayers' dollars. It's unfortunate that the mainstream media was so excited by a visit by the president that they failed to report substantive news beyond what he ordered for lunch."

I wonder

Time for a little Koch jiujitsu on Democrats!

American Thinker ^ | 04/15/2014 | Thomas Lifson
Harry Reid’s jihad against the Koch Brothers has already yielded a hilarious video compilation (by the Free Beacon) of his 134 mentions of their name. But now with new information, his Koch addiction can become a potent tool in the hands of Republicans. Call it karma, if you like, but the former boxer now leading the Senate majority has left himself wide open.
It turns out that Koch Industries employees and PACs have donated to quite a large number of Congressional Democrats. The data was right there on Open Secrets when Jeff Dunetz of Truth Revolt picked it up and posted in table form the honor roll of Koch money recipients among Harry Reid’s tribe:

In typical blogosphere manner, the table spread to Weasel Zippers, PJ Media, and then Instapundit, where Glenn Reynolds realized the electoral gold. He suggested (in his trademark all-caps):
“I SUGGEST RUNNING THIRD-PARTY ATTACK ADS TO ENCOURAGE DEM VOTERS TO STAY HOME.”
Brilliant! The ads practically write themselves:Mary Landrieu’s Majority Leader says the Koch Brothers are un-American. [video clip]. So why did Mary accept $11,000 from Koch employees? Louisiana voters deserve better.



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

NBC Predicts: All Americans Will Receive A Microchip Implant In 2017 Per Obamacare!

America's Freedom Fighters.com ^
If you take the RFID Microchip they can TRACK your every move, Control your MONEY, Control your FOOD and possible even KILL you if you don’t obey! A number of states like Virginia, have passed “stop the mark of the beast legislation” in an effort to stop this.
(Excerpt) Read more at americasfreedomfighters.com ...

The Obamacare Games: Where the odds are NEVER in your favor.

Yehuda Remer

A series of billboards are cropping up from Nashville, TN to Texas announcing the Obamacare Games, where “the odds are never in your favor.”
The billboards are the product of refusetoenroll.org and are a play on the massively popular books-turned-movies called The Hunger Games, where the motto of the fight-to-the-death matches are “May the odds be always in your favor.”
According do their website, refusetoenroll:
“Initiated a new billboard campaign as part of our ongoing 'Refuse to Enroll' effort. The exchanges are the Achilles' heel of Obamacare. They are also the IRS enforcement centers, the federal takeover centers, and the insurance status surveillance centers. We are focused on stopping Obamacare by stopping the Obamacare exchanges.”
They also list the top 4 reasons why not to enroll in Obamacare.
1. No Private Insurance - Obamacare is "Medicaid for the middle class" - or as former CBO director Douglas Holtz_Eakin calls the Exchange coverage: "a second Medicaid program."
2. No Privacy - Data enters federal database accessible by IRS and various other state and federal government agencies.
3. Limited Choice - Most coverage is "narrow network" or "ultra-narrow network" policies, limiting access to doctors, hospitals and other health care professionals.
4. High Cost Premiums - To pay for multi-million dollars Exchange operations and for subsidizing high-cost individuals, the young and healthy will pay high-cost premiums for policies with high deductibles.

GOP, Don't Be Comforted by Sebelius' Resignation

Townhall.com ^ | April 15, 2014 | David Limbaugh
As horrible as Kathleen Sebelius has been as this nation's health and human services secretary, she has been exactly who President Barack Obama has wanted her to be. This was no rogue incompetent tinkering with America's health care. This was one of Obama's chief lieutenants, one who was doing his bidding every step of that treacherous road they traveled together. Don't get me wrong; Sebelius was inexcusably bad -- arrogant, defiant, uncompassionate, dogmatic and unrepentant. Obama cashiered her only because it was time to deflect blame from himself and change the channel. There is nothing incompatible between assigning major blame to Sebelius for all aspects of Obamacare and also squarely placing the primary blame on Obama for all of it. There is plenty of failure to go around, and they all own it. It's kind of like United States Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice. She doesn't get a pass for her role in spreading the unconscionable lie that the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was caused by a video just because her sinister superiors, all the way up to Hillary Clinton and Obama, ordered her to do it. They are all in it together, duping the American people with malice aforethought -- with zero accountability and no apology. Ever. But unlike that of Rice, Sebelius' role wasn't limited to a mere multiple-time major-media drive-by where she did the administration's dirty work. Sebelius was not just a subordinate mouthpiece. She oversaw the genesis of the oppressive tangle of regulations for implementing Obamacare, which, among other things, have run roughshod over Americans' conscious rights and religious freedoms. This woman has been shameless and improperly political in a position that is supposed to involve anything but partisan politics. In 2013, she admitted she had made telephone calls to three separate companies that her department is responsible for regulating and urged them to help promote Obamacare. She asked Johnson & Johnson, Ascension Health and Kaiser Permanente to support the work of Enroll America, a nonprofit led by formed Obama administration officials that was working with the White House to publicize Obamacare and help uninsured people sign up for coverage. These statists have no problem blurring the lines between the proper and improper activities of government. Everything is fair game if it advances their agenda. Of course, Sebelius justified her actions without a "tinge" of contrition, blaming Congress, in effect, for making her do it because it didn't allocate enough money for the sacred cause of socializing our health care. Sebelius, as you will recall, also used a secret email address to conduct official federal business, in keeping with Obama's pledge to be the most accountable administration in the history of the multiverse. She brazenly used Obamacare as an excuse to push the administration's agenda on comprehensive immigration reform, complaining that "undocumented" people wouldn't have access to tax credits or the glories of the Obamacare insurance exchanges. But if you think that was the best example of her hubris, think again. The day before the launch of the now notorious Obamacare website, Sebelius boasted, "We're about to make some history -- and I think some very positive history for lots of families in the country." Also, Sebelius was all over the arbitrary and discriminatory Obamacare exemptions Obama passed out like Halloween treats and wholly unconcerned that businesses received the exemptions when individuals didn't. She has been just as dishonest as Obama in skewing their sign-up figures as a triumph when fourth-grade math students could tell you they didn't come close to signing up the requisite number of people to make the law work financially, especially by their self-imposed deadline. She and Obama have been equally dishonest about the millions who have lost their insurance as a result of their highhanded law. If you think Sebelius is no longer in a position to damage this nation after her resignation, be advised that she has already trashed America in a speech to the Conference on World Affairs at the University of Colorado at Boulder, happily blaming America for spreading bad habits such as tobacco and "overconsumption" to the rest of the innocent world. Don't assume that Obama's proposed replacement for Sebelius will be any less ideologically driven and deferential to Obama than Sebelius has been. Let's not forget -- not that the liberal media would ever let us forget -- Obamacare is Obama's "baby" and he's not about to delegate superintendence of his signature infant to one not in sync with his radical agenda. No conservative should be rejoicing at Sebelius' departure as if it were occurring in a vacuum. No matter how badly Sebelius messed things up, Obama was the one who picked her -- and then didn't want to be bothered with any problems. He's too important a fundraiser to be sidetracked with trifling matters related to people's livelihoods and health care. Celebrities were waiting. Republican senators had better do a better job of vetting Obama's nominee to replace Sebelius -- Sylvia Mathews Burwell -- than they did when they joined Democrats to unanimously confirm Burwell as White House budget director. Time for some real scrutiny for a change. It is inconceivable that she would be an impartial administrator.

Planned Parenthood Won’t Condemn Woman Who Killed Her Seven Babies, Packed Them in Boxes!

LIFE NEWS ^ | Luis Zaffirini
Police in Pleasant Grove, Utah, discovered over the weekend the bodies of seven dead infants in cardboard boxes, The Salt Lake Tribune reported. All seven of these babies were allegedly killed soon after being born by their own mother, a 39-year-old woman who has now been placed under arrest. The mother has been charges with six counts of murder. Police believe she committed these crimes over the course of a decade. This brutal loss of young life is shocking and deeply saddening. Yet as I read the story, I couldn’t help but consider this woman’s actions in the light of what prominent abortion proponents have said about when legal protection can be extended to unborn babies (never)—and whether that right can be withheld from babies even after birth (yes). meganhuntsmanUnivision anchor Jorge Ramos recently asked Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards at which point she believed human life begins. She obfuscated, answering at first: “It is not something that I feel like is really part of this conversation. I mean, to me, we work with women…. I guess the way I’d really like to… I think every woman has to make her own decision. What we do at Planned Parenthood is make sure that women have all their options for health care…” Ramos pressed her further on this obviously uncomfortable (for her) issue. She replied: “Yah, well, I don’t know that it’s controversial. I don’t know that it’s really relevant to the conversation. But, for me, I’m the mother of three children. For me, life began when I delivered them; they’ve been probably the most important thing in my life ever since. But that’s my own personal decision.” Thus (at least in Planned Parenthood’s eyes) babies are presumably safe once they are born, right? A year ago, Florida legislators were considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to infants who survive an abortion attempt. Members of the committee—and, thanks to YouTube, the nation— were shocked to hear a Planned Parenthood lobbyist refuse to condemn infanticide. Florida State Rep. Jim Boyd asked Alisa LaPolt Snow, representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, “If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?” Snow replied, “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician” Maybe this shouldn’t shock us. The pro-abortion understanding of which human lives deserve legal protection has always been extreme and wildly at odds with what the vast majority of Americans believe. Go back fifteen years to a dialogue on the Senate floor between Senators Rick Santorum and Barbara Boxer. Santorum said: “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?” Boxer replied: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.” Like this pro-life news article? Please support LifeNews with a donation during our April fundraising campaign! Santorum pressed her further: “Obviously, you don’t mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree—completely separated from the mother—you would agree that the baby is entitled to constitutional protection?” Her response: “I don’t want to engage in this. I don’t want to engage in this.” Who can blame her? It’s one thing to privately play the arbiter, deciding whose life is and whose is not deserving of protection. It’s another thing to do so on the floor of the United States Senate. Our own president conveniently opted out of answering this important question when asked it during a “Civil Forum on the Presidency” at Saddleback Church prior to the 2008 elections. Then-candidate Obama was asked by Rick Warren, “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?” After a few hems and haws, Obama’s response was “Whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.” Perhaps. But his inability to answer that question certainly didn’t stop him from opposing the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act multiple times while in the Illinois Senate. Brushing aside the issue of when human life begins is a convenience the abortion industry would like to enjoy. The right-to-life community insists on the truth. And because of that, one day all innocent human life will be protected, despite the feigned ignorance of abortion proponents.

Facts and Fallacies About Paycheck Fairness

Townhall.com ^ | April 15, 2014 | Phyllis Schlafly

President Barack Obama and his feminist friends have been trotting out their tiresome slogan that women are paid only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. Every reputable scholar who has commented has proved that this is a notorious falsehood that anyone should be embarrassed to use. U.S. law calls for equal pay for equal work, but the feminist slogan is not based on equal work. Women work fewer hours per day, per week, per year. They spend fewer years as full-time workers outside the home, avoid jobs that require overtime, and choose jobs with flexibility to take time off for personal reasons. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, men are twice as likely as women to work more than 40 hours a week. Women place a much higher value on pleasant working conditions: a clean, comfortable, air-conditioned office with congenial co-workers. Men, on the other hand, are more willing to endure unpleasant working conditions to earn higher pay, doing dirty, dangerous outside work. In 2012, men suffered 92 percent of work-related deaths. If a man is supporting his family, at the peak of his career, he often works longer hours to maximize his earnings. By contrast, a successful woman who reaches a high rank in her career is more likely to reduce her working hours. All these reasons for women voluntarily choosing lower pay are now beyond dispute among those who have looked at the facts. But even those explanations for the alleged pay "gap" are still only part of the story. Perhaps an even more important reason for women's lower pay is the choices women make in their personal lives, such as having children. Women with children earn less, but childless women earn about the same as men. Another fact is the influence of hypergamy, which means that women typically choose a mate (husband or boyfriend) who earns more than she does. Men don't have the same preference for a higher-earning mate. While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap. Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate. Obviously, I'm not saying women won't date or marry a lower-earning men, only that they probably prefer not to. If a higher-earning man is not available, many women are more likely not to marry at all. In colleges, there are no gender separations in courses of study, and students can freely choose their majors. There are no male and female math classes. But women generally choose college courses that pay less in the labor market. Those are the choices that women themselves make. Those choices contribute to the pay gap, just as much as the choice of a job with flexible hours and pleasant working conditions. The pay gap between men and women is not all bad because it helps to promote and sustain marriages. Since husband and wife generally pool their incomes into a single economic unit, what really matters is the combined family income, not the pay gap between them. In two segments of our population, the pay gap has virtually ceased to exist. In the African-American community and in the millennial generation (ages 18 to 32), women earn about the same as men, if not more. It just so happens that those are the two segments of our population in which the rate of marriage has fallen the most. Fifty years ago, about 80 percent of Americans were married by age 30; today, less than 50 percent are. Just a coincidence? I think not. The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap. The real economic story of the past 30 years is that women's pay has effectively risen to virtual parity, but men's pay has stagnated and thousands of well-paid blue-collar jobs have been shipped to low-wage countries. Nobody should be surprised that the marriage rate has fallen, the age of first marriage has risen, and marriage, in general, has become more unstable.

The Doctor Won’t See You Now

City Journal ^ | 14 April 2014 | Joel Zinberg
Millions may get “insured” through Obamacare, but that doesn’t mean they’ll be able to see a physician.

Proponents of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) insist that the law will extend health insurance to millions, expand access to health care, and improve Americans’ overall health. But, as the New York Times recently reported, at least 20 percent of the new enrollees have not paid their premiums. They therefore do not really have insurance. But even for those enrollees paying premiums, having health insurance is not the same thing as getting good health care, or any health care. In fact, it doesn’t matter how many Americans obtain insurance under the ACA. Most will have difficulty finding a physician.

Many Americans could lose their employer-provided insurance if firms decide that paying the ACA penalty—and maybe giving small raises to their employees—is cheaper than offering health insurance as a benefit of employment or reduce workers’ hours (the ACA does not mandate coverage for part-time employees). These newly uninsured workers will either have to enroll in Medicaid, if their income is low enough, or purchase a plan on one of the state and federal insurance exchanges. Those eligible for exchange subsidies may end up better off economically as their premiums will be so low, but both the exchange and Medicaid options are fraught with problems.

States are already struggling under huge budget deficits from their existing Medicaid programs. Since states lose federal funding if they adjust their Medicaid eligibility guidelines, their only option for reducing deficits is to cut already-low Medicaid reimbursement rates. Physicians are already reluctant to treat Medicaid patients under current rates that are a fraction of private and Medicare rates. Cutting reimbursements will exacerbate the physician-access problem and could lead to closures of so-called “safety-net” .
(Excerpt) Read more at city-journal.org ...

Let HHS nominee Sylvia Burwell explain Obamacare lie!

Washington Post ^ | April 14, 2014 | By Marc A. Thiessen
Senate Democrats have been desperately trying to move the national conversation away from Obamacare to just about anything else before the midterm elections — “paycheck fairness,” the minimum wage, even the Koch brothers. But President Obama’s choice of Sylvia Burwell to replace Kathleen Sebelius as secretary of Health and Human Services thrusts Obamacare right back into the national spotlight — and with it Obama’s false promise that “if you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan.” Burwell should not be confirmed until she explains how OMB allowed the president of the United States to lie — repeatedly — to the American people. If Democrats don’t demand answers, they can be sure that Republicans will. Since avoiding the subject is not an option, her hearings will be a fascinating insight into the Democrats’ 2014 strategy on Obamacare. Vulnerable Senate Democrats have two choices: Come to Obama’s defense, or use the Burwell hearings to separate themselves from the president and blame him for misleading them like he misled the rest of America. We’ll soon see which one they choose.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

Ted Cruz Is Beating Rand Paul in the Tea Party Primary

The Atlantic ^ | Apr 14 2014, 2:51 PM ET | Molly Ball
The two men's presidential hopes rest on appeals to the right-wing grassroots—and those voters seem to prefer Cruz.
 
MANCHESTER, N.H.—Rand Paul has been methodically planning his run for president. Now Ted Cruz could come along and spoil the whole thing.Both senators have a path to the Republican nomination that rests on the support of the Tea Party. And when forced to choose, that segment appears to prefer Cruz, whose speech to an activists' gathering here over the weekend was the more enthusiastically received of the two.Saturday's Freedom Summit, billed as an early audition for potential 2016 candidates, provided a rare opportunity for right-wing activists to directly compare the Texan and the Kentuckian. The senators spoke practically back to back, and the crowd clearly loved them both. But Cruz's theatrical delivery wowed them more than Paul's comparatively cerebral appeal, and his rhetorical focus on conservative red meat found more favor than Paul's detours into libertarian concerns."I like Rand Paul, I agree with a lot of what he says, but as far as charismatic leadership, I've got to go with Ted Cruz," Robin Parkhurst, a state-government worker from Newbury, New Hampshire, said after hearing both men speak at the event. "Ted Cruz has the ability to deliver a message that resonates with people."Parkhurst was one of several at the summit to echo that sentiment. It was a dramatic demonstration of a dynamic political watchers have speculated about—Cruz's ability to steal Paul's thunder if both seek the 2016 GOP nomination.And seeking the nomination is something both men seem inclined to pursue. Both headlined weekend events with the New Hampshire Republican Party in addition to appearing at the summit, which was sponsored by Citizens United and Americans for Prosperity. (Yes, the Supreme Court plaintiff that helped deregulate
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...

Cynical Race-Baiting Will Fail to Save the Democrats

The Daily Beast ^ | April 14, 2014 | Ron Christie
Sadly, it has come down to this. When they assumed power in 2009, Democrats promised that a trillion-dollar stimulus package would invigorate the economy and create millions of jobs. It did not happen—all while trillions of dollars were added to the national debt which will become due when these current lawmakers are safely in retirement. The president of the United States and congressional Democrats promised that if they passed Obamacare, you could keep your doctor and your health plan while your premiums would decrease by an average of $2,500 a year. All of these claims were assessed and identified by the non-partisan Politifact as the biggest lie of 2013. Time after time and on issue after issue, Democrats have made promise after promise to the people they were elected to serve which have come up empty. With no record of accomplishment to run on in November, congressional Democrats and President Obama will face a day of reckoning that could very well return control of the Congress to Republicans and neuter the remaining two years of Obama’s tenure in the White House. Faced with such an unthinkable reality, the Democrats marked the 50th anniversary of passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not by hailing the progress we have made as a nation but by resorting to the despicable act of accusing their political opponents of racism to preserve their hold on power in Washington, D.C. Late last week in these pages, I discussed how lack of political civility is destroying the ability of the political process to function in our nation’s Capitol....
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...

Bundy Ranch Crisis is Reason to Ask "Who Actually owns America’s Land?"

Freedom Outpost ^ | April 13, 2014 | Michael Lotfi
Turtles and cows have absolutely no relevance to the situation in Nevada. Does the Constitution make provision for the federal government to own and control “public land”? This is the only question we need to consider. Currently, the federal government “owns” approximately 30% of the United States territory. The majority of this federally owned land is in the West. For example, the feds control more than 80% of Nevada and more than 55% of Utah. The question has been long debated. At the debate’s soul is Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which is know as the “Property Clause”. Proponents of federal expansion on both sides of the political aisle argue that this clause provides warrant for the federal government to control land throughout the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomoutpost.com ...

15 Examples Of "Liberal Privilege"

Townhall.com ^ | April 15, 2014 | John Hawkins
Since liberals can't find enough real examples of racism to whine over, they've taken drastic steps to invent imaginary bigotry. One of the ways they've done this, especially on college campuses, is by embracing the concept of "privilege." The general idea is that as a straight, white heterosexual male, you have all sorts of special "privileges" you should feel guilty about because of your "dominant" position in society. Buzzfeed even put together a special quiz on the subject called, "How Privileged Are You?" Some of the indications of "privilege" on the quiz include:* I have never been told I “sound white.”* My parents are heterosexual.* I am a man.* I have never felt unsafe because of my gender.* I have never been homeless.To take this sort of hyper-sensitivity seriously requires a mind-boggling lack of self-awareness because EVERYBODY has some kind of "privilege" that could benefit him in some way, shape or form that others don't have. I've worked at jobs where the managers have said they couldn't fire a black employee who deserved it solely because they needed more of a paper trail to fire a non-white employee. There are illegal aliens getting in-state tuition when Americans from other states can't. There are transexuals who can use whatever bathroom they want based on how they "feel" about their gender that day. It's much more acceptable for a woman to stay home and take care of her kids while her partner supports her than it is for a man. If you're gay, you're much more likely to be taken seriously if you claim that you're the victim of a hate crime than someone who's straight. Oh, but those don't count...why not? Because if you apply the same rules of "privilege" to everyone, it becomes obvious that whole concept is stupid? Well, the rest of us already know that, but in order to help liberals catch up, here are 15 examples of "liberal privilege."1) You can commit a crime and your local newspaper usually won't mention what party you're in if you're a Democrat.2) You can be a white liberal who viciously mocks black men like Clarence Thomas, Allen West, and Ben Carson without being called a racist. 3) You can be a Communist or a radical Islamist, you can hate America or even engage in acts of terrorism and still get a job as a college professor. In fact, it probably makes it more likely you'll be hired. 4) You can live in a mansion, fly around in private jets and consume more energy than a small town and still be taken seriously when you say we need to cut back on our lifestyles to fight global warming.5) You can hold a conference like Netroots Nation that's as white as any Tea Party without having people suggest that your event is somehow "racist" for not having more minorities present. 6) You can hold protests without paying for permits, illegally sleep in the park for weeks, and crap in the street and the police turn a blind eye to what you're doing. 7) You can make Ebenezer Scrooge look like Mother Teresa and you'll still be told you're "compassionate" for supporting liberal policies that ruin the lives of poor Americans.8) You have the option of sending your kids to a liberal school, watching liberal news, and then enjoying liberal TV shows so that your insular liberal world never has to be shaken by actual conservatives explaining their ideas.9) If you work for a newspaper, a college, or in Hollywood, you can freely spout your political beliefs at every opportunity without fear of facing any retaliation for your beliefs. As an added bonus, you can then tell everyone how "brave" you are for taking the same positions all of your friends and colleagues hold.10) If you're a liberal minority politician, you can be crooked, ignore your constituents, and do nothing of consequence to make their lives better while you get elected over and over again.11) You can be taken seriously as some kind of girl power, women's rights icon even though your entire career is built on being married to a serial adulterer who became President.12) You can have millions of dollars in the bank and not be laughed at when you complain about all those awful rich people ruining the country. 13) Newspapers will ignore scandals that would be front page news FOR MONTHS if a Republican were involved because a liberal is behind them.14) You can wear mom jeans, throw like a girl, and look like a dork on a bike and Hollywood will tell everyone you're cool if you're a liberal President. 15) You can cheer for women who abort their female babies right before you accuse OTHER PEOPLE of waging a "war" on women.

Crucify Them!

Tolerance-590-LA.jpg

Armed vs Unarmed

146901_600.jpg

Top Race Baiter

1493u48.gif

"We Make Law!"

23si1op.jpg

Can't Wait!

2hpixza.jpg

What if the government guaranteed you an income?

CNN ^ | April 14, 2014 | David R. Wheeler
First, the bad news: Even if the economy improves, middle-class career paths will continue to disappear as globalization and technological innovation render more jobs obsolete. Now, the good news: The fear, stress and humiliation caused by unemployment (and underemployment) can be alleviated with a simple solution. And now, the even-better news: This simple solution is starting to find backers on both sides of the political spectrum.  A monthly cash payment to every American, no questions asked, would solve several of our most daunting challenges.
It's called a basic income, and it's cheaper and much more effective than our current malfunctioning safety net, which costs nearly $1 trillion per year.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...

Progressive Insurance (The right ideological credentials mean never having to say you’re sorry)

National Review ^ | 4/15/2014 | Victor Davis Hanson
How do you ensure that you won’t be ostracized, denounced, or fired if you are a media celebrity, captain of industry, or high public official?For some, sexist banter is certainly no problem. Stand-up comedian Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a c–t and a tw-t, but suffered no ill consequences. David Letterman joked on air that Sarah Palin’s 14-year-old daughter had had sex with Alex Rodriguez during a New York Yankees game. There was no downside to that either. President Obama tosses around “sweetie” as he wishes. No problem with that. No one believes Barack could be condescending to women.It is not just that sloppy speech can, with the right ideological insurance, become irrelevant. Inconvenient truths can be insured against too. Barack Obama’s female staffers make far less than do their male counterparts, at least by the quirky sort of standards that the president himself applies to others to win petty victories in his vaunted war against the war against women. Bill Clinton had sexual relations with a young staffer, in what feminists would call a classic exploitative situation of disparate power. Most such bosses would be fired for hitting on their young assistants. If Woody Allen were not insured as a left-wing filmmaker, he would have been ostracized out of Hollywood.Racism is not necessarily a job killer either. How could it be, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid claimed during the 2008 campaign that a “light-skinned” Barack Obama spoke with “no Negro dialect.” Joe Biden, himself a candidate in that election, said of Obama that he was the “first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean.” Despite such racist drivel, a fully ideologically insured Biden was rewarded with the nomination for vice president.No one asks Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to step down from the Supreme Court; but in a quite frightening remark, she quipped that she was surprised about the uproar over abortion: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Frankly, that seemed a savage thing to say, especially given the inordinate percentages of abortions among minorities and the poor. Why did an uncouth Don Imus go on forced sabbatical from radio for his racial crudity, but not, say, Stephen Colbert for his own racial buffoonery? Is it that Colbert is never dead serious in a way Imus always is? No, it’s that Colbert had taken out ideological insurance, Imus not so much.As far as inflammatory race baiting goes, one can say almost anything one wants — with the proper ideological insurance: Collate these comments by Chris Rock (the Fourth of July is “white people’s day”), Morgan Freeman on conservative opposition to Obama (the Tea Party is “going to do whatever [they] can to get this black man outta here”), Jamie Foxx on Django Unchained (“I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that?”), or Hank Aaron on Republicans who oppose President Obama’s policies (they’re like the KKK). Certainly racial venom is not a career ender for the fully insured. Jay-Z, a frequent White House guest, is not shy about wearing a Five-Percent Nation medallion, which reflects an ideology that considers whites inferior devils.Insensitivity to gay concerns is supposed to be professionally ruinous. But, really, it is not either. Alec Baldwin occasionally lets loose with anti-gay slurs and seems to be doing fine. Barack Obama strongly opposed gay marriage far more publicly than did the head of Mozilla. No one asks our president to resign, or for that matter the legion of Democratic politicians who ran on the premise that marriage is properly only between a man and a woman. They all were fully covered by low-deductible ideological insurance.Criminal activity is no barrier either. Last week, at a convention hosted by activist Al Sharpton, Attorney General Eric Holder whined to Sharpton’s audience that he and Obama have been treated unfairly, his subtext being endemic racial prejudice. But Holder’s host knows a lot about racial prejudice. At that moment, Sharpton — who concocted the Tawana Brawley mythology, defamed a district attorney, and was forced to pay libel fines for his slurs; who avoided taxes; and who helped incite a fatal race riot — was back in the news, and not for his long history of racism, homophobia, and religious bigotry.The latest revelations about Sharpton suggest that he was an FBI informant against Mafia criminals, apparently in some fear that drug charges would be lodged against him. The fully insured Sharpton’s entire career has been predicated on racist language and demagoguery — again hardly obstacles to serial White House invitations. Holder, who called Americans “cowards” and referred to African-Americans as “my people” (try that, John Ashcroft), complained of rudeness and a general divisiveness in the country. Was he referring to Obama’s request of Latinos that they “punish our enemies” or his own racialist language? No matter: Holder pays his insurance premium quarterly with either an accusation of racism or a loud affirmation of his progressivism.Three miscreant California Democratic state senators — two charged with multiple felonies, one convicted of them — have only recently been put on leave. They are still receiving their state salaries. Since they are left-wing and of minority status, the scandals will soon be off the front pages, and calls for their resignations will be muted.Lisa Jackson, the former EPA director, left the agency abruptly after it was disclosed that she had created a fake e-mail persona, among other things, to give herself (a.k.a. “Richard Windsor”) an EPA award for being a “scholar of ethical behavior.” Apple rewarded such ethical behavior by giving her a six-figure income as its new environmental liaison. Note well: Had Lisa Jackson Windsor expressed doubts about man-caused global warming rather than fabricated a false identity, then she might not have landed on a lucrative Apple perch — and might have been advised by Apple’s CEO to dump her Apple stock.Does a poor record of achievement in helping minorities get one fired? Not really. In terms of minority income and employment, Barack Obama’s five years in the White House have been an abject disaster.Is being rich, then, a class liability? That too depends on whether you bought progressive insurance. If you are a Silicon Valley billionaire who is loudly cool, hip, and left-wing, then offshoring and outsourcing is OK. No one worries that George Soros is a European pariah speculator who was convicted of insider trading in France in 2005, or that the fully insured Steyer brothers seek to trump the Koch model of giving millions to pet political causes.The president deplores the Supreme Court’s striking down limits on campaign donations. He can do that because he hits the 0.01 percent up for quid pro quo cash in pursuit of noble causes. John Kerry married a millionaire, then a billionaire, and then tried to avoid sales and excise taxes on his huge yacht. That was a disturbing fact, but it was not brought up on the Senate floor — in the manner that Mitt Romney was falsely accused of being a tax cheat by Harry Reid. Reid long ago took out a huge progressive umbrella policy that so far has insured him against his libelous allegations, dubious financial entanglements, and racist statements.Perhaps the most amply progressively insured operator in the world today is Al Gore. He pays high premiums for nonstop left-wing slurs (such as suggesting that a sitting president is in cahoots with Brownshirts). Yet it pays off when someone might lodge a claim against you. Imagine the following liability and the sort of ideological insurance necessary to defend against it: First, you hype a supposed climate disaster and then offer remedies for it — with your profit margin based on the degree of hysteria you have whipped up. Second, as a big-government, green liberal guru, you sell a failed cable-television network to a carbon-spewing, Islamist Gulf sheikdom, and rush the sale to beat a new hike in the capital-gains tax rate. Third, you ignore questions about why something so worthless might be worth so much to a mostly homophobic, misogynist, and religiously intolerant Middle East monarchy.Gore’s insurance policies guarantee that he will never be shunned as a tax-dodging robber baron eager to grab petrodollars.Sometimes progressive insurance involves far more than just liberal rhetoric. Perceptions, however superficial, matter as well. Had George Zimmerman just insured himself by taking his mother’s maiden name and Latinizing his first name, Jorge Mesa would not quite so easily have incurred liberals’ wrath in the Trayvon Martin case. Even the New York Times would have been stumped in its crude attempts to whip up racial hatred by reinventing Zimmerman with the neologism “white Hispanic.”A Barry Dunham would not have had the resonance with liberals that the exotically multicultural brand of Barack Obama conveys. Even a preppy-sounding President Barry Obama would have had trouble playing golf so incessantly, in a way Barack does not.Plagiarism is usually an absolute career killer. But you can take out progressive insurance against that as well. Just ask former plagiarists Joe Biden, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Juan Williams, and Fareed Zakaria.Instead of paying monetary premiums, one supports the proper causes, says the properly cool things, joins the right organizations, and votes the correct way, and by those means purchases a liability policy against the careless mistakes, plagiarism, offhanded lapses, sexual peccadillos, gaffes, and bad jokes that otherwise could prove ruinous.Complain about racists with the racist Jay-Z, blast the oil companies with the petrodollar billionaire Al Gore, frolic about with a young girl in the Oval Office with Bill Clinton, copy someone else’s work with Maureen Dowd, oppose the anti-abortionists with the eugenicist-sounding Justice Ginsburg — and you will never have to say you’re sorry.For most people in the media, entertainment, politics, sports, and academia, taking out ideological insurance is a no-brainer.

‘Phony scandal’ update: 3 out of 4 Sunday shows ignore latest IRS revelations!

Michelle Malkin ^ | 4/14/2014 | Doug Powers
The lack of focus on the IRS “phony scandal” shouldn’t be surprising anymore, and yet, it never ceases to amaze:
Over the last seven days, three major revelations have emerged surrounding the IRS’ targeting of Tea Party groups. Despite the new stories, on Sunday April 13, three of the four Sunday interview shows on the broadcast networks — NBC’s Meet the Press, CBS’s Face the Nation and ABC’s This Week — all ignored them, whereas Fox News Sunday was the only broadcast network program to mention the IRS at all.
Proof-positive of Fox News’ anti-liberal bias!Apparently ABC, NBC and CBS didn’t think their viewers would have an interest in any of this:
On Wednesday April 9, The Washington Times revealed that a Dallas IRS office was covered with Vote for Obama stickers and engaging in campaign cheerleading. On the same day, The Hill broke a story revealing that Lois Lerner fed tax information to Elijah Cummings (D-MD) who sits on the committee in charge of overseeing the IRS investigation. And finally, the House Ways and Means Committee voted last week to refer Lois Lerner for criminal charges, yet the big three didn’t mention any of these stories on Sunday.
Yawn!To repeat one of the most egregious examples of bias-by-omission yesterday, Bob Schieffer’s guest was Elijah Cummings, the ranking Dem on the House Oversight Committee who emails suggest was fed information by Lois Lerner about a conservative organization seeking tax-exempt status. Number of questions from Schieffer to Cummings in regards to that? Zero.Part of Fox News’ Sunday morning coverage of the IRS story included asking why other media outlets aren’t covering the story. Wallace asked an AP reporter about the lack of IRS coverage:
When questioned on Fox News Sunday by Chris Wallace, the Associated Press’ Julie Pace defended the lack of IRS coverage, explaining that “We don’t have a lot to work with.“ Fox News contributor Brit Hume shot her down and argued that “The same set of facts…would have touched off in previous days a media firestorm. What we had was kind of a campfire in most of the media, which was doused before very long, and the story has been basically dormant.”
“We don’t have a lot to work with.” What’s that mean? The White House lost their email address?