Thursday, November 13, 2014

The poor fool!

LOL…how every homeowner should feel about breaking and entering

Backlash Brews Over ‘Anti-Military Anthem’ Performed on National Mall During Veterans Concert

Blaze ^ | Nov. 12, 2014 10:35am | Zach Noble 

Rapper Eminem’s F-bomb-laced set wasn’t the only eyebrow-raising moment during Tuesday’s “Concert for Valor” on the National Mall — there’s some debate over whether some songs were insulting to the very U.S. servicemen and women and women the show was meant to honor.
Bruce Springsteen, Dave Grohl and Zac Brown played a cover of Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Fortunate Son,” which contains such lyrics as:
Yeah, some folks inherit star spangled eyes Ooh, they send you down to war, Lord And when you ask them, “How much should we give?” Oh, they only answer, more, more, more, oh
It ain’t me, it ain’t me I ain’t no military son It ain’t me, it ain’t me I ain’t no fortunate one
The Weekly Standard described it as an “anti-war screed, taking shots at ‘the red white and blue.’ It was a particularly terrible choice given that Fortunate Son is, moreover, an anti-draft song, and this concert was largely organized to honor those who volunteered to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
However, others were quick to point out that “Fortunate Son” can be read as a critique of class differences — the rich staying home while the poor go off to fight the wars — instead of as an “anti-military anthem.”
Meanwhile, another Springsteen performed didn’t spark quite as much controversy:
Springsteen played a stripped-down version of his “Born in the USA” which, as the Washington Post noted, is a very dark, critical portrayal of American society and the Vietnam War:
Born down in a dead man’s town The first kick I took was when I hit the ground You end up like a dog that’s been beat too much Till you spend half your life just covering up Born in the USA… Got in a little hometown jam so they put a rifle in my hand Sent me off to a foreign land to go and kill the yellow man Born in the USA… Come back home to the refinery Hiring man says “son if it was up to me” Went down to see my VA man He said “son don’t you understand now” Had a brother at Khe Sahn fighting off the Viet Cong They’re still there he’s all gone He had a woman he loved in Saigon I got a picture of him in her arms now Down in the shadow of penitentiary Out by the gas fires of the refinery I’m 10 years burning down the road Nowhere to run ain’t got nowhere to go
Of course, some people took umbrage to both songs.

Gallup: Record 63% Say Having Gun Makes Home Safer!

Cybercast News Service ^ | November 12, 2014 - 3:26 PM | Terence P. Jeffrey 

Sixty-three percent of Americans questioned in a Gallup survey conducted in October and released this month said they believe having a gun in their house makes it a safer place to be.
“A record-high percentage in U.S. say guns makes homes safer,” said Gallup in its analysis of the survey. The organization has polled on this issue in five surveys going back to 1993 (although the question in the 1993 survey was somewhat different than in later surveys).
Gallup also reported on how eleven different demographic groups responded to the question. Among all of these except one—Democrats—a majority said this October that having a gun in the house makes it a safer place to be. …
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obamacare Advocates Admitted It Will Kill Old People!

Breitbart's Big Government ^ | November 12, 2014 | Ben Shapiro, Senior Editor-At-Large 

While Obamacare’s proponents continue to insist that the program presents no threat to Americans’ healthcare, new comments from Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber demonstrate that Obamacare was designed to do just that. Gruber stated:
You get a law which said healthy people are going to pay in, it made explicit that healthy people pay and sick people get money, it would not have passed…Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical to get this thing to pass.
In other words, yes, Obamacare redistributes healthcare. Yes, Obamacare will endanger people who cannot afford healthcare because they are young and healthy, all in order to pay for government benefits for those who are sick. And yes, in order to control the resulting costs, care will have to be cut for the elderly.
Gruber isn’t the only Obamacare architect to tell the truth about Obamacare’s view of redistribution. Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who has said that he wishes to die at age 75, wrote in February 2008 in the Journal of the American Medical Association:
Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change.
He added that the Hippocratic Oath was to blame, since it encourages doctors to care for the patients before them without concern for “cost or effect on others.” He told the Washington Post, “We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a 'God committee' to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned.....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Gov’t tells US drivers to get used to cheap gas!

Associated Press ^ | Nov 13, 2014 12:08 AM EST | Jonathan Fahey 

Those low gas prices on station signs aren’t going away soon, the government says.
In a dramatic shift from previous forecasts, the Energy Department predicted Wednesday that the average price of gasoline in the U.S. will be below $2.94 a gallon in 2015. That a 44-cent drop from an outlook issued just a month ago. If the sharply lower estimate holds true, U.S. consumers will save $61 billion on gas compared with this year.
Rising oil production, particularly in the U.S., and weak spots in the global economy have led to a sharp reduction in oil prices over the past four months. Not seeing much of a change ahead, the government cut its forecast for global oil prices next year by $18 a barrel to $83.
As a result, U.S. drivers will pay on average 45 cents less for a gallon of gas next year compared to this year. Based on expected gasoline consumption, that’s a savings of $60.9 billion. …
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Walker for President? WI Gov’s Rise Has Similarities to Reagan

PJ Media ^ | 11-12-14 | Avner Zarmi 

The “elephant in the room,” now that Scott Walker has won a remarkable third election as governor of Wisconsin in only four years, is the presidential election in 2016. Well before the 2014 midterms, speculation was rife about Walker’s possible presidential ambitions, and his several trips to neighboring Iowa did nothing to quell it. It is widely assumed that Walker’s possible presidential ambitions are a major reason the national Democratic Party and its various third-party interest groups expended enormous resources in the unsuccessful attempts to defeat him.
There are many reasons for the Democrats to be terrified of a possible Walker candidacy for president. Most of those reasons can be summarized with two words: “Ronald Reagan.”
In 1980, Reagan ran against a wildly unpopular and discredited incumbent, Jimmy Carter (widely regarded as the worst president of the 20th century and, before Obama, a popular contender for the worst of all time). Reagan had been a successful two-term governor of the most populous state in the country. He was a well-known advocate for conservative values ever since his famous “A Time for Choosing” speech in the early ‘60s, hardly the Hollywood lightweight the Democrats tried to portray. In the 1980 election he carried 44 states with a positive, undeniably conservative message.
As an incumbent, Reagan bettered that performance in his second term, carrying 49 states against Minnesota Senator Fritz Mondale.
Though Walker is not the communicator Reagan was, neither are any of the other likely candidates, Republican or Democrat. Yet Walker does have several similar advantages.
Walker has political executive experience. He is now embarking on a second term as governor of a midsize state (Wisconsin has ten electoral votes, reflecting its two senators and eight federal representatives). Prior to that, he had been elected to two terms as county executive of Wisconsin’s largest and most populous county; his seat was in Milwaukee, the state’s largest city.
His first term was wildly successful by any rational measure.
The previous Democratic administration had left an unconstitutional $3.6B hole in the state budget. Walker’s administration was able to balance it without raising taxes. On the contrary, taxes were reduced three times in his term without harming any core functions of state or local government.
Tuition at all branches of the University of Wisconsin has been frozen. Previously, it had been rising faster than the rate of inflation. Local and county governments have been given back control of their budgets, which previously had been held hostage to collective bargaining agreements with public employee unions that held a major influence on the Democratic Party and its politicians.
A number of other legislative initiatives moved Wisconsin from its dismal position near the bottom in job creation to fourth among the ten states of the upper Midwest.
Further, emphasis can be placed on “political” in the phrase “political executive experience.” Wisconsin is a deeply divided state, in some ways a microcosm of the United States as a whole. The last time Wisconsin electors voted for a Republican president was 1988. The administration replaced in the 2010 election was one in which Democrats held all but one statewide office, had control of both houses of the state legislature, and held five of the eight seats in the state delegation to the House of Representatives. The “Wisconsin revolution” led by Walker has almost completely reversed this. The Democrats still hold three statewide offices (secretary of State, sirector of Public Instruction, and one Senate seat), but everything else is Republican. And Walker did it with a positive conservative message all three times.
Walker has been vetted by the opposition as few politicians have been. The never-ending “John Doe” probes launched by sharply partisan Democratic Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm, with full malice aforethought, turned up exactly nothing to blemish Walker’s record of upright probity.
Walker himself has emphasized — most recently on Sunday’s Meet the Press — a preference for presidential contenders with actual executive experience in the wake of the disastrous performance of Obama. Obama had never run anything prior to his election in 2008. However, Walker did name one exception whom he found to be an acceptable candidate despite lacking executive experience: Paul Ryan.
Ryan is a national figure due to his confrontations with Obama over budgetary issues as chairman of the House Budget Committee, and of course due to his run as Mitt Romney’s vice presidential candidate. If Ryan decides to run in 2016, Scott Walker will likely not want to split the state party by opposing him in the primaries. Assume there will be some intense conversations between Walker’s people and Ryan’s people in the coming months.

More coverage


Malignant Narcissism


NO Compromise


Take Away!


A Leader looks like...


Kentucky Fried Obama!


OR Else!




YOu're Right!


Under new management!


Ben Carson




Asses handed to 'em!


The Party of Know!




Painting Texas






You must be a Democrat!