Monday, December 1, 2014

Republicans dismiss impeachment, say it would ‘martyr’ Obama

washingtontimes ^ | Nov. 30, 2014 | S.A. Miller 

Unsuccessful attempt could undermine GOP efforts to reverse amnesty order
Capitol Hill Republicans have furiously denounced President Obama’s executive action on immigration as illegal, unconstitutional and an abuse of the power of his office — but they get skittish when the talk turns to impeachment.

Even Rep. Steve King, one of the most fiery opponents of the president’s “executive amnesty” for illegal immigrants, backed away from his previous calls for impeachment.
“I don’t want to do the ‘I’ word. Nobody wants to throw the nation into that kind of turmoil,” the Iowa Republican told CNN immediately following Mr. Obama’s executive action.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

As Two-Parent families Decline, Income Inequality Grows ^ | November 30, 2014 | Jeff Jacoby 

Few political debates in this country are as freighted with emotional, cultural, and ideological baggage as those that touch on the choices people make in forming families. When public discourse turns to decisions about wedlock and child-rearing — think of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 1965 report on "the breakdown of the Negro family," or the uproar over Murphy Brown during the 1992 presidential race, or the modern push for same-sex marriage — civility is too often swept away amid a storm of hurt feelings and self-righteousness.
All the more reason, then, to welcome two recent studies — one national in scope, one focused on Massachusetts — on the effects of single parenthood and the decline in marriage. Both lay out the data with clarity, while avoiding moralizing or disapproval.
One report, aptly titled "For Richer, For Poorer," is by sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox of the American Enterprise Institute and economist Robert I. Lerman of the Urban Institute. It documents the profound links that connect family structure and financial well-being, and underscores what decades of empirical data have shown: Families headed by married couples tend to be much stronger economically than those headed by unwed single parents.
"Anyone concerned about family inequality, men's declining labor-force participation, and the vitality of the American dream should worry about the nation's retreat from marriage," the authors write. The steady fall in the percentage of married two-parent households — from 78 percent in 1980 to 66 percent in 2012 — goes a long way toward explaining why so many ordinary families have trouble climbing beyond the lower rungs on the economic ladder. Correlation isn't proof of causation, of course. But there is no refuting the strong association between growing up with both parents in an intact family and achieving higher levels of education, work, and income as young adults.
Wilcox and Lerman put dollar amounts to the "intact-family premium" reaped by those who are raised by their own biological or adoptive parents. By age 28 to 30, for example, men from such backgrounds are earning on average $6,500 more per year in personal income than their peers from single-parent homes. And since growing up with both parents increases one's likelihood of marrying as an adult, men and women who were raised by married parents tend to enjoy much higher family incomes as well — in the case of that 28- to 30-year-old male, more than $16,000 higher, on average. (Among all married adults who were raised in a two-parent home, the annual average "family premium" is higher still: $42,000 more when compared to their counterparts from single-parent families.)
To be sure, not all families headed by married parents are stable or successful, and not all children raised by single parents struggle economically or professionally. Barack Obama, who was two years old when he was abandoned by his father, is dramatic evidence of that.
But as Obama himself says, the data aren't in question. "Children who grow up without a father are more likely to live in poverty. They're more likely to drop out of school. They're more likely to wind up in prison. They're more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol."
As the second study documents, these unhappy trends haven't bypassed Massachusetts.
In recent decades, the fraction of Bay State children in single-parent homes has risen to more than one in three. While the state's marriage rate has plummeted — there were 49,000 Bay State marriages in 1980 vs. fewer than 36,000 in 2011 — the rate of out-of-wedlock births has soared. The Massachusetts Family Institute, in a report replete with just-the-facts-ma'am statistics, lays out the economic and social costs.
"The increase in fatherless families is a significant contributor to income inequality," it notes. In 2013, the median Massachusetts income for married-couple households with children was $114,376. For households headed by single mothers, it was just $26,999. Citing data from the National Survey of Children's Health, the report observes that only 6 percent of children in married-couple homes have no parent who works full-time. For kids being raised by never-married single mothers, the comparable figure is 46 percent.
There is no finger-wagging or blame in these reports, just the numbers — and compassion. The child poverty rate is so much steeper in single-parent homes than in two-parent homes, and it is heartbreaking that so many young people raised in fatherless families will have such trouble climbing out of poverty as they grow older.
Income inequality may or may not be "the defining challenge of our time," as Obama and others have proclaimed. But the most significant driver of that inequality — the biggest impediment to upward economic mobility — isn't hard to identify. The higher the fraction of children not being raised by their married parents, the more of our fellow citizens for whom the American Dream is likely to remain beyond reach.

Is He Out of His Narcissistic Mind?

The American Spectator ^ | December 1, 2014 | Marilia Duffles 

"....Conversely, the scathing disdain [Obama] shows those who disagree with him ...or whom he considers not on his team—in power or intellect—is of a man whose anger seethes so close to the surface he wears it on his starched long sleeve.
Of course politicians get angry, but it is generally after long and frustrating negotiations where someone is not playing by the rules.
But Obama seems to be always angry.......
....Instead, and like an angry teen-ager who defaces walls with graffiti,he effaces the Constitution instead with his feckless and reckless Executive Orders,no matter the consequences.
He is Homo politicus on steroids.
And why did he let the Middle East reach the point of ISIS? He certainly had the Pentagon,the CIA,the State Department advising him of the opposite…and very early on.
No,I dare say that angry brain is hell bent on directing his anger at the whole lot, the entity called America....
....We now know from revealing tomes by insiders and outsiders(Gates,Panetta,Edward Klein)the inner workings of this dysfunctional White House,where cabinet briefing papers and staff memos are given cold shoulders(Secretary of Defense Hagel being the most recent casualty),chiefs of staff are relegated to figurehead positions,and key staff members are undermined because decisions are made by two brains:
Obama’s—in needy mode—and Valerie Jarrett—as mother figure....
Valerie is not the ideal-hungry because she seems to be too solipsistic for that. Few senior presidential aides have demanded Secret Service detail. And five agents?!
No,the ideal-hungry ones are not just the sycophantic liberal media,the drive-bys as Rush Limbaugh accurately labels them,who reflexively shoot down anything Republican while mindlessly propping up the emperor each time he stumbles.
Like Brazil’s Cidinha, the finger points at the Democratic Party who propped up this fragile person as their political puppet—their polpett—to dangle before the ideal-hungry American people. Or,to invoke a Gruberism:the “stupid American people” who fell hard for this charade...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Leftist organizers are using Ferguson to rehearse the Big Ugly

The American Thinker ^ | December 1, 2014 | Lee Cary 

Multiple far-left groups are using Ferguson as a pretext to rehearse widespread civil disobedience when the Welfare State taps the brakes.
The scaling down of the Welfare State in America is not a question of “if,” but “when.” The status quo is unsustainable.
“Unsustainable” is one of those Washington D.C. words with a history of meaning little -- like Foggy Bottom’s use of “unacceptable.” But unlike unacceptable, unsustainable, when applied to the Welfare State, is a derivative of mathematics -- a major determinant of the wealth of nations.
The American Welfare State is unsustainable -- destined for significant downsizing by cold, impassionate, apolitical Arithmetic.
All except the most hardcore leftist pols inside the Beltway know this to be true, but it remains mostly unspoken.
The first line of defense for those who would sustain the life of the Welfare State is to reduce expenditures for the Warfare State. That battle is yet to be fully engaged, but is already underway in D.C. skirmishes.
The goal of leftist pols will be to negotiate big cuts to the Warfare State in exchange for small cuts in Welfare.
In the meantime, leftist, community organizing groups -- meaning those that openly define their guiding ideology with socialist/communist language (quoting Marx & Lenin, while avoiding any mention of Stalin) -- have been using Ferguson to stretch their muscles, largely unused after the 2008 election of an ally in the White House. For them, the Ferguson protests have little to do with Michael Brown’s death, and more to do with anti-capitalist rants, punctuated by chants against police brutality against young, innocent, black men.
Their stage setting is Brown’s death -- the play is about anti-capitalism...
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Ugly Face!


Shove it!




Fooling Your Voters!

Where is Al Gore Now?


Negotiating 101

The Rubicon




Under the bus club!