Thursday, January 1, 2015

Piece of Shit Award


On what planet?


Our Rights


Less Racially Divided

4htl40.gif have no doctor!


Great record!


Our brand!


There was a time!


Now that you mention it!


Same old Shit!


Hillary Clinton's 2016 Problem: Promising To Be The Third Term of Obama's Presidency ^ | January 1, 2015 | Donald Lambro 

WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton angrily condemned the bleakest results of Barack Obama's economy in a recent speech, but didn't dare say who was responsible for them.
"What would Robert Kennedy say about the fact that still, today, more than 16 million children live in poverty in the richest nation on Earth," she said in an address to an elite, well-fed crowd in a Manhattan ballroom at an awards gala to honor the slain Democratic presidential candidate.
"What would he say about the fact that such a large portion of economic gains have gone to such a small portion of our population," she continued, and so little to poor minorities that make up at the core of the Democrats' liberal political base.
Fearing a left-wing cabal is building a campaign to draft Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren for the presidential nomination, Clinton is retooling her message to reconnect with a party that may be turning against her candidacy.
Other presidential hopefuls are waiting in the wings to challenge her in the party primaries: Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, former Virginia Sen. James Webb, Vermont Sen. Bernard Sanders, a socialist, and maybe more to come.
Clinton's fiery address was filled with ultra-demagogic appeals to nearly every party interest group that could be up for grabs if Warren gets into the race.
"What would Robert Kennedy say to the thousands of Americans marching in our streets… with their eyes open and their hands up?" was one of the lines she used in an effort to rebuild the Clintons' claim on the presidency.
But her racially-tinged, class warfare rhetoric represented a double-edged sword. If poverty remains at unacceptable levels after six years of a Democratic administration, who's fault is that?
Clinton seemed content to let the economic facts speak for themselves, seemingly suggesting she would pursue a very different economic policy that would lift the poor and the middle-class -- the people Obama's economic policies have left behind.
Actually, Clinton left out poverty figures that were much worse than the narrower numbers she used in her speech.
Nearly five years after the Great Recession supposedly ended, close to 49 million Americans, nearly 16 percent of the U.S. population, were below the poverty line, the Census Bureau reported in September.
"Neither the number nor the [percentage] rate for 2013 was statistically different from 2012," the Census report said.
While a few states saw poverty decline a bit, most of the poor saw no improvement under the administration's policies.
"Between 2012 and 2013, the number of people in poverty in 42 states and the District of Columbia remained statistically unchanged," the Census Bureau said.
Meantime, household income has been on the decline, even in this so-called recovery, and hourly wages remain flat for most Americans. A workers' typical pay scale is now said to be at the same real level that it was 48 years ago.
"We've had [economic] growth, but it hasn't really reached everyday Americans," says Elise Gould, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute. "It's a lost decade, maybe more."
But if anyone thinks for a moment that Hillary Clinton has the answers to the economic issues she is exploiting for her own political advancement, forget it. For two very big reasons.
She's an unreconstructed liberal who's tied to Obama's domestic policies which she has supported since day one: Obamacare, climate change regulations, the economic job stimulus, normalizing relations with the Castro dictatorship and all the rest.
Yes, Bill Clinton is and will remain her chief adviser, but it's unlikely she would support the kind of centrist policies he embraced in the 1990s.
Party liberals remember that her husband's presidency included several major planks from the GOP's economic agenda: welfare reform, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and in Clinton's second term, a major capital gains tax cut that unlocked a wave of job-creating investment that drove unemployment down to 4 percent.
Clinton rode into office on a centrist-leaning, domestic policy agenda that was largely defined by the Democratic Leadership Council, an influential, pro-business, pro-trade, grassroots organization that he headed before running for president.
It was no secret in the West Wing, and among the DLC leadership at that time, that Hillary loathed this business-backed group that played an influential role in developing her husband's policies.
But there are other factors that make Hillary a less-than formidable presidential candidate in 2016.
She is not going to win the presidency with the kind of red-meat leftist rhetoric she delivered to the well-heeled audience at the awards gala. Nor without setting forth a clear agenda to get this economy moving again. So far, she has not uttered one word about Obama's impotent economic policies or any hint of how she would deal with the underperforming, wage-stagnant economy she would inherit.
Despite the economy's third quarter, 5 percent growth spurt, economists say we will finish the year at a weak 2.5 percent GDP rate. That's not good.
Hillary enters the 2015-16 election cycle as a candidate who promises to give us the third term of Obama's liberal presidency: something a majority of voters in 2014 clearly demonstrated they do not want.
Like the rest of her party, Hillary is hopelessly addicted to a nasty ideological diet of higher tax rates, much bigger government, and a lot more regulation - all of which kills jobs, suffocates economic growth and enlarges poverty.
The last time she was put in charge of handling policy, it was the Clinton health care plan that was so unpopular, the Democratic-run House refused to bring it up for a vote in committee.

Obamacare and the Rule of Law ^ | January 1, 2015 | Ilya Shapiro 

This spring, the Affordable Care Act will make its third trip to the Supreme Court. But King v. Burwell is different from its predecessors. Instead of challenging Obamacare’s constitutionality, or the way certain regulations burden particular types of plaintiffs, this lawsuit questions how the executive branch has enforced the law generally—or, more precisely, modified, delayed, and suspended it.
After supporting the challengers’ successful request that the Supreme Court take up this case, the Cato Institute has now joined with Professor Josh Blackman on an amicus briefthat alerts the Court to the separation-of-powers and rule-of-law violations attending the ACA’s implementation. Through a series of memoranda, regulations, and even blog posts, President Obama has disregarded statutory text, ignored legislative history, and remade the law in his own image.
King focuses on tax credits—the subsidies that allow people to pay increased premiums—one of the key pillars of Obamacare that the administration has toppled. To assist those who lack employer-sponsored insurance, and because it couldn’t command states to establish exchanges, Congress authorized these credits for residents of states that do create the exchanges. The statute expresses this design in language that is clear as day: Individuals receive tax credits if they bought a qualifying health plan “through an Exchange established by the State.”
In other words, if a state failed to establish an exchange, its residents—who would end up buying plans through the federal—would not be eligible for the subsidies. (The ACA’s Medicaid expansion plan operated with a similar carrot-and-stick approach until the Supreme Court rewrote it.)
But a funny thing happened on the way to utopia: only 14 states set up exchanges, meaning that the text of the law denied subsidies in nearly three-quarters of states. This result was untenable to an administration intent on pain-free implementation. To obviate the uncomfortable compromises Congress reached, the executive engaged in its own lawmaking process, issuing a regulation that nullifies the relevant ACA provision.
Under the “IRS Rule,” subsidies would be available in all states. As documented in a detailedreport by the House Oversight Committee, the executive branch engaged in a multi-agency process based on a convoluted series of linguistic contortions without any meaningful analysis of the ACA’s history. At least one government attorney recognized that there “wasno direct statutory authority to interpret [a federal] exchange as an ‘Exchange established by the State.’” But such concerns were squelched, and the rogue rule was released.
Through the IRS Rule, the executive emulates Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word … it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more or less.” In response, Alice naturally asked “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”The Supreme Court must answer no and vacate the IRS rule that provides subsidies in states that did not establish exchanges.
Through its oversimplification of how the ACA works as a whole—by arguing for the legality of literally any policy that advances “access,” no matter how unmoored from statutory authority—the government incorrectly assumes that the 111th Congress shared President’s Obama’s evolving vision of how to reform the healthcare system (and granted him discretion to advance it accordingly). To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, Congress didn’t think “expand coverage” means what the executive thinks it means.
In King, which will be argued on March 4, the Supreme Court should address the president’s disregard of Congress and belief that legislative gridlock allows him to transcend his constitutional authority. A ruling that upholds his behavior sets a dangerous precedent for the nascent ACA superstatute, which will be implemented for years to come by administrations with different views of the law. More troubling, such a precedent could be used in future to license virtually any executive action that modifies, amends, or suspendsany duly enacted law.
Josh Blackman, who co-authored Cato’s brief, contributed to this blogpost.

Progressives and Disorder

WSJ On-line ^ | Dec. 30, 2014 | Staff 

As the calendar turns toward the final two years of the Obama Presidency, this is a moment to consider the world it has produced. There is no formal Obama Doctrine that serves as the 44th President’s blueprint for America’s engagement with the world. But it is fair to say that Barack Obama brought into office a set of ideas associated with the progressive, or left-leaning, wing of the Democratic foreign-policy establishment.

“Leading from behind” was the phrase coined in 2011 by an Obama foreign-policy adviser to describe the President’s approach to the insurrection in Libya against Moammar Gaddafi. That phrase may have since entered the lexicon of derision, but it was intended as a succinct description of the progressive approach to U.S. foreign policy.
Radical Islamists are grabbing territory from U.S. allies in Yemen. They have overrun Libya’s capital and threaten its oil fields. Boko Haram in Nigeria, the kidnappers of some 275 schoolgirls in April, adopted the ISIL terror model. U.S. allies in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan, are struggling to cope with the violence spreading out of Syria and Iraq.
Mr. Obama can only hope that the Afghan Taliban do not move now to retake Kandahar after he announced this week with premature bravado “the end of the combat mission.”

The crucial flaw in the Democratic left’s model of global governance is that it has little or no answer to containing or deterring the serious threats that emerge in any region of the world when the U.S. retreats from leadership.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

What we learned about the American voter in 2014

politico ^ | Dec. 31, 2014 | Jonathan Topaz 

Have Republicans disrupted Democrats’ demographic advantage?
Working-class white voters continued their decadeslong defection from the Democratic Party.

The president was a major drag on his party, particularly given a challenging Senate map.

Turnout was historically low, even for a midterm election.
The 2014 Republican landslide has both parties poring over the data, hoping to glean insights about the current state of the electorate before the 2016 elections. But it might take until the next presidential cycle to answer the most pressing question: Is Republicans’ 2014 success the result of significant changes in how voters view the two parties, or is the structural difference between the electorates in presidential and midterm years so great that Democrats still maintain a strong demographic advantage going into 2016?

After a series of discussions with political experts, pollsters and strategists, here are the five things we learned about American voters this year.
1. The Democrats’ working-class-whites problem is serious.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Breitbart ^ | December 31, 2014 | By Pam Keye 

On this week’s episode of the official broadcast of the New Black Panthers Party’s “Black Power Radio,” the former national chairman of the New Black Panther Party and current national president of Black Lawyers for Justice, Malik Zulu Shabazz said 2015 is the time to “build up that army” and go “to the gun range.”

“And Mister Malcolm X, he consistently teaches us self defense,” Shabazz said. “The most honorable Elijah Muhammad continuously teaches us self defense. The honorable Marcus Mosiah Garvey teaches us self defense, and we know, our leader and our teacher the honorable Khalid Abdul Muhammad teaches us self defense. What am I saying? Right now it’s time to build up that army. Right now it’s time for us to build up those corps, those troops. It’s time to get strong. It’s time for lifting weights and working out and going to the gun range and all of that.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Judge Napolitano: Impeach Obama for amnesty!

 wnd ^ | 12/06/2014 | Greg Corombos 

Fox News Channel Senior Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano is unimpressed by states suing the federal government over President Obama unilaterally changing immigration laws or by House Republicans pushing legislation to forbid Obama from moving forward in implementing his policies.
Napolitano, who has a weekly column at WND, is also not urging lawmakers to defund enforcement of what many on the right consider amnesty. Instead, the former New Jersey Superior Court judge thinks Obama’s actions warrant his removal from office. Earlier this week, 17 states, led by Texas Attorney General and Governor-Elect Greg Abbott, filed suit against the federal government. Napolitano said that’s not going to get the job done.
“They can file all the lawsuits they want and the court is going to say, ‘Tell your client, Mr. Boehner, tell your client, Senator McConnell, that there’s a perfectly acceptable remedy right there in the Constitution that’s bloodless, and they can do it by taking a couple of votes,” Napolitano said. “It’s called impeachment.’”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Finally, Some Realistic 2015 Resolutions Anyone Can Stick To!

Kirchhoff's Law ^ | 12-31-2014 | Mary Kirchhoff 

Every year many of us do it. Make those same, predictable, boring resolutions. We keep making these same resolutions year after year...and don't stick with them, so I’ve come up with a more reasonable list of resolutions for 2015.

1. Eat more carbs. You’re going to anyway. Why suffer without bread, potatoes, and for God’s sake, even orange juice. We all like our carbs and you should be sure you include them in every meal. You’ve been eating them all along, and you probably don’t weigh 400 pounds, so who cares?
2.Forget exercising. You’ll waste your money joining a gym and go for about a month, if you make it that far. Or, you’ll have a new place to hang semi-clean clothes when you purchase that fancy piece of equipment that you’ll use for a few weeks. Save the money and the space in your house.
3. Do less housework. Why stress out about a clean toilet and neat bedroom? When you clean it up, it just gets messy again. Save the time and effort. Your friends will get used to your place – they don’t have to come over if they don’t like your housekeeping efforts. Besides, you may make it on an episode of Hoarders, and that’s a good thing. Reality TV is all the rage.
4. Avoid Laundry by buying new stuff. Instead of doing laundry, just wear the stuff a couple times and toss it. Goodwill will take it, and this satisfies that typical resolution of giving to the poor. By the time you pay for the hot water to do a cycle on warm, the electricity and the gas to heat the water, you’re infinitely better off just buying new stuff.
5.Stop being nice to people. I think we’ve all made a resolution at one time or another to be a better person; kinder, more patient, blah blah blah. But really, did it ever pay off? Probably not. Most likely you got used and walked all over, so just be a mean selfish asshole. You’ll be much better off.
6.Don’t bother saving money. Live for the here and now. After all, you could be dead tomorrow, and someone else, (probably a no good relative who will blow through your money,) will spend what you worked so hard to save.
7. Getting out of debt? Do you really want to cancel your cable, not go out to eat, not go on vacation, and generally just live a horrible existence? Because that’s what you’ll have to do to get out of debt, and you’ll have to live that way for years. So, whip out that credit card and don’t even think twice about it!
8.Forget about learning a new language. In another 10 years, when this is a Spanish speaking country, you’ll be forced to learn Spanish anyway. So just wait till then. You will no longer press 1 for English, because that option will be unavailable.
9.More charitable giving? No way. Why should you sacrifice to line the pockets of some CEO? See a homeless person in the street asking for money? Give them a toothbrush and a comb.
10. Forget couponing to save money. You’ll spend way too much time and effort on the computer trying to track down coupons for products you actually use. You won’t find the products you actually use, so you’ll print out a bunch of crap you may use. Then, said coupons will sit on your desk until they expire. What did you save? Nothing? What did you gain? Nothing. You lost money by using paper and ink. You lost a lot of time by sitting on the computer printing out coupons for a bunch of shit you’ll never use. And if you did print out a coupon for something you use, it will be on your desk and not in your purse when you purchase it. Very counterproductive.
11. Stay with the job you have. Unless you want to spend countless hours filling out online applications and two-hour long assessment tests that ask the same question nine different ways, just put up with your boss and your idiot coworkers. I’ve found it’s much easier to stick with a crappy job then spend myriad hours online filling out applications and assessments for jobs that don’t even exist.
12. Don’t quit smoking. You’ll be a mean, stressed out, anxious wreck of a human being attempting to do this. Enjoy your life. So, you might die of lung cancer? Chances are you won’t. But sadly, someone you know who never smoked will. You can walk out of your house and get run over by a truck tomorrow, so puff away.
13. Quit drinking or drink less? Puhhlease. It ain’t happening. No explanation necessary. 3 14. Finally, STOP making resolutions every year. If you follow these, you’ll be a happier, better and more productive person in the long run. Happy New Year!

Planned Parenthood: We Aborted 327,653 in FY2014

Cybercast News Service ^ | December 31, 2014 - 12:40 PM | Penny Starr 

Planned Parenthood clinics did 327,653 abortions in its fiscal year 2014 (which ran from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014), according to Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s newly released annual report.
That works out to an average of 37 abortions per hour or nearly 1 every 90 seconds.
Planned Parenthood also received $528.4 million from government grants and reimbursements, which equaled 41 percent of its revenue.
The federal government is prohibited from paying directly for abortions through Title X family planning grants and reimbursements; however, federal funds do pay for Planned Parenthood operations, including the clinics where abortions are performed. …
(Excerpt) Read more at ...


Ann Coulter ^ | 12-30-2014 | Ann Coulter 

It is a common practice of the left to stage an incident and then demand enormous legal changes to respond to their hoax.
Griswold v. Connecticut was a scam orchestrated by Yale law professors to challenge the state's anti-contraception law. The case was a fraud: The law had never been enforced and never would have been enforced, until the professors held a press conference announcing they were breaking the law.
But we still got the new constitutional "privacy right" which, less than 10 years later, transmogrified into a constitutional right to kill an unborn baby.
The premise of that case, Roe v. Wade, was also a hoax. Norma McCorvey lied about being raped to get an abortion in Texas, but was denied because there was no police report. There was also no rape: She had gotten pregnant for the third time by her mid-20s as a result of a casual sexual encounter.
After Trayvon Martin was shot by George Zimmerman -- the "white Hispanic," since upgraded to full "white" by The New York Times -- liberals howled about Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. The case had absolutely nothing to do with that law: Zimmerman wasn't standing his ground; he was lying on the ground having his head bashed in. The jury accepted Zimmerman's claim of self-defense and acquitted him.
The law of self-defense has been around since William of Orange ascended to the British throne in 1688. But liberals are still harping about the Trayvon Martin shooting to demand the repeal of Stand Your Ground laws.
Jamie Leigh Jones made fantastical claims about being fed Rohypnol, gang-raped and then held at gunpoint while working for KBR, a subsidiary of Halliburton, in Iraq in 2005. Without considering the likelihood of a military contractor doing this to an American citizen, knowing she'd get back to the U.S. someday and be able to tell her story, our adversary media and well-paid Democratic senators believed every word out of Jones' mouth.
As always happens when members of a disfavored racial and gender group -- i.e., white males -- are accused of heinous acts, liberals heard Jones's claims and concluded: Well, the one thing we know is: There was a gang-rape. All that's left to do now is to investigate the military/fraternity/lacrosse rape culture.
Thus, for example, Sen. Patrick Leahy began a hearing on Jones' insane accusations with this statement of facts: "Jamie Leigh Jones [is] a young woman from Texas who took a job at Halliburton in Iraq in 2005 when she was 20 years old. In her first week on the job, she was drugged and then she was gang-raped by co-workers. When she reported this -- remember 20 years old -- she reported this assault, her employers moved her to a locked trailer, where she was kept by armed guards and freed only when the State Department intervened."
Sen. Al Franken raved about "the culture of impunity" among defense contractors, saying, "Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by KBR employees." Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse helpfully added, "But as best I can tell, there is no legitimate intelligence function that involves rape."
And then, after all the grandstanding, it turned out Jones had made the whole thing up. DNA evidence proved she'd had sex with only one man, and he said it was consensual. The female doctor who examined Jones the day after the alleged attack found no traces of Rohypnol in her system. Both the female doctor, as well as Jones' own plastic surgeon back in Houston, contradicted Jones' claim that her breast implants had been ruptured. It also turned out that none of KBR's employees carry guns, much less machine guns. By the age of 20, even before Jones had left for Iraq, she was 0-for-2 on rape allegations, having already falsely accused two other men of raping her.
No grand jury would indict the poor, falsely accused KBR employee who foolishly had sex with Jones, so she filed a civil suit against that one man. The jury ruled for him, and the court ordered Jones to pay $145,000 in legal costs. Jamie Leigh Jones' place in the Crystal Magnum, Tawana Brawley Hall of Fame was thus secured.
But we still got Sen. Al Franken's pro-trial lawyer amendment to a Defense Department bill, touted as the "Anti-Rape Amendment," prohibiting military contractors from including mandatory arbitration clauses in their employment contracts. Any Republican brave enough to oppose this sop to trial lawyers was denounced as "pro-rape" in mass-phone calls to their offices and by liberal prophet Jon Stewart, who railed on his show "How is ANYONE against this?"
Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson's shooting of Michael Brown is today being used as grounds to demand all sorts of new rules for cops. Most people had a pretty good sense of the case after seeing surveillance camera shots of Brown assaulting the manager of a liquor store he was robbing about 10 minutes before his encounter with Officer Wilson. By the time the grand jury documents were released, there was no serious doubt that the shooting was justified.
But again, as a result of a hoax racial incident, Democrats are demanding race quotas for arrests. To hell with due process. If we can stop just one thing that never happened from ever happening again, it will have been worth it.
The only new rule we really need is one to stop these infernal liberal hoaxes.