Thursday, January 31, 2013

Some Unions Grow Wary of Health Law They Backed [Schadenfreude]

Wall Street Journal ^ | 1/31/13



Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama administration's health-care overhaul when it was up for debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning sour.

Union leaders say many of the law's requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents' plans until they turn 26.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

Arrogance Isn't the Answer

Townhall.com ^ | January 31, 2013 | Michael Reagan

I'm getting tired of President Obama blaming Republicans for everything.
This week it was immigration.
In Las Vegas the president called for a policy that would provide a clear path to citizenship for illegal residents who pay their taxes, learn English and abide by the law.
He warned that if bipartisan talks in Congress break down in bickering, he'll use his bully pulpit and present an immigration bill based on his ideas -- ideas that barely mention the need to secure the border as the first order of business.
The president and his liberal friends in the media like to make everyone think it's Republicans who've been thwarting comprehensive immigration reform all these years.
But the dirty little political secret is that it's the Democrats who are really the ones who don't want to see immigration reform happen anytime soon.
As long as immigration policy remains a political football to fight over, Democrats can use the issue as a way to brand Republicans as anti-immigrant and continue to capture the vast majority of Latino voters.
If the GOP wants to have a future, it has to get its act together and get its ideas out to the Hispanic community - 16 percent of Americans. Hispanics are receptive to those ideas when they know the truth.
Right now, Latinos and all immigrants who come to America legally or illegally see Republicans as the party of exclusion, not inclusion.
Except for Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush, the GOP is seen as the party that tells immigrants "We want you out of the country."
But Republicans should be welcoming and embracing immigrants, not appearing to scare them off. Until the party changes, Democrats will own the Latino vote the way they own the black vote.
The Republican Party also has to prove that Marco Rubio isn't its only Latino. Rubio is great. I love seeing him in the Senate and I'd love to see him in the White House someday.
But the GOP has some other great Hispanic political leaders out there who need to be seen and heard on immigration. In fact, liberal CNN recently admitted that among statewide officeholders, Republicans are more diverse than Democrats. Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico and Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada, plus rising Senate star Ted Cruz of Texas are among that group.
We -- the Republican Party and the country -- need to hear their ideas. Not at the end of the immigration reform argument, but now, at the beginning.
Meanwhile, the country desperately needs a president who knows how to lead.
We need a leader who doesn't stand up and point fingers at the other side but instead opens the door to the White House, invites both sides in, finds commonality and signs the subsequent legislation.
Unfortunately, we don't have such a president. We have a leader who is arrogant. We have a leader who never gets off the campaign trail long enough to lead. And who spends most of his time demonizing the opposition.
My mother taught me a basic truth that President Obama should learn -- "You can't listen if your mouth is always open."
President Obama's mouth is always open. It's time for him to shut his mouth, open the White House doors and do what my father Ronald Reagan would have done. It's time for him to stop talking and start inviting

Mirror Image

Posted Image

Why Not?

Posted Image

The People

Posted Image

Thou Shalt Not...

Posted Image

The Record

Posted Image

The Poor

Posted Image

Taxidermist?

Posted Image

More Liberal Logic

Posted Image

What Difference?

Posted Image

Before and After Hillary

Posted Image

Lacking Moral Fiber!

Posted Image

Kick The Can

Posted Image

You Are Not Alone!

Posted Image

Progression

Posted Image

WARNING

Posted Image

Stretch Marks

Posted Image

Driving Miss Liberty

Posted Image

The States and Sheriffs as Bastions against Lawless Obama!

scottfactor.com ^ | 01/31/2013 | Gina Miller

On Tuesday evening, Dr. Laurie Roth invited me to be a guest on her nationally syndicated radio program, The Roth Show. In the hour I was on with her, we discussed, among other things, my column from Tuesday, “Can They Be Stopped?” My conclusion in the piece was that it will be nearly impossible to stop this lawless president and his criminal administration, since Congress and the courts are either fellow-traveling commies or scared, shrinking violets.
My thinking in the column was The People versus the diabolical Barack Obama (or whatever his name is) and his communist cohorts in the administration, which I saw as a bleak, Masada-type struggle (except without the mass suicide). But, Laurie pointed out that we still have thirty states under Republican governorships and hundreds of sheriffs across the nation who are pledging to resist the outlaw in the White House and his unconstitutional dictates.
That is an aspect of our critical situation that I did not address in my column, and it’s an important one. There is still a level of defense between The People and the federal government: the State legislatures and the sheriffs, who are the supreme lawmen in their jurisdictions.
Of course, we know that not all so-called Republicans are conservatives, since leftists have been invading and subverting the Republican Party for many years. My Editor at American Clarion, Bob Ellis, has worked long and hard in exposing the liberal policies and voting records of the Republican-controlled state government in South Dakota. Even here in Mississippi, which also has a Republican majority in Jackson, the insurance commissioner, Mike Chaney, who is a “Republican,” is actively going against Governor Phil Bryant’s strong opposition to setting up a state health insurance exchange, as the evil “Obamacare” legislation mandates. Needless to say, Chaney is very unpopular with conservatives in this state.
So, even though the United States has sixty percent Republican governorships, it does not mean that all the Republican governors (and state houses) will resist the exploding federal tyranny. That also leaves the conservative patriots in the Democrat- (and “Independent”) governed states with no state-level opposition to the criminal administration in Washington. What’s left? The military? We have seen numerous reports that Obama is firing military leaders left and right, which would mean that he is replacing them with his own men.
We could only hope for an American patriot military coup against this treasonous administration, but I’m not holding my breath. The anti-American Obama is intentionally destroying our military with insane leftist policies like forcing the military to bow to the global warming hoax, shoving open homosexuality onto our troops, and now stupidly allowing women in combat. This is in addition to the debilitating “sequestration” defense budget cuts and troop reductions which, if not stopped, will only make us that much more vulnerable to our enemies inside and outside of the United States.
That leaves state legislatures and state-level law enforcement to stand between the American people and the tyranny of the Obama administration. It’s good to see that close to thirty states are resisting implementation of the state health insurance exchanges dictated by “Obamacare,” and several states are already stepping up to outlaw within their states Obama’s illegal executive order attacks on the Second Amendment.
The sheriffs across the nation are also one of our last lines of defense against federal tyranny, and it’s encouraging to see that many sheriffs are also vowing to oppose any federal attempts at gun control. This is good news, because our sheriffs do not answer to the feds. From the Constitutional Law Enforcement Association blog site is an essay titled, “The County Sheriff: The Ultimate Check & Balance.” In part, it reads:
So, what happens when government does not obey its own constitution? What punishment is meted out to politicians who vote for and pass unconstitutional laws? What happens if they appoint unlawful bureaucracies or allow their agents to violate the rights of the American citizen? The answer to these questions is both astounding and lamentable; NOTHING!
Now the question becomes even greater; who will stop criminal and out-of-control government from killing, abusing, violating, robbing, and destroying its own people? Yes, believe it or not, there is an answer to this one. The duty to stop such criminality lies with the county sheriff. The question needs to be posed to each and every sheriff of these United States; will you stand against tyranny?
Yes, it is regrettable that a sheriff would be put in this position. The governor and the state legislature should be preventing federal invasions into the states and counties way before the sheriff, but if it comes to the sheriff, then he must take a firm stand. James Madison also said, "We can safely rely on the disposition of state legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority." So when the state legislatures go along to get along and are bought off by political cronyism or the disbursement of federal funds, then the sheriff becomes the ultimate check and balance.
It is time for the sworn protectors of liberty, the sheriffs of these United States of America, to walk tall and defend us from all enemies; foreign and domestic. When sheriffs are put in the quandary of choosing between enforcing statutes from vapid politicians or keeping their oaths of office, the path and choice is clear, "I solemnly swear or affirm, that I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
We still have some hope for resistance from our state governments that are blessed with conservative leadership, and beyond that, we have the sheriffs—at least those who will honor their oaths and will stand against the evil tyranny of the communists invaders of our presidency and federal government.

Surge of black violence called 'urban terrorism'

WND ^ | January 30, 2013 | Colin Flaherty

'Large numbers of kids coming downtown … with guns'!

(Editor’s note: Colin Flaherty has done more reporting than any other journalist on what appears to be a nationwide trend of skyrocketing black-on-white crime, violence and abuse. WND features these reports to counterbalance the virtual blackout by the rest of the media due to their concerns that reporting such incidents would be inflammatory or even racist. WND considers it racist not to report racial abuse solely because of the skin color of the perpetrators or victims.)

The links in the following report may contain offensive language.

Indianapolis? A hot bed of black mob violence?

Really?
Yes, really: With dozens of episodes over the last five years, Indianapolis has to be near the top of any list of cities with sustained, violent, extensive and numerous cases of black mob violence.

This “crisis” of “urban terrorism,” as the new chief of police calls it, is now a regular feature of life in this Midwestern city once thought to be a haven from racial turmoil.
The latest examples are focused downtown at the Circle Centre Mall – a gleaming display of downtown redevelopment when it opened in 1996. This multi-story story retail center, connected by covered walkways to nine hotels and the convention center, was once anchored by Nordstrom.
It also features a complex of movie theaters currently playing Broken City and Django Unchained.
Today, Nordstrom is gone. As are many of the restaurants and shops. The rest of the mall and the surrounding area is increasingly hazardous – and empty – following a

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

Running With Scissors

Townhall.com ^ | January 31, 2013 | Debra J. Saunders

If you thought Republican presidential hopefuls were insane to refuse to raise their hands during a 2011 primary debate when asked whether they'd support a deficit reduction deal with $10 in spending cuts to $1 in tax increases, look at Washington today. In August 2011, President Barack Obama signed a debt ceiling deal that promised more than $2 trillion in spending cuts over a decade and zero dollars in new revenue.
The package included $1.2 trillion in "sequestration" cuts -- $85 billion this year out of a $3.8 trillion federal budget -- which are supposed to begin March 1. This week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats told reporters they want to change the deal so that it also includes tax increases. Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray wants to change the deal to 50-50 between spending cuts and tax increases.
Does it matter that Washington just passed the fiscal cliff deal, which raised taxes by about $600 billion?
Of course not.
Washington these days has no problem with not getting a job done. The 2011 Budget Control Act's sequestration formula for cutting $1.2 trillion was an invitation to disaster. The idea was to propose cuts so painful that a 12-member supercommittee would have to work together to craft smarter cuts. But members couldn't agree on cuts; they could only agree to fail.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta correctly warned that the sequester formula cut too deeply into national security -- doubling defense cuts, to close to $1 trillion. Even as U.S. troops remained at war in Afghanistan and at risk across the globe, Panetta warned, the sequester cuts would "hollow out the force."
Still, the president and Senate Democrats have been saving their fire to push for more tax increases.
As Washington's most prominent budget hawk, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan pushed legislation to direct cuts elsewhere to spare defense, but the House cannot pass bills by itself.
"We think these sequesters will happen, because the Democrats have opposed our efforts to replace those cuts with others and they've offered no alternatives," Ryan told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.
Now it turns out that gross domestic product shrank by 0.1 percent last quarter. White House spokesman Jay Carney acknowledged that the dip had something to do with the "uncertainty created by the prospect of sequester," especially in the defense sector.
This would be a good time to demand that Congress spare defense spending. Alison Acosta Fraser, director of economic policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, believes that the president should push for entitlement reform to replace the sequester cuts.
Instead, Carney talked up the need to raise taxes on oil companies and "corporate jet owners."
Fraser believes that the Senate and Obama, with their "high-stakes brinksmanship, intentionally," are leading the country down the path of less economic prosperity, less opportunity for growth and less national security.
And: "When you have an administration whose own secretary says 'don't do this' but the president can't or won't lead on this, then we have a problem."

The Skeet Shooter

obama shoot skeet surfing aloha akhbar

The Spending Sequester Will Grow the Private Economy -- Don’t Back Off

Townhall.com ^ | January 31, 2013 | Larry Kudlow

Yesterday's report of a 0.1 percent GDP decline for the fourth quarter came as a surprise to most forecasters. But it actually masks considerable strength in the private economy. Namely, housing investment in the fourth quarter jumped 15.3 percent annually, business equipment and software spiked 12.4 percent, and real private final sales rose 2.6 percent. All in, the domestic private sector of the economy increased 3.4 percent annually -- a very respectable gain.
And here’s one for the record books: Working ahead of year-end tax hikes, individuals shifted so much money to the fourth quarter at the 35 percent top rate that personal income grew by 7.9 percent annually -- a huge number. And there’s more: In order to beat the taxman, dividend income rose 85.2 percent annually. You think tax incentives don’t matter? Guess again.
Now, all this private-sector strength occurred despite the fact that government spending -- namely military spending -- dropped 6.6 percent. Inventories also lost ground and the trade deficit widened.
But here’s a key point: Military spending has now fallen virtually to its lower sequester-spending-cut baseline. It did so in one quarter by about $40 billion. So the brunt of the impact over the coming years has already been felt. (Normally, as of recent years, military spending has been virtually flat.)
Which leads me to another key point: Even with the fourth-quarter contraction, the latest GDP report shows that falling government spending can coexist with rising private economic activity. This is an important point in terms of the upcoming spending sequester. Lower federal spending, limited government, and a smaller spending-to-GDP ratio will be good for growth. The military spending plunge will not likely be repeated. But by keeping resources in private hands, rather than transferring them to the inefficient government sector, the spending sequester is actually pro-growth.
Big-government Keynesians think big spending provides big growth. They are wrong. This has been a 2 percent recovery -- the worst in modern times -- dating back to 1947. So let’s try something different. Let’s shrink government. Let’s let the private sector breathe and generate entrepreneurship and risk-taking.
Spending is the true tax measure of the economy, according to Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, and others. Even a modest sequester spending cut of maybe $60 billion in 2013, and perhaps more than $1 trillion over ten years (most of which will come from a slower spending growth rate, not real reductions), will be the best thing to inspire business and market confidence as well as international credibility. And it maybe even shave a point or two off the spending share of GDP.
On March 1 the spending sequester is supposed to kick in by law. If Congress wants to help the U.S. economy, the best thing it can do right now is implement this sequester. Then it can round out an even larger growth package, including large- and small-business tax reform and adjustments to stop entitlements from going bankrupt.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

‘Carrying a Gun Saved My Life’

Pajamas Media ^ | 01/30/2013 | Paul Hsieh

On December 11, 2010, in Conyers, GA, 22-year-old Ryan Moore was at a friend’s house for an evening of leisure. He borrowed a friend’s car to drive to the nearby grocery store, where his handgun saved his life [1]. I interviewed Ryan Moore over e-mail about that evening.
What happened that night at the Ingles (grocery store) parking lot?
I had parked near the front of the store. A man approached as I was about to get out, asking if I had some spare money he could use for gas. After replying I didn’t have any cash, he proceeded to walk away. As I was watching him leave, I then stepped out of the vehicle and was grabbed from behind by a man who put a knife to my neck. The first man then came back and demanded my keys and wallet.
How much time did you have to react?
It took a few seconds for me to realize what was happening. Once it dawned on me, I made the decision to fight back.
I grabbed the knife and pulled it away from my neck. After a brief struggle, I managed to push him away allowing me to create a few feet of distance, where I was able to draw my revolver from concealment and to fire in defense as he came back towards me with the knife.
What were you carrying, and how many rounds did you have to fire to stop the attacker?
I had a five shot Taurus 651 snub-nosed .357 magnum loaded with magnum defensive ammunition. After drawing, I fired three shots in about two seconds before the attacker with the knife turned and collapsed after taking a few steps. I then turned around expecting the second attacker to be there, only to see him fleeing the scene.
I knew I only had two rounds left and debated whether or not to reload, but since it seemed the threat was over I holstered the revolver and called 911, only to have the first officer show up for an unrelated security detail while on the phone with dispatchers.
The revolver was taken for evidence and I was briefly detained. Due to the adrenaline I didn’t notice the fact I was cut until I was sitting in the police car and noticed blood. I was then looked at by paramedics, and taken to the hospital where I had to get stitches in my neck.
Ryan killed the first attacker, 30-year old Yuhanna Williams. According to the Associated Press [2]:
Williams was still clutching the knife when they discovered his body, and Moore told them he was defending himself. Witnesses corroborated his story and authorities quickly found the killing to be justified.
Williams had been jailed multiple times [3] over the past decade for charges including “disorderly conduct, simple battery, probation violation, public indecency, DUI, and possession of marijuana and possession with the intent to distribute at a school.
I asked Moore what he learned from a self-defense perspective, and what he thought of proposed bans on so-called “high capacity magazines” and “assault weapons.”
What do you carry now, and why?
My current everyday carry gun is a Glock 21, a large framed Glock semiautomatic pistol chambered in .45 ACP with a standard capacity of 13+1 rounds. Fortunately it only took three shots from my revolver to stop the threat. However, the thought that I had only two remaining in the event the second attacker didn’t flee or had backup didn’t sit well with me, especially given the fairly common incidents of crime involving multiple assailants.
Most days I also carry a spare 13-round magazine and on occasion even still carry the revolver as a backup.
Could proposed restrictions on magazines greater than 10 rounds endanger ordinary people caught in situations like the one you faced?
There is definitely a risk involved with arbitrarily limiting normal citizens to ten rounds (or seven in the case of New York). Statistics generally indicate multiple shots being required to stop a single threat regardless of caliber, and there is almost always a degradation of accuracy in a high-stress situation.
If someone is unfortunate enough to be in a self-defense situation with three or four attackers, the difference between ten rounds and thirteen (or twenty) could mean the difference between life and death.
You have an AR-15-style sporting rifle. What do you use it for? How do you answer when anti-gun people say: “No one needs a rifle like that”?
I have an AR-15 that I primarily keep for home defense, but I have also used it hunting. For hunting these rifles have become extremely popular, especially in areas where wild hogs or coyotes are popular game and pose a risk to livestock and native species. Ammunition companies have started producing ammo specifically designed for hunting with these types of rifles, such as the fairly new Razorback XT from Winchester.
The main reason I have it is for home defense. It is among the best tools for the job of protecting my life and the lives of my loved ones. The AR-15 is lightweight, maneuverable, and offers effective stopping power while reducing risk of over penetration through common building materials with the proper ammunition.
It is easy to add lights and optical sights to the rifle, making it more likely you will identify what you are aiming at and thus avoid shooting someone by accident. The rifle has manageable recoil, allowing shooters of all physical condition to handle it effectively.
Like with pistols, one will never know how many rounds are needed. If one hears a loud crash in the middle of the night, one probably won’t have the time to grab spare magazines; so whatever ammunition is in the gun is all you have if you must traverse the house in your pajamas to secure a family member against an intruder.
Gun-control advocates typically highlight the criminal misuses of firearms, while underplaying the many times firearms are used by law-abiding citizens in self-defense [4]ranging from tens of thousands to two million times per year, depending on the source.
Most of the time, the intended victim does not have to fire his weapon to deter the attackers. But in some cases, the good guy having a gun can mean the difference between his life or death. Fortunately, Georgia law allowed Ryan Moore to carry the gun that saved his life.
Shouldn’t all law-abiding Americans enjoy that same right?

More housework, less sex for married men!



A man lights a gas stove on January 6, 2009. Husbands who spend more time doing traditionally female chores -- such as cooking, cleaning, and shopping -- reported having less sex than those who do more masculine tasks, according to a study in the American Sociological Review.


Husbands who spend more time doing traditionally female chores -- such as cooking, cleaning, and shopping -- reported having less sex than those who do more masculine tasks, according to a study in the American Sociological Review.
AFP - The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as they say: the more housework married men do, the less sex they have, according to a new study published Wednesday.
Husbands who spend more time doing traditionally female chores -- such as cooking, cleaning, and shopping -- reported having less sex than those who do more masculine tasks, said the study in the American Sociological Review.
"Our findings suggest the importance of socialized gender roles for sexual frequency in heterosexual marriage," said lead author Sabino Kornrich, of the Center for Advanced Studies at the Juan March Institute in Madrid.
"Couples in which men participate more in housework typically done by women report having sex less frequently. Similarly, couples in which men participate more in traditionally masculine tasks -- such as yard work, paying bills, and auto maintenance -- report higher sexual frequency."
His study, "Egalitarianism, Housework, and Sexual Frequency in Marriage," looks at straight married couples in the United States, and was based on data from the National Survey of Families and Households.
The study was co-authored by University of Washington sociologist Julie Brines and doctoral candidate Katrina Leupp.
Men in the study reported having had sex an average of 5.2 times in the month prior to the survey, while women reported 5.6.
But both men and women in couples with more traditional household labor divisions said they had more sex.
"The results suggest the existence of a gendered set of sexual scripts, in which the traditional performance and display of gender is important for creation of sexual desire and performance of sexual activity," Kornrich said.
However, the study's authors stop short of arguing that house husbands should hang up their aprons.
"Men who refuse to help around the house could increase conflict in their marriage and lower their wives' marital satisfaction," Kornrich said.
"Earlier research has found that women's marital satisfaction is indeed linked to men's participation in overall household labor, which encompasses tasks traditionally done by both men and women."

Is Fox News Really That Different?

WND ^ | January 29, 2013 | Joseph Farah

For many Americans, Fox News is their “alternative” choice for news. They’ve made it the No. 1 cable news network, largely because they believe its “fair and balanced” promotional slogan?

Many even believe Fox leans to the right and provides news they can’t get anywhere else. But is Fox really different from the rest of the media? Or has it been successful merely at positioning itself as different?

Would it surprise you to know that individuals at News Corp., the parent company of Fox News, gave nearly six times as much money to Barack Obama than Mitt Romney in the 2011-2012 election cycle?

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

Obama Job Approval Rating Lower than Nixon´s!

Breitbart´s Big Government ^ | 1/29/13 | AWR Hawkins

According to Gallup, President Obama is tied with George W. Bush for most unpopular re-elected president since Gallup began measuring presidential job-approval in 1945. In fact, Gallup found that apart from Bush, "every president...has had a higher job-approval rating in the January following his reelection than Obama has." Obama´s approval rating is at 52. Think about it this way--following reelection, President Reagan´s approval numbers beat Obama´s by 11 points, President Eisenhower´s beat Obama´s by 21, and a much-derided Republican President named Richard Nixon
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Watchdog says taxpayers may lose $27B in bailout

Associated Press ^ | Jan 30, 2013 12:03 AM EST | Marcy Gordon

A government watchdog says U.S. taxpayers stand to lose $27 billion from the 2008 financial bailout, up from an estimate of $22 billion made in the fall.
A report issued Wednesday by the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program says the estimate is higher because of increased losses for the Treasury Department on sales of shares in bailed-out companies.
Ally Financial, the former financial arm for General Motors, still owes $14.6 billion of the $17.2 billion in aid it received. The report says taxpayers can expect to lose $5.5 billion on that investment because of the company's losses on risky mortgages issued ahead of the financial crisis. The report also criticized the Treasury for lacking a plan to unwind its investment in Ally. Taxpayers own 74 percent of the company.
Ally and GM together owe more than half of the $67.3 billion still owed U.S. taxpayers by companies that were bailed out during the financial crisis, according to the quarterly report to Congress by Special Inspector General Christy Romero. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...

Obama Immigration Plan vs. 'Gang of Eight': How They Differ

Fox News Latino ^ | January 29, 2013

President Barack Obama laid out his plan for comprehensive immigration reform Tuesday that largely mirrored an immigration proposal unveiled by a bipartisan group of senators a day earlier – with some important differences.
Both plans agree on the same four core principles for comprehensive immigration reform: strengthening border security, create an employee verification system, a pathway to citizenship, and fixing the legal immigration system.
But here is how they differ:
Pathway to Citizenship The most striking difference between them is how to get an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants already in the United States on the pathway to citizenship.
The Senate plan, presented by eight U.S. Senators, known as the 'Gang of Eight,' creates a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already in the United States that would begin only after increased border security measures are increased. A commission of lawmakers and border-state community leaders would assess when security measures are completed.
Obama's plan stresses that the pathway to citizenship should begin as quickly as possible – and should not be contingent on the completion of more stringent border security measures.
U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a member of the ‘Gang of Eight,’ says he will not support Obama’s bill if the pathway to citizenship is not directly tied to better border security.
“If, in fact, this bill does not have real triggers in there, if there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won’t support it,” Rubio told conservative radio talk show host Rush Lambaugh on Tuesday.
Same Sex Couples
Another difference is over how to deal with same-sex couples.
(Excerpt) Read more at latino.foxnews.com ...

Immigration and Extortion

National Review: The Corner ^ | January 28,2013 | Charles C. W. Cooke

If sovereignty is to mean anything, then a country is entitled to decide whom it wants to join its ranks and whom it wishes to exclude from them.
If, on balance, an exhaustive amnesty for those who have deliberately ignored the law is determined to be a fair prospect for America, then there is a case for doing it; if changing the law to allow certain people to become part of the American polity is regarded by Americans as being advantageous to them, then there is a case for doing it; if allowing nobody in or everybody in is good for America, then there is a case for doing it. A desire to win the political affections of a given ethnic group, on the other hand, is not grounds for such a move. We should stop talking as if it is. To change the immigration laws to please a small but influential portion of the population is to submit to extortion. America should not be deciding who it wants on the basis of crass electoral threats.
A popular conceit, issued as a grave and gleeful warning to a Republican party that is considered by swathes of the commentariat to be doomed by “demographics,” appears to be that “Hispanics will only vote for you if you pardon other Hispanics who have broken the law.” I don’t know if that’s true or not. But if it is, it’s utterly abhorrent. Rushing to pardon those who have violated the rule of law because if you don’t their friends won’t vote for you is inseparable from bribery. (I might as well offer my vote to any party who will release my family members from prison.) If it’s not true, the suggestion that it is is not only wildly offensive to Hispanics — who are always, grossly, treated as a single bloc — but should serve to cool passions and slow the rush to action too.
It is notable that the Republican party is not even pretending to have changed its mind on the immigration question. Instead, it is acknowledging that it lost the last election and it is buying into a particular theory as to why. Sure, politics has always born the hallmarks of prostitution and it would be negligent of any party wholly to ignore demographics. But could we at least be a little more subtle when calling the escort agency?
On his blog, Ezra Klein argues:
Two numbers explain why a rational Republican Party needs to do something dramatic on immigration: 27 percent and 2 percent.
Twenty-seven percent is the percentage of the Latino vote Mitt Romney received in 2012, according to the Fox News exit poll. Two percent is the projected increase in the non-white electorate come 2016. So Republicans are losing badly among Hispanic voters and Hispanic voters are becoming an increasingly important part of the electorate.
Klein is right to lead with this, and then to turn to a secondary discussion of Republicans who genuinely want to make changes to the system. Naturally, not everyone involved is acting in bad faith: Some Republicans do earnestly desire reform and likely see Democratic willingness as providing an opportunity to get something “bipartisan” done. Millions of Americans, too, seem to be in favor of doing something about immigration — if you believe certain polls, a majority is even in favor of amnesty. But you certainly wouldn’t glean this from the media coverage nor from the way in which Republicans and conservatives have tended to discuss the issue. The focus is squarely on the politics of this and politics of that, almost every story noting in its first paragraph the “increased importance of nonwhites” or some variant thereof. In our discourse, the notion that anybody wants to do anything on immigration simply in order to do something on immigration has taken a back seat to endless analysis of “the Hispanic vote” and of electoral politics, all underpinned by the frankly disrespectful presumption that “Hispanics” are predictable and uniform automatons who will openly their allegedly closed minds the moment an immigration bill passes Congress.
“Immigration reform,” meanwhile, has been melted down and recast into a synonym for “doing something about the illegal immigration problem.” There’s little discussion of the other vital components of our thoroughly broken immigration system — a system that allows 1 million people in per year on purpose. How much attention is there on the abominable visa lottery? Or on the fact that most immigrants come because they have family here and not because they are skilled or necessary or likely to succeed? Or on STEM? “Comprehensive,” it seems, has come to mean less a total overhaul of the existing system and more a “border enforcement + amnesty” deal. And discussion of whether it is a good idea (social security etc.) or a bad idea (widespread unemployment) for America to continue to import so many people is peripheral — rife among opinion journalists and economists, rare in the media at large. In my experience, Americans are both wildly welcoming of immigrants and spectacularly under-informed as to how their immigration system actually works. This is a problem going forward. Existing citizens must get to decide who joins them. The current debate is not helping them to do so in any “comprehensive” way at all. Hopefully that will change.

The ONLY Question About Immigration Reform That Matters...

Boston Herald ^ | January 30, 2013 | Michael Graham

There is one question, and only one question, that you should ask President Obama or U.S. Sen. John McCain about their amnesty — sorry, their “pathway to citizenship” — immigration reform proposals:
If every illegal immigrant were granted instant citizenship this Monday, what would happen to the illegal immigrant who slips across the border on Tuesday?

We all know the answer already: Nothing.

Everything you’re hearing in both Obama and Senate proposals about “heightened border security” and “unmanned drones” is three-card-Monte stuff. Obama, who helped kill an immigration reform deal in 2007 authored by U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy, isn’t interested in enforcing immigration laws equally and fairly. He’s interested in winning political support from Hispanic voters — or more importantly, driving a wedge between those voters and the GOP. That’s it.
Yes, Obama is right that we’re doing a better job than ever catching would-be illegal aliens at the border. That’s not where the action is, and he knows it.
As long as there are employers willing to hire illegal immigrants, the desperate and poor of other countries will make their way here — or in some tragic cases, die trying. The enforcement that works is workplace enforcement: deporting undocumented workers and punishing the businesses who hire them.
Not surprisingly, this is the enforcement that Obama and other liberals adamantly oppose. Worse, it’s the kind of enforcement that amnesty advocates label as “racist.”
Remember the 2007 raid on the New Bedford factory where hundreds of illegal immigrants worked, in flagrant violation of the law? When U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement finally acted, they were denounced by Gov. Deval Patrick and other advocates. Patrick called the enforcement — not the hundreds of Americans denied jobs, but the enforcement of the law — “a human tragedy.”
Is the belief that immigration enforcement...
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonherald.com ...

Six Feet!

Posted Image

WatchDog

Posted Image

California Eyewear

Posted Image

Crying Time!

Posted Image

SKEET?

Posted Image

Another Purple Heart

Posted Image

Data

Posted Image

Kung Fu Women Army

Posted Image

Dirty Hands

Posted Image

Surplus

Posted Image

Ready?

Posted Image

Garbage In...Shit Out!

Posted Image

We Elected them Any Way!

Posted Image

Ignore it!

Posted Image

Frozen Ears

Posted Image

Who Cares?

Posted Image

Obama Claims Adding 11 Million Low-Skilled Workers Will Strengthen the Middle Class!

http://frontpagemag.com ^ | January 28, 2013 | Daniel Greenfield

They’re not contributing members. They take away jobs from Americans, leech off the social benefits system and commit a number of crimes besides the whole “illegal entry” deal. Jails tend to be full of illegal aliens for a reason.
"Every day, like the rest of us, they go out and try to earn a living. Often they do that in a shadow economy — a place where employers may offer them less than the minimum wage or make them work overtime without extra pay. And when that happens, it’s not just bad for them, it’s bad for the entire economy. Because all the businesses that are trying to do the right thing — that are hiring people legally, paying a decent wage, following the rules — they’re the ones who suffer. They’ve got to compete against companies that are breaking the rules. And the wages and working conditions of American workers are threatened, too.
So if we’re truly committed to strengthening our middle class and providing more ladders of opportunity to those who are willing to work hard to make it into the middle class, we’ve got to fix the system."
Obama’s solution to employers hiring people under the table for low wages is to legalize 11 million illegal aliens. Which will open up positions for more illegals to come and work under the table, while the newly legal illegal aliens end up eventually going on unemployment once they get their green cards because there’s no work for them. And then we’ll legalize the new illegal aliens because etc…
How does dumping 11 million aliens into the economy, on the social system and into the job markets strengthen the middle class?
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

(Liberal) New Republic pushes fake picture of Obama shooting skeet (then deletes it)


 by Baynative

President Obama recently told the New Republic magazine, "Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.

" Today, after some suggested the president's claim might not be true, the New Republic tweeted a picture supposedly proving that Obama has gone skeet shooting:

And here's the picture the magazine pointed to:
The only problem: the picture is a fake, and not hosted on the White House's website.
Within minutes the magazine had deleted the tweet and admitted its mistake:


Lindsey Graham: Hillary Clinton ‘got away with murder’

Politico ^ | 1/29/13 | BREANNA EDWARDS

Sen. Lindsey Graham wasn’t impressed with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s testimony at the Benghazi congressional hearing, telling Fox News that she “got away with murder.”

“Hillary Clinton got away with murder in my view. She said they had a clear-eyed view of the threats. How could you have a clear-eyed view of the threats in Benghazi when you didn’t know about the ambassador’s cable coming back from Libya?” the South Carolina Republican told host Greta Van Susteren Monday on “On The Record”.

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

Scarborough 'Can't Hold a Candle to Sarah Palin'

Breitbart's Big Journalism ^ | January 29, 2013 | Tony Lee

Conservative talk radio host and scholar Mark Levin assailed MSNBC host Joe Scarborough on Monday for slamming Sarah Palin and implying that Palin--and the Tea Party--was fading away and losing influence.
On Monday morning, Scarborough joyously claimed on MSNBC's Morning Joe that Palin and the Tea Party did not represent the future of the conservative movement and implied those like New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie did.
On his talk radio show, Levin said Scarborough "can't hold a candle to Sarah Palin."
Levin said Scarborough's attack on Palin represented "cowardice," was "cheap," and symbolized a co-host playing to his liberal "media masters" at NBC. He accused Scarborough of hosting a show on "the most repugnant, repulsive, and discredited cable network in America," which he referred to as "MSLSD." Levin said Scarborough uses his platform to shoot "spitballs" at conservatives, statesmen, and leaders.
Levin also called it "disgraceful" that the National Review, a magazine Levin said he "grew up with" and used to "revere," promoted "this buffoon" last weekend.
Levin was referring to the magazine's "Future of Conservatism" conference at which Scarborough spoke. He said "nobody" thinks Scarborough represents the future of conservatism and called Scarborough a "joke."
"What has Joe Scarborough ever done for the conservative movement?," Levin indignantly asked, adding that he fits perfectly in MSNBC's "conga line" of "freaks and misfits."
Levin marveled that Scarborough would consider his vapid co-host Mika Brzezinski to be a "thoughtful and intelligent lady." He said Scarborough could not even succeed with "buffoons" on talk radio and found a niche on MSNBC, where he is adored by the mainstream media elite for ripping conservatives...
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Discovered papers: Hanoi directed Kerry (now he is to be Sec,of State?)




The first documentary evidence that Vietnamese communists were directly steering John Kerry’s group Vietnam Veterans Against the War has been discovered in a U.S. archive, according to a researcher who spoke with WorldNetDaily.
border=0/>
John Kerry testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971.
One freshly unearthed document, captured by the U.S. from Vietnamese communists in 1971 and later translated, indicates the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese delegations to the Paris peace talks that year were used as the communications link to direct the activities of Kerry and other antiwar activists who attended.
Kerry insists he attended the talks only because he happened to be in France on his honeymoon and maintains he met with both sides. But previously revealed records indicate the future senator made two, and possibly three, trips to Paris to meet with Viet Cong leader Madame Nguyen Thi Binh then promote her plan’s demand for U.S. surrender.
Jerome Corsi, a specialist on the Vietnam era, told WND the new discoveries are the “most remarkable documents I’ve seen in the entire history of the antiwar movement.”
“We’re not going to say he’s an agent for Vietnamese communists, but it’s the next thing to it,” he said. “Whether he was consciously carrying out their direction or naively doing what they wanted, it amounted to the same thing – he advanced their cause.”
Corsi, co-author of the Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth best-seller “Unfit for Command,” and Scott Swett, who maintains the group’s website, have posted a summary of the discovery on the website of Wintersoldier.com.
Corsi says the documents show how the North Vietnamese, the Viet Cong, the People’s Coalition for Peace and Justice, the Communist Party of the USA and Kerry’s VVAW worked closely together to achieve the Vietnamese communists’ primary objective – the defeat of the U.S. in Vietnam.
“I think what we’ve discovered is a smoking gun,” Corsi said. “We knew when we wrote ‘Unfit for Command’ that Kerry had met with Madame Binh and then promoted her peace plan.
“This document enables us to connect the dots,” he emphasized. “We now have evidence Madame Binh was directing the antiwar movement … and the person who implemented her strategy was John Kerry.”
July 22, 1971, three weeks after the Paris talks, Kerry called on President Nixon to accept the plan at a press conference in which he surrounded himself with the families of POWs, a strategy outlined in the first document.
The two documents also connect the dots between the Vietnamese communists and the radical U.S. group People’s Coalition for Peace and Justice through the person of Al Hubbard, a coordinating member of PCPJ and the executive director of VVAW while Kerry was its national spokesman.
“Al Hubbard and John Kerry were carrying out the predetermined agenda of the enemy in a coordinated fashion,” Corsi said. “It’s a level of collaboration that exceeded anything we had imagined.”
‘Return the medals’
The second document, captured by U.S. military forces in South Vietnam May 12, 1972, urges Vietnamese officials to promote the antiwar activities in the United States.
Significantly, the fifth paragraph makes it clear the Vietnamese communists were using, for propaganda purposes, a protest described as taking place April 19-22, 1971.
border=0 width=210 height=199.5/>
Kerry led Vietnam veterans in 1971 medal-toss protest.
This coincides with the well-known “Dewey Canyon III” protest in Washington, D.C., highlighted by Kerry’s Senate Foreign Relations testimony charging American soldiers with war crimes.
The document’s description of the protest includes the “return the medals” event in which Kerry and other VVAW members threw their war decorations toward the steps of the Capitol.
Why now?
Corsi told WND the documents have been authenticated with “100 percent certainty.”
But why were they unearthed now, just one week before the Nov. 2 election?
Corsi insisted the timing was unintentional.
“It’s truly one of those accidents of how things develop in research,” he said. “We did not spring any surprise, we just found these documents, and even the archivist didn’t know they were there.”
Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth dispatched two researchers to Texas Tech University’s Vietnam-era archive in Lubbock, which has more than 2 million documents, to “see if there was anything there,” Corsi said.
Many of the documents are in Vietnamese and have not been translated yet.
The two documents were found in boxes containing papers from antiwar activities during 1971-72, but they also turned out to be posted in an Internet database, which enabled further verification, Corsi said.
First document
The first document is a “circular” outlining the Vietnamese regime’s strategies to coordinate its propaganda effort with its orchestration of U.S. antiwar group activities.

The spontaneous antiwar movements in the US have received assistance and guidance from the friendly ((VC/NVN)) delegations at the Paris Peace Talks.
The phrases in double parentheses were added by U.S. translators for clarification. “VC” refers to the Viet Cong, while “NVN” is the North Vietnamese government.
Corsi and Swett point out that FBI files show Kerry returned to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese delegation in August 1971 and planned a third trip in November.
Corsi emphasizes that before the discovery of this document, he and other researchers had no direct evidence that Hanoi actually was directing the antiwar movement to implement the regime’s goals, although they assumed it to be the case based on other indications.
In her meeting with Kerry in Paris, Madame Binh instructed him on how he and the VVAW could “serve as Hanoi’s surrogates in the United States,” Corsi and Swett say. This included advancement of her seven-point peace plan forcing President Nixon to set a date to end the war and withdraw troops.
Hanoi cleverly constructed the plan so that the only barrier to release of American POWs was Nixon’s unwillingness to set a withdrawal date.
But as Corsi and Swett emphasize, the plan amounted to a virtual surrender that included payment of reparations and an admission the U.S. was the aggressor in an immoral war against the communists.
The circular underscores the impact of the peace plan on U.S. activists, stating:

“The seven-point peace proposal ((of the SVN Provisional Revolutionary Government)) not only solved problems concerning the release of US prisoners but also motivated the people of all walks of life and even relatives of US pilots detained in NVN to participate in the antiwar movement.
Another section of the circular, again highlighting the interconnectedness of the Vietnamese communists, the U.S. antiwar movement and politics in the U.S. and South Vietnam, says Nixon and South Vietnamese leader Thieu are “very embarrassed because the seven-point peace proposal is supported by the [South Vietnamese] people’s ((political struggle)) movement and the antiwar movements in the US. ”
Therefore, the circular says, “all local areas, units, and branches must widely disseminate the seven-point peace proposal, step up the people’s ((political struggle)) movements both in cities and rural areas, taking advantage of disturbances and dissensions in the enemy’s forthcoming (RVN) Congressional and Presidential elections. They must coordinate more successfully with the antiwar movements in the US so as to isolate the Nixon-Thieu clique.”
Second document
In addition to tying activities surrounding Kerry’s 1971 protest to the direction of Vietnamese communists, the second document reveals the degree to which Hanoi worked with and through the People’s Coalition for Peace and Justice.

Of the U.S. antiwar movements, the two most important ones are: The PCPJ ((the People’s Committee for Peace and Justice)) and the NPAC ((National Peace Action Committee)). These two movements have gathered much strength and staged many demonstrations. The PCPJ is the most important. It maintains relations with us.
Corsi and Swett note the House Internal Securities Committee in its 1971 Annual Report described the PCPJ as an organization strongly controlled by U.S. communists.

“There is no question but what members of the Communist Party have provided a very strong degree of influence, even a guiding influence, in the evolution and formation of policies of the People’s Coalition for Peace and Justice.”
Corsi cites recently released FBI surveillance reports that establish a strong link between Kerry, Hubbard, the VVAW, the PCPJ and their trips to Paris to meet with Madame Binh.
Kerry shared the stage with Hubbard – who recruited Kerry into the group – during the Dewey Canyon III protest, and they appeared together on NBC’s Meet the Press April 18, 1971. Hubbard claimed to have been a transport pilot wounded in combat, but the Department of Defense released documents showing he was neither a pilot nor an officer and had never served in Vietnam.
An FBI field surveillance report stamped Nov. 11, 1971, showed Kerry and Hubbard were planning to travel to Paris later that month to engage in talks with Vietnamese communist delegations. Other FBI reports clearly show the Communist Party of the USA was paying for Hubbard’s trips to Paris, Corsi notes.
Another FBI report, dated Nov. 24, 1971, gives details of Hubbard’s presentation to a VVAW meeting of the Executive and Steering committees in Kansas City, Mo., Nov. 12-15, 1971.
At that meeting, the VVAW considered and then rejected a plan to assassinate several pro-war U.S. Senators. Kerry is listed as present.
The FBI document shows communist coordination in Hubbard’s trip to Paris.

[BLACK OUT] advised that Hubbard gave the following information regarding his Paris trip:
Two foreign groups, which are Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) and Peoples Republic Government (PRG) (phonetic), invited representatives of the VVAW, Communist Party USA (CP USA), and a Left Wing group in Paris, to attend meeting of the above inviting groups in Paris. Hubbard advised he was elected to represent the VVAW. An unknown male was invited to represent the CP USA and an unknown individual was elected to represent the Left Wing group from Paris. He advised at the meeting that his trip was financed by CP USA.
Corsi and Swett cite an appeal letter written by Hubbard April 20, 1971, demonstrating the strong coordination between Vietnam Veterans Against the War and People’s Coalition for Peace and Justice.
Addressed from the offices of the VVAW in Washington, D.C., the letter asks VVAW members to provide assistance to the PCPJ. It discusses several ways in which the two organizations have worked closely together:

This is an appeal for help for the Peoples Coalition for Peace and Justice. Over the past months the Peoples Coalition has supported the Vietnam Vets Against the War in many ways. The Coalition has made office space available at no charge, and permitted the use of all necessary office equipment such as mimeograph machines, stencil-making machines, folders and typewriters. They have loaned us cars, bullhorns, and public address equipment. Their staff has taken messages for us and joined fraternally in building our progress. Now we can return this support.
Saturday, April 24, the Coalition needs help collecting money and selling buttons at the great march and rally. Collectors and sellers must be energetic and determined. There will be security problems in taking large amounts of money to banks. The Coalition needs people power, hundreds of workers.
I earnestly hope that you will come forward to support our friends in this emergency.
Two days after Hubbard’s letter was written, Kerry told Sen. William Fulbright’s Foreign Relations Committee that American military in Vietnam were committing war crimes in the manner of Genghis Khan.
The event mentioned in the letter was PCPJ’s massive April 24 demonstration in Washington that followed the VVAW’s Dewey Canyon III protest.

If you’d like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.

Related stories:
Communist museum removes Kerry photo
Swift vets launch final 2 ads
POW wives blast Kerry in new ad
Biographer still insists Kerry a ‘hero’
Swift-vet ad flays ‘Hanoi John’
Swift vet ad: Kerry ‘Dazed and Confused’
Kerry Silver Star report backs critics
Dole helps unveil Kerry POW film
Kerry Navy probe to expand scope?
Vet: Kerry coerced me to testify of atrocities
Kerry medal complaint reaches Navy secretary

Swiftvets to Kerry: Apologize, tell truth and we’ll quit
Kerry’s medal dump in new swiftboat ad
Another discrepancy erodes Kerry’s story
Pulitzer winner behind Kerry POW film
1996: Kerry judged false decorations ‘very wrong’
Kerry biographer disputes campaign
Admiral comes forward to dispute Kerry medal
War ‘Brother’ denies Kerry bought loyalty
3rd television ad unveiled by vets
C-Span to air Kerry ’71 testimony
Questions swirl around Kerry’s Silver Star
Battalion still ‘sullied’ by Kerry aide’s claim
Next up: POWs blast Kerry in TV documentary
Kerry backs off on medal claim
Kerry ’71 testimony caused POW ‘flashback’
Kerry stands by ’71 atrocities claim
O’Neill to Kerry: Sue me
Kerry supported by Viet comrade
Kerry asks FEC to stop vets’ ads
Kerry: Vets’ book should be withdrawn
Vets: Kerry ‘can’t deal with the truth’
Kerry’s ‘fraudulent’ report basis for military records
Kerry’s war journal contradicts medal claim?
Kerry damage control on Cambodia story
Kerry camp: Candidate ‘inaccurate’ on Cambodia
Kerry campaign refuses to clarify Cambodia story
John Kerry’s ‘self-inflicted’ Purple Heart, Bronze Star
Anti-Kerry cover altered on Barnes & Noble
Vets say Kerry made up Cambodia story
Vet denies retraction of Kerry war criticism
Book: Kerry took no enemy fire for medal
Dems press TV stations to shun vets’ ad
White House avoids criticism of Vets’ ad
Vets: Kerry lied to get Silver Star
Kerry’s Viet comrades call him a liar in TV ad
Kerry’s wounds self-inflicted?
Kerry flip-flop on war footage
Controversy over Kerry’s re-enacted war scenes
Anti-Kerry vets to sue candidate?
Kerry honored at communist museum
‘Kerry lied while good men died’
Vets to Kerry: Stop using photos
Vet: Officers told Kerry to leave Vietnam

BIDENCE

Posted Image

Weekend fun

Posted Image

GUNS

Posted Image

Hey Hillary...

Posted Image

2016

Posted Image

We Lied...

Posted Image

Make it a double!

Posted Image

Fly on Shit

Posted Image

Magnificently

Posted Image

Well...that's that!

Posted Image

Why the Left Is Having a Nervous Breakdown

pjmedia.com ^   | 6/24/18 | Roger L. Simon  The Left is having the worst flu season ever. Almost all of them have been infected by Trump D...