Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Wealth Gap Among Races Has Widened Since Recession [blacks were hurt worst of all races under Obama]

New York Times ^ | April 28, 2013 | ANNIE LOWREY

the last half-decade has proved far worse for black and Hispanic families than for white families
when it comes to wealth — as measured by assets, like cash savings, homes and retirement accounts, minus debts, like mortgages and credit card balances — white families have far outpaced black and Hispanic ones. Before the recession, non-Hispanic white families, on average, were about four times as wealthy as nonwhite families, according to the Urban Institute’s analysis of Federal Reserve data. By 2010, whites were about six times as wealthy.
The dollar value of that gap has grown, as well. By the most recent data, the average white family had about $632,000 in wealth, versus $98,000 for black families and $110,000 for Hispanic families.
Many experts consider the wealth gap to be more pernicious than the income gap, as it perpetuates from generation to generation and has a powerful effect on economic security and mobility.
Higher unemployment rates and lower incomes among blacks left them less able to keep paying their mortgages and more likely to lose their homes, experts said.
Black families also suffered bigger hits to their retirement savings, the Urban Institute found. With lower earnings and higher unemployment rates leaving them with a thinner safety net to begin with, black families were more likely to take funds out of the market when it was depressed, leaving them out in the cold as the market recovered.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...

The Problem with Social Security Reform is this: The Government Already Stole the Money

Townhall ^ | 04/30/2013 | Bill Tatro

I’ve been waiting in the wings very patiently for the all the uproar to die down before I weighed in on the incredibly stupid 2010 comment made by former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson in which he called me and my fellow senior citizens, “The greediest generation.”
With essentially no lack of antagonism directed toward career politician Simpson for all this time, I definitely feel the need to finally come forward in order to shed more light on the subject. Let me begin by explaining that in addition to being ill-advised, Simpson’s remark also reveals everything that you need to know about career politicians in general, irrespective of their political party affiliation.
I’m fully aware of the argument about those people who are just like my father—he will be 89-years-old in June—receiving more in Social Security benefits than they ever contributed. I also acknowledge the contention that Social Security was never originally designed to be a person’s sole source of income and that life expectancies are much longer today than when the federal program was first introduced in 1935.
In addition, I understand that so-called “career politicians,” especially Alan Simpson, have consistently viewed the Social Security Trust Fund as a honeypot in which they could dip into anytime they saw a potential problem on the horizon—a situation created by their own blundering desire for reelection. Moreover, it is recognized that neither I nor anyone else signed up to support a government that artificially deprives its citizens of a reasonable return on its life savings (ZIRP), thus creating even more dependence for that Social Security check each month.
Therefore, I firmly believe that Alan Simpson along with the other several hundred career senators and congressmen are truly the greedy group.
Nevertheless, it would appear that we are at a standstill since no amount of discussion, argument, or commentary is going to change either Alan Simpson’s opinion or my opinion. Therefore, I have a very simple solution. I am the first of the baby boomers, thus give back to me and my “greedy generation” all the money that we’ve contributed to the Social Security Fund for the past forty-years and I’ll even let the government keep the so-called interest that it supposedly earned. This resolution will eliminate the name calling since I think even a career politician would agree that the return of what is rightfully ours cannot be classified as greed.
I’ll take my money, buy an annuity, and immediately annuitize it which would provide a monthly distribution for both me and my wife, something Social Security simply can’t do. Then, allow Social Security to wither on the vine after taking care of the Greatest Generation. Again, this removes the name calling.
The only problem I foresee is that to give me my money back, the money actually needs to be there. That could present a major difficulty since Alan Simpson and all of his cronies have already stolen the money—and in my opinion that is truly greed.

The reason that liberals hate Christianity, but ignore Islam

Bookwormroom.com ^ | 4-29-2013 | Bookworm

One of the things that’s frustrating for non-liberals and non-Progressives is Leftists’ refusal to look Islam in the face (so to speak). Yes, there are crazy people who are Christians and there are entire Christian sects that are crazy (such as the Westboro Baptists or Warren Jeffs’ polygamist Mormon cult). The fact remains, however, that Christians as a whole, whether they belong to big churches or small ones, do not embrace or practice terrorism to achieve their political or religious goals.

Muslims, by contrast, routinely practice terrorism to achieve goals that are simultaneously religious and political, owing to Islam’s fusion of God and state. Even though it’s remarkably simple to tie Islam to terrorism (9/11, the underwear bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, the attempted Portland Christmas tree massacre, the Boston Marathon bombing), Leftists scurry around like cockroaches exposed to the light in their desperate attempt to avoid acknowledging Islam’s violent heart.
Today, I read one thing and wrote another, both of which address Leftist hatred for Christianity, even though modern Christianity and genuine Judaism (as opposed to the hard Leftism that masquerades as “reform Judaism”) are the most humane, civilizing forces the world has ever seen. With their focus on justice and grace, they rid the world of slavery, ended child labor, advanced women’s status and, in Israel’s case, fought a 60-year war without sinking to the level of her enemies. But the Left truly hates them and seeks to undermine them at every turn.
The article I read on this subject is Benjamin Wiker’s “Why aren’t liberals more critical of Islam?” In it, he posits that, because secularism arose within and in opposition to a Christian Europe and America, Christianity was its original enemy. Giving proof, however, to my repeated claim that “Progressives” are actually profoundly “regressive,” secularists (i.e., Leftists) continue their battle with Christianity despite that particular war having ended long ago. Judaism and Christianity absorbed the better parts of secularism while holding on to their core religious principles.
Because they are locked forever in an ideological time warp, says Wiker, liberals (or Progressives or Leftists or whatever else they call themselves to avoid the taint their ideas leave behind) cannot contemplate the possibility that there is another enemy, greater than their old foe Christianity. Which brings me to a post I did today for Mr. Conservative. It concerns Michael ‘Mikey’ Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, and one of the most rabid anti-Christians you will ever meet.
When I wrote the post this morning, it made me uncomfortable that such a venomous man is somehow Jewish, whether genetically or in actual practice. I hate to see that kind of hatred emanate from a group with which I’m affiliated. However, having read Wiker’s essay, I realize that my concern is unfounded. Weinstein’s hostility to Christians isn’t because he’s Jewish, it’s because he’s a Leftist. (Not all Jews are Leftists, and not all Leftists are Jews, but those Jews who are Leftists are amongst the most extreme Leftists. Mikey’s in that category.)
Here’s my Mr. Conservative post. See what you think:
SECNAV prayers with Marines and Sailors at Fallujah in 2006
The Obama government sure knows how to pick ‘em. Right now, the Pentagon is concerned about religious intolerance in the American military. When people who are neither Leftists nor career politicians in thrall to the White House think of intolerance in the military, they think of Major Nidal Malik Hasan who went on an “Allahu Akbar” shooting spree at Fort Hood, killing 13 people and injuring more than thirty. The Pentagon, though, isn’t fooled by these false trails. It knows who the really intolerant people in the military are: Christians.
To that end, the military has brought in Michael Weinstein, Esq., a “religious tolerance” specialist and the man who founded the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (“MRFF”). Michael knows all about tolerance. Or at least, he knows all about tolerance in the Obama era. To Michael (or “Mikey” as he likes to be known), a good way to express tolerance is to call Christians “monsters” or, even better “bloody monsters.”
According to Mikey’s tolerant world view, Christians who serve in the American military are “well-funded gangs of fundamentalist Christian monsters who terrorize their fellow Americans by forcing their weaponized and twisted version of Christianity upon their helpless subordinates in our nation’s armed forces.” And that’s just Mikey’s throat-clearing.
Troll through an article Mikey wrote in The Huffington Post to justify his tolerant attack on alleged Christian intolerance in the American military, and you’ll learn quickly that the people he’s out to destroy (tolerantly, of course) are “evil, fundamentalist Christian creatures.” They are “bandits” who “coagulate their stenchful substances” in religiously-based organizations that support traditional marriage and oppose abortion. Don’t be fooled by these old-fashioned values, though. In fact, says Mikey, “The basis of their ruinous unity is the bane of human existence and progress: horrific hatred and blinding bigotry.”
What inspired Weinstein’s apopletic rage is the fact that conservatives took offense when the military piggy-backed on a delusional Southern Poverty Law Center screed and identified conservative Christians as the greatest terrorist threat in America. Because these groups use hate-filled language, Mikey says, such as “God Hates Fags” or “Thank God for IEDs,” they’re obviously one step away from committing a bomb attack in a major American city. (It’s so magical. It’s as if 9/11, Fort Hood, and the Boston bombing never happened!)
If Mikey is correct, that toxic, hate-filled rhetoric is all one needs to prove that a person or organization constitutes an imminent danger, then Mikey better start looking over his shoulder. Considering the “evil, fundamentalist Christian creatures,” “bandits (who) coagulate their stenchful substances,” and “monsters” who inhabit his rhetorical world, he looks like he’s ready to blow.
What Mikey can’t comprehend is that, while mainstream Christians and conservatives routinely condemn and distance themselves from organizations such as the Westboro Baptist Church, Mikey gets to disseminate his particular brand of hate-filled, toxic intolerance at a major Progressive internet outlet.
Even worse than the applause he’s getting from the mainstream Left is the fact that he’s been taken on by the Pentagon as a consultant to help develop new policies on religious tolerance in the military. These new policies will include rules for court-martialing military chaplains who use the Christian gospel when they counsel the American troops under their care. Or, as MRFF Advisory Board member Larry Wilkerson told The Washington Post, they essentially sexually assaulting the troops with their God talk.
No kidding. Wilkerson says that “Sexual assault and proselytizing are absolutely destructive of the bonds that keep soldiers together.” Lest there be any misunderstanding, Mikey clarified to The Post what Wilkerson really meant:
This is a national security threat. What is happening [aside from sexual assault] is spiritual rape. And what the Pentagon needs is to understand is that it is sedition and treason. It should be punished.
Mikey hates everything. Or at least he hates everything that has to do with Christianity. He foams at the mouth, spittle flying, when he talks about Christians, imagining them guilty of the most heinous crimes. The problem is that it’s not Christians committing the crimes he imagines. The major terrorist crimes come from the Islamists, something that Mike and his friends on the Left refuse to acknowledge. It’s bad when even arch-liberal Bill Maher calls this denial “liberal bullshit.”
Speaking of committed, though, in a sane world Mikey’s delusions would have him being checked out by psychiatrists as a clear and present danger. In our insane world, psychiatrists are used to disarm our veterans and the delusional, hate-filled, spittle-flecked Mikey gets to work with the Pentagon to create a tolerance policy that ensures that military chaplains will be court martialed for doing their jobs.
If troops are indeed being punished or ostracized because they don’t embrace a particular form of Christianity, the military has to address that. But Mikey makes it clear that, for him, being Christian is the real problem. In that regard, he’s the typical Leftist who says that the First Amendment, rather than giving people the right to worship, means that the Christian religion must be erased from America.
(End of the Mr. Conservative article, beginning of my last comment on the subject.)
As for me, I think that people who are willing to fight and die for their country in a constitutionally-bound military run by civilians, in a nation controlled by the First Amendment, should be allowed to practice their religion without Leftists denying them the comfort of knowing that, as they go into battle, God walks at their side.

Arizona Gov. Brewer Refuses to Stop Using Term “Illegal Immigrant”

Stand With Arizona ^ | 04-30-2013 | John Hill

It’s a good thing Jan Brewer is a politician and not a journalist. The Associated Press recently struck the term “illegal immigrant” from its lexicon. Not so Arizona’s feisty governor — and she’s not backing down on this one.
Brewer defended her use of the word during an interview with a clearly irritated ABC News Senior National Correspondant Jim Avila, who repeatedly pestered Brewer to change her language, to no avail:
“I’ve heard you use the phrase over and over and over again. They’re insulted by the term, ‘illegal immigrant.’ That that brands a person. What they do is illegal immigration, but the people themselves are not illegals. Have you thought about it at all, with so many Hispanics in your state? To stop using that word — illegal immigrant?”“No, to me they’re illegal immigrants,” Brewer said.
“When you break the law, you’re doing something illegal, that makes you an illegal,” she added. “So they are an illegal immigrant.”
When Avila called her use of the phrase “offensive to some people,” Brewer remained firm in her convictions.
“Well I’m sorry, but I believe that if you break the law and you’re an illegal immigrant and you’re in this country illegally, you are an illegal immigrant,” she said.
She added that the term “illegal immigrant” was considered politically correct for years - as opposed to the more accurate term “illegal alien”, but now suddenly people want to change it. Brewer also expressed that illegal immigrants are people, but that the law must be followed, for the safety of Arizonans. Although the annoying Avila wasted nearly half the interview persisting in trying to get the Governor to abandon the term, the rest of the interview was also news-making, as Brewer said the border was not secure by a longshot, and said that she opposes the 'Gang of Eight' amnesty bill.
Nice to see Arizona's governor stand by the rule of law, and stick to her guns.
Here's the full interview...
Excerpt...click here for the full article.

The GAO IS Now Investigating The DHS Ammo Purchases

Breitbart ^ | 4/29/13 | Debra Heine

Last Thursday, Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who chairs one of the House oversight subcommittees, held a hearing to find out why the Department of Homeland Security has been ordering so much ammunition. "It is entirely ... inexplicable why the Department of Homeland Security needs so much ammunition," Chaffetz said at the hearing.
He revealed that the department currently has more than 260 million rounds in stock.
He said the department bought more than 103 million rounds in 2012 and used 116 million that same year -- among roughly 70,000 agents.
Comparing that with the small-arms purchases procured by the U.S. Army, he said the DHS is churning through between 1,300 and 1,600 rounds per officer, while the U.S. Army goes through roughly 350 rounds per soldier... He noted that is "roughly 1,000 rounds more per person."
Now, according to US News Washington Whispers, the GAO is looking into the ammo purchases.
The congressional investigative agency is jumping into the fray just as legislation was introduced in both the Senate and the House to restrict the purchase of ammo by some government agencies (except the Department of Defense). The AMMO Act, introduced Friday, would prevent agencies from buying more ammunition if "stockpiles" are greater than what they were in previous administrations.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Obama's Policies

Posted Image


Posted Image

Left Wing Logic

Posted Image

Good vs. Evil

Posted Image

What Kills?

Posted Image


Posted Image

The Changes of Time

Posted Image

The End?

Posted Image

PC Terms

Posted Image

Frustration Device

Posted Image

The Uniform

Posted Image

Awkward Moment

Posted Image


Posted Image

Cold weather causes murder!

Posted Image

Not to worry...

Posted Image

Hypocrisy 101

Posted Image

Where's the president?

Posted Image

Rubio Flushing His Political Aspirations -and the Entire GOP- Down the Toilet!

Reaganite Republican ^ | 30 April 2013 | Reaganite Republican

'You’re a nice guy. That's a problem.

Nice guys are only popular in prison and in the Senate- and for similar reasons.'

Today's Republican Party suffers from a paucity of those who can effectively communicate the conservative message.
So what a shame I might not be able to vote for one of the few who DID possess that gift...

WHAT on God's green Earth are you thinking, dude? Has it yet occurred that you're a DREAM prop for the Democrats here- the hispanic Republican who's marching lockstep with them on a bill that MANY of us see little good in? That you provide conservative 'cover' for a scheme nobody I know can actually stomach? That they're trying to ram-through the 'Gang of 8' immigration bill before the stench reaches the voters' collective schnoz?

If not to yourself, it does seem glaringly obvious to outside observers they felt YOU were just the ticket- the one who could convince all those ig'nant clingers to fall in-line behind McAmnesty, Linseed, and Schmucky Schumer (the snake)- speaking of, do you also think Obama/Reid/Schumer would be pushing this so hard if it was going to 'save the GOP'...?

To be brief, this bill is crap:
We’ve only scraped the surface of this current immigration reform bill and what we’ve scraped off is pure muck.

The promises to secure the border are a joke. The “long and hard” pathway to citizenship – which there shouldn’t be anyway – is bypassed with shortcuts.

Promises that the zillions of people who weren’t invited here in the first place will pay their “back taxes” fall apart when you actually read the language.

Assurances that they won’t be able to cash in on the welfare state and all its goodies are dubious at best. Even those who want desperately to support wise immigration reform, like Hugh Hewitt and Charles Krauthammer, have their doubts.

Contrary what they're saying, a loophole big enough to drive an overpacked Suburban through will actually fast-track millions of illegals for citizenship- with precious few speed-bumps.

A recent Pew Research poll showed fully 1/3 of Mexican adult citizens would come to the USA if allowed! Add to that the kids they'll bring/make on the way and you get the idea of what a 'pathway to citizenship' with feigned DHS border controls will bring.

The bill also hands way too-much power over to DHS... oft-touted 'triggers' in the bill aren't triggers at-all... and it will ensure Democratic Party dominance ad infinitum.

Marco Rubio, you need to unwind your involvement in this noxious scam as fast as you can muster the courage to admit your mistake and move-on: conservatives will NEVER forgive you for it if you don't. I do believe you're a good guy -impressive political talent- and a principled conservative on most other issues.. and I would like to take you seriously in a presidential primary.

But I'm really starting to question your judgement- and yes, naivete... it's simply not a very good bill, it's a big, secretive, unread mess that won't deliver anything like the touts are saying... same as all major Obama-era legislation. Your aggressive campaigning on it's behalf is starting to cast a shadow on your personal credibility... some might even say you've been intentionally misleading.

At minimum, give us all some time to have a look at just what's in there... what lesson did you people learn from Obamacare's passage, hidden tricks, and troublesome implementation anyway- how to bypass congressional and public debate and ram bills down our throat in the dead of night? A principled man might arrive at the opposite judgement- don't you think?

PLEASE distance yourself from this 800-page monster and the RINOs/scheming Dems you're currently in the room with, Senator Rubio- and if you really feel the need to be part of some immigration reform, go talk to Ted Cruz and cook-up something a bit more genuine, effective, and honest... but don't even bother if you're not going to secure the border first.

They clearly need you to get this done... YOU might be the only one who can stop it now- DO IT -show us what you're made of- and you just might earn yourself a spot on that 2016 ticket.

Jason Collins to march in Boston gay pride parade [Sodomy Celebrated Far & Wide]

CBS ^ | 4/30/13

... the White House -- President Obama called him -- along with former President Clinton, the NBA, current and former teammates, a sponsor, and athletes in other sports.
On Monday evening, hours after his story appeared on the web, Collins wrote on Twitter, "All the support I have received today is truly inspirational. I knew that I was choosing the road less traveled but I'm not walking it alone."
... In Monday's story, Collins writes that the Boston Marathon bombing on April 15 "reinforced the notion that I shouldn't wait for the circumstances of my coming out to be perfect. Things can change in an instant, so why not live truthfully?"
And now, Collins and Kennedy say, they will be in Boston on June 8, marching together at the city's 2013 gay pride parade
(Excerpt) Read more at m.cbsnews.com ...

Monday, April 29, 2013

Here’s how a Typhoon multirole aircraft can hit two targets at the same time!

The Aviationist ^ | April 29, 2013 | David Cenciotti

Here’s how a Typhoon multirole aircraft can hit two targets at the same time with a single targeting pod
The recent article about the Typhoon fighter jet performing first laser guided, self designating, simultaneous guided bomb drops sparked some debate.
Although other aircraft are known to have similar capabilities, some readers asked how a combat plane could hit two targets at same time with only a single laser designator of the Litening pod.
I asked Andrea Kay, Senior Communications Advisor at BAE Systems, one of the companies of the Eurofighter consortium, to shed some light on the matter.
Andrea inquired his colleague Bob Smith, Engineering Director for Combat Air and here is Smith’s response:
“The Litening Pod is capable of illuminating/tracking multiple targets at any point in time, however, the implementation on the RAF Tranche 1 Aircraft was an austere implementation, limiting the system to a single target attack at any one time . So the answer to the specific question below is yes it does switch between targets at a high rate. The Laser does not need to change frequency for each target because the bomb is assigned to a target and just follows the Laser beam.”

Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare?

American Spectator ^ | April 29 2013 | David Catron

In the lore of the ancient Romans, Horatius was a soldier who single-handedly fought off an invading army. The Etruscans had attacked in order to impose a despot on Rome and, by holding them back while his comrades destroyed the bridge that was the only practical route to the city, this single warrior saved the free republic. Obamacare is certainly the bridge via which the forces of despotism plan to “fundamentally transform” the United States, and a decorated Iraq veteran named Matt Sissel may be the Horatius who prevents them from crossing.
This 32-year-old artist, businessman, and holder of the Bronze Star is the plaintiff in Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, which Sissel sees as “a battle for my liberty — my freedom to live out my life to the fullest.” This is the only remaining lawsuit that has any chance of bringing down the entire health care law. His lawsuit, which was filed in July of 2010, was put on hold during the run-up to last June’s Supreme Court decision to uphold most of Obamacare. Ironically, that controversial ruling gave his case a new lease on life.
In that ruling, the Majority held that the individual mandate was essentially a tax. This finding prompted the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), which represents Sissel, to file a new constitutional cause of action based on the way the law was rammed through Congress. What we now know as Obamacare was initially cobbled together in the Senate, and that body of Congress is not permitted by the Constitution to write tax bills. Sissel and his PLF lawyers have therefore amended their complaint to say that the “reform” law violates the Origination Clause.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...

It's The Islam, Stupid

grasstopsusa.com ^ | 04/29/2013 | Don Feder

Two weeks ago today, two brothers are alleged to have set off a bomb at the finish line of the Boston Marathon that left three dead – including an eight-year-old boy – and injured 282. At least 14 lost limbs. Our president implored us not to "jump to conclusions" and thus end up stereotyping his favorite faith.
"The Boston Bombers Were Muslim: So?" ran a headline in The Atlantic. Over at MSNBC, Chris (if I only had a brain) Matthews told us motivation was irrelevant: "Where was their inspiration? Where did they get the guidance? Why is that important? … I mean, what difference does it make why they did it, if they did it?"
In 1945, six million Jews were dead – murdered in death camps and by mobile killing squads. Why did Hitler, Himmler, Eichmann and the S.S. do it? What was their motivation? Why is that important? I mean, what difference does it make why they did it, if they did it? "The Architects of the Holocaust Were Nazis: So?"
Now, let’s see: Who blows people up to advance their "geopolitical leanings"? Who regularly kills in the name of their deity? Franciscan friars? Hasidic rabbis? The Munchkins?
A friend sent me a link to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists website. (In case you’re curious, here it is http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/@@wanted-group-listing.) With one exception (a convert named Adam), all had names like Ibrahim, Abdul, Omar, Jamal, Abdullah, Ramadan, Hasan, Mohammed and Muhammad. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.
The proverbial elephant in the room is kneeling on a prayer rug.
(Excerpt) Read more at grasstopsusa.com ...

Obama’s National-Security Fraud

NRO ^ | 4/27/2013 | Andrew C. McCarthy

Strange, isn’t it? We are governed by leftists given to finger-wagging about their commitment to due process and the rule of law — they’re not like those bad old warmongering Bushies. Still, here we are in the post-arrest phase of the civilian prosecution the administration was hell-bent on commencing — the phase when due process obliges government officials to remain mum about non-public investigative information that could taint the jury pool and undermine the defendant’s right to a fair trial — and we’re being inundated with stunning confession evidence.
Remember, this is the same crowd that labels the Fort Hood massacre “workplace violence” and won’t honor its victims with Purple Heart medals. To do so, they sniff, might prejudice the objectivity of the trial of a jihadist mass murderer who has publicly announced he’d like to plead guilty. Now, though, in Tsarnaev’s case, government agencies are leaking like sieves.
Because you are being softened up. Steered by its Gitmo Bar veterans and Lawyer Left compass, the Obama administration is executing a massive national-security fraud: the farce that the jihad against America can be judicialized, that civilian-court processes are a better answer to enemy warfare than are combat protocols.
That is why Eric Holder’s Justice Department, together with the FBI, darted into federal court in Boston last Sunday evening to file the complaint against Tsarnaev. Obama was determined to end the public debate over whether the jihadist is a wartime enemy combatant or a mere criminal defendant.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...

Twinkie The Kid Fires A Shot Across Obama’s Bow

Shout Bits Blog ^ | 04/29/13 | Shout Btis

Today's fun story is the return of Twinkies, due in stores this summer. Less fun for Obama's labor agenda is that Hostess's new owner is not hiring union labor to bake and deliver its products. Because the former Hostess liquidated in bankruptcy several months ago, no labor contracts exist between Hostess and powerful unions such as the Teamsters. The steady decline of private sector unions is nothing new, but the Hostess restructuring is a test case for unions and Obama's ability to repay them for their support.

Obama's latest nemesis –Twinkie The Kid

Obama is a union man, and there is hardly a sliver of daylight between his agenda and the unions' (a notable exception is the Keystone XL pipeline). During his reign, SEIU's Andy Stern was the most frequent White House visitor – during a time Obama was reported to be restoring the US economy, closing Gitmo, and ending two wars. AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka brags about having Obama on speed-dial. Obama knows that while Black and environmentalist voters are his base of enthusiasm and good PR, unions are his base of money. The decline of private sector union power is a serious threat to Obama and Democrats power. Obama has made union organizing easier by redefining entire industries regulatory structure (e.g. FedEx) and by illegally appointing union activists to the NLRB. Obama has made union organizing faster by eliminating most of the time companies would have to state their case for open shops. Obama is paying back decades of unrewarded union support to Democrats.
The unions' and Obama's problem is that most workers do not want union jobs. Union jobs are in decline, so anyone who wants job stability steers clear. Further, union hostility toward free markets and the GOP must irritate at least some working class families. In any event, manufacturing is growing in the US, but not in union shops. Obama and V.P. Biden may claim to have saved the auto industry, but the non-union auto factories in the South never needed saving.
The unanswered question of unionism is whether current union members would like to continue to pay dues earmarked for Democrat politicians. Once union, a shop rarely goes back. The union system ostracizes anyone who does not toe the line, which means union halls shutter only when companies shut down too.
Hostess offers an unusual test case as to whether union members really appreciate their unions. The new Hostess will reopen previously union factories, including one in Illinois. Almost certainly some workers will be rehired, albeit without union representation, and they will be free to organize. No doubt, the unions that represented the old Hostess's various trades will seek to organize the new Hostess. Look for complaints before the NLRB, picket lines, and a little help from Obama and the Old Media. Expect the New York Times to report that Hostess has cut worker pay, benefits, and rights, ignoring that the old system drove Hostess to liquidation.
Given the high visibility of the Twinkie The Kid returning to gas stations around the US, the failure to unionize Hostess would be a major blow to unions and Obama's credibility with them. The new Hostess is a clear-cut experiment as to whether workers and communities really want unions. Do workers see unions as allies or the fools who cost them their jobs in the first place? The labor flacks at Obama's White House are surely working overtime to prevent a disaster in their money base.
Shout Bits can be found on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ShoutBits

Why is Texas Governor Rick Perry in Illinois? (Another "I'm coming for your jobs" tour)

TIME ^ | 04/28/2013 | By Josh Sanburn

Like an aging rocker, Texas Governor Rick Perry is currently on the 2013 I’m Coming For Your Jobs tour across America. His first stop: California a couple months ago. This week he’s in Illinois, where he got a nasty reception from public officials. The trips are part of an effort to get businesses from highly taxed and heavily regulated states to relocate down South — but his efforts may fall flat, if recent history is any indication.
Texas has arguably become one of the few true economic success stories since the recession. The state has an unemployment rate of around 6% and a $9 billion budget surplus, even as many states struggle with 8% and 9% unemployment and severe budget deficits.
The state is run by pro-business Republicans in the state legislature, along with Gov. Perry, who supports low regulation and low taxes. Texas doesn’t have an individual income tax, either. Its minimum wage is lower than other left-leaning states, which keeps labor costs down. Prices for land and housing are low. And the oil and natural gas boom in recent years has kept jobs from leaving the state. The tradeoff for all this, of course: Texas’s relatively flimsy social safety net.
But Perry still isn’t satisfied with business in Texas. The governor sees even more potential if he can just lure corporations away from states that aren’t as friendly to business. The two states he’s visited so far, California and Illinois, rank 50th and 48th, respectively, in a survey of best states for business, according to a recent poll in the Wall Street Journal.
(Excerpt) Read more at business.time.com ...

Liver hormone offers hope for diabetes treatmentCompound boosts insulin production in mice.

Nature News ^ | 25 April 2013 | Chris Palmer

Biologists have found a hormone in the liver that spurs the growth of insulin-secreting cells in the pancreas, a discovery they hope will lead to new treatments for diabetes.
A team led by Douglas Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, identified the hormone, betatrophin, by inducing insulin resistance in mice using a peptide that binds to insulin receptors. That caused the animals' insulin-secreting pancreatic β cells to proliferate. The researchers then searched for genes that showed increased activity, zeroing in on one that they were able to link to betatrophin production.
Further experiments showed that 8-week-old mice injected with betatrophin showed showed an average 17-fold rise in the replication of their insulin-secreting pancreatic β cells, the researchers report in Cell1. Betatrophin is also found in the human liver, the team says.
“It’s rare that one discovers a new hormone, and this one is interesting because it’s so specific,” says Melton. “It works only on β cells and it’s so robust and so potent.”
Pancreatic β cells replicate rapidly during embryonic and neonatal stages in both mice and humans, but their growth falls off dramatically in adults. A decrease in the function of the cells late in life is the main cause of type 2 diabetes, a metabolic disorder that affects more than 300 million people worldwide. In the United States alone, the two forms of diabetes — type 2 and and type 1, which is caused by an autoimmune attack on pancreatic β cells — account for US$176 billion in direct medical costs each year...
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...

Eating mangoes may help lower blood sugar and cancer risk

Daily News & Analysis ^ | Wednesday, April 24, 2013 | ANI

Washington, DC - These findings are the result of a single study and more research is needed on the effects of mango consumption on human health.
Consumption of mangoes may potentially have a positive effect on blood sugar in obese individuals and help to limit inflammation, according to a new research.
The study led by Edralin Lucas, Ph.D., associate professor of nutritional sciences at Oklahoma State University, examined the effects of daily mango consumption on clinical parameters and body composition in obese subjects (body mass index, BMI = 30kg/m2).
Twenty adults (11 males and 9 females) participated in the study, which included daily dietary supplementation with 10 grams of freeze dried mango (equivalent to approximately 100 grams of fresh mango, according to Dr. Lucas) for 12 weeks.
Blood sugar levels at the conclusion of the study were significantly lower than the baseline in both male and female subjects. There were no significant changes in body composition for either gender, and BMI increased significantly in female subjects but not male subjects compared to baseline.
These findings are the result of a single study and more research is needed on the effects of mango consumption on human health.
"The results of this study support what we learned in our recent animal model, which found that mango improved blood glucose in mice fed a high fat diet," said Dr. Lucas.
"Although the mechanism by which mango exerts its effects warrants further investigation, we do know that mangeos contain a complex mixture of polyphenolic compounds. Research has shown that several other plants and their polyphenolic compounds, such as isoflavone from soy , epigallocatechin gallate from green tea , and proanthocyanidin from grape seed , have a positive effect on adipose tissue," the researcher stated.
Another research led by Susanne Mertens-Talcott, Ph.D., Assistant Professor and Director for Research, Institute for Obesity Research and Program Evaluation of Texas A ‘n’ M University, examined the effects of polyphenols found in fresh mangos on cancerous and non-cancerous breast cells.
This study suggested that mango polyphenols might limit inflammatory response in both cancerous and non-cancerous breast cells.
Because this was an in vitro study, more research is needed to determine whether mango polyphenols can have the same effect in humans.
The research was presented this week at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) in Boston.

The Snake in the Bloody Garden [Daniel Greenfield]

Sultan Knish ^ | April 28, 2013 | Daniel Greenfield

The left has a clearly defined set of responses to a terrorist attack. After all the hopes for a properly right wing terrorist have come to naught, it begins the long slow process of rolling back the laws and emotional attitudes stemming from the attack.
For it, terrorism, like anything else, either fits into its narrative or conflict with it. The narrative defines the world, past, present and future, in terms of the political agenda of the left. An event that clashes with the agenda must have its meaning changed so that the power of the narrative is restored.
Most violent attacks, from a street mugging to September 11, cause people to seek out security by combating the attackers. The left's task is to shift the narrative so that people see it in an entirely different way. The perpetrators become the victims by the trick of transforming the real victims into the real perpetrators. The lesson shifts from going on the offense to learning not to give offense.
The process is gradual and the playbook is infinite. Weapons of mass distraction are brought out. New villains are introduced and the emotional resonance of the events is drowned in ridicule. The tones are also many, from urging everyone to let love defeat hate to displays of virulent hate against the people "truly" stirring up trouble, but they all share a common agenda. Only the tactics vary.
Unlike the right, the left is systematic. It studies structures and people and plots its lines of attack accordingly. It pits emotion against emotion and law against law. It waits for the initial shock to fade before launching its first wave of attacks over process.
The left's honest response, the one that shows up on its Twitter feeds and in posts on its own sites, is that the country is overreacting. Some leftists will even be bold enough to say that we had it coming. But its public response is more discreet. It exploits the grief for its own ends, diverting shocked city residents into interfaith memorials, some of which are progressive enough to include denunciations of American foreign policy and vigils for the dead on both sides.
But even here, the left generally restrains itself. It waits until the weeks or months have passed to begin deadening the emotion surrounding the event with sarcastic remarks and jokes until the sacred becomes fully profane. It waits somewhat less time to begin lecturing the country on how our foreign policy made them hate us, knowing that in a contest between the establishment's narrative of inexplicable Islamic radicalization for unknown reasons and their narrative of American evil, they have the upper hand because they provide a realistic motive and the establishment does not.
Still this too comes later. The left knows that there is a window on human emotion. There is a time when people need to mourn and a time when they will feel a diminishing outrage and even begin to agree with observations whose thrust is that the United States of America is the real terrorist. And so there are things that the left will say on DailyKos and then on Salon that it will not say on CNN or the editorial page of the New York Times.
The editorials explaining how a lack of American support for Chechen independence led to the marathon massacre are coming. They just haven't splashed ashore in mainstream liberal newspapers yet. Timing is everything and the difference between the left of the counterculture and the left of the culture is that it knows what people will be willing to listen to and when. And it knows where to begin.
Against the horror of the bombing, the left juxtaposes the horror of police state. It pits the fear of terrorists depriving us of our lives and freedoms against the fear of the government doing the same. And considering the history of government abuses, it does not take long for this line of argument to make a compelling emotional dent in the responses of even many ordinary people to the attacks.
The left begins by raising all sorts of procedural questions about how law enforcement and the military are treating the enemy. It develops a burning conviction that our civil rights are the only thing about the country worth keeping. It hammers away at any law enforcement or military mistake, no matter how minor, and collects these together to amass a narrative of the police state.
At this stage the left puts on a show of maintaining its objectivity. It pretends that it is the principle that matters, not the perpetrator and most of those gullible people nodding along never notice that there is only one issue and two groups of perpetrators that this principle allies to; terrorists and leftist activists working in support of terrorists.
For months or even years, the left wraps itself in a Constitution that it does not believe in on behalf of those who want to abolish and destroy it.
The attacks on law enforcement and the military prove the left's core thesis that America is the oppressor and therefore deserving of terrorism. Whatever action, no matter how little, we take to defend ourselves proves that the terrorists were justified in attacking us. Even if all we do is lock up terrorists or shoot back at them when they shoot at us, the left will find enough grounds for indicting us as irredeemable monsters who deserve all that we have coming to us.
The left doesn't put it that way of course. It begins by asking us to believe that the terrorists are not attacking us, they are attacking our government, even if they keep murdering people who are by no means in the government. But once we have accepted the notion that the terrorists are justified in attacking our government, the left is then able to argue that we deserve to be attacked because living in a democracy, we elect our governments.
It's a neat trap that the left uses to questioning government policy into supporting terrorism.
That line of argument is cushioned at first. The left understands that arguments are won on emotion, not reason. It seeks out any family members of the victims who agree with its views and surrounds its spokesmen with them to give them moral sanction for their vileness. It emphasizes that understanding its theories is the only way to prevent another attack thereby making its negative tack seem positive.
And so the left moves from issues of process to polarity using our defense against terrorism to argue that the terrorists are only defending themselves against us. The arguments that seem initially untenable when the blood is still on the streets slowly sink in as baffled people try to come to terms with what happened.
All this is old hat for the left which has been excusing violence and revising history long before Islamic terrorism was an issue for anyone on this side of the Atlantic. Its tactics are polished and effective; though they would be far less so without the high ground of the media, the arts and the educational system, but the same could be said of any group. If David Icke had the unquestioning allegiance of 95 percent of media outlets and universities, most people would consider the existence of reptilians nothing more than common sense.
It is that very power which makes the narrative so insidious. The views of the streetcorner lunatic handing out pamphlets can be transformed in context without being transformed in content by the simple expedient of being read on the air in a sonorous voice by a news network anchor. But the greater insidiousness of the snake in the bloody garden comes from its ability to break up the narrative into stages to make it more palatable.
The left understands that it is working against natural emotions of loyalty and loss, and so it uses deception. It pretends to grieve, when it is sneering on the inside, and it pretends to want to help, when it is really seeking to destroy. It waits long enough to be able to pit the imaginary suffering of terrorists against the real suffering of their victims. It encourages its own brand of cynicism for the suffering of the victims and the heroism of their rescuers, while defending the sacred nature of the misfortune of its terrorists. It insists that its defense of terrorists in a time of terror invests it with a superior moral power and it uses that power to support terrorism.

Broken Promises

Bomb Prevention

Independence vs. Obedience

Stop Gun Trafficking

Border Security


Contrversial Doctor

Margaret Sanger

Gun Laws

I Kill You!

Stop the presses

No Longer

The Difference


Getting Along

Calm Down, Wolf

Angry white guy


Just can't say it

Not Just for Israel

The Rules

Conservative Warriors BRING IT While Collaborationist Vichy Republicans Cower and Make Excuses

Reaganite Republican ^ | 29 April 2013 | Reaganite Republican

Maybe John Boehner's been hanging out with his daughter's loser Rastafarian fiance or something- could explain the dopey demeanor, glassy eyes, and serial conflict avoidance...

But witnessing the lame establishment Gee Oh Pee do next-to-nothing to reign in the damaging, lawless, and power-mad Obama regime while the country goes over a cliff has GOT to be the most frustrating experience of my life- does anybody represent us in Washington anymore?

It seemingly keeps getting worse- can Marco Rubio be trusted? Does he have any clue the way he's being played by the progs? Apparently not, and his attempts to sell us on the 'inevitability' and 'benefits' permanent Democratic Party hegemony have not only insulted conservatives, but border on lying (= me putting it nicely).

Even when GOLDEN opportunities present themselves to put two-bit tyrant Obama back-on-his-heels, phlegmatic Republican 'leadership' let it slide everytime... so why would anybody expect them to something even vaguely principled or brave like -say- defund the Orwellian nightmare they call 'Obamacare'?

Alas, as the once-promising TEA Party class of 2010 -i.e. Rubio, Kristi Noem- are also assimilated into the unprincipled RINO blob, THANK GOD we have some who have stuck to their guns -like Trey Gowdy- along with Michele Bachmann/Darryl Issa and seemingly less-corruptible conservative freshman (senators) of 2012 Ted Cruz and Rand Paul: imho, the future belongs to these patriots as events continue to prove them correct.

May I suggest we consider Benghazigate -which Boehner couldn't run-away from fast enough- the template going-forward: a near-mutiny among GOP ranks actually forced Agent Orange to press-on with a congressional investigation. The Boehners and Roves are losing their grip, and DO NOT control the party -WE The People do- that's the way it's going to be with Obamacare, guns, or anything else RINOs conspire with the left on. For instance, the pending backlash from Obamacare's painful and expensive -perhaps even impossible- implementation will have voters at the Congress' throats, demanding appeal- or else. Even if their only principle is self-preservation, any sane Republican will be listening.

Now that the case has been kept alive, Rep Gowdy's leading the cavalry charge up Capitol Hill: he promised on Fox this weekend that 'explosive' congressional hearings
re. Benghazigate are on the way, and 'coming quickly'.

He also strongly hinted that Benghazi witnesses the Obama Administration has been hiding are going to finally be dragged-out and put on the stand... how 'bout that.

Mr Gowdy is looking for answers on many things, but top of the list would be why there was a failure of security in the first place, 'what happened during the siege itself and why aid was not sent', if Susan E. Rice lied in the cover-up attempt... and WHO put her up to it.

The S. Carolina congressman added that 'in a trial, 'direct evidence, direct testimony by eyewitnesses is always the most compelling'...
'Trust me when I tell you you will want to follow the hearings that are coming up'

Now that's more like it...

Sunday, April 28, 2013

'Ready To Die For My New Country': Gaining Quick Citizenship In Combat Boots ["Security Risk"]

NBCNews ^ | Bill Briggs

'Ready To Die For My New Country': Gaining Quick Citizenship In Combat Boots
Oumama Kabli, center, celebrates becoming a U.S. citizen during a naturalization ceremony on April 15 at the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. Kabli, 19, is a private in the Army National Guard and entitled to become a citizen without the normal five-year residency requirement because of her military service.
By Bill Briggs This story is part of NBC News’ series “Immigration Nation,” an in-depth examination of immigration in America. A wartime edict to entice immigrants to join the military in exchange for rapid naturalization has created 83,000 new American citizens. But one critic worries the initiative will become permanent — or perhaps even expand — essentially outsourcing more U.S. combat jobs and, he argues, injecting the armed forces with an increased security risk.
Launched via a 2002 executive order by President George W. Bush, the program lets green-card holders who enlist in the U.S. armed services bypass the typical five-year residency rule and apply immediately for citizenship at no fee. More than 10 percent of such naturalization ceremonies have taken place in 28 countries abroad, including 3,412 in Iraq, 2,102 in Japan and 1,134 in South Korea, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, which administers the process.
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.nbcnews.com ...

Critics see conflict of interest as Obama admin advises doctors on prescriptions

http://dailycaller.com ^ | april 27, 2013 | patrick howley

The Obama administration’s “academic detailing” program — through which representatives from the federal government help doctors select prescription drugs for their patients — is coming under harsh behind-the-scenes criticism from corporate executives including the CEO of Pfizer, who is trying to have the project disbanded.
The academic detailing project, created by President Obama’s 2009 stimulus program, sends federal government consultants to doctors’ offices and pharmacies to provide “evidence-based research findings” that can be used to help doctors and pharmacists choose prescription drugs for their clients.
Academic detailing consultants visit doctors at approximately 1,300 primary care clinician sites and 200 hospitals and health systems in targeted areas around the country.
“Trained clinician consultants visit physicians, pharmacists, nurses, other clinicians, and health care system decisionmakers nationwide to share unbiased, noncommercial information about medications and other therapeutic options with the goal of improving patient care,” according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Department of Health and Human Services agency responsible for overseeing the program.
Critics view the academic detailing project as a conflict-of-interest because it allows the federal government — which has an incentive under Obamacare to keep health care costs low — to guide doctors toward choosing cheaper generic drugs for their patients.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...

Even Big Labor Unions Drop Support For Obamacare

http://news.investors.com ^ | april 26, 2013

As ObamaCare rolls out, some of its biggest backers from labor to D.C. lawmakers are having second thoughts. It's a sign that the idea of ending this national nightmare isn't about to go away.
Late last week, the 22,000-member United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers dropped a bombshell on the Obama administration, not only withdrawing its support for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but also demanding its repeal.
The reason: ObamaCare subsidizes low-paid non-union workers in small companies that don't insure their employees, while leaving union shops with ObamaCare's higher health care costs and a 40% tax on Cadillac plans by 2018. That's a "death warrant" for unions, as the Atlantic's Megan McArdle noted.
"These provisions jeopardize our multiemployer health plans, have the potential to cause a loss of work for our members, create an unfair bidding advantage for those contractors who do not provide health coverage to their workers and, in the worst case, may cause our members and their families to lose the benefits they currently enjoy as participants in multiemployer health plans," said union President Kinsey Robinson.
It's the latest shoe to drop in the Great Buyers' Remorse of ObamaCare's biggest backers.
The call from the roofers was hardly the first shot fired on this terrible piece of legislation.
Last January, Sheet Metal Worker Local 85 in Atlanta asked for new subsidies for lower-paid union members.
This past August, the Communication Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers went on strike against Verizon over health care cutbacks that came as a result of the ObamaCare Cadillac tax, which Verizon has to prepare for now.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...

The Post-Welfare State Family: The original cradle-to-grave institution

The Weekly Standard ^ | The May 6, 2013 Issue | Mary Eberstadt

Among various unwanted truths that grown-ups of the Western world have to contend with these days, here’s one that doesn’t get nearly the traction it deserves: The days of the modern welfare state look to be numbered.
Yet it’s true. Even the most redistributive president in history can’t change the laws of arithmetic. As can be seen most recently in Jonathan V. Last’s book What to Expect When No One’s Expecting, the song of demographic unsustainability remains the same on both sides of the Atlantic. From Nicosia to Athens, London to Washington, D.C., the benefits promised to seniors and others before Western people stopped having babies will be shouldered in the years to come by a shrinking cadre of younger taxpayers. Nor is the discrepancy just some accounting shortfall to be finessed. As British psychiatrist and pundit Theodore Dalrymple once noted, this crisis is system-wide, “civilizational.”
Two weeks ago, for instance, two news items independently offered clear windows onto different parts of the scene. In the New York Times, a harrowing front page story entitled “More Children in Greece Start To Go Hungry” showed what can happen when an economy in free-fall meets the highest unemployment rates in Europe (27 percent): More Greek youngsters underfed and malnourished; garbage-picking outside elementary schools; and an overall level of “food insecurity” that, according to one expert, rivals that in parts of Africa. And though “experts” can be expected to overstate, Greece, it helps to remember, is a country in the EU.
On the same day, in the Washington Post, columnist George Will used recent work by Hudson Institute scholar Christopher DeMuth to examine the political sausage factory that could push America toward a Grecian future.....
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...



The Problem

Should flower shop be required to serve a gay wedding?

The Walla Walla Union-Bulletin ^ | April 27, 2013 | Bruce Ramsey. The Seattle Times

I am troubled by Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s crackdown on florist Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland, for refusing to make a flower arrangement for a same-sex wedding.
#I’m not arguing here against gay marriage. I voted for it. I’m not even sure that Stutzman has a legal right to refuse the business. Ferguson says that under Washington’s anti-discrimination statute, she doesn’t, and probably he’s right. She might, however, have a superior right under the state constitution, depending on how you interpret it.
#The constitution has nothing in it about freedom from private discrimination. But Article 1, Section 11 does say, “Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship shall be guaranteed to every individual ...”
#This doesn’t refer to commerce, but in 1889, when it was written, nobody questioned a person’s right not to deal with someone in a matter of commerce. America made an exception to that principle in the 1960s to end racial segregation in the South, where African-Americans could often not eat at lunch counters or rent rooms in motels. Those practices put blacks at a social and economic disadvantage that visibly harmed the race. This pervasive disadvantage was the reason for setting aside the long-standing principle that any business owner could say “no” to a transaction.
#We’ve extended the nondiscrimination principle for 50 years and now arrive at its nether regions. With gay marriage there have been a handful of publicized cases of discrimination — by a wedding photographer in New Mexico, the baker of wedding cakes in Oregon, and now this wedding florist in the Tri Cities. Most of these cases have been about wedding ceremonies. Should a gay couple’s extra hassle in finding wedding professionals matter to the state?(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at union-bulletin.com ...

Saturday, April 27, 2013

The Civil and Human "Right" to American Citizenship

Townhall.com ^ | April 27, 2013 | Carol Platt Liebau

In Eric Holder's America, there's no Constitutional right to gun ownership, no right to life for the unborn, no right of conscience for Catholics (or other people of faith) who disagree with elements of ObamaCare . . . but there is a "right to citizenship" as a matter of "civil and human rights" for illegal aliens.
Witness Holder's newest utterance, offered in a major-league suck up speech to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund:
Holder calls amnesty a "civil right"

"Creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country is essential. The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented – by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows – transcends the issue of immigration status. This is a matter of civil and human rights. It is about who we are as a nation. And it goes to the core of our treasured American principle of equal opportunity." (emphasis added)
His invocation of "civil and human rights" as a justification for legislation offeriing a path to citizenship is entirely incoherent. Here's why:
What are "civil rights"? They are defined as "the rights of individuals to receive equal treatment (and to be free from unfair treatment or 'discrimination') in a number of settings -- including education, employment, housing, and more -- and based on certain legally-protected characteristics."
So what confers a "civil right"? Well, the Constitution can. But nowhere does it require the government to extend citizenship to anyone who wants it, based only on their presence in the country and/or their wish to get it. Read it and see. Obviously, if it had, that would mean every law restricting any immigration at all that we've had since our founding was unconstitutional and hence invalid.
So where else can we go to find a legal source for a "civil right"? "Most laws guaranteeing and regulating civil rights originate at the federal level, either through federal legislation, or through federal court decisions (such as those handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court)." If a path to citizenship were already a "civil right" -- i.e. secured by federal legislation -- there'd be no need for legislation to establish it. Likewise, if the Supreme Court had "found" a new "right" to citizenship for all, federal legislation wouldn't be necessary. Holder argues, in essence, that we need legislation to secure a right that's already been secured. Anyone else detect a whiff of circularity to his argument here?
What about "human rights"? Well, the august office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the United Nation defines "human rights" as "rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status." Under this definition, there might be a "human right" to citizenship in some country. But there isn't a "human right" to citizenship in any country where one wishes to have it, or else every law regulating immigration all over the world is invalid. Clearly, there's no entitlement to citizenship in the USA . . . especially when one's method of entering it -- or continued residence in it --demonstrates a clear contempt for its laws.
"Human rights" are generally understood to encompass freedom from harassment or other mistreatment based on one's (non-dangerous) beliefs or immutable characteristics. By that definition, it would seem that illegal immigrants in the US are doing rather well -- especially given that the Obama USDA is actively advising people they needn't be citizens of this country in order to enjoy its government (i.e. taxpayer-funded) benefits.
Eric Holder has long been an embarassment and a disgrace as this nation's attorney general. Obviously, he invoked the specter of "civil and human rights" in an effort to imbue his message with a moral force that it otherwise lacks. But you can't make things up just because they sound good to you, especially in high government office. It's always painful to wonder whether the nation's highest law enforcement officer simply doesn't understand what he's saying -- or simply doesn't care whether it's true.

Disgusted ICE Agent Faces Down ‘Gang of Eight’ in Dramatic Senate Testimony

Stand With Arizona ^ | 04-27-2013 | John Hill

“Never before have I seen such contempt for law enforcement officers
as what I’ve seen from the Gang of Eight”
- Chris Crane, ICE Agent union president.

Last week, ICE union chief Chris Crane won a stunning initial court victory in his lawsuit against the Obama Administration. As we reported, Federal Judge Federal Judge Reed O’Connor told the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that they had no power to refuse to deport illegal aliens, and that he was likely to strike down Obama's virtual "DACA" amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. The ruling stunned Washington, and Crane's lawsuit could derail Obama's four-year effort to undermine immigration enforcement nationwide.
In Senate testimony (video below), President of the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council Crane slammed the Obama administration and the Senate’s Gang of Eight for including advocates for illegal aliens, but excluding law enforcement from providing input on the new 'immigration reform' legislation.
Crane testified before the Senate expressing his disgust that law enforcement was shut out of the negotiations on immigration reform. Crane was sitting right next to National Council of La Raza ("The Race") president Janet Murguia when he made his comments. La Raza - a racist intimidation group originally funded by the Mexican Government - was outrageously welcomed to help write the immigration bill, while law enforcement agents were shunned.
Crane recounted to the Judiciary Committee how he was physically escorted out of a Gang of Eight press conference last week and “spoken to with anger and disrespect.”
“Never before have I seen such contempt for law enforcement officers as what I’ve seen from the Gang of Eight,” he said.
Crane told the Judiciary Committee:
Lawmaking in our nation has indeed taken a strange twist. Senators invite illegal aliens to testify before Congress…but American citizens working as law enforcement officers within our nation’s broken immigration system are purposely excluded from the process and prohibited from providing input.Suffice it to say, following the Boston terrorist attack, I was appalled to hear the Gang of Eight telling America that its legislation was what American law enforcement needs.
Crane criticized Obama and Congress for choosing a path of legalization for illegals rather than allowing immigration agents to crackdown on enforcement. “Unbelievably, [this bill] gives far greater authority to the president and secretary of DHS. Exactly the opposite of what our country needs to create a consistent and effective immigration system,” Crane concluded.
Watch video below of ICE union chief Crane’s stunning testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee:
Excerpt...click here for the full article

How Obama blew the sequester

Flopping Aces ^ | 04-27-13 | DrJohn

obama facepalm 2
It could have been a powerful tool. Obama blew it and blew it big. The real answer was simple.
The idea of the sequester came from the White House:

"In 2011, President Obama proposed the devastating sequestration cuts and stood by them. Now the Democrats continue saying Washington doesn’t have a spending problem, showing just out of touch the Democrats are with the American people. House Republicans have passed two bills that provide common-sense solutions that would reduce spending and preserve and strengthen our safety net for future generations. Instead of admitting we have a problem, Obama and the Democrats would rather find more tax increases. Our nation’s problem is spending and it’s time the president realizes that."
It was designed to cause maximum pain to the public:

The Washington Examiner reported Monday, “it is in the political interest of a president to inflict maximum pain on the American people.” “Now facing the consequences” of the automatic spending cuts his administration's sequester cuts will inflict upon Americans – and frustrated by Republican successes in blocking his effort to raise taxes and pass gun-control measures – The Washington Post reported Sunday that Obama is now “focused” on winning back control of the House to “forward” his agenda, “which he and his advisers believe will be crucial to the outcome of his second term and to his legacy as president.”
The worst case scenario for Washington was for a sequester to occur and no one to give a damn:

Three out of 4 Americans say they aren't following the spending cuts issue very closely, according to a Pew Research Center poll released this week. It's a significant drop from the nearly 4 in 10 who in December said they were closely following the fiscal-cliff debate. Public data from Google's search engine shows that at its peak in December, the search term "fiscal cliff" was about 10 times as popular as "sequestration" has been in recent days. Even "debt ceiling," not a huge thriller for the web-surfing crowd, maxed out in July 2011 at about three times the searches the sequester is now getting.
"We're now approaching the next alleged deadline of doom. And voters, having been told previously that the world might end, found it did not in the past and are becoming more skeptical that it will in the future," said Peter Brown of the nonpartisan Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
Oh sure, some were put off with the termination of the White House tours, but that was about it.
Thing is, there was a way that this sequester could have been designed to maximize the effect: design it to inconvenience Congress. Congress doesn't care about White House tours. There's a whole list of things Congress really doesn't care about here. What does Congress care about?
(excerpt) Read more at floppingaces.net...

U.S. Oil Production Set to Surpass Imports For First Time in 20 Years

Booming shale plays in North Dakota and Texas are juicing the nation's oil output and reducing our dependence on foreign imports

March 20, 2013 RSS Feed Print
U.S. could soon produce more oil than it imports from abroad.
The U.S. could soon produce more oil than it imports from abroad.
The domestic oil boom is poised to reach another milestone as projections have the nation's monthly crude oil production outpacing imports for the first time in almost 20 years.
Buoyed by booming shale plays in North Dakota and Texas, U.S. oil production will be 2 million barrels a day higher than imports by the end of 2014, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's Short-Term Energy Outlook.

"This projected change is primarily because of rising domestic crude oil production, particularly from shale and other tight rock formations in North Dakota and Texas," the agency noted on its website Wednesday.
After 2014, the gap between production and exports is expected to grow with domestic oil production skirting 8 million barrels a day by the end of 2014 while imports continue to wane. The gap could grow even faster if tight oil plays pan out better than expected.
U.S. Monthly Crude Oil Production and Imports
But just because the domestic energy industry is ramping up—oil production increased by about a million barrels a day according to the EIA—that doesn't mean the U.S. can stop importing foreign oil tomorrow.
[PHOTOS: BP Fined Record $4.5 Billion for Gulf Oil Spill]
"The United States is a huge consumer of oil and even though domestic production is rising significantly and is now over 7 million barrels per day, last year we consumed around 18.5 million barrels of oil per day," says Aaron Brady. "The size of our demand is just so big that it would require many more years of increases in production to become totally self-sufficient."
Still, rising domestic oil production benefits the United States in various ways, Brady says. Not only does importing less foreign oil improve our trade balance, but it increases national energy security and supports thousands of jobs in the oil and gas industries.

Just be right