Saturday, August 31, 2013

Why a nervous Hillary Clinton is remarkably silent on Syria!

Telegraph ^ | 8/30/13 | Nile Gardiner


I suspect a number of factors are behind Hillary Clinton’s reticence. Firstly, a US military intervention in the Syrian civil war is strongly opposed by the vast majority of the American public. A recent poll showed just nine percent of Americans backing US military involvement. She probably doesn’t see another war in the Muslim world as a vote winner in 2016. Secondly, she may well be harbouring doubts over the White House approach, which beyond the talk of airstrikes, lacks a coherent strategy, and the president hasn’t exactly made a clear-cut case that taking America to war in Syria is in the national interest. Thirdly, as “the Obama doctrine” goes down in flames in the Middle East, from Damascus to Cairo, Clinton will be nervous about being seen as part and parcel of it, which of course she is.

Fourthly, Clinton’s own track record on Syria has hardly been stellar. Before Syria descended into war, Clinton was a strong backer of engagement with Syria, greatly underestimating the nature of the Baathist regime, famously referring to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as a “reformer” in April 2011. In addition, as Washington’s most senior foreign policy official, Clinton did little to stand up to Moscow’s aggressive support for the Syrians, eager to appease the Russians through the controversial “reset” strategy, which was her own brainchild. In addition, the Secretary of State was weak in the face of Iran, whose military and financial backing for the Assad regime has been vital to its survival.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...

‘AMATEUR HOUR’: Krauthammer slams Obama’s sudden decision to delay Syria strike

 [VIDEO]
The Daily Caller ^ | 08/31/2013 | Jeff Poor 

Immediately following his statement from the Rose Garden on Saturday, which President Barack Obama said he would delay a strike on Syria until seeking authorization from Congress, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer took to Fox News to slam the president.
Krauthammer criticized Obama for the way he has handled the unfolding of events surrounding the crisis in Syria.
“[T]he most astonishing thing is the lack of any urgency,” Krauthammer said. “As you say, Congress will be back in a week. He says, ‘I can strike in a day or a week or a month,’ as if he is a judge handing down a sentence and the execution can be any time in the future. There is a war going on. Do you think everybody is going to hold their breath, hold their arms, step aside until Obama decides when he wants to go to Congress?
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...

Public School Art Project Desecrates American Flag

Fox News Radio ^ | August 30, 2013 | Todd Starnes

Students at a Kentucky high school were encouraged to step on an American flag that had been placed on the floor as part of an art display, outraging parents and students.

The display at McCracken County High School, was a re-creation of “Dread” Scott Tyler’s 1989 installation titled “The Proper Way to Display an American Flag.” …

As part of the art exhibit, students were encouraged to stand on the flag and write their reflections on how they felt standing on the flag.

Local residents filled social networking sites with their outrage over the flag desecration with many calling for the art teacher to be fired. …

(Excerpt) Read more at radio.foxnews.com ...

NEGROS' Worst Economic Enemies: It’s their “friend” Barack Obama who has hurt them!

PJ Media ^ | August 30, 2013 11:56 AM | Tom Blumer

An Associated Press story appearing Wednesday morning claimed that Barack Obama’s presidency “has been marred by racist backlash.” Naturally, the cowards at AP didn’t specifically identify the source or nature of the alleged “backlash,” because to do so would expose the claim as a lie.

Earlier this week, Jesse Jackson did the lying for them. Jackson told Politico that he “absolutely” believes that the Republican Party’s opposition to Obama’s policies is motivated by race, and that “the tea party is the resurrection of the Confederacy.”
The economic scoreboard says otherwise.

The frightening data recently published by Sentier Research, a group of former Census Bureau employees who have been tracking monthly household income since the turn of the century, make it obvious that it is economically devastated African-Americans who should be absolutely furious with Barack Obama and the Democratic Party in Washington. …
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...

The Legacy of Liberalism

Townhall.com ^ | August 31, 2013 | John C. Goodman

The 50 year anniversary of Martin Luther King's march on Washington is causing a lot of people in my generation to reminisce.

In doing so, it is hard not to be struck by two puzzling facts: (a) the fall of racial barriers to success almost everywhere and (b) the lack of economic progress in the black community as a whole, relative to whites. On the one hand, it would seem that a black in America can achieve almost anything, even being elected president of the United States. On the other hand, if we compare the economic condition of blacks and whites as a whole, you would be tempted to conclude that almost no progress has been made.

For example, blogger Brad Plummer reminds us that:

· The gap in household income between blacks and whites hasn't really narrowed at all in the last 50 years.

· The black unemployment rate has consistently been twice as high as the white unemployment rate for 50 years.

· For the past 50 years, black unemployment has almost always been at recession levels.

This incongruity has given rise to two liberal myths — repeated frequently on television talk shows over the past week: (a) that the fall in racial barriers is the result of liberal legislation, designed to outlaw discrimination in the private sector and (b) that the lack of economic progress is evidence that liberals haven't done enough — that still more intervention is needed to correct the effects of current and past discrimination.

The reality I believe is just the reverse. The decline of racial barriers in the job market and throughout the economic system — at least outside the south — had very little to do with liberal legislation. But the lack of economic progress by the black community as a whole is in many ways the result of the liberal approach to politics. On balance, liberalism has been an obstacle to black progress, not a help.

The natural assumption is to believe that a lot of labor market regulation is preventing discrimination — against blacks and other minorities, against women, against…Well, against just about everybody who isn't a young, white male with an Ivy League degree. However, June O'Neill, an economist who used to direct the Congressional Budget Office, and her husband Dave O'Neill have produced acomprehensive study of this issue and they find that the natural assumption is wrong.

Take the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The O'Neills find that the black/white wage gap was narrowing at about the same rate in the two decades leading up to the passage of the act as it did in the years that followed. Only in the South is there evidence that the legislation mattered. Outside the South, federal legislation basically followed social change rather than lead it. The wages of blacks rose relative to those of whites over time for two primary reasons: (1) more schooling and better schooling and (2) the migration of blacks out of the South.

[The approach of the Kennedy White House to race relations, by the way, was similar to the way Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama approached gay rights. One is tempted to call it "cowardly." In all these cases, the politicians waited until public opinion had clearly shifted before announcing their own change of heart and before doing or saying anything that would be considered politically risky. In other words, these presidents didn't lead. They followed.]

But isn't there a lot of discrimination going on right now? Isn't regulation combatting it? Take the difference in pay for black and white men. The O'Neills find that the difference narrows to just 4% after adjusting for years of schooling and it reduces to zero when you factor in test scores on the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT), which is basically an intelligence test. In other words, after adjusting for just two factors that cause people to be different, the pay gap between black and white men disappears entirely. Among women, the gap actually reverses after adjusting for education and AFQT scores. Black women get paid more than white women.

Among Hispanic and white men, the pay gap narrows to 8% after adjusting for years of schooling and disappears altogether with the addition of AFQT scores. Among the women, these two variables cause the pay gap to reverse. As in the case of race, Hispanic women are actually paid somewhat more than white women.

But if discrimination isn't holding back black Americans, what is? Answer: the liberal economics.

The political genius of Roosevelt was to combine people who had nothing in common and who didn't even like each other into one grand coalition. This included farmers, labor union members, civil servants, the elderly, southern racists, blacks, etc. [Yes, black and white racists in the South both voted Democrat for years!] For each group, the liberal Democrat approach was to use the power of government to intervene in the marketplace. In return they expected political support. For example, the farmers got price supports; the steel workers got tariffs; the elderly got Social Security, etc.

In the Franklin Roosevelt era, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) became a cartel agent for the trucking industry as well as the railroads. The Civil Aeronautics Board became a cartel agent for the airlines. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) became a cartel agent for the broadcasters. The primary goal of all these agencies was to suppress "ruinous competition" and make sure the industries were profitable. Of course, you could argue (and some economists did) that regulation served the interest of both consumers and producers — a viewpoint that largely rejects almost everything Adam Smith said in the Wealth of Nations. However, even the pretense of consumer protection was blatantly tossed aside with the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act.

The goal of the NIRA (modeled after Italian fascism) was to allow each industry to set its own prices, set its own wages and control its own output. Had Roosevelt gotten his way, we would have had predatory monopolies in every market. Fortunately, the NIRA was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. But suppose the court had ruled the other way? Or suppose president Roosevelt had succeeded in his effort to overturn the decision by packing the court? Can you imagine what would have happened to blacks, immigrants, other minorities and any new entrants to the labor market?

Almost all government intervention in the labor market was designed to help establish unions (the modern equivalent of medieval guilds) and to promote their interests. Minimum wage laws were seen not as a way of lifting people out of poverty, but as a way of preventing blacks and other outsiders from competing for jobs. Skilled labor competes against unskilled labor. And the political goal of skilled labor has always been to price its competition out of the market.

Similarly, equal-pay-for-equal-work laws and the Davis Bacon Act (requiring that all workers on federal projects be paid the prevailing union wage) were seen as ways to prevent black workers from "stealing" white worker's jobs. In the old days, before there was "political correctness," politicians actually said these things in congressional debates.

What I'm describing contradicts not only Adam Smith, but also almost all of modern economics. Special monopoly privileges designed for one group create benefits for that group, but harm everyone else. And the harm to society as a whole is inevitably much greater than the benefits to the special interests.

That's where black Americans come in. Liberal government promises them a pittance or two. But these are mere crumbs compared to the harm of being closed out of huge portions of the labor market. Of being forced to send their children to bad schools because they cannot afford the price of an expensive house. Of being denied the right to choose better schools for their children because of counter promises made to the teacher's unions. Of being forced to rely on public provision of housing, transportation, and medical care because government regulation has priced low-cost alternatives out of the market. Of being seduced by a welfare state that subsidizes and enables single black mothers who try to provide for the 73% of all black children who are born out of wedlock. Of watching traditional black culture disintegrate along with the black family.

Here is background reading:

On the Democrats' unholy history on the question of race, see Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party's Buried Past.

On the consequences of liberal policies for black America, see Walter Williams, The State Against Blacks and other writings.

On an editorial that makes some of these same points, see Dr. Ben Carson, MLK Would Be Alarmed by Black-on-Black Violence, Lack of Family Values.

A Funny Look at How Obamacare Screws Young People

Daniel J. Mitchell
Recommend this article 
During the big-spending Bush years, economic and fiscal people inside the Administration often would sympathize with my complaints about bad policy, but say that there was nothing they could do since all the big decisions were being made by the political types in the White House.
In other words, Karl Rove and his crew were the ones who helped encourage Bush to hurt the country for short-run political gain.
So you can imagine I’m reluctant to give favorable attention to anything associated with Rove, but this new video from one of his organizations is too good not to share. The Department of Health and Human Services has a video contest to sucker gullible young people into signing up for Obamacare, and here’s the satirical gem put together by Crossroads GPS.
And since we’re mocking the Obama Administration’s wasteful video contest, let’s enjoy a great Lisa Benson cartoon on the same topic.
Cartoon Obamacare Video Contest
Perhaps not quite as good as my all-time favorite Benson cartoon, whichperfectly captures Obama’s fiscal policy, but still an excellent contribution to the debate.  I also very much like her fiscal cliff cartoon, this Keynesian economics cartoon, and this one about jump-starting the economy with tax hikes.

Barack Obama Ignores America's Murdered Kids

Friends of Ours ^ | 08/31/13 | Friends of Ours

Spare us the dramatics, Mr. President.

In a propaganda campaign Barack Obama is justifying his imminent attack against Syria by "showing the world newly declassified intelligence files that revealed how [the government] slaughtered at least 1,429 of its own people -- including 426 children -- with poison gas" as reported by the New York Post.
Of course the images of innocent civilians including children getting gassed is horrific, and there is no defense of that monster Bashar Assad who calls himself the Syrian President. However, the American people should not be emotionally manipulated into supporting another U.S.-led war in the Middle East by cheaply invoking the children.
Indeed, if the Obama Administration is as disturbed by murdered or otherwise victimized children as it purports then maybe it should ramp up police forces against the street gangs which violently rove throughout United States exploiting kids.
For example, in the Morrisania section of the Bronx street gangs are recruiting "boys as young as 9 or 10" to join their ranks as reported by WNYW. Similarly, a street gang in Suffolk County, NY is recruiting boys as young as nine years old as reported by Kevin Deutsch for Newsday: "police investigators believe that the gang's older members have sought out young neighborhood kids who 'show potential' for membership." Of course, a number of these gang juvies wind up dead, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention admits that "gang homicides account for a substantial proportion of homicides among youths in some U.S. cities" according to a recent report.
So if it's really all about the kids, President Obama, then why not flex some muscle to take out the killer gangs on America's streets? Charity begins at home.

The Destructive Farce of $15.00 Minimum Wage & Melancholia

Townhall.com ^ | August 31, 2013 | Charles Payne


Forces with ulterior motives continue to lead the lambs to slaughter.
Leveraging a mentality that things are "owed" rather than "earned" in America, unions and their agents along with those that still think Thomas More's Utopia is an ideal society are pushing for a minimum wage hike to $15.00 an hour - more than double the current rate.
Protesters are framing the issue that corporations are part of a public domain and naturally they should share in their good fortunes.
Moreover, corporate greed results in employees being their victims rather than victims of personal mistakes. There are higher paying jobs out there, why aren't these workers applying for those jobs?
The fact is, most fast food workers have cornered themselves into uncompetitive positions in the job market where better skilled workers make more money.
Still, in this period of redistribution of wealth and redistribution of accountability the minimum wage battleground is perfect as it evokes victimization, racism and the ills of capitalism.
Here are the facts.
> People go into business to make money. > Businesses pay taxes that more than cover the sidewalks and roads and have no moral obligation to pay salaries above free market levels. > Large fast food chains are struggling in the United States, with growth coming from outside this country. That growth has been underpinning profits and share prices. > States with minimum wages significantly above the federal level for the most part have higher unemployment rates than the national average.
There are really short memories out there, but only two years ago McDonalds' locations were mobbed with job applicants during a one-day job fair. Some places had as many as twenty applicants for each job, and now these same workers are demanding a hundred percent wage increase. The summer I worked at McDonalds, there were 300 applicants for three jobs, and the interview process took hours. After the first round of interviews, the manager came and whispered to me I got the job, but I had to wait until the other positions were filled.
I considered the job a stepping stone, a place to get some spending money and stay off the streets. I was always grateful and worked hard. But I knew it wasn't a career, although I met people in management programs that were making good money. I moved on as did Jay Leno, Sharon Stone, Carl Lewis and Jeff Bezos. The private sector shouldn't be made to take on the role of government welfare agencies basing wages on workers' needs rather than worker skills. But mostly those kids that have dropped out of school or aren't marketable shouldn't buy into the notion it's not their own fault.
The nation isn't going to compete in the new economy with so much focus on artificial wages and limiting profits and wealth of businesses and individuals. Sure, it might seem an attractive Utopia but it would destroy America's greatness, and before that would harm the so-called poor significantly more.
Sad (last) Days of summerMelancholy A feeling of pensive sadness, typically with no obvious cause.
Synonyms: sadness, sorrow, unhappiness, woe, desolation, dejection, depression, despondency, gloom and misery.
This morning's commute was the epitome of bittersweet, as is each Friday before Labor Day. The commute was as easy as pie, like driving down the Pacific Coast highway without any other cars on the road. The Doobie Bothers were blaring on my radio, and I put the Jaguar to the test. Yet, throughout the ride, I knew this was the last time this year I would have it this easy. Traffic is back on Tuesday and it's supposed to rain on the east coast. I get this sense of melancholy each year at this time.
This year, it might be more acute because it's matched with the mood of the nation.
The nation is stuck in a rut of pensive sadness that manifests itself with a range of emotions from anger to indifference. It weighs on the economy and weighs on personal decision-making. Our knee-jerk reaction is always defensive, with a narrative of shifting blame and assigning punishment. Yesterday on Varney & Co, we had the founder of Lumber Liquidators (LL) on the show in part because I had been singing his praises as yet another great American success story.
Tom Sullivan started the company as a natural progression of life when he saw an opportunity selling lumber in a way that wasn't being done. He's almost a billionaire, and people that invested in his company (including our subscribers) are making money, too. One of my biggest goals is to get people to see behind the numbers and know these companies aren't just numbers and stock symbols but people, including those that start them and establish a culture.
As it turns out, Tom was a great guest. He was lively, excited and inspirational, but then he did it... he talked about the fundraiser he had very recently for President Obama. Naturally, we were shocked that someone that's attained so much in a system that the president is trying to dismantle would add cash to his coffers. Tom said he liked the president and thinks he means well. In my mind, if dismantling America and piecing it back together as a nation that scorns success is well-meaning, then so be it.
When the interview was over someone tweeted me he will never buy from Lumber Liquidators again.
I get where this person is coming from, but I have to say this is a slippery slope. I had a woman email earlier in the year with the list of companies she and her husband shop at, and it was shorter than the ones they're boycotting because of political ties and leanings of management. I didn't make her day when I told her Costco (COST), on her approved list, probably had to be struck off considering all the money the CEO raised for President Obama and his speech at the DNC.
I wondered how old she and her husband were and thought maybe they should watch "Duck Dynasty" and learn how to hunt just to be on the safe side and make sure not a penny of her money ends up in the pockets of the wrong politicians and organizations. I get it... I bought a copy of the movie "Milk" years ago and never opened the box. My disdain for Sean Penn, the person, has clouded my appreciation for Sean Penn the actor.
This line of thought has stopped so many people from investing in the stock market. Conservatives have missed one of the greatest stock market rallies of their lifetime because they inter-mingled the notion of investing success during this administration as helping the enemy. It's a pity because we all have to be careful that our disdain for a political party or the ideology running America doesn't cloud our appreciation or love for America.

Is Syria a real problem or just the latest phony scandal?

Coach Is Right ^ | 8/31/2013 | Jim Emerson

Slow Down In a rush to start a military strike against Syria, the Nobel Peace prize recipient is being told to slow down by the UN and European countries. Obama’s request for the assistance of old allies in his mad scramble to protect al Qaeda-led rebels from the Syrian Regime was soundly rejected by Britain. Valerie Jarrett must have demanded Obama strike Assad immediately. After all, the rebellion is being influenced by the Mo-Bros with Saudi oil money. When you read anything that says Brotherhood fighters it actually means al Qaeda.
Chemical attack On August 21st, chemical weapons were used against the civilian population in the Damascus area, killing at least 350. The rebels and the Kenyan Muslim blame the al-Assad regime and the Syrian Government blames the rebels. At the time of this writing, no proof has been presented as to who deployed the chemical agent. UN inspectors will report their findings to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. The British and the French are telling Obama to wait until the UN weapons inspectors report before taking any military action. Obama’s White House took the allies support for granted, as he had during the Muslim Brotherhood-led Libyan effort.
Arrogance Secretary of State John Kerry openly accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons without any evidence what-so-ever and went on to accuse the regime of tying to interfere with UN weapon inspectors by claiming they had something to hide. The Syrians could take a lesson from Kerry on how to hide a Yacht from his home state tax collectors. Obama believes that he can unilaterally strike Syria without a UN Resolution or support from America’s allies–the very thing he accused the Bush Administration of doing before sending troops to invade Iraq. The Russians and the Chinese are warning Obama not to intervene in Syria. The UN is telling the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate to wait on a diplomatic solution. (2)
Wag the Dog This is the distraction the Obama Administration dearly needed. The chemical attack has redirected the public’s attention away from the various calumnies dogging the White House; the Benghazi, IRS and NSA problems for example. As long as Democrats can demonize Syria they can help the American public forget about these “phony” difficulties which have been plaguing the credibility of the Regime. Of course, it would work better if more voters actually cared about these issues. Maybe it’s because Jon Stewart isn’t talking about them. And that just begs the question: Who is the Hollywood director directing this latest DC, action-adventure?
Sources:
1. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/29/syria-strike-push-hits-hurdles/ 2. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/obama-strike-syria-britain-vote 3. http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/08/09/muslim-brotherhood-switches-its-focus-from-egypt-to-syria/ 4. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/syria-developments/index.html 5. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/27/russia-warns-against-us-strike-on-syria/2706861/

HOMELESS IN SILICON VALLEY: Hardship In America's Innovation Heartland

Business Insider ^ | 08/31/2013 | ROBERT JOHNSON

Silicon Valley has a serious homeless problem, despite the fact that the Valley is home to some of the richest zip codes in the nation. Over the past eight years the U.S. watched its homeless population decline by more than 130,000 people.
That's a nearly 17 percent drop that flies in the face of Silicon valley's 8 percent increase in its homeless population over the last two years.
Not including San Francisco — which has a serious homeless problem of its own — the Silicon Valley stretches through the Santa Clara Valley down from Redwood City, through Palo Alto, Mountain View, and San Jose.
What is causing the trend-bucking homelessness problem in the area? In addition to the rising cost of housing and lack of adequately paying jobs, we found that mental illness and substance abuse are problems in the Valley's homeless community like elsewhere in the country. Forty percent of the country's homeless suffer from substance abuse or mental illness and though the National Alliance on Mental Illness calls California's mentally ill housing the "gold standard," the state cut its mental health budget by 21 percent from 2009 to 2012.
"It's a perfect storm of homelessness," San Jose's Housing 100's Jennifer Loving told Business Insider referring to the budget cuts, lack of allocated housing, recession-era tax breaks in the county, a lack of adequately paying jobs, a growing wealth gap, and rising home prices for sales and rentals.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...

The Secret History of the U-2

Chicago Tribune ^ | Jeffrey T. Richelson | August 19, 2013

On Feb. 21, 1955, Richard M. Bissell, a senior CIA official, wrote a check on an agency account for $1.25 million and mailed it to the home of Kelly Johnson, chief engineer at the Lockheed Company's Burbank, Calif., plant. According to a newly declassified CIA history of the U-2 program, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive, the agency was about to sign a contract with Lockheed for $22.5 million to build 20 U-2 aircraft, but the company needed a cash infusion right away to keep the work going. Through the use of "unvouchered" funds — virtually free from any external oversight or accounting — the CIA could finance secret programs, such as the U-2. As it turned out, Lockheed produced the 20 aircraft at a total of $18,977,597 (including $1.9 million in profit), or less than $1 million per plane. In other words, the project came in under budget, a miracle in today's defense contracting world.
A source of deep pride for the U.S. intelligence community, the U-2 program survived the May 1, 1960, shoot-down of Francis Gary Powers over the Soviet Union, and the plane went on to spy for the CIA until 1974 — and the Air Force still operates the latest version today. Nevertheless, the agency has been holding back information about the U-2 for years. At a 1998 CIA-sponsored symposium to celebrate the U-2 program, one of the conference speakers was asked to refrain from mentioning how Chinese Nationalist pilots, based in Taiwan, flew agency U-2s over and near the People's Republic to gather intelligence on the PRC, including its nuclear programs. The speaker ignored the request, but that did not stop the CIA from maintaining that such information should remain officially classified.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...

16 Year Old Black Male Arrested For Stabbing White Man to Death Because He Had A ‘Hard Day”!


Gateway Pundit ^ | August 30, 2013 | Rachel Pulaski 
Posted on 8/31/2013 1:37:48 AM by 2ndDivisionVet
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
On January 6, 2013, 22 year old Jason Paul was found stabbed to death while riding his bike home in Clearwater, Florida. After stabbing Paul multiple times, the assailant left him for dead during the midnight hour. After months of searching for his killer and offering a $10,000 reward, the killer has been arrested. On Thursday, 16-year-old Mychal King was arrested and charged with the first-degree murder. King has a long criminal history and was already in jail for previous crimes. King admitted to killing Paul “for no reason” other than having “a hard day”.
ABC Action News reported:
Police said King admitted to killing Paul for no reason other than he had a hard day with his family that night of January 6, and “just wanted to kill the first person he saw.”
Police say 22-year-old Jason Taylor Paul was stabbed multiple times while riding his bike home from work late.
Jason’s parents, John and Renee Langfritz had been distraught since the news of Paul’s death, and desperate for closure, even offering a $10,000 reward for information.
Renee described her son as an intelligent, loving, funny man. She said his sudden loss has left a hole in the hearts of everyone who knew him.
“This coward, truly a coward, who would leave a young innocent man to die alone in the dark in the middle of the street, must be caught,” she said at the time.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...

Tough Week: Obama’s Approval Rating Hits Lowest On Record

Townhall.com ^ | August 30, 2013 | Daniel Doherty

This was a long time coming, no? Business Insider has the details:

President Barack Obama's approval rating has matched its lowest ever recorded in a new NBC News poll.

And huge drops in his foreign policy approval combined with poor marks for handling the situation in Syria are to blame.

Obama's overall approval rating stands at 44%. The only other time it has been that low in the NBC survey came at the end of 2011, after a bruising debt ceiling fight with Congress that ended in a downgrade of the nation's credit rating.

This time, the drop is largely due to foreign policy concerns. Only 41% approve of the way Obama is handling foreign policy, the lowest ever. Consider that just last December, 52% approved of the way he was handling foreign policy.

Meanwhile, Obamacare is a “train wreck” for many different reasons. The teen employment rate is nearing historic lows. Top secret classified information has been leaked. And of course, Syria is on fire and the president doesn’t seem to have a clue what he’s doing. A tough week, indeed.

12 Unspoken Rules For Being A Liberal

Townhall.com ^ | August 31, 2013 | John Hawkins

There may be no official rule book for being a liberal, but that doesn't mean there aren't rules. There are actually quite a few rules liberals go by and the more politically active liberals become, the more rigidly they tend to stick to their own code of behavior. These rules, most of which are unspoken, are passed along culturally on the Left and viciously enforced. Ironically, many liberals could not explain these rules to you and don't even consciously know they're following them. So, by reading this article, not only will you gain a better understanding of liberals, you'll know them better than they know themselves in some ways.

1) You justify your beliefs about yourself by your status as a liberal, not your deeds. The most sexist liberal can think of himself as a feminist while the greediest liberal can think of himself as generous. This is because liberals define themselves as being compassionate, open minded, kind, pro-science and intelligent not based on their actions or achievements, but based on their ideology. This is one of the most psychologically appealing aspects of liberalism because it allows you to be an awful person while still thinking of yourself as better than everyone else.

2) You exempt yourself from your attacks on America: Ever notice that liberals don't include themselves in their attacks on America? When they say, "This is a racist country," or ",This is a mean country," they certainly aren't referring to themselves or people who hold their views. Even though liberals supported the KKK, slaughtering the Indians, and putting the Japanese in internment camps, when they criticize those things, it's meant as an attack on everyone else EXCEPT LIBERALS. The only thing a liberal believes he can truly do wrong is to be insufficiently liberal.

3) What liberals like should be mandatory and what they don't like should be banned: There's an almost instinctual form of fascism that runs through most liberals. It's not enough for liberals to love gay marriage; everyone must be forced to love gay marriage. It's not enough for liberals to be afraid of guns; guns have to be banned. It's not enough for liberals to want to use energy-saving light bulbs; incandescent light bulbs must be banned. It's not enough for liberals to make sure most speakers on campuses are left-wing; conservative speakers must be shouted down or blocked from speaking.

4) The past is always inferior to the present: Liberals tend to view traditions, policies, and morals of past generations as arbitrary designs put in place by less enlightened people. Because of this, liberals don't pay much attention to why traditions developed or wonder about possible ramifications of their social engineering. It’s like an architect ripping out the foundation of a house without questioning the consequences and if the living room falls in on itself as a result, he concludes that means he needs to make even more changes.

5) Liberalism is a jealous god and no other God may come before it: A liberal "Christian" or "Jew" is almost an oxymoron because liberalism trumps faith for liberals. Taking your religious beliefs seriously means drawing hard lines about right and wrong and that's simply not allowed. Liberals demand that even God bow down on the altar of liberalism.

6) Liberals believe in indiscriminateness for thought: This one was so good that I stole it from my buddy, Evan Sayet: " Indiscriminateness of thought does not lead to indiscriminateness of policy. It leads the modern liberal to invariably side with evil over good, wrong over right and the behaviors that lead to failure over those that lead to success. Why? Very simply if nothing is to be recognized as better or worse than anything else then success is de facto unjust. There is no explanation for success if nothing is better than anything else and the greater the success the greater the injustice. Conversely and for the same reason, failure is de facto proof of victimization and the greater the failure, the greater the proof of the victim is, or the greater the victimization."

7) Intentions are much more important than results: Liberals decide what programs to support based on whether they make them feel good or bad about themselves, not because they work or don't work. A DDT ban that has killed millions is judged a success by liberals because it makes them feel as if they care about the environment. A government program that wastes billions and doesn't work is a stunning triumph to the Left if it has a compassionate sounding name. It would be easier to convince a liberal to support a program by calling it the “Saving Women And Puppies Bill" than showing that it would save 100,000 lives.

8) The only real sins are helping conservatism or harming liberalism: Conservatives often marvel at the fact that liberals will happily elect every sort of pervert, deviant, and criminal you can imagine without a second thought. That's because right and wrong don't come into the picture for liberals. They have one standard: Does this politician help or hurt liberalism? If a politician helps liberalism, he has a free pass to do almost anything and many of them do just that.

9) All solutions must be government-oriented: Liberals may not be as down on government as conservatives are, but on some level, even they recognize that it doesn't work very well. So, why are liberals so hell bent on centralizing as much power as possible in government? Simple, because they believe that they are better and smarter than everyone else by virtue of being liberals and centralized power gives them the opportunity to control more people's lives. There's nothing scarier to liberals than free people living their lives as they please without wanting or needing the government to nanny them.

10) You must be absolutely close minded: One of the key reasons liberals spend so much time vilifying people they don't like and questioning their motivations is to protect themselves from having to consider their arguments. This helps create a completely closed system for liberals. Conservative arguments are considered wrong by default since they're conservative and not worth hearing. On the other hand, liberals aren't going to make conservative arguments. So, a liberal goes to a liberal school, watches liberal news, listens to liberal politicians, has liberal friends, and then convinces himself that conservatives are all hateful, evil, racist Nazis so that any stray conservatism he hears should be ignored. It makes liberal minds into perfectly closed loops that are impervious to anything other than liberal doctrine.

11) Feelings are more important than logic: Liberals base their positions on emotions, not facts and logic and then they work backwards to shore up their position. This is why it's a waste of time to try to convince a liberal of anything based on logic. You don't "logic" someone out of a position that he didn't use "logic" to come up with in the first place.

12) Tribal affiliation is more important than individual action: There's one set of rules for members of the tribe and one set of rules for everyone else. Lying, breaking the rules, or fomenting hatred against a liberal in good standing may be out of bounds, but there are no rules when dealing with outsiders, who are viewed either as potential recruits, dupes to be tricked, or foes to be defeated. This is the same backwards mentality you see in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, except it's based on ideology, not religion.

Friday, August 30, 2013

Anti Iraq War Speech delivered by Illinois State Senator Barack Obama

danaroc.com ^ | October 2, 2002 | Barack HUSSEIN 0bama

Good afternoon. Let begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don't oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don't oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administrations pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.
I don't oppose all wars.
And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perles and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone thru the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Queda, thru effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons in already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not we will not travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

BET YOU DIDN'T KNOW THE SOURCE OF THESE IDIOMATIC EXPRESSIONS

Early aircraft's throttles had a ball on the end of it, in order to go full throttle the pilot had to push the throttle all the way forward into the wall of the instrument panel. Hence "balls to the wall" for going very fast. And now you know, the rest of the story.
********************************* During WWII , U.S. airplanes were armed with belts of bullets which they would shoot during dogfights and on strafing runs. These belts were folded into the wing compartments that fed their machine guns. These belts measure 27 feet and contained hundreds of rounds of bullets. Often times, the pilots would return from their missions having expended all of their bullets on various targets. They would say, �I gave them the whole nine yards,� meaning they used up all of their ammunition.
********************************* Did you know the saying "God willing and the creek don't rise" was in reference to the Creek Indians and not a body of water? It was written by Benjamin Hawkins in the late 18th century. He was a politician and Indian diplomat. While in the south, Hawkins was requested by the President of the U.S. to return to Washington . In his response, he was said to write, "God willing and the Creek don't rise." Because he capitalized the word "Creek" it is deduced that he was referring to the Creek Indian tribe and not a body of water.
********************************* In George Washington's days, there were no cameras. One's image was either sculpted or painted. Some paintings of George Washington showed him standing behind a desk with one arm behind his back while others showed both legs and both arms. Prices charged by painters were not based on how many people were to be painted, but by how many limbs were to be painted. Arms and legs are 'limbs,' therefore painting them would cost the buyer more. Hence the expression, 'Okay, but it'll cost you an arm and a leg.' (Artists know hands and arms are more difficult to paint.)
****************************** As incredible as it sounds, men and women took baths only twice a year (May and October). Women kept their hair covered, while men shaved their heads (because of lice and bugs) and wore wigs. Wealthy men could afford good wigs made from wool. They couldn't wash the wigs, so to clean them they would carve out a loaf of bread, put the wig in the shell, and bake it for 30 minutes. The heat would make the wig big and fluffy, hence the term 'big wig'. Today we often use the term 'here comes the Big Wig' because someone appears to be or is powerful and wealthy.
********************************* In the late 1700's, many houses consisted of a large room with only one chair. Commonly, a long wide board folded down from the wall, and was used for dining. The 'head of the household' always sat in the chair while everyone else ate sitting on the floor. Occasionally a guest, who was usually a man, would be invited to sit in this chair during a meal. To sit in the chair meant you were important and in charge. They called the one sitting in the chair the 'chair man.' Today in business, we use the expression or title 'Chairman' or 'Chairman of the Board.'
********************************* Personal hygiene left much room for improvement. As a result, many women and men had developed acne scars by adulthood. The women would spread bee's wax over their facial skin to smooth out their complexions. When they were speaking to each other, if a woman began to stare at another woman's face she was told, 'mind your own bee's wax.' Should the woman smile, the wax would crack, hence the term 'crack a smile'. In addition, when they sat too close to the fire, the wax would melt. Therefore, the expression 'losing face.'
********************************* Ladies wore corsets, which would lace up in the front. A proper and dignified woman, as in 'straight laced' wore a tightly tied lace.
********************************* Common entertainment included playing cards. However, there was a tax levied when purchasing playing cards but only applicable to the 'Ace of Spades.' To avoid paying the tax, people would purchase 51 cards instead. Yet, since most games require 52 cards, these people were thought to be stupid or dumb because they weren't 'playing with a full deck.'
******************************** Early politicians required feedback from the public to determine what the people considered important. Since there were no telephones, TV's or radios, the politicians sent their assistants to local taverns, pubs, and bars. They were told to 'go sip some Ale and listen to people's conversations and political concerns. Many assistants were dispatched at different times. 'You go sip here' and 'You go sip there.' The two words 'go sip' were eventually combined when referring to the local opinion and, thus we have the term 'gossip.'
********************************** At local taverns, pubs, and bars, people drank from pint and quart-sized containers. A bar maid's job was to keep an eye on the customers and keep the drinks coming. She had to pay close attention and remember who was drinking in 'pints' and who was drinking in 'quarts,' hence the phrase 'minding your 'P's and Q's'.
********************************** One more: bet you didn't know this! In the heyday of sailing ships, all war ships and many freighters carried iron cannons. Those cannons fired round iron cannon balls. It was necessary to keep a good supply near the cannon. However, how to prevent them from rolling about the deck? The best storage method devised was a square-based pyramid with one ball on top, resting on four resting on nine, which rested on sixteen. Thus, a supply of 30 cannon balls could be stacked in a small area right next to the cannon. There was only one problem....how to prevent the bottom layer from sliding or rolling from under the others. The solution was a metal plate called a 'Monkey' with 16 round indentations. However, if this plate were made of iron, the iron balls would quickly rust to it. The solution to the rusting problem was to make 'Brass Monkeys.' Few landlubbers realize that brass contracts much more and much faster than iron when chilled.. Consequently, when the temperature dropped too far, the brass indentations would shrink so much that the iron cannonballs would come right off the monkey; Thus, it was quite literally, 'Cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.' (All this time, you thought that was an improper expression, didn't you.)
If you don't send this fabulous bit of historic knowledge to any and all your unsuspecting friends, your hard drive will kill your mouse.

COMPARING CROWDS: WHO DREW MORE PEOPLE TO THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL, OBAMA OR BECK?

The Blaze ^ | Aug. 29, 2013 11:11am | Mike Opelka

Wednesday was a big day in Washington, D.C. Huge crowds swarmed the area beneath the Lincoln Memorial and along the Reflecting Pool as three American presidents — Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush could not attend due to health reasons) — a host of congressional representatives and dignitaries gathered to mark the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington and Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech.
NBC News initially described the crowd in a rather nebulous manner, reporting that “throngs of people” were there. The post was amended to say “tens of thousands.”
The New York Times coverage only mentioned crowd size once, using the phrase “tens of thousands of Americans.”
ABC News’ Mike Levine quoted “unofficial” law enforcement estimates saying “over 20,000″ people were on the National Mall just after 2 p.m.
CBS News actually posted a photo from above the crowd, estimating “tens of thousands” of people.
Back in 2010 during “Restoring Honor,” AirPhotosLive provided CBS with the crowd estimate of 87,000.
Looking back to “Restoring Honor,” media accounts of the crowd size varied quite a bit. However, even the lowest estimate from CBS News appears to have dwarfed Wednesday’s event.
CBS News: 87,000 (plus or minus 9,000)
ABC News: 100,000
NBC News: Tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Between 120,000 – 200,000
Washington Post: Between 80,000 – 200,000
Australia’s Daily Telegraph: 300,000
How many were on the National Mall on 8-28-2013 vs. 8-28-2010? The photos show a compelling argument that Beck’s rally was an easy winner in the total attendees category.

Plunge: MSNBC Ratings in Free Fall

Townhall.com ^ | August 29, 2013 | Guy Benson


Unabashed, sneering, surreal lefty propaganda isn't selling.  America's least-watched "major" cable "news" network has continued its ratings slide this summer, falling off a cliff within the key 25-54 demographic.  I put "news" in scare quotes because MSNBC is not a news outfit, by its own president's admission, and according to empirical independent studies.  The network's numbers are way down across the board and have sustained especially dramatic erosion during the key primetime hours:



MSNBC continued its rough 2013 in the ratings, continuing to lose significant audience from 2012. The problems were particularly prevalent in primetime, with some shows losing close to -50% of viewers....In primetime, “The Rachel Maddow Show” posted all-time low ratings in total and demo viewers, down -43% and -47%, respectively. “The Last Word” posted a low in total viewers, losing -40% of its total viewer audience and -42% of its demo audience. at 8 PM, “All in” was down -48% and -42% in total and demo viewers, respectively, placing behind CNN for the hour.


MSNBC's flagship program, The Rachel Maddow Show has hemorrhaged nearly half of its viewers over the past year.  On average, the network attracted a measly 173,000 primetime viewers within 'the demo' this month.  Things have gotten bad enough that MSNBC executives have decided to restore Ed Schultz to weeknights at 5pm ET, supplanting the first run of Chris Matthews' Hardball.  Schultz -- afailed conservative radio host -- is the angriest, yelliest host in the network, and was banished to weekends this past spring.  Now he's back to save the day.  Ranting about how Republicans "want to see you dead!" is evidently more appealing to MSNBC's sophisticated audience than the musings of a more cerebral host like Chris Hayes, who replaced Schultz in the 8pm hour.  Not all the ratings data is bad for the network, however:


MSNBC was the only cable channel to see viewership growth last August, thanks in part to live coverage from the Olympics...It should also be noted that with the slow news month, the weekend crime programming like “Lockup” rated very well for MSNBC, helping to boost its primetime and total day averages.


Perfect.  MSNBC performs best with America's television audience writ large when it steps away from its normal political programming to air sports and documentaries about prison life.  I'll leave you with Big Ed returning with a bang:

Obama: Sex Ed for Kindergartners ‘Is the Right Thing to Do’

CNS News ^ | August 30, 2013 | Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) - The Chicago Public Schools this year are mandating that the district’s kindergarten classes include sex education, fulfilling a proposal President Barack Obama supported in 2003 when he served in the Illinois state senate and later defended when he ran for president in the 2008 election cycle.

At a Planned Parenthood convention at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Washington, D.C., on July 17, 2007, a teenage girl who said she worked as a sex-education “peer educator” in the D.C. public schools asked then-U.S. Sen. Obama what he would do to encourage the teaching of “medically accurate, age-appropriate, and responsible sex education.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...

Obama Better Have the Goods on Syria

New York Magazine ^ 

I’m predisposed to favor a punitive air strike against Syria for its apparent use of chemical weapons against civilians. But there are some important questions being raised by skeptics of such a strike.
The primary question centers on the legality or moral legitimacy of attacking a country with whom we are not at war. The clearest justifications for military action don’t apply. This is not a case of self-defense, or defense of an ally, or the prevention of genocide. There is an international treaty banning the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but Syria didn’t sign it, perhaps correctly calculating that it would one day need to use such weapons. We would be enforcing an informal norm against the use of chemical weapons against civilians.
I think the enforcement of such a norm is legitimate and would make Bashar al-Assad and other dictators hesitate before using such weapons in the future. But if you’re resting the morality of your attack on such a slender reed, you need very strong evidence that the regime you’re targeting actually used chemical weapons. And the administration’s case is starting to look shaky:
Multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture …
A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad's forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture.
British intelligence asserts that it has “a limited but growing body of intelligence which supports the judgement that the regime was responsible for the attacks and that they were conducted to help clear the Opposition from strategic parts of Damascus.” That "limited" bit does not provide the level of certainty I was hoping to hear.
The weaker legal basis for a military strike requires a higher factual basis of proof. The Obama administration needs to nail down its case (which it is reportedly due to present publicly today), and if it can’t, it needs to back down.
Update: The UK Parliament has voted not to participate in any strike against Syria. Meanwhile, Obama is apparently ready to go it alone. This seems like a dangerous combination: If you're enforcing an international norm, you ought to have not only very solid evidence that it was broken but also at least some international support. Otherwise it is less an international norm than an American norm.
It's one thing if the case involves an imminent massacre, like in Libya. But the urgency of action, and potential benefits, are much lower in this case. I don't think we're in danger of being sucked into a war -- that's just people assuming the most recent historical experience will be repeated, the same mistake that always happens in foreign policy. But the case for action just keeps fraying around the edges at every point. At the very least, the burden of proof on Obama to produce unimpeachable evidence for Syrian guilt is extremely high.

How to find and buy firearms, ammunition and related items online

The Daily Caller ^ | August 30, 2013 | Jim Wingo

Are you having trouble finding firearms or magazines, but especially ammunition in stock and at reasonable prices?
I have had a number of people tell me they can’t find ammunition. Since early February, I have bought and sold many rounds of ammunition and a number of firearms, magazines and other accessories over the Internet. I’ve also sold literally thousands of rounds of the ammunition I found to friends and coworkers. I shared with them how I do it, and now I share here as well.
I have been so busy in my “day job”, that I had not noticed there was already a panic underway until the Gun Show the first weekend of December 2012. There I learned that the ammunition vendors sold out their entire stock of .223 and 5.56 mm ammunition within two hours.
Then on December 14 a psychotic boy murdered his own mother and 20 six and seven year old kids, and six adults with his mother’s AR-15 at Sandy Hook Elementary school. In the aftermath began a firestorm of debate over whether to expand national gun control laws. Subsequent fears of a new ban on AR and AK type weapons and high capacity magazines fueled an epic buying frenzy.
Now in late-August, the panic of 2013 has subsided, somewhat. Firearms and ammunition are appearing on store shelves again, but gunpowder and some calibers of ammunition continue to be difficult to find or non-existent.
Here’s how to find the ammunition that is available and how to buy through eBay style auction web sites like Gun Broker, Gun Auction and Guns America, and find deals through online commercial vendors using search sites like Slickguns, Gun-deals and Ammo Seek......
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...

Who are the neo-con cowboys now?

NY Post ^ | August 30, 2013 | BENNY AVNI

The secretary of state boiled with moral indignation, American pride and war bluster. The defense secretary huffed that America has “moved assets in place” and is “ready” to punish the strongman. And though the president says he has yet to decide whether to attack, leaked details of the coming military action were all over the newspapers: Within “days,” US Navy ships will launch a barrage of Tomahawks at selected targets.
Have George W. Bush and his band of cowboy neo-cons retaken the White House?
If only. This time the secretary of state is John Kerry, who launched a political career opposing the Vietnam War. The defense secretary? Chuck Hagel, who revived his career by quitting his party after the Iraq war.

They’re part of a team that includes Vice President Joe Biden, who once vowed to impeach any president that goes to war without congressional approval. And, of course, President Obama, who became president in large part because, as a junior senator, he voted against the Iraq war. And who has been insisting that the “tide of war is receding.”

What’s up with all that?
… So: Based on Israeli intelligence, America plans to hit a Mideast Baathist regime over weapons of mass destruction, ignoring the UN —and even Congress. Have we missed any of the clich├ęs that were (unfairly) thrown at Bush and the neo-cons before and after the Iraq war?
(Excerpt) Read more at m.nypost.com ...

Obama Admin. to Reap the 'Harvests' of Lost Credibility ; Bengazi, Fast & Furious, NATO

Aug 30 2013 | Lee Martell

The British may be starting to awaken to what sort of administration they are dealing with in the United States under this President. England stunned many, delighted others when they collectively refused to give Prime Minister David Cameron the go ahead to team with America for an aerial attack on Syria. Go look at Drudge today and see the open letter to President Obama daring him, double daring him to attack Syria as he has repeatedly threatened. The propaganda article is supposedly written by Hafez Assad, President Assads'11 year old boy. Of course this was not written by a child, but the point is Syria and everybody else could see Obama does not wish to fight back in a strong and clear manner. President Obama is well known for chosing to "lead from behind'.
One of many reasons England is not down for the struggle with us for this as now presented is because this White House is notorious for it's lying, it's parsing of the truth, it's legalese , its' self serving and elliptical way of reasoning. Very few countries trust the U.S. to back it's words with actions over the long term, regardless of what is promised today.
Does the Obama Administration really think we Tea Party people are the only ones who have been appalled and disgusted by their immoral, unethical behavior in so many recent instances? It boggles the mind, what has been allowed to continue; Fast and Furious type weaponry loosely distributed in Mexico, never mind the innocent citizens who continue being mowed down by drug cartels freshly armed with these unmarked guns from America.
Do they think no one was bothered by Susan Rice, she of the poker faced liars' club. Susan Rice who blamed an amateur film producer. This producer is or was a political prisoner serving jail time for Hillary's convinence. There are simply too many instances of less than honorable behavior from this administration to take the gamble, if based on what is now told to us.
The instances that highlight the unclear loyalty of this administration continue to this day. On March 13 2013, Hagel announced that The Pentagon cancelled the planned 4th stage of an anti-missile system that had been scheduled for Poland in 2022.

PETA: Eating Chicken Wings During Pregnancy Could Affect Baby’s Penis Size

CBS Philadelphia ^ | August 30, 2013

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – Eating chicken parts – or, more specifically, chicken wings – could shrink your baby’s man parts.

At least, that’s what PETA is alleging in advance of the National Buffalo Wing Festival.
According to a letter from PETA to Drew Cerza, the founder of the festival, “The latest scientific evidence shows that the sons of pregnant women who consume chicken are more likely to have smaller penises because of a chemical found in the birds’ flesh.”


(Excerpt) Read more at philadelphia.cbslocal.com ...

Obama Doesn't Address What Blacks Lack Most: Jobs!

Townhall.com ^ | August 30, 2013 | Donald Lambro


WASHINGTON -- The solitary sign in the middle of the throngs who gathered at the Lincoln Memorial on Wednesday raised the salient issue that went largely unmentioned by the speakers at the podium: jobs.
In a photograph that ran across the front page of The Washington Post Thursday morning, a black woman held up a large placard that said "We Still Have a Dream: Jobs, Peace, Freedom."
That sign spoke volumes about that one issue that still plagues the African-American community, whose jobless rates are off the charts. It's especially heart-wrenching that jobs came first on the list, above peace and freedom.
That was the unspoken and unfulfilled agenda at the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington where the Rev. Martin Luther King delivered his moving clarion call for racial justice.
The long line of Democrats, including President Obama, refused to acknowledge their party's biggest failure and its most embarrassing, self-inflicted wound -- the refusal to enact pro-growth, pro-job policies to open new economic opportunities for everyone.
Obama's address dealt for the most part with our country's remaining racial issues, but gave little or no serious attention to the weak economy that has hurt black people more than any other group.
Several days before the 50th anniversary observance, the Pew Research Center put out an economic report card on black advancement that said the black unemployment rate remains as bad as ever.
"Much has changed for African-Americans since the 1963 March on Washington" -- which, it will be recalled, was a march for "Jobs and Freedom" -- "but one thing hasn't: The unemployment rate among blacks is about double that among whites." If anything, it's gotten worse.
A recent report from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute says that in 1963 the unemployment rate for whites was 5 percent and 10.9 percent for blacks. Now it is nearly 13 percent for all blacks nationally, and 41.6 percent for young blacks 17 and older.
The poverty rate among blacks remains high and is falling much more slowly than it did in the 1960s. It declined from 55.1 percent to 32.2 percent between 1959 and 1969, but in more recent years has stalled or, in many areas, grown worse. Nearly 30 percent of black households are now below the poverty income line -- three times the rate for whites.
In his address on Wednesday, Obama wasn't willing to face the grim reality that his 1930s-style economic policies were hurting his own people.
Instead, as he has before, he portrayed the economic circumstances facing blacks as one of fairness, insinuating that maybe there was some discrimination in there, too. It isn't his policies that are wrong but "our economic system" that is to blame for the lack of jobs, he suggested.
"The test was not and never has been whether the doors of opportunity are cracked a bit wider for a few," he said. "It was whether our economic system provides a fair shot for the many -- for the black custodian and the white steelworker, the immigrant dishwasher and the Native American veteran. To win that battle, to answer that call, this remains our great unfinished business."
There's nothing wrong with an economic system that is open to everyone with ambition and dreams and God-given abilities. But Obama came into office believing he would end the recession and drive down unemployment by spending trillions of tax dollars on roads, bridges and other infrastructure, and more government programs.
Clearly, with the national unemployment rate still skirting 8 percent, and with 17 states posting unemployment rates between 7.6 percent and 9.5 percent, his ideas have not worked.
President Reagan took a different approach. He believed our economic system was not to blame for the recession he inherited; it was the government's policies that needed changing. As did President Kennedy in the 1960s, he cut income taxes across the board, including the maximum tax rate on job creators.
In a recent Washington Times op-ed column, free market economist Richard Rahn, who was chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at the time, relates what happened:
"Under Reagan, adult black unemployment fell by 20 percent, but under Mr. Obama, it has increased by 42 percent. Black teenage unemployment fell by 16 percent under Reagan, but has risen by 56 percent under Mr. Obama."
What Obama is selling in his speeches to voters, as he was on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial this week, is the politics of victimization. The answer to the jobs crisis isn't about giving the economy new tax incentives to invest and expand business and start new enterprises, he says. Rather, the answer is government and more of it.
Immediately after being sworn into office, Reagan flatly declared that "government is the problem" and that freeing private enterprise from suffocating taxation and regulation were the answers.
To those who said his tax cuts would help only the rich, Kennedy said "a rising tide lifts all boats," and Reagan believed that, too. A sign of the times during the 1980s was the emergence of an inspiring magazine called Black Enterprise that heralded the success of countless black entrepreneurs.
Obama's focus on the Mall wasn't on how to stimulate new business startups and job creation. It was on what he said was King's unfulfilled dream, "challenging those who erect new barriers to the vote, or ensuring the scales of justice work equally for all, and the criminal justice system is not simply a pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails."
But that did not address the most deeply held concerns of another young black woman out in the crowd who, the Post reported, held a homemade sign that read, "The Dream Without Work Is Dead."
"Reagan thought like an entrepreneur, and thus intuitively understood that economic growth creates opportunities for everyone," Rahn says.
What a shame that Obama didn't speak to the dreams of those on the Mall who held their "jobs" signs up, hoping for a chance to climb the economic ladder of opportunity.
What a tragedy that his policies will produce only more economic stagnation, long-term unemployment and lives of quiet desperation.

Skyrocketing crime rate in California called 'good progress' after jails emptied

American Thinker ^   | 06/16/2018 | Ed Straker  Here's a thought experiment: what happens if you release criminals, a lot of them, f...