Conservatrolling Topic

[Tails82]

Jen Jen Jen

You complain that a religious charity only serves people of its religion, which is not true. Obamacare seeks to punish any organization that does that. There are cases in court right now on account of the narrow exemptions. The Obama administration itself has recognized the problem, which was why it introduced a "compromise" measure which essentially did nothing (how do you compromise on a religious principle?)

[Tails82]

www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/13/Men-Still-2-1-Million-Jobs-Short-Of-Pre-Recession-Levels

Men Still 2.1 Million Jobs Short of Pre-Recession Levels

The latest jobs report reveals that male unemployment is nearly one percent higher than for women...Last month, 76.2 million men were employed. In December 2007, 78.3 million had jobs.

Fewer American women have or are seeking jobs. Last month's labor force participation rate for women was 57.3% compared to 59.4% in December 2007.

Today, a record 90,473,000 people are no longer in the U.S. labor force.

www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/14/The-Matthew-Shepard-Story-is-a-Lie

Almost everything you think you know about the Matthew Shepard narrative is false.

Which has been pointed out before

As gay journalist Aaron Hicklin, writing in The Advocate asks, “How do people sold on one version of history react to being told that the facts are slippery --- that thinking of Shepard’s murder as a hate crime does not mean it was a hate crime? And how does it color our understanding of such a crime if the perpetrator and victim not only knew each other but also had sex together, bought drugs from one another, and partied together?”

This startling revelation comes in The Book of Matt to be published next week by investigative journalist Stephen Jiminez, who over the course of years interviewed over 100 people including Shepard’s friends, friends of the killers, and the killers themselves.

According to The Advocate, one of the premier gay publications in the country, Jiminez “amassed enough anecdotal evidence to build a persuasive case that Shepard’s sexuality was, if not incidental, certain less central than popular consensus had lead us to believe.”

Even before Shepard died, two of his friends were peddling the narrative that he died at the hands of vicious homophobes. Within days the gay establishment latched onto what would drive the hate crimes story for years to come; even now, the Laramie Project, a stage play about the killing is performed all over the country. Indeed, it will be performed next week at Ford’s Theater in Washington DC.

But what really happened to Matthew Shepard?

He was beaten, tortured, and killed by one or both of the men now serving life sentences. But it turns out, according to Jiminez, that Shepard was a meth dealer himself and he was friends and sex partners with the man who led in his killing. Indeed, his killer may have killed him because Shepard allegedly came into possession of a large amount of methamphetamine and refused to give it up.

The book also shows that Shepard’s killer was on a five-day meth binge at the time of the killing.

As to be expected, Matthew Shepard Inc. is rallying to denounce the new narrative that his homosexuality had little or nothing to do with his murder...The agenda of the sexual left lives on lies. As we all know now, the back-story that brought us Roe v. Wade was a lie. And here we find the Matthew Shepard story was also a lie.

The sexual left approves of such lies because they get to what they consider to be an underlying truth. The author of The Advocate piece writes, “There are valuable reasons for telling certain stories in a certain way at pivotal times, but that doesn’t mean we have to hold on to them once they’ve outlived their usefulness.”

-Make up lie
-Admit "yeah, it was a lie" after the lie outlives its usefulness

www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/15/President-Obama-Blames-Technology-for-Job-Failure-Again

Obama Blames Technology for Job Failure--Again

On Sunday's edition of This Week, ABC News aired an interview conducted with President Barack Obama on Friday. Among other familiar Obama tropes--such as the threat not to negotiate with congressional leaders over the debt ceiling, which is odd considering he's perfectly willing to negotiate with Vladimir Putin--was the claim that slow job growth during his administration has been caused by technological advancement.

It is a claim that Obama has made repeatedly throughout his presidency. In 2011, he cited the same reasons for high unemployment in an interview with NBC News' Ann Curry: "If you see it when you go to a bank you use the ATM, you don't go to a bank teller. Or you go to the airport and you use a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate," he said. He apparently believes there is a trade-off between innovation and employment.

That is an odd conviction for a president who purports to believe in the importance of innovation to the U.S. economy. The White House even has a "Strategy for American Innovation" that aims "to ensure economic growth that is rapid, broad-based, and sustained." In his recent economic speech at Knox College, Obama pledged to push for innovation in manufacturing and education, going around Congress if necessary.

Yet by the president's own faulty logic, these initiatives would cost American jobs (just ask those tellers and travel agents). Indeed, his push for alternative energy technologies, such wind and solar power and electric cars, would destroy thousands of fossil fuel jobs. (He is also aiming to do that, independently, through regulation that makes new coal plants cost-prohibitive and new oil leases impossible on public land.)

New technology does have a short-term effect on jobs in certain industries. But a growing economy creates new industries, as well. Over time, technology creates many more jobs, as well as greater welfare, which is the point of economic activity to begin with. On one level, the president--or his advisers--know this. But his big-government outlook on the world and his desire to avoid blame prevent him from admitting it.

Some of the interests most directly threatened by new technology--and by competition in general--also have the loudest voices in Washington, and have been Obama's sponsors throughout his political life. Big unions have always warped Obama's thinking on economic issues, a fact evident from his second autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, in which he admits the logic of free trade but cannot bring himself to support it.

He opposed the Central American Free Trade Agreement, he says, out of protest "against what I considered to be the [Bush] White House’s inattention to the losers from free trade" (209). That reveals a key aspect of Obama's political character: a keen sense of the potential of opposition politics, but no ability to grasp the interest of American society as a whole, no vision beyond a narrow, radical, utopian ideological sentiment.

That is why Obama excels at campaigning but fails at governing. The president who owes his own election to the most advanced technology ever deployed in a campaign, and who relies on support from members of a technologically-savvy generation, blames that same technology for his economic failures. It is not new invention, but old statism, that hampers Obama--but that is something he will not or cannot, understand.

[Deleted]

Sept 15, 2013 3:30:25 GMT -5 @zetta said:

Tasty tasty citations.

[Tails82]

www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/09/16/Time-mag-shields-americans-from-obamas-syria-failure


Time Magazine Shields America From Obama's Syria Failure

The Daily Caller reports that the September 16 issue of Time Magazine cover featured a photo of a satisfied-looking Vladmir Putin with the caption "Americans weak and waffling, Russia’s rich and resurgent” -- except in America. Here in the States, Time hid Putin's success and chose instead to put a sports story on the cover.

For whatever reason, Time Magazine decided that Americans in check-out lines across America would be more interested in a story about paying college athletes than a story about Obama's handling of Syria–a story that has consumed the nation's attention for the last ten days.

Just goes to show the type of low-info audience the mag gets...keep 'em uninformed and focus on celebrities, bury anything about Obama that doesn't involve hanging out with said celebrities...

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324665604579078940387757478.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

A Very Productive Chemical-Weapons Attack

President Obama has created a U.S. interest in preserving Assad in power to oversee Syria's WMD disarmament.

Bashar Assad may have pulled off the most successful use of chemical weapons in history. For the two years leading up to the Aug. 21 Damascus sarin gas attack, President Obama was saying that the Syrian dictator "must go." No longer. In one month, Assad has risen from outlaw butcher to partner in disarmament.

America's Syria policy today focuses not on mass murder, or on the metastasizing humanitarian and refugee crisis, or on combating the interests of Iran and its Hezbollah proxies in keeping Assad in power. Rather, with Russian President Vladimir Putin's help, U.S. policy under President Obama is concentrating on chemical-weapons disarmament.

Secretary of State John Kerry labors to enlist Assad in an arms-control project even while alleging that the dictator has used nerve gas in violation of Syria's obligations under the 1925 Geneva Protocol. U.S. policy is not to oust the Assad regime or even to encourage the Syrian people to do so. President Obama has now created a U.S. interest in preserving Assad in power.

This means Assad must stay, not go, for he is needed to negotiate and implement an arrangement to destroy Syria's chemical weapons. The arrangement, if successfully negotiated, will take years to implement. Arms control evidently means never having to say you're sorry.

Meanwhile, the Syrian rebels are exasperated and mistrustful, having seen Washington dangle the prospect of U.S. military strikes, only to back away. The Iranians are drawing comforting lessons about the lengths that the Obama administration will go to avoid military action in the Middle East. The Russians have been promoted from reprehensible accomplices in Assad's evil to indispensable peace negotiators—while they remain accomplices to that evil.

What lesson will dictators around the world derive from all this? They will see that there is enormous utility in creating a chemical-weapons arsenal, and even in using such weapons. Sarin gas, VX, anthrax and the like can be valuable for intimidating one's enemies, foreign and domestic, and for killing them. They can then be traded away at a very high price under the right circumstances. They can serve as a lifesaver for a dictator on the skids.

Clever dictators will realize that they can barter their chemical-weapons arsenals to buy time to crush an insurrection and then rebuild the arsenal after the population has been pacified.

By choosing not to tackle the difficult strategic and humanitarian challenges posed by the Syrian civil war, the president is now rewarding the very offenses that he said he wanted to punish. In the name of arms control, he is incentivizing the proliferation of chemical weapons. In the name of international law, he is undermining respect for treaties. In the name of U.S. interests, he is emboldening America's enemies.

Bashar Assad must be blessing the sarin gas that killed all those men, women and children on Aug. 21. If he did order that attack, it was a master stroke. The victims of chemical weapons shake in agony. Assad, Vladimir Putin and Iran's Ali Khamanei shake with laughter.

Barack is a reprehensible little turd.

www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/09/16/obama_claims_credit_for_robust_recovery

Now, today, ladies and gentlemen, "President Barack Obama is seeking credit for an economic turnaround, using the fifth anniversary of the collapse of the Lehman Brothers investment bank to highlight signs of recovery and to warn against potentially market-rattling fights over the federal budget and the nation's debt ceiling." That's right, you heard me. "Obama was scheduled to address the state of the economy Monday in a Rose Garden speech..."

Now, I don't know if this is still on, what with the naval yard shooting. But the original plan (and it may still be in place) was a state of the economy speech in the Rose Garden to talk about how great it is, how wonderful it is, this massive recovery. Folks, in five years, we're gonna talk about how great Obama has recovered this economy. He will be "accompanied by a selection of Americans who the White House says have benefited from the administration's policies.

"The event marks the start of a week-long focus on the economy after a month of preoccupation with the crisis in Syria." So they're just making stuff up now. What in the world are they taking credit for? The only place where there's anything to crow about economically is Washington, DC, and the areas of the country where there is fracking for oil going on -- and a couple of other pockets. But there are 90 million Americans not working. The labor force participation rate has plummeted.

Unemployment? If the same number of jobs existed today as when Obama took office five years ago, the unemployment rate would be near 11%. There is no economic recovery. Try this. "Over 65,000 US Bridges in Need of Repair." Again, the AP reporting.

"An Associated Press analysis of 607,380 bridges ... showed that 65,605 were classified as 'structurally deficient' and 20,808 as 'fracture critical.'" Of the 65,000 structurally deficient and 20,000 fracture critical, almost 8,000 were both. Now, I read that, and I said, "Well, now that's impossible, because we did a stimulus. We had the now-famous stimulus bill in March of 2009, two months after Obama was inaugurated, that dealt with this. We rebuilt all the roads and bridges."

While we were at it, we rebuilt all the crumbling schools -- and while we were at it, we rebuilt some roads. And then rebuilding the roads, we rebuilt the bridges. What is this, 20,000 bridges are fracture critical? After how many stimuli? And the president's gonna run out there in the Rose Garden today, that's the plan, with a bunch of Americans that supposedly have benefited from his policies, claiming credit for a robust economic recovery. This is all to set the stage (with the media helping, of course) to alarm anybody over the fact the Republicans might shut down the government.

He was asked about Putin's op-ed in the New York Times. "I don't care about style points. I'm not into style points and imagery and all that," as he's surrounded by supposed success cases in this massive economic recovery. The White House report on the economy just came out. Adjusted for inflation and population, only 45% of wealth lost during the recession has been recovered. That's from the White House own report. It's in a Daily Caller piece.

Now, this report does say that over the past 3.5 years, our businesses have created 7.5 million new jobs. Our businesses have created 7.5 million new jobs. Well, the population's grown seven million, roughly through the arrival of five million immigrants. The report does not mention wages or salaries, even though they have dropped...since 2009. It doesn't mention inequality, which has risen since 2009 -- which I just, again, mentioned.

They're just making it up, and they're making it up at the White House because they know they can. Low-information voters are gonna believe it. The media is gonna amplify it. If anybody stands up and tries to speak truth to power, they'll be shouted down as an extremist member of the Tea Party who's a racist and doesn't like the president because of his race. So they just get to make it up.

As Obama would say "we don't have a spending problem, we have a health care problem" which glorious leader solved for all time with glorious rate-hiking health bill. Leftist utopia #18524783592843 has only failed THIS time because Republicans are mean and blocked it.

[Tails82]

www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/17/what-is-obama-afraid/

Obama's constant need to campaign, even when people are dying

This is pretty much how it's been: blab blab blab and the media reports on whatever stupid thing he repeats today, instead of the scandals or those other pesky things he doesn't want to waste his time on, like Benghazi or Syria. It wouldn't work without a compliant press. There used to be this thing where journalists investigated things instead of taking up posts as regime parrots.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324665604579081144245072978.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Obama Goes to War

The President finds an enemy he's willing to bomb—Republicans.

Obama wants to smooth everything over abroad so he can get back to his favorite pursuit of declaring war at home.

Bingo. Before 2008 we were focused on foreign enemies, terrorists and tyrants. Obama's redirected those efforts and turned them on the American people. He even wanted to drone us at one point. Doesn't matter what happens to the rest of the world as long as he can consolidate power over his slice.

Among other crimes against humanity, he said the GOP refuses to abandon the budget restraint of the sequester spending cuts or to greet the Affordable Care Act with flowers and sweets.

There really has never been anything like this in the White House, at least not in the modern era. Ronald Reagan compromised on budget issues with a Democratic majority rather than trigger a debt limit crisis. George H.W. Bush signed onto a tax increase in 1990 in part so he could get Democratic support for the brewing Gulf War. Bill Clinton struck a budget deal and worked with Republicans on foreign policy. And facing a new Democratic majority in 2007, George W. Bush signed onto a fiscal "stimulus" and rotten energy bill well before the financial crisis compelled bipartisan votes.

Mr. Obama declares that he won't even deign to negotiate over an extension of the debt limit, which expires within a month or two. And he carpet-bombs Republicans only two weeks after House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor took a political risk and declared they'd vote for the President's Syrian war resolution against the views of most of their own Members.

The evidence suggests that Mr. Obama wants a showdown with Congress that ends with a government shutdown or a dance with default. He can then mount an offensive against Republicans that will rally his base, which soured on his Syrian plans and vetoed Larry Summers for the Federal Reserve. With his domestic agenda dead on Capitol Hill, Mr. Obama may also figure that stigmatizing Republicans over a shutdown-default crisis is the only way that Democrats can retake the House in 2014.

The question is how well all of this will play with a war-weary public. Mr. Obama is no longer the fresh young idealist President, and Americans are beginning to figure out his methods. Like Assad and Mr. Putin, they may conclude that he's no longer a President whose words they can take seriously.

Pardon me for being cynical, but that would require apathetic low-infos to finally start paying attention. There's not a very good track record on that, so as long as his skin color doesn't change Obama will remain the cool black dude who chills with their favorite celebrities, and the vice president will be that guy whose name they can't remember.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324576304579073111289821626.html

Five Years Later: Don't Mention the Feds

Washington and the media are peddling a narrative that discounts the government's role in the financial crisis.

With the fifth anniversary of the Lehman Brothers collapse, the media have been full of analyses about what happened in those fateful days. We hear plenty about Wall Street rapacity but any discussion of the government's central role in the disaster is neatly avoided. This historical airbrushing is something of a feat, given the facts.

At the time of Lehman's failure, half of all mortgages in the U.S.—28 million loans—were subprime or otherwise risky and low-quality. Of these, 74% were on the books of government agencies, principally the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae FNMA -1.67% and Freddie Mac FMCC -1.75% .

On their face, these numbers suggest that the government's housing policy had created the demand for these mortgages, and thus had something to do with Lehman's failure and the financial crisis. But in recent days nearly all articles have focused on the 26% of mortgages that were the responsibility of the private sector. It is as though the vast majority of the subprime mortgages that the government bought didn't exist.

In 2000...when then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo was raising the quota to 50%, the agency actually sounded boastful about its role...But then Lehman folded, and suddenly the government went silent on HUD's great work.

There is no doubt what really happened. Between 1997 and 2007, HUD's affordable-housing policies under two administrations built an enormous mortgage bubble—nine times as large as any bubble in modern history—and when this bubble collapsed, it caused a 30%-40% decline in housing prices. This left homeowners who had limited financial resources and no equity in their houses unable to refinance or sell, causing an unprecedented number of mortgage defaults. Shocked by these numbers, investors fled mortgage-backed securities, making them useless for short-term financing by financial institutions like Lehman. The result was a panic and a financial crisis.

When it became obvious that government policy was at fault, even Barney Frank—at the time the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and a principal backer of the affordable-housing goals—confessed that the policy had been misguided. On Larry Kudlow's CNBC show in 2010, Mr. Frank said: "I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie. It was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it."

It is now 2013 and we haven't abolished Fannie and Freddie, and there are still interests that hope—despite the disaster of 2008—to keep the government in charge of housing finance. They may succeed because the public has been steered away from memories of the government's essential role in the financial disaster and instead encouraged to blame the crisis on the private sector.

Obama invented airplanes too, I hear.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981304579079321154539590.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Electric car subsidies for the rich are now a drain on California's budget.

To meet the state's goal of cutting its greenhouse emissions to 80% below 1990 levels, effectively all new cars sold in California by 2040 will have to be electric or plug-in hybrids. As a regulatory weigh station, Governor Jerry Brown has ordered that 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles "be on California roads" by 2025. That last bit is the immediate rub.

Car makers are compelled by the California Air Resources Board to increase their electric fleets to meet these mandates. However, the battery-powered cars have been duds with most consumers. So the board has graciously allowed manufacturers to comply with its diktats by buying "credits." Palo Alto-based electric car maker Tesla has made a $119.5 million killing (300% of its net income) this year from hawking its excess credits.

To get more electric cars on the road, the state also offers consumers $2,500 rebates financed by a $20 "smog abatement fee," which all drivers in the state must pay for their first six registration years. The rebate is on top of the $7,500 federal tax credit and $1,000 or more the state pays drivers to retire their gas guzzlers. The combined government incentives can reduce the price of a Nissan electric Leaf to about $18,000.

But wait: According to state survey data, the typical rebate recipient earns over $150,000 and owns at least one other non-electric car. About 80% hail from the Bay Area, Los Angeles and Orange County. The most popular car among rebate recipients this year has been Tesla's Model S sports sedan, which runs between about $70,000 and $100,000...demand for rebates among the well-to-do is surging, which has created a funding squeeze. In March, the state had to create a waiting list. While the legislature appropriated an additional $15 million for rebates in June, the program is already running on empty and needs at least $30 million more to meet demand in the coming year.

Enter the California legislature, which has extended the smog abatement fee and other vehicle surcharges that finance its $200 million green slush fund to 2024 from 2016. Lawmakers also appropriated an additional $45 million this year for the rebates, including a $20 million "loan" from the Vehicle Inspection and Repair Fund's surplus (financed by a separate smog check fee). To keep the party going, Democrats might next tap the state's cap-and-trade revenues, which they probably would have done this year if Mr. Brown hadn't raided them to plug a $500 million budget hole.

To recap: California's emissions mandates are so onerous that they require mandates for electric cars that consumers won't buy without subsidies that go mainly to the wealthy and that are now so expensive that they have become another drain on the state budget. Look for the middle class to be hit with a fee or tax increase to make up the difference.

www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/16/Abortion-Clinics-Closing-At-Record-Rate-Nationwide

Abortion Clinics Closing at Record Rate Nationwide



washingtonexaminer.com/house-irs-sought-kept-tea-party-contributor-lists-could-make-them-public/article/2535949

House: IRS sought, kept Tea Party contributor lists, could make them public

An ongoing House Ways and Means Committee probe of the IRS scandal has uncovered proof that the agency demanded donor lists almost exclusively from conservative groups and could make them public despite promises to destroy the sensitive tallies of contributors.

Scandal's still going on

washingtonexaminer.com/3.2m-obamacare-ads-dont-mention-health-care-feature-flying-carrots/article/2535962

This is just freaking weird

$3.2m Obamacare ads don't mention health care, feature flying carrots

New Obamacare ads targeting Oregon residents never mention health care reform or the system's new health care exchanges opening Oct. 1, and instead feature psychedelic Images of people flying through the air singing, “Long live Oregonians, we’re free to be healthy.”

The so-called “Free” ads cost $3.2 million.

“Taxpayers are on the hook for $3.2 million for acid-trip TV ads promoting Obamacare in Oregon. Devoid of information about the state exchange, Oregon's newest Obamacare ad features absolutely no information about the health care law and what enrolling in the state exchange means,” said the group. They credited NWwatchdog.org for pointing out the ads.

The ad features a singer whose guitar grows wings, a fisherman whose catch of the day lifts him into the sky and farmer riding a huge carrot.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323527004579081530824927324.html

Washington, D.C., Mayor Vincent Gray says sequestration budget cuts might have played a role in Monday's shootings at the Navy Yard.

It was perhaps inevitable that Democrats would invoke the sequester at some point. It's what they have done repeatedly since the across-the-board federal budget cuts began in March. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell has cited sequester cuts in discussing wildfires out West. House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer blamed them after the Boston Marathon bombings. The liberal media is playing along, of course. A recent National Public Radio segment said that the sequester has led to an uptick in suicides on Indian reservations.

Well, what the heck. They already blame Republicans for bad weather. They already blame Republicans for the increased black voter turnout (which they deny and call racist vote suppression), so it's only inevitable that these creeps make up more BS to feed people like Jen. Worked so far.

www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/17/Reid-Blames-Colorado-Floods-On-Climate-Change

Reid Blames Colorado Floods On 'Climate Change'

washingtonexaminer.com/exography-no-public-tours-but-344-visits-by-lobbyists-to-the-wh/article/2535860

No public tours, but 344 visits by lobbyists to the White House

www.businessweek.com/news/2013-09-17/car-battery-maker-ecotality-seeks-auction-in-bankruptcy-1

Ecotality, Maker of Electric-Car Chargers, Files Bankruptcy

A unit of the company, Electric Transportation Engineering, listed assets valued at as much as $50 million and debt of as much as $500 million in a filing yesterday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Phoenix...The biggest unsecured creditor listed is the U.S. Energy Department, owed $6.5 million under a government contract that Ecotality is disputing. The San Francisco-based company also said it has two cost-sharing grants with the agency totaling $126.6 million.

How much more money do we have to waste on Obama's bundler friends? Sick at how much we funnel to losers who can't function in the market even with prop-up money. Tack it on to the $17 trillion bill, I guess.

[Tails82]

www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/18/house-conservatives-submit-bill-to-repeal-replace-obamacare/

A group of House conservatives introduced legislation Wednesday that members say will replace ObamaCare and its “unworkable” taxes and mandates with a plan that expands tax breaks for Americans who buy their own insurance.

Under the proposal endorsed by the 175-member Republican Study Committee, Americans who purchase coverage through state-run exchanges can claim a $7,500 deduction against their income and payroll taxes, regardless of the cost of the insurance. Families could deduct $20,000.

“We can lower health care costs and fix real problems without a government-run system that puts unelected Washington bureaucrats between you and your doctor,” said Louisiana Republican Rep. Steve Scalise, the committee chairman.

Hmm this would be interesting.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323808204579083344033869268.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

We should admit the obvious: Barack Obama is the most anti-political president the United States has had in the post-war era. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter (even), Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. All practiced politics inside the tensions between Congress and the presidency that were designed into the system by the Founding Fathers. Not Barack Obama. He told us he was different. He is.

Mr. Obama doesn't do Washington's politics. Disappointed acolytes say it is because he is "passive." That underestimates him. For Mr. Obama, the affairs of state are wholly a function of whatever is inside his mind.

Some things remain in his mind, like the economic benefits of public infrastructure spending, which appeared one more time in Monday's post-Navy Yard speech on the lessons of the financial crisis and Congress's obligations to agree with him. Some things enter his mind and then depart, like red lines in the Syrian sand.

From where he sits, it is the job of the political world outside to adjust and conform to the course of the president's mental orbit. Those who won't adjust are dealt with by the president himself. They are attacked publicly until they are too weak politically to oppose what is on his mind.

Early in September, President Obama surprised Washington by announcing he would seek a congressional vote of support for taking action against Bashar Assad in Syria. This came after the red line went...After meeting with the president, two significant political figures in Washington expressed public support for his announced plans to act against Assad—House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

The president's decision to intervene wasn't popular with the American public or with members of Congress, so the Boehner-Cantor commitment was a big deal. It was a public expression of political support at the moment the president needed all the political support he could get.

A week and a half later, Mr. Obama reversed course...neither Mr. Boehner nor Mr. Cantor got a heads up from the White House on the U-turn...Throw a dart at the names of the other 11 post-war U.S. presidents. Would any of them have hung a Speaker of the House out to dry just before heading into negotiations with that speaker on funding the government, extending the debt ceiling or the future of your legacy achievement—ObamaCare? Barack Obama did. No problem.

On Monday, Mr. Obama delivered what the White House called "Remarks by the President at the Five-Year Anniversary of the Financial Crisis." After waving in the direction of the Navy Yard shooting and then the 2008 financial crisis, Mr. Obama spent most of the speech's nearly 4,000 words ripping into the congressional Republicans.

Twice he announces, "I will not negotiate." But he is negotiating with Vladimir Putin something infinitely more difficult than a debt deal with John Boehner.

Trace elements of normal politics are inevitable in any presidency. But this one over five years has floated beyond the American political tradition. The Obama modus operandi is reducible to this: I think, therefore you do. Everyone else who still does real politics—from one side to the other—is left to gape.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2pmqj_JuuY

ABC's Jon Karl Slams OBAMA, You Are The One's Threatening Default

www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/18/Report-SWAT-team-stand-down-Navy-Yard

On Wednesday, BBC News reported that an armed emergency response team arrived on site at the Washington Navy Yard within minutes of Aaron Alexis beginning his shooting spree, but was forced to stand down and was instead ordered back to Capitol Hill.

According to BBC, “A tactical response team of the Capitol police, a force that guards the US Capitol complex, was told to leave the scene by a supervisor instead of aiding municipal officers.” A Capitol Police source told the BBC, “I don’t think it’s a far stretch to say that some lives may have been saved if we were allowed to intervene.”

Sounds like Benghazi

www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/09/18/the_obama_magic_failed_to_produce_social_justice_income_is_down_and_poverty_is_up

The Obama Magic Failed to Produce Social Justice: Income is Down and Poverty is Up

The other day also we had economic news not good about the widening gap between the rich and the poor...We have more details on this, and one of the fundamental aspects of the story we had was the median income. We pointed out the median income in the United States is $51,000 a year, but that there are six counties in America where the median income is over twice the national median. Four of those counties are suburban Washington. The median income in those counties is it $101,000.

Of course, it can't with economic policies like these. Another way of looking at this is, median incomes in the United States are $644 less than they were in 1989...GDP is only around 2%, even after being adjusted to make Obama look better. There is no economic growth to speak of here.

So more failed premises, and false promises that have not materialized. All the magic that was assumed has never happened. Most of all, in 2008 Obama ran as the guy who was gonna fix the recession that Bush caused. What do you think that, "Yes, we can" business was all about? "Yes, we can! Si se puede! Yes, we can!" and "We're the ones we've been waiting for," and "I'm the one you've been waiting for," whatever it was. It was all about ending the recession.

It was all about economic revitalization. But again, sorry to beat a dead horse, not possible with economic policies that Obama has. Now, from the Cybercast News Service, Terry Jeffrey, "Census on Obama's 1st Term." Here comes the real numbers: "Real Median Income Down $2,627." Real median income is down under Obama. In his first term, the median family income, families have lost $2,627 annually. "People in Poverty Up 6,667,000; Record 46,496,000 Now Poor."

Ninety million Americans are not working in a population around 300 million. People in poverty are up 6,667,000. "In 2008, the year Obama was elected, real median household income in the United States was $53,644 according to the Census Bureau. In 2012, [it] was $51,017." So real median household income has dropped.

www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/09/18/Jon-stewart-cnn-navy-yard-misinformation-deliberate

Oh journalism, what a joke you are

[Tails82]

www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/19/white-house-threatens-to-veto-de-fund-obamacare-bill/

Boehner blasts Obama for bargaining with Putin, not Congress ahead of budget vote

"While the president is happy to negotiate with Vladimir Putin he won't engage with the Congress on a plan that deals with the deficits that threaten our economy," Boehner said.

Boehner urged his Senate Republican colleagues to buck up.

"We'll deliver a big victory in the House tomorrow and then this fight will move over to the Senate where it belongs," Boehner said Thursday. "I expect my Senate colleagues to be up for the battle."

"There should be no conversation about shutting the government down," Boehner said. "That's not the goal here."

A separate debt-limit measure, required to allow the government to pay all of its bills on time, would be brought to the House floor as early as next week and would allow the Treasury to borrow freely for one year.

Democrats strongly denounced the Republican move. Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said the GOP was pursuing an "insane plan." Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said, "A group of extremists is threatening to hold our government hostage."

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323808204579085100811015502.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

Media propup of abuse, and why it puts an asterisk by Obama's name.

www.foxnews.com/health/2013/09/19/hiv-infected-porn-actors-call-for-condom-use/?intcmp=latestnews

A handful of HIV-positive porn actors called on the adult film industry Wednesday to require that condoms be used on all film sets, saying a recent outbreak of infections proves the industry's mandate that performers be tested every 14 days isn't working.

How about not being sluts?

washingtonexaminer.com/day-4-obama-donor-gained-nearly-1-billion-in-tax-credits-in-solyndra-bankruptcy/article/2536031

Most people who follow the news are aware that President Obama invested $527 million in Solyndra, the now-bankrupt California-based solar panel manufacturing company.

What is much less well-known is that the federal government was legally required to cut its losses of tax dollars just months into the project, and that only an illegal loan modification made to benefit an Obama fundraiser led to taxpayers losing more than $500 million.

“The true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra,” Obama declared in May 2010, but even then, the company was burning through more than $10 million a month and headed towards bankruptcy...At this point, the largest private backer of Solyndra, Argonaut Private Equity (owned by Obama donor George Kaiser of Tulsa, Okla.), demanded that DOE restructure the original loan agreement or they would take the company into bankruptcy.

Kaiser’s demand got the attention of Frances Nwachuku, DOE’s director of portfolio management for the loan programs office. Nwachuku offered to modify the original loan agreement to ensure Argonaut would be the first creditor in line – ahead of U.S. taxpayers – should Solyndra file for bankruptcy.

Section 1702(d)(3) of that law clearly states, "The obligation shall be subject to the condition that the obligation is not subordinate to other financing."

In other words, the taxpayers must come before any other creditors, which made Nwachuku’s offer illegal.

The Office of Management and Budget also concluded that the DOE’s Solyndra loan modification was illegal. On Dec. 14, 2010, OMB analyst Kelly Colyar, formerly the credit policy director at DOE, informed OMB Deputy Associate Director Richard Mertens of a problem “regarding the proposed structure’s compliance with the statutory requirement that the DOE guaranteed debt not be subordinate to other financing.” A Jan. 4, 2011, OMB staff memo said the same thing.

Colyar estimated that if Solyndra was immediately liquidated, taxpayers would only lose $141 million. But if DOE went ahead with the new deal, taxpayers would lose $385 million, due in no small part to the subordination of the taxpayer loan.

Obama’s DOE restructured the Solyndra loan anyway.

Kaiser has done well despite Solyndra’s woes...Kaiser’s investment firm got $975 million in tax breaks that could cut its future federal income tax bills by a third.

Having a friend in the Oval Office who ignores the law can be quite profitable in the Obama era.

www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2013/09/19/dictatorship_regime_recognizes_all_same_sex_marriages_via_pension_law

This next story has a one-word reaction, one word analysis, and that is: dictatorship. "The Labor Department announced Wednesday that federal laws governing private employee pension and related benefit plans will be interpreted to recognize all legal marriages of same-sex couples, regardless of where the couple is living currently." This means that the Obama administration is now going to recognize all same-sex married couples, regardless of state law.

"Specifically, the guidance explains: 'In general … the term 'spouse' will be read to refer to any individuals who are lawfully married under any state law, including individuals married to a person of the same sex who were legally married in a state that recognizes such marriages.

So basically what's happened here is that via pension plans, the Labor Department, the Obama administration, has found a way to recognize same-sex marriage in every state. This is dictatorship. Just last June, the Supreme Court throws out part of the Defense of Marriage Act. The federal bureaucracy expands on the ruling, as Perez at Labor has now down, and there's gonna be a lot more done -- and the public has no say in any of this. The courts and the bureaucracy are off and running.

Voting doesn't matter; Congress doesn't matter; the states don't matter.

Whatever the federal government wants to do, they're gonna find some nook-and-cranny way of getting it done. Folks, "dictatorship" is the natural reaction anybody would have to this.

[Chromeo]

The GOP has a 'plan' in the same way a co-partner in a business does when he screams at his compatriot that he'll shoot them both unless he agrees to do everything his way.

[kode54]

Sept 15, 2013 20:59:44 GMT -5 Tails82 said:

I guess just the churches. They serve no purpose other than as a meeting place for worship.

Which other people want to do, so please keep the opinions to yourself and let them do it, thanks.

True, they want to worship. But there are many people who don't "know" they want to worship, pliable minds. And I'm not sure just presenting only one point of view to them is the best idea. Nor do I think that presenting only my point of view is the best, either. Which is why I think that people should be given the opportunity to study religion in general, learn, contrast, and compare all of them. Decide whether they fit into any of the collectives, or if they wish to develop their own ideas based on their life experiences. Or perhaps remain religion agnostic, dropping the subject entirely from their lives.

Sept 15, 2013 20:59:44 GMT -5 Tails82 said:

Other than educating people on the dangers of cult behavior. Unless, you know, you also consider them a cult.

Yeah that'd throw a wrench into things

Yeah, hence why I think any religion, even atheism, can be cult-like. Although I haven't really heard of atheists recruiting people to their cause.

Any more than any other concerned citizen who would love to donate time and/or money to a worthy cause.

Except, based on the data, typically no.[/quote]
What data? Citations please.

I have an atheist friend, for example. He has decided for himself that since he doesn't believe in anything, his mission in life is to help other people enjoy their lives.

Sept 15, 2013 20:59:44 GMT -5 Tails82 said:

Atheists believe these things are sins against humanity.

Oh? Is there a set atheist doctrine? You may be able to say some atheists based off personal desires, which they would usually say are subjective and individualized, define some things as sins against humanity. They would be pushing these personal, subjective beliefs irrationally and without authority on others, who have other personal, subjective views of their own.

That is the thing. Without religious doctrine, the only way to control morality is for society as a whole to democratically process and distill ideas into a form comprehensible to the individual. 2000 years ago, this involved playing off the fears of the unenlightened, preaching eternal damnation to those who disobeyed the church. This has managed to keep many people under control.

Even though I don't really hate the concept of religion, I do hate the self-righteous attitude that many people involved with organized religion seem to emit.

At least the laws of the land, as far as many "free" countries go these days, organize a structure of morality that seems logical to the sane. And most people do not mind following the letter of the law, or even keeping the law, without the concept that they are serving an authority higher than humanity.

Also, I tend to think that morality itself is entirely subjective. Society mutates to accept new things into its collective attitude, for better or for worse. Only I don't see an all powerful being coming down and razing this country due to all the so-called sinful behavior which is becoming more commonplace. It's way more likely that some outside country will decide that their religious conservatism is better and that they need to raze our country themselves with nuclear fire, or at least biological weapons. Maybe we'll raze them back in the process. And nobody will be left to keep a clear record of what happened, so it will all go down in history as God's wrath.

Sept 15, 2013 20:59:44 GMT -5 Tails82 said:

They do not need to believe in an almighty deity to come to the conclusion that these things are wrong and destructive.

They may be recognizing something written in their conscience or in nature, which would be something objective and not dependent on them. Just as the sky is blue there are definite moral principles guiding our existence. So many of us have followed this point to its logical conclusion: believers just recognize one God more.

I find it both sad and frightening that there are people out there who have openly admitted that if they did not have the fear of eternal damnation hanging over their heads, they would freely go on a murder/rape spree.

This isn't just about eternal punishment, but belief. Faith that life is worth something, not just because someone says it - in that case someone else can easily say the opposite. It requires some sort of morality and the formation of a definite position, to say something is wrong.

"I'm a fireman, I think arson is bad." omg! If he's saying that it means the only thing stopping him from being an arsonist is that he thinks fires are bad and wants to put them out!

...Yeah, kinda. What's wrong with that? I feel like the proper response to allegations of goodness would be "thank you."

I did not say most or even many religious people have that attitude. Just the few crazies who have been interviewed on why they think that atheists are worst than rapists or murderers.

Sept 15, 2013 20:59:44 GMT -5 Tails82 said:

You'd think that people who have no delusions of living past their mortal life would value their time on this planet all that much more than someone who thinks this life is only temporary.

I'd have to ask Jake about that. No offense, Jake.

When someone is working toward eternal life, this involves definite steps to self-improvement. When someone views death as the end of it all, and the earth just a temporary place for whatever enjoyment they can squeeze out of it before the bitter end, they turn to maximize personal pleasure...with the negative consequences that can easily result from that path.

Like I said. Atheist friend. His life mission is to do his best to make others enjoy their lives more, through his interactions with them. I guess he doesn't see much interaction with religious people with that attitude, since they're off doing their own thing already.

Sept 15, 2013 20:59:44 GMT -5 Tails82 said:

Hell, church even had to invent a law that suicide is committing the sin of murder against yourself, likely to prevent fervently religious people from killing themselves to reach paradise that much quicker.

Well, God didn't just put people here for funsies. Body and soul are connected and he determines when it ends. Offing oneself is usually done out of an extreme self-hate, to the point where someone does not recognize their own life as having any worth.

Yes, but see, that self-hatred and feeling of worthlessness does not necessarily come from lack of religion. It comes from clinical depression, which is medically treatable, if the person suffering from it is willing to seek out help from a doctor.

Yes, I'm sure you could argue that it could simply be fixed by a healthy dose of Jesus in their lives. That's entirely your opinion, though.

I may suggest they look into that, but then again, I'm not sure I'd recommend the vulnerable to seek out help from anything less than a medical professional.

Sept 15, 2013 20:59:44 GMT -5 Tails82 said:

And then you have some religions whose most insane followers strictly believe in interpretations of their scripture that condone the subjugation or even destruction of "infidels" of other religions or non-religions. Some of the craziest may even have the notion that they will be rewarded in paradise if they go down in a blaze of glory killing as many infidels as they can.

Sure, that's crazy.

Good, we can agree on something.

And yes, those people are crazy. Even worse is that the powerful and vocal minority of certain religions tend to color outside groups' opinions of their entire religion or culture.

Likely most Muslim followers do not observe the entire letter of their Qur'an, there are many Christians who do not follow the entire letter of the Holy Bible. Many in both groups will selectively hand pick segments of the stories which reinforce their own personal views, then try to enforce that on other people. They will even selectively ignore parts that they don't like.

For example, a favorite of the homophobic range of Christian followers is Leviticus 20:13, which says that a man should not bed down with another man as he would a woman, which they love to tout with great impunity. The favorite retorts from the opposition are selections such as Leviticus 11:9-12, which says it's okay to eat fish with fins and scales, but not shellfish. Or Leviticus 19:19, which forbids wearing clothing made of mixed fibers, like cotton/polyester. You get the idea, right?

Sept 15, 2013 20:59:44 GMT -5 Tails82 said:

I don't see why it's such a problem that the Catholic church should be forced to provide full insurance, including for abortions, for their employees. The devout followers won't ever have an abortion performed anyway.

Funding abortion encourages more of it. We do not tell atheists to pay for churches, we should not tell Christians to pay for murder.

And then you missed the part where I said that insurance companies refuse to cover elective procedures. If you elect to visit the doctor for a checkup because you're sick, they'll cover that. If something needs to be done to save your life as a result, sure, they'll cover that.

If you decide you want to have an abortion a few months into your pregnancy because you don't want the child any more, they'll make you eat that cost, plain and simple. No religious doctrine stepped on by that, right?

Insurance will only pick up the tab if it would be life threatening to carry the pregnancy to delivery. Is it really so bad to pay for an abortion that saves the life of the mother? Do you sleep better at night knowing that you saved a child but not its mother, or that you allowed the pregnancy to fail and end the life of both the mother and the child? Oh, right, they're going to Heaven, they're in a better place. The mother who survived by aborting the baby is definitely going to H-e-double-hockeysticks.

Sept 15, 2013 20:59:44 GMT -5 Tails82 said:

Thanks for being more respectful and interesting, kode. I would like to talk with you more.

Hey, no problem. Even if I don't really care to read all of your news post discussion, a friendly debate is okay.

[Tails82]

www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/19/ohio-clinic-touted-by-obama-in-health-care-reform-speech-slashes-budget-due-to/

Ohio clinic touted by Obama slashes budget due to ObamaCare

Fox 8 reports the Cleveland Clinic, which is the largest employer in Northeast Ohio with about 39,000 workers in the region, announced the cuts to its 2014 budget at a meeting Wednesday.

A spokeswoman for the clinic tells Fox News the clinic is being forced to cut back to prepare for increased costs and decreased revenue under the health care reform law.

Obama said the Cleveland Clinic is an example of health care that works “well.”

Clinic officials tell Fox 8 their situation is not unique, as hospitals nationwide are being forced to cut back due to ObamaCare.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney did not comment...

www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/19/White-House-Warns-ObamaCare-Will-Put-Americans-Personal-Information-At-Risk-Responds-With-New-Agency-To-Hear-Fraud-Complaints

In an ironic twist, the White House is now joining health systems experts in warning that Americans who enroll in the ObamaCare insurance exchanges should expect that their personal, financial, and health information will be at risk and they could face fraud, identity theft, and even “cybersecurity threats.”

Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner reports that with less than two weeks until the opening of the ObamaCare exchanges on October 1st, the White House is admitting the security threat is so serious that the Obama administration met late Wednesday to launch a new anti-fraud bureaucracy

Oh boy another layer of administrative costs, I bet that'll go places.

“We have strong security safeguards...just as we have been doing in Medicare, Medicaid...”

lol we're doomed

Earlier in the month, Breitbart News reported that non-government groups like Planned Parenthood and Migrant Health Promotion, Inc. have been given grants to serve as “Navigators” to help enroll Americans into the exchanges.

Though it is known that Planned Parenthood just paid out a $4.3 million settlement for Medicaid fraud in Texas, no background checks are required for the “Navigators,” who will have access to the private information of Americans seeking health insurance in the marketplace. HHS has simply said that navigators must obey security and privacy requirements but has not defined what those requirements are. Officials responded with ire when Republican members of Congress attempted to exert some oversight of the process.

blog.heritage.org/2013/09/19/obamacare-anti-conscience-hhs-mandate-reaches-the-supreme-court/

Conestoga is a kitchen cabinet manufacturer in Pennsylvania employing 950 individuals. Its owners, the Hahns, run their family business according to their Mennonite faith, including offering an employee health plan aligned with those values. Under the Obamacare mandate, however, the Hahns are forced to provide and pay for coverage of abortion-inducing drugs—despite the family’s religious objections. Conestoga Wood could face fines of up to $95,000 per day for sticking to their deeply held beliefs and not complying with the mandate.

The Hahns sued to stop the implementation of the mandate, arguing that it violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which requires that government action “not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” RFRA does not define who and what entities qualify as a “person”—and that is precisely the question before the Supreme Court: Does a for-profit business count as a “person” under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause?

This disagreement among the federal appellate courts—as well as the competing petitions filed at the Court today—strongly increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court will grant review of one of the cases challenging the mandate during its upcoming term, which begins in October.

The Hahn family, along with more than 200 other plaintiffs challenging the coercive Obamacare mandate, remains hopeful that the Supreme Court will respect the First Amendment and all Americans’ ability to live and work in accordance with their faith.

www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/20/Governments-Tried-to-Delete-Damaging-Climate-Change-Information

Emails leaked to the Associated Press show some governments, including the United States, tried to make the IPCC change their report to downplay the slowdown in warming.

"Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted...The U.S. also urged the authors to include the "leading hypothesis" that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean. Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics...Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for skeptics.

In 2007, the IPCC said there would be a three degree Celsius increase, but now they predict only a 1-2.5 degree Celsius increas. Anything less than two degrees could result in no net ecological damage...Despite the leaks, President Obama is not backing away from his global warming narrative. His administration is going to push through new regulations to limit carbon pollution from new power plants. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy claimed these regulations would make the industry grow and linked global warming to health issues.

I guess you can call this a "scientific" report if your definition of "science" is government ordering paid cronies around and telling them what to say.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24183443

The outgoing government in Norway has buried much-vaunted plans to capture carbon dioxide and store it underground amid mounting costs and delays...It said it remained committed to research into carbon capture.

Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg and his allies lost a general election to conservatives and centrists this month, and are due to step down shortly.

Mongstad had already run into difficulties.

"At both the national and international level, the development of technologies to capture and store CO2 has taken longer, been more difficult and more costly than expected," Oil and Energy Minister Ola Borten Moe told reporters.

How much money has been wasted on this lie, while people starve and have real problems...

[Pyro ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ✔]

Tails are you pro gun? Or pro life? I forget.

[Tails82]

Both

www.politico.com/story/2013/09/barack-obama-john-boehner-debt-negotiations-97153.html?hp=l1

Obama called Speaker John Boehner Friday night to reiterate his hard-line stance. The Ohio Republican’s office said the president called to say “he wouldn’t negotiate with him on the debt limit.”

No matter what happens, Obama's gonna intentionally sink it because he wants a conflict. There's a big myth out there that Republicans had their clocks cleaned on government shutdown during the Clinton years, right before they got him to sign welfare reform. Obama wishes to return to the glory days, so he'll make moves to shut down government and then go out with speeches about how he's so shocked everyone else in Washington but him would do this. The press of course will have their heads up his butt and back it.

blog.heritage.org/2013/09/21/pure-hell-the-pain-of-benghazi/

This week’s testimony by family members of the Benghazi victims in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s hearings was nothing short of gut-wrenching.

After more than a year, the families still don’t known in any detail what happened to their sons during the night of the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. “It has been pure hell,” said Patricia Smith, mother of information specialist Sean Smith. Charles Woods, father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, echoed her agony and deep frustration.

President Obama and his spokesmen have called Benghazi a “phony scandal.” Most of the Democrats on the committee even failed to return for the second half of the hearing, at which the family members spoke, defying the most basic norms of common decency.

So many questions remain. More than 30 eyewitnesses to the attacks on the Benghazi diplomatic facility and the CIA compound on September 11, 2012, still have not been heard from. Those who have spoken out, such as Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli, claim they have been punished career-wise for telling their story.

Benghazi is an outrage, and it will not go away until the truth is known and the guilty brought to justice—and those here in Washington who failed their fellow countrymen have been held to account.

www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/21/American-Exceptionalism

American exceptionalism

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324492604579087044033601178.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Here's something you don't often see in Washington: a businessman trying to repeal a law that helps his company. That's Bob Funk's latest mission in life. He's the president and founder of Express Employment Services, the fifth-largest employment agency in America, with annual sales of $2.5 billion and more than 600 franchises across the country. This year he will place nearly half a million workers in jobs.

"ObamaCare has been an absolute boon for my business," he says as we sit in his new office headquarters near downtown Oklahoma City. "I'm making a lot of money thanks to that law. We're up 8% this year. But it's just terrible for the country. I see that firsthand every day."

Why is the health-care law good for Express but bad for the country? "Firms are just very reluctant to hire full-time workers," Mr. Funk says. "So they are taking on more temporary help, which is what we do." ObamaCare imposes new mandates and penalties on companies with more than 50 full-time employees—and even those working 30 hours a week are considered full-time.

He quickly adds: "The problem isn't just ObamaCare, though. It's the entire regulatory assault on employers coming out of Washington—everything from the EEOC"—the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hits companies hard when employees claim age, race or sex discrimination—"to the Dodd-Frank monstrosity. Employers are living in a state of fear."...With millions of people giving up job searches, the U.S. labor-participation rate is the lowest in 35 years.

To land and keep a job isn't hard, he says, but you have to meet three conditions: "First you need integrity; second, a strong work ethic; and, third, you have to be able to pass a drug test." If an applicant can meet those minimal qualifications, he says, "I guarantee I can find employers tomorrow who will hire you."

Express is also a good indicator of where the U.S. economy is growing and where it's still struggling. The top job growth is in cities like Nashville, Dallas, Austin, Oklahoma City and Indianapolis—cities without forced union rules, and with a pro-growth regulatory and tax climate. He says Michigan and Wisconsin are two states in the upper Midwest that have "really improved their business climate." The slowest state is still California: "They just raised their minimum wage again—it's just a killer for new jobs."

The primary jobs problem today, Mr. Funk says, is that too many workers are functionally unemployable because of attitude, behavior or lack of the most basic work skills. One discouraging statistic is that only about one of six workers who comes to Express seeking employment makes the cut. He recites a company statistic that about one in four applicants can't even pass a drug test.

"In my 40-some years in this business, the biggest change I've witnessed is the erosion of the American work ethic. It just isn't there today like it used to be," Mr. Funk says. Asked to define "work ethic," he replies that it's fairly simple but vital on-the-job behavior, such as showing up on time, being conscientious and productive in every task, showing a willingness to get your hands dirty and at times working extra hours. These attributes are essential, he says, because if low-level employees show a willingness to work hard, "most employers will gladly train them with the skills to fill higher-paying jobs."

He fears that too many of the young millennials who come knocking on his door view a paycheck as a kind of entitlement, not something to be earned. He is also concerned that the trendy concept of "life-balancing" is putting work second behind leisure.

When pressed to explain what Washington can do to get Americans back on the job, Mr. Funk says the first step would be to start shrinking the "vast social welfare state programs that have become a substitute for work. There's a prevalent attitude of a lot of this generation of workers that the government will always be there to take care of them. It's hard to get people to take entry-level jobs when they can get unemployment benefits, health care, food stamps and the rest."

This week during the food-stamp debate in Congress, Democrats voted unanimously against work requirements and ridiculed Republicans who suggested that the expansion of food stamps to 47 million Americans has discouraged working. The Democrats are living in a fantasy world, according to Mr. Funk. He points to Congress's decision in 2009 to increase unemployment-insurance benefits to 90 weeks or more as "a policy that held a lot of people out of the workforce until the checks stopped coming. We saw that here very clearly."

The most abused government program, he says, is disability insurance and the 14 million Americans who now collect these benefits. Express has found that over half of the disability claims brought by its workers have turned out to be fraudulent. "We win 90% of the disability cases that we challenge in court," Mr. Funk says.

If Bob Funk's warnings about unemployment and the jobs market are accurate, then almost everything Washington is doing to address the problem is either beside the point or counterproductive. And the ObamaCare-driven march toward the 30-hour workweek continues. "Our franchises across the country are seeing a definite demand for more part time workers," he says.

How will American companies keep up with competitors in Asia, where employees often work 50 and 60 hours a week? Mr. Funk predicts that the temporary-employment industry could nearly double its share of the U.S. workforce, to about 4%, after ObamaCare fully takes effect. That's good for him, but awful for America.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww6nxT7KACQ

Tom DeLay talks about the political games Dems played, and his vindication.

[Pyro ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ✔]

Sept 22, 2013 0:41:42 GMT -5 Tails82 said:

Both

How can you be both?

[Tails82]

Pro-life = respect for the individual from conception to natural death

Pro-gun = respect for the individual's right to defend themselves

[Tails82]

www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/09/18/A-Martyr-Is-a-Terrible-Thing-to-Waste

A Martyr Is a Terrible Thing to Waste

It is impossible to overestimate the importance of Matthew Shepard’s murder to the modern gay movement...

Within a few days, Shepard’s friends began circulating the story that resonates with millions all over the world even today. He was lured to his torture and death by two all-too-regular Joes who all-too-regularly hated gays and killed Matthew--indeed, crucified him on a fence--for no other reason than he was gay.

But a new book out by award winning gay journalist Stephen Jiminez tells a markedly different story than the hagiography. After several years and one hundred interviews, Jiminez tells a story that should have been plain to even the most biased eyes; Shepard knew his killers, did drugs and sold drugs with them, and was killed over a drug dispute. What is new in the book is that he also had sex with them. This, of course, would contradict the notion that he died for his homosexuality.

But the gay movement had been longing for a gay face, a sympathetic face that the country would rally around. Shortly after he died, the editorial board of the New York Times wrote, “For homosexuals, the key to winning acceptance and respect has been to make themselves familiar, visible and known. Yet in almost 30 years of struggle to repeal state sodomy laws and win equal protection under law, the modern gay rights movement has never achieved a recognizable public face. Now, in a victim, a young man who wanted to be a diplomat, it has been given one [emphasis added]."

It was the New York Times that drove this story. Certainly the gay movement latched onto it, but the New York Times drives elites, particularly elite media. They were all over it from the very beginning.

Four days after the attack and before Shepard died, the Times’ James Brooke published a story that asserted in the lede that Matthew was gay and in the third paragraph established his attack as a hate crime. Most of this first news story in the Times was about Shepard’s gayness.

Brooke filed a second story two days later, while Matthew was still alive, about candle-light vigils in Wyoming and how Laramie had a history of homophobia; a billboard had been defaced five years earlier to encourage people to “Shoot a gay or two.”

The next day, Brooke filed another story about Shepard’s death, saying, “In places from Denver to the University of Maryland, people turned out to mourn the soft-spoken 21 year old who became an overnight symbol of deadly violence against gay people…”

The same day, the Times ran an unsigned editorial comparing Shepard’s death to the lynching of blacks and that his murder “may do much to dispel the stubborn belief in some quarters that homosexuals are not discriminated against. They are. Hatred can kill.”

Over the next few weeks, Times columnist Frank Rich went hammer and tongs after conservative Christians, who he targeted as the reason Shepard was killed. In particular, he went after the Family Research Council, which had been running television advertising encouraging gays to reconsider their way of life; or, as Rich described it, a campaign “to demonize gay people for political gain in this election year.”

Time Magazine was a big deal in those days, and their cover story for the week of October 19th was huge. Headlined “That’s Not a Scarecrow,” the Time story ran on the cover and garnered global attention. The short Time story also fingered the religious right for the attack on Shepard.

The religious imagery began almost immediately. Shepard was left dangling on a fence, still alive, just like Christ on the cross. A long Vanity Fair piece from the following spring was entitled “The Crucifixion of Matthew Shepard.” At his funeral, Reverend Royce W. Brown compared the fence Matthew was tied to with the cross of Christ: ''There is an image that comes to mind when I reflect on Matt on that wooden cross rail fence. I replace that image with that of another man hung upon a cross. When I concentrate on that man, I can release the bitterness inside.'' A pastor in Kirkland, Washington actually gave a sermon called, “Matthew Shepard Died for Our Sins.”

Such comparisons became so universal that a writer for Harper’s Magazine rejected the “quasi-religious characterizations of Matthew’s passion, death, and resurrection as patron saint of hate-crime legislation”

Shepard became not just a saint, he was manipulated to be a tool. He was instrumentalized to castigate opponents of the gay agenda and to advance federal and state hate-crimes legislation. We were told endlessly that Wyoming and many other states, along with the federal government, did not protect homosexuals from such hate-crimes.

Even before Shepard died, President Bill Clinton used his attack to advance federal legislation. “I was deeply grieved by the act of violence perpetrated against Matthew Shepard," Clinton said. "There is nothing more important to this country than our standing together against intolerance, prejudice and violent bigotry.” Take that Family Research Council. When a federal hate crimes bill was later signed by President Obama, it was named for Matthew Shepard.

And not just in politics, the gods of popular culture have lauded Shepard. Elton John sang to raise money for the Matthew Shepard Foundation. Lady Gaga sang John Lennon’s "Imagine" and rewrote the lyrics to include, “Imagine there’s no Heaven, it’s easy if you try, no hell below us, and only Matthew in the sky [emphasis added]."The Laramie Project, one of three made-for-TV movies about his life and death, is now a road show. It will appear in Washington, D.C. in the coming days.

Jiminez’s book utterly changes the narrative, not just about Shepard’s life but also his death. Will these new revelations in any way change the cult of Matthew? They ought to, but they probably won’t. What will likely happen is that the gay establishment will castigate Jiminez, and the business of St. Matthew Shepard Inc. will continue unabated.

But the inconvenient facts remain. Matthew was not killed by gay bias, gay hatred, or by the religious right. He was killed by a sometimes sex partner who wanted his drugs. This was known at the time and ignored. And why not? After all, a martyr would be a terrible thing to waste.