And who could forget?
From the land of pink ObamaCorns and free phones...
It's the Obamaphone Lady Remix:
Hat tip: Elishia
Saturday, April 6, 2013
"Obama Phone" Remix (parody song)
April 6th, 2013
And who could forget?
From the land of pink ObamaCorns and free phones...
It's the Obamaphone Lady Remix:
Hat tip: Elishia
And who could forget?
From the land of pink ObamaCorns and free phones...
It's the Obamaphone Lady Remix:
Hat tip: Elishia
A Breath of Fresh Air From an Unlikely Source: A Youth in America
April 6, 2013
With all the failures created by the liberal teaching agenda on display by our youth in this country, a sign of REAL hope has become a rarity. This is why it is ever so important to for our kids to recognize that shining beacon and to know they are not alone. and that their same thoughts and feelings are indeed shared by many.
When one of these mentally abused children makes it entirely through the liberal brainwashing and comes out unscathed, as you will see, the relentless attacks from less fortunate scholars and the liberal institutionalist's themselves...
Enter: Suzy Lee Weiss
Age: 17
4.5 GPA, scored 2120 on her SATs
Worked as a page in the U.S. Senate
As great as her accomplishments are, Suzy found herself rejected by well fitted schools like Yale, Princeton, Vanderbilt and the University of Pennsylvania.
One may ask themselves, why? While many of us already know the answer. And as it appears, so does Suzy!
Suzy took the initiative to pen her feelings and exploit the facts of why she was rejected in an article printed by the Wall Street Journal.
If you are anything like me, this is absolutely a delight to read! When we as parents worry about the future of our country's future because of the anti-American agendas taught to our children, reading words of Truth coming from someone who should by all rights be an entitlement zombie, you KNOW FOR SURE that the America we know and love is far from over!
So here it is:
To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me
If only I had a tiger mom or started a fake charity.
By SUZY LEE WEISS
Like me, millions of high-school seniors with sour grapes are asking themselves this week how they failed to get into the colleges of their dreams. It's simple: For years, they—we—were lied to.
Colleges tell you, "Just be yourself." That is great advice, as long as yourself has nine extracurriculars, six leadership positions, three varsity sports, killer SAT scores and two moms. Then by all means, be yourself! If you work at a local pizza shop and are the slowest person on the cross-country team, consider taking your business elsewhere.
What could I have done differently over the past years?
For starters, had I known two years ago what I know now, I would have gladly worn a headdress to school. Show me to any closet, and I would've happily come out of it. "Diversity!" I offer about as much diversity as a saltine cracker. If it were up to me, I would've been any of the diversities: Navajo, Pacific Islander, anything. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, I salute you and your 1/32 Cherokee heritage.
I also probably should have started a fake charity. Providing veterinary services for homeless people's pets. Collecting donations for the underprivileged chimpanzees of the Congo. Raising awareness for Chapped-Lips-in-the-Winter Syndrome. Fun-runs, dance-a-thons, bake sales—as long as you're using someone else's misfortunes to try to propel yourself into the Ivy League, you're golden.
Having a tiger mom helps, too. As the youngest of four daughters, I noticed long ago that my parents gave up on parenting me. It has been great in certain ways: Instead of "Be home by 11," it's "Don't wake us up when you come through the door, we're trying to sleep." But my parents also left me with a dearth of hobbies that make admissions committees salivate. I've never sat down at a piano, never plucked a violin. Karate lasted about a week and the swim team didn't last past the first lap. Why couldn't Amy Chua have adopted me as one of her cubs?
Then there was summer camp. I should've done what I knew was best—go to Africa, scoop up some suffering child, take a few pictures, and write my essays about how spending that afternoon with Kinto changed my life. Because everyone knows that if you don't have anything difficult going on in your own life, you should just hop on a plane so you're able to talk about what other people have to deal with.
Or at least hop to an internship. Get a precocious-sounding title to put on your resume. "Assistant Director of Mail Services." "Chairwoman of Coffee Logistics." I could have been a gopher in the office of someone I was related to. Work experience!
To those kids who by age 14 got their doctorate, cured a disease, or discovered a guilt-free brownie recipe: My parents make me watch your "60 Minutes" segments, and they've clipped your newspaper articles for me to read before bed. You make us mere mortals look bad. (Also, I am desperately jealous and willing to pay a lot to learn your secrets.)
To those claiming that I am bitter—you bet I am! An underachieving selfish teenager making excuses for her own failures? That too! To those of you disgusted by this, shocked that I take for granted the wonderful gifts I have been afforded, I say shhhh—"The Real Housewives" is on.
Ms. Weiss is a senior at Taylor Allderdice High School in Pittsburgh.
A version of this article appeared March 30, 2013, on page A11 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me.
Shock: Readers accused her of being entitled, whiny and racist after she said she was not diverse enough
(DAILY MAIL) - The article outraged many, who accused her of being entitled, self-indulgent and even racist.
'Entitled little brat,' one Twitter user said, as another said: 'Choking on the petulant privilege of Suzy Lee Weiss & hoping she matures out of her ignorance rather than being bolstered by a book deal.'
Another directed a message to Weiss, saying: 'Your letter reveals your republican homophobic leanings and hatred of others not exactly like you. Grow up.'
But others applauded her outspoken rant, saying she was simply telling the truth about tough application processes, while some noted that the piece was simply sarcastic and fun.
On Twitter, one reader noted she 'makes brutally accurate assessments of college admissions,' while another added: 'Saying what you feel is not always easy or popular! She is going places!'
With all the failures created by the liberal teaching agenda on display by our youth in this country, a sign of REAL hope has become a rarity. This is why it is ever so important to for our kids to recognize that shining beacon and to know they are not alone. and that their same thoughts and feelings are indeed shared by many.
When one of these mentally abused children makes it entirely through the liberal brainwashing and comes out unscathed, as you will see, the relentless attacks from less fortunate scholars and the liberal institutionalist's themselves...
Age: 17
4.5 GPA, scored 2120 on her SATs
Worked as a page in the U.S. Senate
As great as her accomplishments are, Suzy found herself rejected by well fitted schools like Yale, Princeton, Vanderbilt and the University of Pennsylvania.
One may ask themselves, why? While many of us already know the answer. And as it appears, so does Suzy!
Suzy took the initiative to pen her feelings and exploit the facts of why she was rejected in an article printed by the Wall Street Journal.
If you are anything like me, this is absolutely a delight to read! When we as parents worry about the future of our country's future because of the anti-American agendas taught to our children, reading words of Truth coming from someone who should by all rights be an entitlement zombie, you KNOW FOR SURE that the America we know and love is far from over!
So here it is:
To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me
If only I had a tiger mom or started a fake charity.
By SUZY LEE WEISS
Like me, millions of high-school seniors with sour grapes are asking themselves this week how they failed to get into the colleges of their dreams. It's simple: For years, they—we—were lied to.
Colleges tell you, "Just be yourself." That is great advice, as long as yourself has nine extracurriculars, six leadership positions, three varsity sports, killer SAT scores and two moms. Then by all means, be yourself! If you work at a local pizza shop and are the slowest person on the cross-country team, consider taking your business elsewhere.
What could I have done differently over the past years?
For starters, had I known two years ago what I know now, I would have gladly worn a headdress to school. Show me to any closet, and I would've happily come out of it. "Diversity!" I offer about as much diversity as a saltine cracker. If it were up to me, I would've been any of the diversities: Navajo, Pacific Islander, anything. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, I salute you and your 1/32 Cherokee heritage.
I also probably should have started a fake charity. Providing veterinary services for homeless people's pets. Collecting donations for the underprivileged chimpanzees of the Congo. Raising awareness for Chapped-Lips-in-the-Winter Syndrome. Fun-runs, dance-a-thons, bake sales—as long as you're using someone else's misfortunes to try to propel yourself into the Ivy League, you're golden.
Having a tiger mom helps, too. As the youngest of four daughters, I noticed long ago that my parents gave up on parenting me. It has been great in certain ways: Instead of "Be home by 11," it's "Don't wake us up when you come through the door, we're trying to sleep." But my parents also left me with a dearth of hobbies that make admissions committees salivate. I've never sat down at a piano, never plucked a violin. Karate lasted about a week and the swim team didn't last past the first lap. Why couldn't Amy Chua have adopted me as one of her cubs?
Then there was summer camp. I should've done what I knew was best—go to Africa, scoop up some suffering child, take a few pictures, and write my essays about how spending that afternoon with Kinto changed my life. Because everyone knows that if you don't have anything difficult going on in your own life, you should just hop on a plane so you're able to talk about what other people have to deal with.
Or at least hop to an internship. Get a precocious-sounding title to put on your resume. "Assistant Director of Mail Services." "Chairwoman of Coffee Logistics." I could have been a gopher in the office of someone I was related to. Work experience!
To those kids who by age 14 got their doctorate, cured a disease, or discovered a guilt-free brownie recipe: My parents make me watch your "60 Minutes" segments, and they've clipped your newspaper articles for me to read before bed. You make us mere mortals look bad. (Also, I am desperately jealous and willing to pay a lot to learn your secrets.)
To those claiming that I am bitter—you bet I am! An underachieving selfish teenager making excuses for her own failures? That too! To those of you disgusted by this, shocked that I take for granted the wonderful gifts I have been afforded, I say shhhh—"The Real Housewives" is on.
Ms. Weiss is a senior at Taylor Allderdice High School in Pittsburgh.
A version of this article appeared March 30, 2013, on page A11 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: To (All) the Colleges That Rejected Me.
Shock: Readers accused her of being entitled, whiny and racist after she said she was not diverse enough
(DAILY MAIL) - The article outraged many, who accused her of being entitled, self-indulgent and even racist.
'Entitled little brat,' one Twitter user said, as another said: 'Choking on the petulant privilege of Suzy Lee Weiss & hoping she matures out of her ignorance rather than being bolstered by a book deal.'
Another directed a message to Weiss, saying: 'Your letter reveals your republican homophobic leanings and hatred of others not exactly like you. Grow up.'
But others applauded her outspoken rant, saying she was simply telling the truth about tough application processes, while some noted that the piece was simply sarcastic and fun.
On Twitter, one reader noted she 'makes brutally accurate assessments of college admissions,' while another added: 'Saying what you feel is not always easy or popular! She is going places!'
 |
| Good student: Weiss, left with a relative and right, has top grades and has worked as a U.S. Senate page |
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Army Reserve training material lists Catholics, evangelical Christians and some Jews in 'religious extremism' category along with the KKK, Hamas and Al Qaeda
April 6, 2013
Pentagon based conclusions on Southern Poverty Law Center report
Chaplains' group calls lecture material 'dishonorable' and 'wrongheaded'
Presentation says extremism is increasing because some Americans fear '4 more years under a black president'
By David Martosko
PUBLISHED: 16:09 EST, 5 April 2013
UPDATED: 16:09 EST, 5 April 2013
A slideshow presentation shown to US Army Reserve recruits classifies Christians, including both evangelicals and Roman Catholics, as religious extremists, placing them in the same category as skinheads, the Ku Klux Klan, Hamas and Al Qaeda.
The presentation also warned that members of the military are prohibited from taking leadership roles in any organization the Pentagon considers 'extremist,' and from distributing the organization's literature, whether on or off a military installation.
The opening slide warns that 'the rise in hate crimes and extremism outside the military may be an indication of internal issues all [armed] services will have to face.'
Citing a Southern Poverty Law Center report as evidence that extremism is on the rise, the Army Reserve presentation blames 'the superheated fears generated by economic dislocation, a proliferation of demonizing conspiracy theories,the changing racial make-up of America and the prospect of 4 more years under a black president who many on the far right view as an enemy to their country.'
Later in the slideshow is a list of groups that exemplify 'religious extremism.'
Included are 'evangelical Christianity,' 'Catholicism,' 'Ultra-Orthodox' Judaism, and 'Islamophobia.'
Most of the list is populated by more widely accepted examples of religious extremist groups, including Al Qaeda, Sunni Muslims, Hamas, and the Ku Klux Klan.
'Men and women of faith who have served the Army faithfully for centuries shouldn't be likened to those who have regularly threatened the peace and security of the United States,' retired Col. Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, said in a statement.
'It is dishonorable for any U.S. military entity to allow this type of wrongheaded characterization.
Pentagon based conclusions on Southern Poverty Law Center report
Chaplains' group calls lecture material 'dishonorable' and 'wrongheaded'
Presentation says extremism is increasing because some Americans fear '4 more years under a black president'
By David Martosko
PUBLISHED: 16:09 EST, 5 April 2013
UPDATED: 16:09 EST, 5 April 2013
A slideshow presentation shown to US Army Reserve recruits classifies Christians, including both evangelicals and Roman Catholics, as religious extremists, placing them in the same category as skinheads, the Ku Klux Klan, Hamas and Al Qaeda.
The presentation also warned that members of the military are prohibited from taking leadership roles in any organization the Pentagon considers 'extremist,' and from distributing the organization's literature, whether on or off a military installation.
The opening slide warns that 'the rise in hate crimes and extremism outside the military may be an indication of internal issues all [armed] services will have to face.'
Citing a Southern Poverty Law Center report as evidence that extremism is on the rise, the Army Reserve presentation blames 'the superheated fears generated by economic dislocation, a proliferation of demonizing conspiracy theories,the changing racial make-up of America and the prospect of 4 more years under a black president who many on the far right view as an enemy to their country.'
 |
| RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM: These groups were all lumped together in a slideshow for US Army Reserve recruits |
 |
| EXTREMIST ORGANIZATIONS: The presentation described groups like the religious organizations as advocating force, violence or extremist causes |
 |
| Presenters were instructed in accompanying notes to read this slide in its entirety. It warns that soldiers may not take leadership positions in any group the military considers 'extremist' in nature, nor may they distribute their literature |
Included are 'evangelical Christianity,' 'Catholicism,' 'Ultra-Orthodox' Judaism, and 'Islamophobia.'
Most of the list is populated by more widely accepted examples of religious extremist groups, including Al Qaeda, Sunni Muslims, Hamas, and the Ku Klux Klan.
'Men and women of faith who have served the Army faithfully for centuries shouldn't be likened to those who have regularly threatened the peace and security of the United States,' retired Col. Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, said in a statement.
'It is dishonorable for any U.S. military entity to allow this type of wrongheaded characterization.
 |
| Are Catholic clergy like Pope Francis (L) and racist Klan wizards in the same boat? An Army Reserve training presentation described both groups as examples of 'religious extremism.' |
 |
| SPOT THE RELIGIOUS EXTREMIST: The ultra-orthodox Lubavitch jew (R) or the late Osama bin Laden? Trick question: the Army Reserve includes both men's religious movements |
Crews also took a shot at the Southern Poverty Law Center.
'It also appears that some military entities are using definitions of "hate" and "extreme" from the lists of anti-Christian political organizations,' he added. 'That violates the apolitical stance appropriate for the military.'
He noted that the Army Chief of Chaplains has investigated the presentation and determined that it was 'an isolated incident not condoned by the Department of the Army.'
The Army Reserve presentation defines religious extremism as 'beliefs, attitudes, feelings, actions, or strategies of a character far removed from the "ordinary."'
It concedes that 'ordinary' is a subjective term, but condemns religious Americans 'who believe that their beliefs, customs and traditions are the only "right way" and that all others are practicing their faith the "wrong way," seeing and believing that their faith/religion [is] superior to all others.'
Many Christians and Jews, the presentation suggests, fit into that category, making them as objectionable as Muslim terrorists.
The U.S. Army Office of the Chief of Chaplains did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But the Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services said it 'is astounded that Catholics were listed alongside groups that are, by their very mission and nature, violent and extremist.'
'The Archdiocese calls upon the Department of Defense to review these materials,' the organization said in a statement, 'and to ensure that tax-payer funds are never again used to present blatantly anti-religious material to the men and women in uniform.'
source: UK Daily Mail
'It also appears that some military entities are using definitions of "hate" and "extreme" from the lists of anti-Christian political organizations,' he added. 'That violates the apolitical stance appropriate for the military.'
He noted that the Army Chief of Chaplains has investigated the presentation and determined that it was 'an isolated incident not condoned by the Department of the Army.'
The Army Reserve presentation defines religious extremism as 'beliefs, attitudes, feelings, actions, or strategies of a character far removed from the "ordinary."'
It concedes that 'ordinary' is a subjective term, but condemns religious Americans 'who believe that their beliefs, customs and traditions are the only "right way" and that all others are practicing their faith the "wrong way," seeing and believing that their faith/religion [is] superior to all others.'
Many Christians and Jews, the presentation suggests, fit into that category, making them as objectionable as Muslim terrorists.
The U.S. Army Office of the Chief of Chaplains did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But the Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services said it 'is astounded that Catholics were listed alongside groups that are, by their very mission and nature, violent and extremist.'
'The Archdiocese calls upon the Department of Defense to review these materials,' the organization said in a statement, 'and to ensure that tax-payer funds are never again used to present blatantly anti-religious material to the men and women in uniform.'
source: UK Daily Mail
'Day of Action' for Medicaid expansion
April 6, 2013
By Theresa Schmidt
LAKE CHARLES, LA (KPLC) - It's going to be one of the big battles of the upcoming session. Lawmakers could force the governor to take billions of federal funding to expand Medicaid and give health coverage to estimated 400,000 who don't have it now.
On Friday, Medicaid expansion supporters took their case to some 20 state lawmakers in cities across Louisiana.
Here in Lake Charles, it was a small group with a big check -- a symbolic check that they hope will get their message across -- that the state should accept $15.8 billion from the federal government and expand Medicaid. The group was at House Speaker Chuck Kleckley's office in Lake Charles.
Edwina Medearis, with the Calcasieu Democratic Executive Committee, said the money could do so much good.
"There is approximately $15,000,800,000 that will go back to the federal government if we don't take advantage of this opportunity that's here. There are so many people in our state that are either out of work or working on low paying jobs, they cannot afford insurance. We give money to foreign countries, not only for education but for the aesthetics all around the region. And so if we can give our money to foreign countries, I certainly think we need to take care of our people here at home first and then we can go abroad," Medearis said.
Kleckley was not at his legislative office but, in a statement, said lawmakers need to take time to review healthcare carefully. Kleckley said healthcare is antiquated, inefficient and drives providers out. He said the Legislature needs to look at numerous issues and most importantly, the long-term costs to the citizens of Louisiana.
Still, Medearis said this statewide day of action for Medicaid expansion is aimed at getting support for bills this session that would require the state to expand Medicaid.
"If we can impress upon Mr. Kleckley how much we need his support on this particular bill that's in the works right now, to help our overall citizens. We know about Moss Regional, certain areas have been closed, certain opportunities have been shut out, as far as our citizens are concerned, they're not able to take advantage of a lot of the opportunities for health care, preventive health care, so that we don't, as citizens who are working everyday, don't have to take care of them," said Medearis. "Nobody wants to have to be at that state."
Since Kleckley wasn't at his legislative office, the Medicaid expansion supporters left with the symbolic check,with hopes of presenting it to the speaker some other time.
Kleckley's statement also said, "There is no immediate deadline forcing a decision and that legislators must take time to review carefully and thoroughly debate all ideas."
He added that , "We need to discuss and look at options which are financially sustainable for the taxpayers of Louisiana."
Copyright 2013 KPLC. All rights reserved.
By Theresa Schmidt
LAKE CHARLES, LA (KPLC) - It's going to be one of the big battles of the upcoming session. Lawmakers could force the governor to take billions of federal funding to expand Medicaid and give health coverage to estimated 400,000 who don't have it now.
On Friday, Medicaid expansion supporters took their case to some 20 state lawmakers in cities across Louisiana.
Here in Lake Charles, it was a small group with a big check -- a symbolic check that they hope will get their message across -- that the state should accept $15.8 billion from the federal government and expand Medicaid. The group was at House Speaker Chuck Kleckley's office in Lake Charles.
Edwina Medearis, with the Calcasieu Democratic Executive Committee, said the money could do so much good.
"There is approximately $15,000,800,000 that will go back to the federal government if we don't take advantage of this opportunity that's here. There are so many people in our state that are either out of work or working on low paying jobs, they cannot afford insurance. We give money to foreign countries, not only for education but for the aesthetics all around the region. And so if we can give our money to foreign countries, I certainly think we need to take care of our people here at home first and then we can go abroad," Medearis said.
Kleckley was not at his legislative office but, in a statement, said lawmakers need to take time to review healthcare carefully. Kleckley said healthcare is antiquated, inefficient and drives providers out. He said the Legislature needs to look at numerous issues and most importantly, the long-term costs to the citizens of Louisiana.
Still, Medearis said this statewide day of action for Medicaid expansion is aimed at getting support for bills this session that would require the state to expand Medicaid.
"If we can impress upon Mr. Kleckley how much we need his support on this particular bill that's in the works right now, to help our overall citizens. We know about Moss Regional, certain areas have been closed, certain opportunities have been shut out, as far as our citizens are concerned, they're not able to take advantage of a lot of the opportunities for health care, preventive health care, so that we don't, as citizens who are working everyday, don't have to take care of them," said Medearis. "Nobody wants to have to be at that state."
Since Kleckley wasn't at his legislative office, the Medicaid expansion supporters left with the symbolic check,with hopes of presenting it to the speaker some other time.
Kleckley's statement also said, "There is no immediate deadline forcing a decision and that legislators must take time to review carefully and thoroughly debate all ideas."
He added that , "We need to discuss and look at options which are financially sustainable for the taxpayers of Louisiana."
Copyright 2013 KPLC. All rights reserved.
Democrats Slam Obama’s Chained CPI Proposal
April 6, 2013
By Andrew Johnson
President Obama is expected to release his budget on Wednesday, and leaked reports indicate that it will include a proposal for a new measure of inflation to determine Social Security benefits that’s less generous, called chained CPI. That new formula happens to be quite unpopular with Democrats and progressives. Below, the most severe backlash against the president’s proposal:
Senate majority leader Harry Reid adamantly refused a White House proposal that included chained CPI during last year’s fiscal-cliff negotiations, according to the Washington Post: “Aides said Reid actually tore up the proposal and threw it into the blazing fire in his ornate green marble fireplace. The paper burned. Reid said he didn’t want evidence that the idea had ever been considered.”
Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) released a statement this morning saying, “I am terribly disappointed and will do everything in my power to block President Obama’s proposal to cut benefits for Social Security recipients through a chained consumer price index.” Sanders penned an op-ed for the Hill in February titled “Chained CPI: An economic, moral disaster.”
Representative Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), ranking member in the House Budget Committee, said he has “serious” and “substantive concerns” about the president’s proposals, including chained CPI, on MSNBC’s NewsNation with Tamron Hall this afternoon (video above).
Moveon.org’s executive director Anna Galland told the New York Times today, “President Obama’s plan to cut Social Security would harm seniors who worked hard all their lives,” lamenting that “the drive to cut Social Security is being led by President Obama and Democrats.”
Lastly, former labor secretary Robert Reich wrote and posted a video on the Huffington Post yesterday detailing “why the White House shouldn’t be touting” chained CPI.
When the president officially unveils his budget on Wednesday, expect more of this.
By Andrew Johnson
President Obama is expected to release his budget on Wednesday, and leaked reports indicate that it will include a proposal for a new measure of inflation to determine Social Security benefits that’s less generous, called chained CPI. That new formula happens to be quite unpopular with Democrats and progressives. Below, the most severe backlash against the president’s proposal:
Senate majority leader Harry Reid adamantly refused a White House proposal that included chained CPI during last year’s fiscal-cliff negotiations, according to the Washington Post: “Aides said Reid actually tore up the proposal and threw it into the blazing fire in his ornate green marble fireplace. The paper burned. Reid said he didn’t want evidence that the idea had ever been considered.”
Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) released a statement this morning saying, “I am terribly disappointed and will do everything in my power to block President Obama’s proposal to cut benefits for Social Security recipients through a chained consumer price index.” Sanders penned an op-ed for the Hill in February titled “Chained CPI: An economic, moral disaster.”
Representative Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.), ranking member in the House Budget Committee, said he has “serious” and “substantive concerns” about the president’s proposals, including chained CPI, on MSNBC’s NewsNation with Tamron Hall this afternoon (video above).
Moveon.org’s executive director Anna Galland told the New York Times today, “President Obama’s plan to cut Social Security would harm seniors who worked hard all their lives,” lamenting that “the drive to cut Social Security is being led by President Obama and Democrats.”
Lastly, former labor secretary Robert Reich wrote and posted a video on the Huffington Post yesterday detailing “why the White House shouldn’t be touting” chained CPI.
When the president officially unveils his budget on Wednesday, expect more of this.
Obamanomics: Caterpillar Laying Off 460 Workers at Illinois Plant
April 6, 2013
Dow Jones Newswires
Caterpillar Inc. (CAT) plans to lay off more than 460 workers at a central Illinois plant that produces big mining trucks.
The layoffs will shrink the work force at the Decatur plant by about 11%. The company said the reduction is needed to bring production at the plant in line with lower demand for mining equipment caused by falling prices for mined commodities and decisions by mining companies to shelve expansion projects.
"While some cost-reduction measures such as temporary layoffs, shutdowns and shortened work weeks have already been implemented, more permanent measures must be taken in the near term," the Peoria, Ill., company said in a written statement.
Caterpillar said those losing their jobs are temporary workers, known as supplemental employees. The supplementals are typically the first workers trimmed from Caterpillar's plants during a slowdown.
Caterpillar's stock was down 0.2% at $84.47 a share late Friday.
Copyright © 2013 Dow Jones Newswires
Dow Jones Newswires
Caterpillar Inc. (CAT) plans to lay off more than 460 workers at a central Illinois plant that produces big mining trucks.
The layoffs will shrink the work force at the Decatur plant by about 11%. The company said the reduction is needed to bring production at the plant in line with lower demand for mining equipment caused by falling prices for mined commodities and decisions by mining companies to shelve expansion projects.
"While some cost-reduction measures such as temporary layoffs, shutdowns and shortened work weeks have already been implemented, more permanent measures must be taken in the near term," the Peoria, Ill., company said in a written statement.
Caterpillar said those losing their jobs are temporary workers, known as supplemental employees. The supplementals are typically the first workers trimmed from Caterpillar's plants during a slowdown.
Caterpillar's stock was down 0.2% at $84.47 a share late Friday.
Copyright © 2013 Dow Jones Newswires
White House Blames Jobs Numbers on Sequester Bill that Obama Signed
April 6, 2013
by Wynton Hall
Attention New Readers: If you wonder why many stories posted here never seem to make it to your television, it is because most are released late Friday afternoon when the average person is busy elsewhere. This is a typical example of one of those which, if released earlier in the week, could the responses could easily be debunked and proven to be false. By Monday morning, little time will spent on it because it will be deemed " old news". Enjoy your read!
- KC
(Breitbart) - The Obama White House is scrambling to blame Friday’s abysmal March jobs numbers on the sequester’s trimming of the rate of growth in federal budgets that have yet to fully commence.
After the Labor Department announced that a mass exodus of 663,000 workers left the U.S. workforce last month and that job creation fell 112,000 jobs short of projections, Obama’s top economic adviser Alan B. Krueger, took to the White House blog to blame the sequester:
Read the FULL STORY>>
by Wynton Hall
Attention New Readers: If you wonder why many stories posted here never seem to make it to your television, it is because most are released late Friday afternoon when the average person is busy elsewhere. This is a typical example of one of those which, if released earlier in the week, could the responses could easily be debunked and proven to be false. By Monday morning, little time will spent on it because it will be deemed " old news". Enjoy your read!
- KC
After the Labor Department announced that a mass exodus of 663,000 workers left the U.S. workforce last month and that job creation fell 112,000 jobs short of projections, Obama’s top economic adviser Alan B. Krueger, took to the White House blog to blame the sequester:
Read the FULL STORY>>
Making Work Not Pay
April 6, 2013
The jobless rate falls because the labor force shrinks.
The lousy March jobs report jolted financial markets Friday, and understandably so. In a trend that has defined this weakest of all modern economic recoveries, the jobless rate keeps falling but largely because the labor force keeps shrinking.
The unemployment rate fell to a new four-year low of 7.6%, from 7.7% in February. Good news, except the main reason for the decline was that nearly half a million Americans (496,000) left the civilian labor force. They retired, quit working, went back to school or gave up looking for work.
The economy created a net 88,000 new jobs, 95,000 in private business. This means that for every unemployed American who found a job in March, about five left the labor force. If the Obama Administration can convince another three million or so Americans to leave the job market, the President will be able to hail "full employment."
FULL STORY AT THE WALL STREET JOURNAL>>
The jobless rate falls because the labor force shrinks.
The unemployment rate fell to a new four-year low of 7.6%, from 7.7% in February. Good news, except the main reason for the decline was that nearly half a million Americans (496,000) left the civilian labor force. They retired, quit working, went back to school or gave up looking for work.
The economy created a net 88,000 new jobs, 95,000 in private business. This means that for every unemployed American who found a job in March, about five left the labor force. If the Obama Administration can convince another three million or so Americans to leave the job market, the President will be able to hail "full employment."
FULL STORY AT THE WALL STREET JOURNAL>>
Gun Grabbers’ Latest Gambit
April 6, 2013
by Tom Blumer
Mandatory liability insurance is a pathway to registration — and confiscation.
On Tuesday, I came across the following at the Daily Caller: “A contingent of liberal Democrats in Congress is proposing a new federal gun control idea: mandatory liability insurance for gun owners.”
Gun purchasers without such insurance would face a fine of “as much as $10,000″ if the “Firearm Risk Protection Act” introduced in March by New York’s Carolyn Maloney and seven other Democratic congressmen were ever to become law.
The draft legislation prohibits the sale of a firearm unless “the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.” Said insurance policy must specifically cover “losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.” The plaintiffs’ bar will almost certainly begin to argue in court cases that if your gun was stolen and used in a crime, you’re now liable for the results of its use (you’re still its owner, even if you don’t possess it).
In preparing this column, I spoke with an insurance agent who represents one of the country’s leading property and casualty companies. He told me that a typical umbrella liability policy does not directly deal with gun-related matters, and that applications for such policies do not ask if the applicant or others in the household own a gun. That is to say, the policies Maloney envisions are currently very rare, though my contact did tell me that there are insurance companies which can customize a policy to a specific matter such as gun liability on a case by case basis.
So if you were an underwriter attempting to formulate a policy and pricing structure for an individual gun liability policy, what kinds of information would you need to protect your company from financially crippling losses and to appropriately price the risks involved? Here are just a few of the items I believe you would need to know:
The applicant’s age and gender. Logically, one would expect that younger men would face higher premiums than older women.
The criminal history of the applicant and others in their household. Obviously, the worse those histories are, the higher the premiums.
The applicant’s driving record, as an indicator of his or her standard of care. Again, the worse it is, the higher the premium.
Where the applicant lives. Living in a dangerous neighborhood would drive a higher premium.
How many guns the applicant owns. More guns owned would mean higher premiums.
What type of guns the applicant has. As is the case with cars, certain makes and models are more often involved in accidents and crimes than others.
Last but certainly not least, the serial numbers of those guns, so that the insurance company can verify that a gun owned by the applicant really was involved in whatever incident generates a claim.
In other words, Maloney’s bill represents the beginning of a mandated national gun registry run (for now) by the insurance industry. (Several people have told that they they do not insure their guns under property policies because insurance companies — properly but nevertheless dangerously — insist on obtaining specific information about guns owned.)
Source: PJ Media
by Tom Blumer
Mandatory liability insurance is a pathway to registration — and confiscation.
On Tuesday, I came across the following at the Daily Caller: “A contingent of liberal Democrats in Congress is proposing a new federal gun control idea: mandatory liability insurance for gun owners.”
Gun purchasers without such insurance would face a fine of “as much as $10,000″ if the “Firearm Risk Protection Act” introduced in March by New York’s Carolyn Maloney and seven other Democratic congressmen were ever to become law.
The draft legislation prohibits the sale of a firearm unless “the purchaser presents to the seller proof that the purchaser is covered by a qualified liability insurance policy.” Said insurance policy must specifically cover “losses resulting from use of the firearm while it is owned by the purchaser.” The plaintiffs’ bar will almost certainly begin to argue in court cases that if your gun was stolen and used in a crime, you’re now liable for the results of its use (you’re still its owner, even if you don’t possess it).
In preparing this column, I spoke with an insurance agent who represents one of the country’s leading property and casualty companies. He told me that a typical umbrella liability policy does not directly deal with gun-related matters, and that applications for such policies do not ask if the applicant or others in the household own a gun. That is to say, the policies Maloney envisions are currently very rare, though my contact did tell me that there are insurance companies which can customize a policy to a specific matter such as gun liability on a case by case basis.
So if you were an underwriter attempting to formulate a policy and pricing structure for an individual gun liability policy, what kinds of information would you need to protect your company from financially crippling losses and to appropriately price the risks involved? Here are just a few of the items I believe you would need to know:
The applicant’s age and gender. Logically, one would expect that younger men would face higher premiums than older women.
The criminal history of the applicant and others in their household. Obviously, the worse those histories are, the higher the premiums.
The applicant’s driving record, as an indicator of his or her standard of care. Again, the worse it is, the higher the premium.
Where the applicant lives. Living in a dangerous neighborhood would drive a higher premium.
How many guns the applicant owns. More guns owned would mean higher premiums.
What type of guns the applicant has. As is the case with cars, certain makes and models are more often involved in accidents and crimes than others.
Last but certainly not least, the serial numbers of those guns, so that the insurance company can verify that a gun owned by the applicant really was involved in whatever incident generates a claim.
In other words, Maloney’s bill represents the beginning of a mandated national gun registry run (for now) by the insurance industry. (Several people have told that they they do not insure their guns under property policies because insurance companies — properly but nevertheless dangerously — insist on obtaining specific information about guns owned.)
Source: PJ Media
NASA Global Warming Extremist Hansen Leaves To Fight Canadian Pipeline
April 6, 2013
IBD Editorial
Climate Change: The man who once compared coal trains to Nazi boxcars headed to crematoria leaves government service to fight what he calls the "pipeline to disaster" and promote his brand of climate quackery.
In 2007, Dr. James Hansen testified before the Iowa Utilities Board not in his capacity as a government employee but, in his words, "as a private citizen, a resident of Kintnersville, Pa., on behalf of the planet, of life on Earth, including all species."
Hansen told the board, "If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains — no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species."
FULL STORY>>
IBD Editorial
Climate Change: The man who once compared coal trains to Nazi boxcars headed to crematoria leaves government service to fight what he calls the "pipeline to disaster" and promote his brand of climate quackery.
In 2007, Dr. James Hansen testified before the Iowa Utilities Board not in his capacity as a government employee but, in his words, "as a private citizen, a resident of Kintnersville, Pa., on behalf of the planet, of life on Earth, including all species."
Hansen told the board, "If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains — no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species."
FULL STORY>>
Liberals Want To Control Your Words—And Opinions
April 6, 2013
by Mark Steyn
He who controls the language shapes the debate: In the same week the Associated Press announced that it would no longer describe illegal immigrants as "illegal immigrants," the star columnist of The New York Times fretted that the Supreme Court seemed to have misplaced the style book on another fashionable minority. "I am worried," wrote Maureen Dowd, "about how the justices can properly debate same-sex marriage when some don't even seem to realize that most Americans use the word 'gay' now instead of 'homosexual.'" She quoted her friend Max Mutchnick, creator of "Will & Grace":
"Scalia uses the word 'homosexual' the way George Wallace used the word 'Negro.' There's a tone to it. It's humiliating and hurtful. I don't think I'm being overly sensitive, merely vigilant."
For younger readers, George Wallace was a powerful segregationist Democrat....
Keep Reading>>
by Mark Steyn
He who controls the language shapes the debate: In the same week the Associated Press announced that it would no longer describe illegal immigrants as "illegal immigrants," the star columnist of The New York Times fretted that the Supreme Court seemed to have misplaced the style book on another fashionable minority. "I am worried," wrote Maureen Dowd, "about how the justices can properly debate same-sex marriage when some don't even seem to realize that most Americans use the word 'gay' now instead of 'homosexual.'" She quoted her friend Max Mutchnick, creator of "Will & Grace":
"Scalia uses the word 'homosexual' the way George Wallace used the word 'Negro.' There's a tone to it. It's humiliating and hurtful. I don't think I'm being overly sensitive, merely vigilant."
For younger readers, George Wallace was a powerful segregationist Democrat....
Keep Reading>>
Horrible Journalism Award Candidate: "Obama budget to take aim at wealthy IRAs"
April 6, 2013
This is journalism, seriously?
(The Hill) - President Obama’s budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals – like Mitt Romney – can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts.
The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code.
Disaster continues>>
This is journalism, seriously?
(The Hill) - President Obama’s budget, to be released next week, will limit how much wealthy individuals – like Mitt Romney – can keep in IRAs and other retirement accounts.
The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code.
Disaster continues>>
Obama’s feeble salary ‘sacrifice’
April 6, 2013
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post
“President Obama plans to give up 5 percent of his salary this year to draw attention to the financial sacrifice of more than 1 million federal employees who will be furloughed.”
— The Washington Post, April 4
....Federal workers face unpaid furloughs because of the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration. That’s a serious economic hardship for many middle-class families, and whether or not Obama intended for it to happen, it’s a direct result of a bill he signed into law....
Keep Reading>>
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post
“President Obama plans to give up 5 percent of his salary this year to draw attention to the financial sacrifice of more than 1 million federal employees who will be furloughed.”
— The Washington Post, April 4
....Federal workers face unpaid furloughs because of the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration. That’s a serious economic hardship for many middle-class families, and whether or not Obama intended for it to happen, it’s a direct result of a bill he signed into law....
Keep Reading>>
SHOCKER: Vice President Joe Biden Holds Off on Donating Salary
April 6, 2013
By Arlette Saenz
(ABC NEWS) - Vice President Joe Biden is not planning on donating a portion of his salary, eschewing the lead of President Obama and other Cabinet members who are giving up part of their salary as some federal workers face furloughs because of the sequester.
While he is not donating his salary right now, the vice president could forgo a portion of his salary in the future should his staff face furloughs down the road.
“The vice president is committed to sharing the burden of the sequester with his staff,” an aide to the vice president said.
Biden earns a salary of $230,700 a year as vice president, but his net worth is much lower than the president and some Cabinet members who have decided to donate a portion of their salary. The vice president and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, reported an adjusted gross income of $379,035 in 2011, and a 2011 Center for Responsive Politics analysis estimated the vice president’s net worth at approximately $337,000.
Asked by ABC News’ Jonathan Karl whether the vice president should follow the example set by the president and other Cabinet members, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Friday, “We’re not setting expectations. But I think everyone, including members of Congress, can make a decision as they see fit.”
By Arlette Saenz
(ABC NEWS) - Vice President Joe Biden is not planning on donating a portion of his salary, eschewing the lead of President Obama and other Cabinet members who are giving up part of their salary as some federal workers face furloughs because of the sequester.
While he is not donating his salary right now, the vice president could forgo a portion of his salary in the future should his staff face furloughs down the road.
“The vice president is committed to sharing the burden of the sequester with his staff,” an aide to the vice president said.
Biden earns a salary of $230,700 a year as vice president, but his net worth is much lower than the president and some Cabinet members who have decided to donate a portion of their salary. The vice president and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, reported an adjusted gross income of $379,035 in 2011, and a 2011 Center for Responsive Politics analysis estimated the vice president’s net worth at approximately $337,000.
Asked by ABC News’ Jonathan Karl whether the vice president should follow the example set by the president and other Cabinet members, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Friday, “We’re not setting expectations. But I think everyone, including members of Congress, can make a decision as they see fit.”
Hill staff rages as LegiStorm gets personal
April 6, 2013
By KATIE GLUECK
The Congress-focused research organization LegiStorm set off a firestorm on Capitol Hill this week as some staffers learned that their personal Twitter accounts would appear on the site.
LegiStorm on Wednesday publicized the tool StormFeed, a “real-time, full-text searchable access to every official press release and official tweet from Capitol Hill plus the tweets of thousands of congressional staffers,” according to a release. It’s a page available for members of the subscription service LegiStorm Pro.
As staffers learned about StormFeed, some discovered other detailed, personal information listed on the site...
More at POLITICO
By KATIE GLUECK
The Congress-focused research organization LegiStorm set off a firestorm on Capitol Hill this week as some staffers learned that their personal Twitter accounts would appear on the site.
LegiStorm on Wednesday publicized the tool StormFeed, a “real-time, full-text searchable access to every official press release and official tweet from Capitol Hill plus the tweets of thousands of congressional staffers,” according to a release. It’s a page available for members of the subscription service LegiStorm Pro.
As staffers learned about StormFeed, some discovered other detailed, personal information listed on the site...
More at POLITICO
Obamanomics: Entitlement Edition
April 6, 2013
Police searching for thieves who raided grocery store meat department in Susquehanna Township
A couple apparently made off with an Easter dinner from a Giant Food Store in Susquehanna Township, according to township police.
A man and woman entered the Giant on Linglestown Road shortly before 4 p.m. March 30, and, after walking around the store, were spotted on surveillance camera stuffing two hams into the man's jacket, according to police.
The woman then was shown concealing a can of crab meat in her purse before the couple headed for the exit, detectives said.
Police believe the suspects fled the store parking lot in a light colored, four-door sedan, but the vehicle may have been silver or gold, detectives advised.
Anyone with information is asked to contact Susquehanna Township police Detective Aaron Osman at 717-909-9232 or by email at aosman@susquehannatwp.com.
source: PennLive
Police searching for thieves who raided grocery store meat department in Susquehanna Township
A couple apparently made off with an Easter dinner from a Giant Food Store in Susquehanna Township, according to township police.
A man and woman entered the Giant on Linglestown Road shortly before 4 p.m. March 30, and, after walking around the store, were spotted on surveillance camera stuffing two hams into the man's jacket, according to police.
 |
| This couple allegedly stole two hams and a can of crab meat, according to police. Susquehanna Township police |
Police believe the suspects fled the store parking lot in a light colored, four-door sedan, but the vehicle may have been silver or gold, detectives advised.
Anyone with information is asked to contact Susquehanna Township police Detective Aaron Osman at 717-909-9232 or by email at aosman@susquehannatwp.com.
source: PennLive
Friday, April 5, 2013
Help Wanted: Communist Manifesto has an Immediate Opening for a Book/Film Critic
April 5, 2013
21) Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.
 |
| Roger Ebert, original leftist media critic, dies at 70 |
21) Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.
Maryland’s leftward swing
April 5, 2013
By Paul Schwartzman
Over the past two years, Maryland has enacted laws that represent a dramatic liberal shift, even for a state long dominated by Democrats.
Driving the progressive swing is Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) and the Maryland General Assembly, which now embraces legislation that it previously rejected. Emboldened by victories in statewide referendums, the governor and his allies have imposed tax increases, repealed the death penalty and approved a system to provide more than $1 billion in subsidies to a potential offshore wind farm.
Now, as the legislative session in Annapolis comes to an end, the state faces the question of whether Maryland is becoming a reliably liberal bastion like Massachusetts, California and Vermont.
Or has the state’s Democratic leadership moved too far to the left, potentially endangering incumbents at the polls in 2014?
Sen. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Montgomery) said the state has made historic breakthroughs, repairing long-standing social and moral injustices and taking necessary steps to protect the environment and reduce gun violence.
“It’s thrilling,” Raskin said. “We’ve had the death penalty for centuries. Gay people have been discriminated against forever. We’re vindicating people’s rights.”
But Republicans argue that Democratic leaders have alienated the electorate’s mainstream. Even as the General Assembly repealed the death penalty, a majority of state residents expressed support for executions in a Washington Post poll in February.
“We’re watching a huge overreach taking place,” said Senate Minority Leader E.J. Pipkin (R-Cecil). “The legislature is out of step with the constituency.”
Even moderate Democrats have expressed objections to much of the legislation, which included a proposal to decriminalize marijuana. Then there are the tax increases — on gasoline and the incomes of residents earning more than $100,000.
All of it has been too much for Del. John L. Bohanan Jr. (D-St. Mary’s), a moderate whose constituents ask him, “What were you people thinking?”
“It was just the pace of having so many in such a short period of time. It tends to choke the system,” he said. “It’s a lot for a state that has been pretty pragmatic.”
Del. Kevin Kelly (Allegany), a Democrat who described himself as “centrist-right,” opposed the gun-control legislation, the repeal of the death penalty and other liberal legislation.
His party’s leaders, he said, have “hijacked the Democratic Party. It’s gone left, left, left.”
Maryland has long been dominated by the Democratic Party, even though voters have, on occasion, supported such Republicans as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush for president and Spiro Agnew and Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., who cast himself as a moderate, for governor.
Still, since the early 1980s, Maryland’s political dynamics have evolved as two of the state’s largest counties, Prince George’s and Montgomery, have grown and become more racially diverse, aligning them with Baltimore.
More recently, President Obama’s 2008 election set off a wave of progressive activism across the country, especially among young people. And polls have shown another recent shift: Americans have grown increasingly supportive of such issues as same-sex marriage.
The leftward drift in Maryland over the past generation may be connected to a drop in the percentage of registered Democrats and an increase in the percentage of unaffiliated voters, said Todd Eberly, an assistant professor of political science at St. Mary’s College.
Since the 1980s, he said, the percentage of registered Democrats has fallen from about 70 percent to 56 percent; independents have grown from about 1 percent to about 16 percent. As a result, he said, the Democrats voting in Maryland’s primaries tend to be more progressive.
“That will change the mix of folks who are in office,” he said. “So if you’re in the Senate, you see this and you say: ‘Our state is becoming more liberal. We’re going to be punished if we tack to the middle. We can feel more comfortable embracing a progressive agenda.”
Eberly added: “That doesn’t mean the electorate has changed dramatically. I don’t think the voters are there. I think there are a lot of Democrats convincing themselves that the voters are there.”
But Raskin said the results of statewide referendums last year suggest otherwise, at least on some issues.
Voters, he said, supported legalizing same-sex marriage in legislative districts where their state lawmakers opposed that initiative. Voters also approved the Dream Act, which granted qualified illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates at state universities.
“If anything,” Raskin said, “the people are more progressive than the politicians in our state.”
The first test of that assertion will come during next year’s elections.
Republicans say that they have identified Democratic incumbents who are vulnerable and that they’re prepared to portray them as disconnected from mainstream voters. State Republican leaders blame the leftward shift on the governor, saying that he is seeking to burnish his progressive credentials in anticipation of a presidential run in 2016.
“Martin O’Malley and the Democrats have a general hostility to taxpayers and small businesses,” said David Ferguson, executive director of the Maryland Republican Party. “They’re more concerned with setting up a progressive agenda as opposed to what’s best for taxpayers.”
But the governor and his allies say their main interest is addressing complex problems.
“Maryland’s often ahead of the curve in our country’s ongoing journey,” O’Malley said. “We’re growing more inclusive, more compassionate.”
Whatever the case, Democrats and Republicans agree on one thing: The political culture in Annapolis has grown more polarized, reflecting what has occurred nationally.
“We’ve become redder and bluer,” said Bohanan, who joined the General Assembly in 1999 and is an adviser to Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D). “In a lot of ways, it reflects Washington, in that people are a lot less willing to compromise.’”
Del. Anthony J. O’Donnell (R-Calvert), the House minority leader, said that in the past, the Democrats were defined by two factions: progressives on one side, moderates and conservatives on the other.
“That would keep things from going too far to the left,” he said. “Now we have a bunch of leftists who dominate the General Assembly, and they’re making policy.”
Much of the opposition to progressive legislation has been voiced by representatives of Maryland’s rural areas, whose demographics have remained largely the same while those of the Baltimore and Washington suburbs have changed.
“There are two Marylands — the urban and the rural — and they have declared war on the rural areas,” Del. Michael D. Smigiel (R-Cecil) said in an interview, referring to progressives.
“I’m going to use the S-word,” he said, glancing at his chief of staff, who groaned and covered her eyes.
“Secession,” he said.
In Smigiel’s view, the Eastern Shore, which he represents, has more in common politically with Virginia, and Western Maryland is more like West Virginia.
Yet, for all his bluster, Smigiel stressed that he has worked with Democrats. Most recently, he voted for a medical marijuana bill. (“You’re going to deny a patient something that can help them because I don’t like the aesthetics of grandma toking on a joint?” he asked.)
In fact, Smigiel was a Democrat until about 2000, when “they left me and went too far left.” He became a Republican, and now he chairs the tea party caucus in Annapolis.
In politics, as the delegate well knows, things change.
source: Washington Post
By Paul Schwartzman
Driving the progressive swing is Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) and the Maryland General Assembly, which now embraces legislation that it previously rejected. Emboldened by victories in statewide referendums, the governor and his allies have imposed tax increases, repealed the death penalty and approved a system to provide more than $1 billion in subsidies to a potential offshore wind farm.
Now, as the legislative session in Annapolis comes to an end, the state faces the question of whether Maryland is becoming a reliably liberal bastion like Massachusetts, California and Vermont.
Or has the state’s Democratic leadership moved too far to the left, potentially endangering incumbents at the polls in 2014?
Sen. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Montgomery) said the state has made historic breakthroughs, repairing long-standing social and moral injustices and taking necessary steps to protect the environment and reduce gun violence.
“It’s thrilling,” Raskin said. “We’ve had the death penalty for centuries. Gay people have been discriminated against forever. We’re vindicating people’s rights.”
But Republicans argue that Democratic leaders have alienated the electorate’s mainstream. Even as the General Assembly repealed the death penalty, a majority of state residents expressed support for executions in a Washington Post poll in February.
“We’re watching a huge overreach taking place,” said Senate Minority Leader E.J. Pipkin (R-Cecil). “The legislature is out of step with the constituency.”
Even moderate Democrats have expressed objections to much of the legislation, which included a proposal to decriminalize marijuana. Then there are the tax increases — on gasoline and the incomes of residents earning more than $100,000.
All of it has been too much for Del. John L. Bohanan Jr. (D-St. Mary’s), a moderate whose constituents ask him, “What were you people thinking?”
“It was just the pace of having so many in such a short period of time. It tends to choke the system,” he said. “It’s a lot for a state that has been pretty pragmatic.”
Del. Kevin Kelly (Allegany), a Democrat who described himself as “centrist-right,” opposed the gun-control legislation, the repeal of the death penalty and other liberal legislation.
His party’s leaders, he said, have “hijacked the Democratic Party. It’s gone left, left, left.”
Maryland has long been dominated by the Democratic Party, even though voters have, on occasion, supported such Republicans as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush for president and Spiro Agnew and Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., who cast himself as a moderate, for governor.
Still, since the early 1980s, Maryland’s political dynamics have evolved as two of the state’s largest counties, Prince George’s and Montgomery, have grown and become more racially diverse, aligning them with Baltimore.
More recently, President Obama’s 2008 election set off a wave of progressive activism across the country, especially among young people. And polls have shown another recent shift: Americans have grown increasingly supportive of such issues as same-sex marriage.
The leftward drift in Maryland over the past generation may be connected to a drop in the percentage of registered Democrats and an increase in the percentage of unaffiliated voters, said Todd Eberly, an assistant professor of political science at St. Mary’s College.
Since the 1980s, he said, the percentage of registered Democrats has fallen from about 70 percent to 56 percent; independents have grown from about 1 percent to about 16 percent. As a result, he said, the Democrats voting in Maryland’s primaries tend to be more progressive.
“That will change the mix of folks who are in office,” he said. “So if you’re in the Senate, you see this and you say: ‘Our state is becoming more liberal. We’re going to be punished if we tack to the middle. We can feel more comfortable embracing a progressive agenda.”
Eberly added: “That doesn’t mean the electorate has changed dramatically. I don’t think the voters are there. I think there are a lot of Democrats convincing themselves that the voters are there.”
But Raskin said the results of statewide referendums last year suggest otherwise, at least on some issues.
Voters, he said, supported legalizing same-sex marriage in legislative districts where their state lawmakers opposed that initiative. Voters also approved the Dream Act, which granted qualified illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates at state universities.
“If anything,” Raskin said, “the people are more progressive than the politicians in our state.”
The first test of that assertion will come during next year’s elections.
Republicans say that they have identified Democratic incumbents who are vulnerable and that they’re prepared to portray them as disconnected from mainstream voters. State Republican leaders blame the leftward shift on the governor, saying that he is seeking to burnish his progressive credentials in anticipation of a presidential run in 2016.
“Martin O’Malley and the Democrats have a general hostility to taxpayers and small businesses,” said David Ferguson, executive director of the Maryland Republican Party. “They’re more concerned with setting up a progressive agenda as opposed to what’s best for taxpayers.”
But the governor and his allies say their main interest is addressing complex problems.
“Maryland’s often ahead of the curve in our country’s ongoing journey,” O’Malley said. “We’re growing more inclusive, more compassionate.”
Whatever the case, Democrats and Republicans agree on one thing: The political culture in Annapolis has grown more polarized, reflecting what has occurred nationally.
“We’ve become redder and bluer,” said Bohanan, who joined the General Assembly in 1999 and is an adviser to Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D). “In a lot of ways, it reflects Washington, in that people are a lot less willing to compromise.’”
Del. Anthony J. O’Donnell (R-Calvert), the House minority leader, said that in the past, the Democrats were defined by two factions: progressives on one side, moderates and conservatives on the other.
“That would keep things from going too far to the left,” he said. “Now we have a bunch of leftists who dominate the General Assembly, and they’re making policy.”
Much of the opposition to progressive legislation has been voiced by representatives of Maryland’s rural areas, whose demographics have remained largely the same while those of the Baltimore and Washington suburbs have changed.
“There are two Marylands — the urban and the rural — and they have declared war on the rural areas,” Del. Michael D. Smigiel (R-Cecil) said in an interview, referring to progressives.
“I’m going to use the S-word,” he said, glancing at his chief of staff, who groaned and covered her eyes.
“Secession,” he said.
In Smigiel’s view, the Eastern Shore, which he represents, has more in common politically with Virginia, and Western Maryland is more like West Virginia.
Yet, for all his bluster, Smigiel stressed that he has worked with Democrats. Most recently, he voted for a medical marijuana bill. (“You’re going to deny a patient something that can help them because I don’t like the aesthetics of grandma toking on a joint?” he asked.)
In fact, Smigiel was a Democrat until about 2000, when “they left me and went too far left.” He became a Republican, and now he chairs the tea party caucus in Annapolis.
In politics, as the delegate well knows, things change.
source: Washington Post
U.S. Agrees To U.N. Global Gun Control
April 5, 2013
IBD Editorials
Global Gun Control: Despite a prior Senate rebuff, President Obama will likely sign and push a treaty embraced by the world's oppressors and thugs who fear armed citizens.
The treaty's prior rejection by the Senate 53-46 in a nonbinding test vote as part of the budget debate in a body where a two-thirds vote to ratify is required would seem to doom the United Nations pact endorsed by the Obama administration.
However, the president will likely sign it and, as is his custom these days, try to enforce key provisions by stealth, executive order and by "common-sense" regulations and restrictions.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that the White House was pleased with the outcome, but "as is the case with all treaties of this nature, we will follow normal procedures to conduct a thorough review of the treaty text to determine whether to sign the treaty."
It is doubtful the president would not sign a treaty he has pushed for through his past and present secretaries of state, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.
"The U.S. Senate is united in strong opposition to a treaty that puts us on level ground with dictatorships who abuse human rights and arm terrorists, but there is real concern that the administration feels pressured to sign a treaty that violates our constitutional rights," Sen. Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican, said Tuesday.
Supporters of the pact say it doesn't really threaten our Second Amendment rights, regulates only international arms trade, and won't be ratified anyway.
But there is also real concern that the Obama administration still might use it as a pretext not to sell weapons to allies like Israel and Taiwan, or to restrict the import of firearms and ammunition for individual end users.
Firearms expert and economist John R. Lott Jr. writes that, in fact, the "Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will regulate individual gun ownership all across the world and contains provisions which are longtime favorites of domestic gun control advocates."
One provision requires participating countries to keep records of arms exports and imports, including the quantity, value, model/type, and "end users, as appropriate" for at least 10 years.
As Lott points out, under the ATT each country will be obligated to "maintain a national control list that shall include (rifles and handguns)" and "to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms."
The new background check rules approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee include just those rules — a registration system and a record of all transfers of guns.
Coincidence? We think not.
"The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that passed in the General Assembly today would require the United States to implement gun-control legislation as required by the treaty, which could supersede the laws our elected officials have already put into place," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who sponsored the nonbinding budget amendment 53 Senators voted for.
The Obama administration, which reversed long-standing U.S. opposition to the treaty in 2009, says the treaty does not threaten our Second Amendment rights and applies only to international arms trade, but its record of opposition to private gun ownership and its deference to international bodies and their authority gives us pause.
The U.S. is one of the few countries that has anything like a Second Amendment, our Founding Fathers enshrining the right to bear arms in our founding principles in recognition of it being the ultimate bulwark against tyrannical government.
It was guns owned by civilians that freed us from British tyranny.
The fact that a world full of tyrants, dictators, thugs and gross human rights violators wants to control small arms worldwide is hardly a surprise.
Rather than adopt the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, we should be pushing other governments to adopt our Second Amendment.
IBD Editorials
Global Gun Control: Despite a prior Senate rebuff, President Obama will likely sign and push a treaty embraced by the world's oppressors and thugs who fear armed citizens.
The treaty's prior rejection by the Senate 53-46 in a nonbinding test vote as part of the budget debate in a body where a two-thirds vote to ratify is required would seem to doom the United Nations pact endorsed by the Obama administration.
However, the president will likely sign it and, as is his custom these days, try to enforce key provisions by stealth, executive order and by "common-sense" regulations and restrictions.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that the White House was pleased with the outcome, but "as is the case with all treaties of this nature, we will follow normal procedures to conduct a thorough review of the treaty text to determine whether to sign the treaty."
It is doubtful the president would not sign a treaty he has pushed for through his past and present secretaries of state, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.
"The U.S. Senate is united in strong opposition to a treaty that puts us on level ground with dictatorships who abuse human rights and arm terrorists, but there is real concern that the administration feels pressured to sign a treaty that violates our constitutional rights," Sen. Jerry Moran, a Kansas Republican, said Tuesday.
Supporters of the pact say it doesn't really threaten our Second Amendment rights, regulates only international arms trade, and won't be ratified anyway.
But there is also real concern that the Obama administration still might use it as a pretext not to sell weapons to allies like Israel and Taiwan, or to restrict the import of firearms and ammunition for individual end users.
Firearms expert and economist John R. Lott Jr. writes that, in fact, the "Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) will regulate individual gun ownership all across the world and contains provisions which are longtime favorites of domestic gun control advocates."
One provision requires participating countries to keep records of arms exports and imports, including the quantity, value, model/type, and "end users, as appropriate" for at least 10 years.
As Lott points out, under the ATT each country will be obligated to "maintain a national control list that shall include (rifles and handguns)" and "to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms."
The new background check rules approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee include just those rules — a registration system and a record of all transfers of guns.
Coincidence? We think not.
"The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that passed in the General Assembly today would require the United States to implement gun-control legislation as required by the treaty, which could supersede the laws our elected officials have already put into place," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who sponsored the nonbinding budget amendment 53 Senators voted for.
The Obama administration, which reversed long-standing U.S. opposition to the treaty in 2009, says the treaty does not threaten our Second Amendment rights and applies only to international arms trade, but its record of opposition to private gun ownership and its deference to international bodies and their authority gives us pause.
The U.S. is one of the few countries that has anything like a Second Amendment, our Founding Fathers enshrining the right to bear arms in our founding principles in recognition of it being the ultimate bulwark against tyrannical government.
It was guns owned by civilians that freed us from British tyranny.
The fact that a world full of tyrants, dictators, thugs and gross human rights violators wants to control small arms worldwide is hardly a surprise.
Rather than adopt the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, we should be pushing other governments to adopt our Second Amendment.
Police Militarization, Abuses of Power, and the Road to Impeachment
April 5, 2013
by James Simpson
These are trying times. Never in the history of this country have we been so weakened and polarized by what many view as deliberate government policy. Now anti-gunners in the U.S. Congress, the Obama administration, and legislatures across the country are seeking to exploit the Newtown tragedy to promote their “gun control” agenda that envisions federal, universal background checks on gun purchases, and that could lead to gun registration and confiscation.
At the same time, the increasing militarization of law enforcement, most visibly demonstrated by the growing use of massive, SWAT-type raids on businesses and individuals, sometimes with federal involvement or authorization, is heightening concerns that this country is moving toward a police state.
Read More at Accuracy In Media>>
by James Simpson
These are trying times. Never in the history of this country have we been so weakened and polarized by what many view as deliberate government policy. Now anti-gunners in the U.S. Congress, the Obama administration, and legislatures across the country are seeking to exploit the Newtown tragedy to promote their “gun control” agenda that envisions federal, universal background checks on gun purchases, and that could lead to gun registration and confiscation.
At the same time, the increasing militarization of law enforcement, most visibly demonstrated by the growing use of massive, SWAT-type raids on businesses and individuals, sometimes with federal involvement or authorization, is heightening concerns that this country is moving toward a police state.
Read More at Accuracy In Media>>
Poll: Sequester fall-out is not going the way Democrats had wished
April 5, 2013
by Mary Katharine Ham
(Hot Air) - I am mildly heartened by the fact that the American public is not absolutely freaking out over a small percentage of the budget. It gives me hope that perhaps we can stomach more necessary reforms in the future. For the same reason, Democrats are worried that they’re not freaking out, which is why Greg Sargent at the Washington Post flags this McClatchy-Marist result:
When it comes to the impact of the automatic spending cuts on the economy, 40 percent of adults nationally say they have had no effect on the economy. 36 percent believe they have had a negative impact while 14 percent say the sequester cuts have had a positive one. 10 percent are unsure.
There has been an increase in the proportion of Americans who think these across-the-board spending cuts have had little impact on the nation’s economy.
When McClatchy-Marist reported this question last month, 27% of residents thought sequestration would not affect the economy. Nearly half — 47 percent — said the economy would be adversely affected, and 19% thought it would be positively impacted. Seven percent, at that time, were unsure.
On the personal side, almost two-thirds of adults — 65 percent — say these automatic budget cuts have not had any effect on their family.
Continue reading>>
by Mary Katharine Ham
(Hot Air) - I am mildly heartened by the fact that the American public is not absolutely freaking out over a small percentage of the budget. It gives me hope that perhaps we can stomach more necessary reforms in the future. For the same reason, Democrats are worried that they’re not freaking out, which is why Greg Sargent at the Washington Post flags this McClatchy-Marist result:
When it comes to the impact of the automatic spending cuts on the economy, 40 percent of adults nationally say they have had no effect on the economy. 36 percent believe they have had a negative impact while 14 percent say the sequester cuts have had a positive one. 10 percent are unsure.
There has been an increase in the proportion of Americans who think these across-the-board spending cuts have had little impact on the nation’s economy.
When McClatchy-Marist reported this question last month, 27% of residents thought sequestration would not affect the economy. Nearly half — 47 percent — said the economy would be adversely affected, and 19% thought it would be positively impacted. Seven percent, at that time, were unsure.
On the personal side, almost two-thirds of adults — 65 percent — say these automatic budget cuts have not had any effect on their family.
Continue reading>>
Meat labels will include where animal was born and slaughtered, irking Canada and Mexico
April 5, 2013
By James Warren
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
The U.S. Department of Agriculture says its initiative will provide consumers with more information on where their food came from and provide more transparency. Canada and Mexico, the leading beef exporters to the U.S., claim it is uncalled for and a form of protectionism.
WASHINGTON — If the feds get their way, meats on supermarket shelves will include some unappetizing details, such as where the animal was slaughtered.
Find that stomach-turning?
Better get used to it: Labels on meat products sold in the U.S. could soon read like a sad mini-biography of the ranch-raised beasts.
In a little-known regulatory action that has produced a storm of criticism, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has moved to rework how meats are sold at retailers, including grocery stores, are labeled. Under the Obama administration’s plan, meats would have to include labels informing the consumer where the animal was born, raised and slaughtered.
FULL STORY
By James Warren
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF
The U.S. Department of Agriculture says its initiative will provide consumers with more information on where their food came from and provide more transparency. Canada and Mexico, the leading beef exporters to the U.S., claim it is uncalled for and a form of protectionism.
 |
| New meat labels would specify where cows and pigs were born, raised and slaughtered. Canada and Mexico claim it is protectionism and have filed objections with World Trade Organization. |
Find that stomach-turning?
Better get used to it: Labels on meat products sold in the U.S. could soon read like a sad mini-biography of the ranch-raised beasts.
In a little-known regulatory action that has produced a storm of criticism, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has moved to rework how meats are sold at retailers, including grocery stores, are labeled. Under the Obama administration’s plan, meats would have to include labels informing the consumer where the animal was born, raised and slaughtered.
FULL STORY
Liberals Seek to Ban Photos of Aborted Children
April 5, 2013
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: It takes me to a story, a column actually, by a good friend of mine, Andy McCarthy, posted at The Corner today. And remember, I proffered the theorem last week that the gay marriage issue was lost the moment we surrendered the language. The moment we allowed modifiers to marriage, opposite-sex marriage, heterosexual marriage, gay marriage, once we allowed that, then for all intents and purposes we lost the issue because marriage is none of those things. Marriage is one thing. Look it up. Marriage means one thing. But by not holding steadfast to that and allowing the language to change dramatically, we lost the issue. And Andy's building on that theorem in this column.
"My friends at the American Freedom Law Center (I’m on the advisory board) have filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court urging the justices to reverse a Colorado state court ruling --" get this, now, "-- that bans public display of 'gruesome' abortion images on the remarkable ground that pictures of children who have been aborted might ... offend children."
They're not children. That's exactly right. If they've been aborted, they are not children. They are nothings. They're unviable tissue masses. If they are unwanted they are not children, no matter what the pictures say. If they're unwanted, that's not a heart that's beating. That's a Bible thumper that didn't make it. So what's happening here? The American Freedom Law Center has filed an amicus brief, US Supreme Court, urging the justices on the Supreme Court to reverse a Colorado state court ruling that bans public display of gruesome -- there are some people that want to illustrate what abortion is by posting pictures of it.
Colorado court banned the pictures because it's too offensive and it's scary for kids. And the amicus is asking the Supreme Court to overturn that ban. They said, let 'em post the pictures, let people find out what's really going on here.
"Imagine if we had told the anti-war Left that photos of the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison could not be publicly displayed. You know, 'We’ll just describe the whole thing as "enhanced detention" -- or, maybe, "choice" -- no need to get more graphic than that.' How long do you suppose that would have been tolerated?" They wanted the pictures at Abu Ghraib displayed, and why? Well, because they were trying to humiliate Bush. They were trying to engineer a defeat in the War on Terror for the United States, and they figured if they get those pictures published, that it would make it harder for Bush because of the mistreatment of prisoners. Everybody knows the power of optics. So Andy's point is, imagine telling the left, "You can't post pictures of Abu Ghraib." They'da gone bat nuts.
"In this instance, pro-abortion activists filed a lawsuit against anti-abortion protesters, claiming that the display of graphic images of first-term abortions amounted to an actionable nuisance. The Colorado courts agreed. As the AFLC amicus brief explains, this flies in the face of First Amendment precedent holding that the Constitution does not permit the suppression of legitimate political expression 'solely to protect the young from ideas or images that [the government] thinks unsuitable for them.'"
Meaning, the First Amendment exists, and you cannot defy it. You cannot ban pictures like this on the grounds that you don't think children should see them. "Given that we are not living in a sharia state, moreover, political argument may not be prohibited merely because it expresses ideas that members of society may find 'offensive or disagreeable' -- as the Supreme Court reaffirmed in the 2011 case of Snyder v. Phelps." So just because something's disagreeable doesn't mean you can ban it.
"Here’s hoping the justices have the good sense to take the Colorado case. And here’s hoping that we learn an important lesson on the right: As we’ve seen in countless contexts (abortion becomes 'choice,' marriage becomes '[hyphenated-]marriage,' tax becomes 'revenue,' spending becomes 'investment,' etc.), the Left is simply better at the language game than we are. That is the nature of the beast. Progressives are trying to transform, we are trying to conserve; they are forever thinking of strategies to move the culture away from its traditions, we are standing athwart, yelling, 'Stop!' The system works only because of liberty. Free speech gives us the ability to react vigorously with effective arguments that expose the weakness and, at times, misdirection of the other side’s claims.
"If, at the front end, you’re going to concede the Left’s clever use of language to establish the terms of the debate, and then, on the back end, you’re now going to concede the Left the capacity to limit or even suppress your response, you are guaranteed to lose -- which means, lose everything." Now, in this instance what he's talking about, abortion. Abortion's become choice. The people who engage in abortion could not have nearly the success if there were pictures of what actually happens, particularly partial-birth abortion. They fight tooth and nail to make sure those pictures are not seen, too troubling for young children.
We say First Amendment. We're not talking about choice. We're talking about abortion. Abortion is the taking of a life. "No, it's not. It's reproductive freedom. You don't have any right to say anything about anyway 'cause it's not your body." So we concede the loss of the language, abortion becomes choice, and all the other languages that we agree to and surrender to. And then in the back end, we stand by while they tell us what we can't say at the same time. Because we want to be shown as understanding, compassionate, we don't want to upset people.
So when it comes to abortion, the gruesome aspect of it is only to be done but never spoken of, never seen. Can't have that. That's not fair. That would unfairly prejudice people against it. And the left is not gonna permit that.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Speaking of gruesome photos, folks, what about all the pictures the government puts out about smoking to show the ravages of lung and mouth and throat cancer? How about all these gory commercials? "This is your brain on drugs." Even as we speak and are in the midst of all of this, the US Centers for Disease and Control are posting ads showing people who have been mangled because of smoking. It's a $54 million ad campaign, and the ads feature a woman who lost her voice box, and a man who lost his leg. A throat cancer victim appears in a commercial where she's shown putting on a wig, inserting false teeth, and covering the hole in her neck with a scarf.
But we can't show aborted children. See, the government can do all that and the government can run ads like that. The government posts pictures to scare you into doing things they don't want you to do, except actually they do. They want you to keep smoking, if the truth be known, so you pay taxes for children's health care programs. (That's another story.) Let a private group decide to run some ads showing pictures of aborted fetuses, and all hell breaks loose, but we can show pictures of what happened at Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib or whatever all day long, can't we? So the left knows. They just do not allow it to be used on them, which they get away with.
END TRANSCRIPT
source: RushLimbaugh.com
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: It takes me to a story, a column actually, by a good friend of mine, Andy McCarthy, posted at The Corner today. And remember, I proffered the theorem last week that the gay marriage issue was lost the moment we surrendered the language. The moment we allowed modifiers to marriage, opposite-sex marriage, heterosexual marriage, gay marriage, once we allowed that, then for all intents and purposes we lost the issue because marriage is none of those things. Marriage is one thing. Look it up. Marriage means one thing. But by not holding steadfast to that and allowing the language to change dramatically, we lost the issue. And Andy's building on that theorem in this column.
"My friends at the American Freedom Law Center (I’m on the advisory board) have filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court urging the justices to reverse a Colorado state court ruling --" get this, now, "-- that bans public display of 'gruesome' abortion images on the remarkable ground that pictures of children who have been aborted might ... offend children."
They're not children. That's exactly right. If they've been aborted, they are not children. They are nothings. They're unviable tissue masses. If they are unwanted they are not children, no matter what the pictures say. If they're unwanted, that's not a heart that's beating. That's a Bible thumper that didn't make it. So what's happening here? The American Freedom Law Center has filed an amicus brief, US Supreme Court, urging the justices on the Supreme Court to reverse a Colorado state court ruling that bans public display of gruesome -- there are some people that want to illustrate what abortion is by posting pictures of it.
Colorado court banned the pictures because it's too offensive and it's scary for kids. And the amicus is asking the Supreme Court to overturn that ban. They said, let 'em post the pictures, let people find out what's really going on here.
"Imagine if we had told the anti-war Left that photos of the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison could not be publicly displayed. You know, 'We’ll just describe the whole thing as "enhanced detention" -- or, maybe, "choice" -- no need to get more graphic than that.' How long do you suppose that would have been tolerated?" They wanted the pictures at Abu Ghraib displayed, and why? Well, because they were trying to humiliate Bush. They were trying to engineer a defeat in the War on Terror for the United States, and they figured if they get those pictures published, that it would make it harder for Bush because of the mistreatment of prisoners. Everybody knows the power of optics. So Andy's point is, imagine telling the left, "You can't post pictures of Abu Ghraib." They'da gone bat nuts.
"In this instance, pro-abortion activists filed a lawsuit against anti-abortion protesters, claiming that the display of graphic images of first-term abortions amounted to an actionable nuisance. The Colorado courts agreed. As the AFLC amicus brief explains, this flies in the face of First Amendment precedent holding that the Constitution does not permit the suppression of legitimate political expression 'solely to protect the young from ideas or images that [the government] thinks unsuitable for them.'"
Meaning, the First Amendment exists, and you cannot defy it. You cannot ban pictures like this on the grounds that you don't think children should see them. "Given that we are not living in a sharia state, moreover, political argument may not be prohibited merely because it expresses ideas that members of society may find 'offensive or disagreeable' -- as the Supreme Court reaffirmed in the 2011 case of Snyder v. Phelps." So just because something's disagreeable doesn't mean you can ban it.
"Here’s hoping the justices have the good sense to take the Colorado case. And here’s hoping that we learn an important lesson on the right: As we’ve seen in countless contexts (abortion becomes 'choice,' marriage becomes '[hyphenated-]marriage,' tax becomes 'revenue,' spending becomes 'investment,' etc.), the Left is simply better at the language game than we are. That is the nature of the beast. Progressives are trying to transform, we are trying to conserve; they are forever thinking of strategies to move the culture away from its traditions, we are standing athwart, yelling, 'Stop!' The system works only because of liberty. Free speech gives us the ability to react vigorously with effective arguments that expose the weakness and, at times, misdirection of the other side’s claims.
"If, at the front end, you’re going to concede the Left’s clever use of language to establish the terms of the debate, and then, on the back end, you’re now going to concede the Left the capacity to limit or even suppress your response, you are guaranteed to lose -- which means, lose everything." Now, in this instance what he's talking about, abortion. Abortion's become choice. The people who engage in abortion could not have nearly the success if there were pictures of what actually happens, particularly partial-birth abortion. They fight tooth and nail to make sure those pictures are not seen, too troubling for young children.
We say First Amendment. We're not talking about choice. We're talking about abortion. Abortion is the taking of a life. "No, it's not. It's reproductive freedom. You don't have any right to say anything about anyway 'cause it's not your body." So we concede the loss of the language, abortion becomes choice, and all the other languages that we agree to and surrender to. And then in the back end, we stand by while they tell us what we can't say at the same time. Because we want to be shown as understanding, compassionate, we don't want to upset people.
So when it comes to abortion, the gruesome aspect of it is only to be done but never spoken of, never seen. Can't have that. That's not fair. That would unfairly prejudice people against it. And the left is not gonna permit that.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Speaking of gruesome photos, folks, what about all the pictures the government puts out about smoking to show the ravages of lung and mouth and throat cancer? How about all these gory commercials? "This is your brain on drugs." Even as we speak and are in the midst of all of this, the US Centers for Disease and Control are posting ads showing people who have been mangled because of smoking. It's a $54 million ad campaign, and the ads feature a woman who lost her voice box, and a man who lost his leg. A throat cancer victim appears in a commercial where she's shown putting on a wig, inserting false teeth, and covering the hole in her neck with a scarf.
But we can't show aborted children. See, the government can do all that and the government can run ads like that. The government posts pictures to scare you into doing things they don't want you to do, except actually they do. They want you to keep smoking, if the truth be known, so you pay taxes for children's health care programs. (That's another story.) Let a private group decide to run some ads showing pictures of aborted fetuses, and all hell breaks loose, but we can show pictures of what happened at Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib or whatever all day long, can't we? So the left knows. They just do not allow it to be used on them, which they get away with.
END TRANSCRIPT
source: RushLimbaugh.com
Obama picks Goldman Sachs exec for ambassador to Canada
April 5, 2013
If approved, new ambassador would replace David Jacobson
U.S. President Barack Obama has selected a partner at the investment firm of Goldman Sachs in Chicago to be the new U.S. ambassador to Canada, CBC News has learned.
Sources tell CBC News Network's Power & Politics that Bruce Heyman has accepted the job but still has to pass a vetting process in order to be be formally nominated. His confirmation will be up to the U.S. Congress.
If he is approved, Heyman would replace David Jacobson, who has held the position since 2009. Jacobson is also from Chicago.
Well known as a high-level fundraiser to Barack Obama, Heyman and his wife Vicki, also a fundraiser, raised more than $1 million for Obama and were on his national finance committee.
Heyman runs the private wealth fund at Goldman Sachs and his areas of responsibility include parts of Canada.
Sources tell CBC News that although Heyman is Obama's top choice he still has to pass a rigorous vetting process.
Another powerful Chicago fundraiser for Obama, Penny Pritzker, was reported to be Obama's pick for Commerce secretary four years ago but pulled out during the vetting process. Pritzker is now being mentioned again as Obama's likely nominee for Commerce.
source: CBC
If approved, new ambassador would replace David Jacobson
 |
| Bruce Heyman, a partner at Goldman Sachs in Chicago, is U.S. President Barack Obama's pick to be the next ambassador to Canada. Heyman and his wife Vicki are well-known Obama fundraisers. (Daniel Dubois and Kerry Dahlen/vanderbilt.edu) |
Sources tell CBC News Network's Power & Politics that Bruce Heyman has accepted the job but still has to pass a vetting process in order to be be formally nominated. His confirmation will be up to the U.S. Congress.
If he is approved, Heyman would replace David Jacobson, who has held the position since 2009. Jacobson is also from Chicago.
Well known as a high-level fundraiser to Barack Obama, Heyman and his wife Vicki, also a fundraiser, raised more than $1 million for Obama and were on his national finance committee.
Heyman runs the private wealth fund at Goldman Sachs and his areas of responsibility include parts of Canada.
Sources tell CBC News that although Heyman is Obama's top choice he still has to pass a rigorous vetting process.
Another powerful Chicago fundraiser for Obama, Penny Pritzker, was reported to be Obama's pick for Commerce secretary four years ago but pulled out during the vetting process. Pritzker is now being mentioned again as Obama's likely nominee for Commerce.
source: CBC
HHS Resurrects 'ACORN' Through ObamaCare
April 5, 2013
by Mike Flynn
ObamaCare provides millions of dollars in grants to hire community activists and others as "navigators" to assist individuals enroll in health insurance provided by state or federal exchanges and, according to recent reports, register people to vote. In a new rule proposed Wednesday, HHS lays out numerous guidelines for these "navigators", including paying them up to $48/hour for their work. The rule, guidelines and voter registration effort are a potential vehicle to resurrect ACORN or an ACORN-like entity...
Breitbart.com has the FULL STORY>>
by Mike Flynn
Breitbart.com has the FULL STORY>>
Sequestering is for peons, not the agenda: DOE awarding more than $1.2 billion in energy subsidies despite sequester
April 5, 2013
Michal Conger
Commentary Staff Writer
(The Washington Examiner) - More than $1.2 billion in cash payments has been awarded to renewable energy projects by the Department of Energy and the Treasury Department since the beginning of the year, with the majority of them going to solar electricity.
While other agencies grapple with furloughs and service cuts, the DOE continues to hand out 30 percent of the cost basis for renewable projects under its 1603 program, part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Between January 1 and February 14,$1,254,769,726 was awarded to 435 renewable energy projects, 381 of which were to solar, according to the Heritage Foundation.
The 1603 program had awarded more than $9.2 billion to 748 wind projects and $2.7 billion to more than 44,000 solar projects through July 2012, according to a separate Heritage report.
Keep reading>>
Michal Conger
Commentary Staff Writer
(The Washington Examiner) - More than $1.2 billion in cash payments has been awarded to renewable energy projects by the Department of Energy and the Treasury Department since the beginning of the year, with the majority of them going to solar electricity.
While other agencies grapple with furloughs and service cuts, the DOE continues to hand out 30 percent of the cost basis for renewable projects under its 1603 program, part of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Between January 1 and February 14,$1,254,769,726 was awarded to 435 renewable energy projects, 381 of which were to solar, according to the Heritage Foundation.
The 1603 program had awarded more than $9.2 billion to 748 wind projects and $2.7 billion to more than 44,000 solar projects through July 2012, according to a separate Heritage report.
Keep reading>>