The head of the most out of control agency (save the IRS) in the Obama regime paid a visit to the Iowa State Fair this week. Yes, Gina McCarthy, Barry's newly-minted administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, came to the Iowa State Fair yesterday to play kissy-face with the farmers she will soon be stabbing in the back:
President Barack Obama’s top environmental official pledged to build
trust with farmers in Iowa and elsewhere who have been roundly critical
of federal regulation.
“My commitment to you is that at the end of my term, we will have a
stronger, more productive, more trusting relationship between EPA and
the agriculture community,” Gina McCarthy, the newly-appointed
administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said during a
speech in Des Moines today. “Why are we going to do that? It benefits
me, it benefits you and it will make this country stronger.”
The Iowa farmers in the audience – including those who have chafed at
the thought of regulation of farm dust and youth employment and heavy
penalties for farm run-off problems – all applauded her warmly.
“She’s probably the most on-track EPA director we’ve ever talked to,”
said Nancy Beyer, a co-owner of Koszta Farm Corp. corn and soybean farm
in rural Belle Plaine. “This reception was quite favorable.”
Not so fast, Nancy. You apparently don't understand that this woman is a man-made global warming Nazi (oh, I forgot, it's "climate change" now that the facts don't match their former rhetoric). In fact she's old enough to have been a young Nazi in the made-man global cooling craze of the 1970s.
The National Security Agency has overstepped its authority and broken
privacy rules thousands of times every year since being given new
surveillance powers by Congress in 2008, The Washington Post reported,
citing an internal audit and other secret documents.
The documents, which the Post claims it received earlier this summer
from NSA leaker Edward Snowden, detail how the controversial agency has
crossed the line many times over in its collection of massive amounts of
data from around the world.
Despite repeated claims by officials that the NSA does not spy on
Americans, the Post reports that the bulk of the infractions involved
improper surveillance of Americans or foreign targets in the U.S. Some
of the infractions were inadvertent, caused by typographical errors
resulting in U.S. calls or emails being intercepted. Others were more
serious.
The Post reported that the most significant violations included the
unauthorized use of information on more than 3,000 Americans and
green-card holders. In another incident, the Post reported that a “large
number” of calls from Washington were intercepted in 2008 after the
Washington area code 202 was confused with the code 20, which is the
code for dialing to Egypt.
For the ignorant -- in other words anyone who would consider either one of the people above to be presidential material -- the hippie chic pictured above with Sasquatch is the most overrated woman in modern political history. Yes, I'm talking about Hillary Clinton. So overrated in fact that most Democrats are slobbering all over themselves to have her run for president. In fact, if you listen to the media, the 2016 election is already over and Hillary won.
Everyone who's paying attention knows that North Carolina's governor just signed into law common-sense voter fraud protections:
North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory on Monday signed into law changes in
how residents can vote that includes requiring them to show a photo ID
at polling stations, a move that triggered threats of legal action from
the NAACP and other groups.
The American Civil Liberties Union joined two other groups in
announcing that they were filing suit against key parts of the package.
This came hours after McCrory said in a statement that he had signed the
measure, without a ceremony.
The bill shortens the length of that carnival atmosphere time Democrats like to call early voting and requires voters to -- GASP!!!! -- prove they are actually eligible to vote by showing a photo ID. How could anyone object to such common sense measures? Leave it to North Carolina's Democrat senator to make the case for continuing the voter fraud:
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo.
— The Missouri State Fair on Monday imposed a lifetime ban on a rodeo
clown whose depiction of President Barack Obama getting charged by a
bull was widely criticized by Democratic and Republican officials alike.
The
rodeo clown won't be allowed to participate or perform at the fair
again. Fair officials say they're also reviewing whether to take any
action against the Missouri Rodeo Cowboy Association, the contractor
responsible for Saturday's event.
The entertainment during the
bull-riding contest featured a clown wearing a mask of Obama with an
upside down broomstick attached to his backside. Spectators were asked
if they wanted to see "Obama run down by a bull." Many in the audience
responded enthusiastically.
Numerous Missouri officials denounced
the act after video and photos were posted online. Some Democratic
Missouri lawmakers suggested Monday that there should be financial
consequences for the fair.
I know it's been a long time ago -- a whole four and a half years -- but I seem to remember GW Bush being regularly mocked. A couple of hack filmmakers even made movies about assassinating him. Seems to me like Halloween shops used to have entire rows of president masks. Ronald Reagan is STILL the subject of regular mocking by the left today. Even the liberals Patron Saint William Jefferson "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton was regularly (and rightly) targeted for ridicule.
How many damn vacations does this family take anyway. But I digress. Let's just talk about THIS lavish vacation:
Talk about disembarking.
The first family’s dog, Bo, reportedly
joined the Obamas in style over the weekend for their weeklong vacation
in Martha’s Vineyard, Mass.
Bo, a Portuguese water dog, hitched a
ride on one of two Osprey MV-22 helicopters that landed with various
personnel ahead of President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama, The Telegraph newspaper in Britain reported.
It
was the first time the Ospreys — which take off like helicopters but
fly like planes — were used in support of a presidential flight aboard
Marine One.
The Obamas are scheduled to stay on the island through next weekend. The president kicked off the trip with a round of golf.
The
Obamas are staying at Chilmark, on the western end of the tony
Massachusetts island dotted with multimillion-dollar homes, including
the vacation home owned by David Schulte at which Mr. Obama is staying. The Chicago specialist in corporate restructurings donated $2,000 to Mr. Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign.
The visit to Mr. Schulte’s home also is inconveniencing Chilmark residents because Mr. Schulte’s
$7 million home is much closer to the main public roads than the home
the Obamas used for previous Martha’s Vineyard vacations and thus is
forcing one to be closed to vehicles.
The Martha’s Vineyard Times said
people can expect “extraordinary and lengthy” detours.
“Anyone aggrieved by this closing should email or call the White House,” local officials said in an email to residents.
"Michele, I wonder what the peasants are doing for vacation this year?"
"I don't know daaaahling, but tell the butler to get me another one of those expensive martinis."
Remember the good ole' days when GW just retired to his ranch for a few weeks a year? Now we have a screw-up in chief who rarely gets out of bed before 8 AM, plays more golf than any other sitting president before, takes innumerable lavish, taxpayer-funded vacations, and loves to wrap himself in the luxuries of the office not seeming to care at all about appearances. Meanwhile, he loves to make snide comments about the appearance of the lifestyles of Americans who have legitimately earned their luxuries:
In a recent interview with David Blum for Kindle Singles,
Blum asks the president about the American dream, saying, "Part of the
American dream -- even if you're poor, or lower-middle class -- involves
yearning for tangible things you can't afford. Were there things, when
you were growing up, that you yearned for that you couldn't afford?"
You mean like a a former nobody community organizer yearning for lavish taxpayer-funded vacations he couldn't otherwise afford?
"Let them eat cake, Barack: I've got plenty of expensive wine to drink."
"After the Great Society legislation of the 1960s, for the first time a
person who was not elderly or disabled could receive need-based aid from
the U.S. government.[76]"
Ain't the Great Society great? You can bet Jason Greenslate thinks it is.
Yes, your good buddy and mine, the post-partisan president Barack Hussein Obama, the guy who is constantly complaining about partisanship in Washington apparently actually believes that Republicans opposition to a Obamacare constitutes a burning desire on their part to deny health care to 30 million Americans:
During a Friday afternoon press conference, President Obama defended ObamaCare, and chided Republicans for their attempts to repeal it.
He said, “I think the really interesting question is why it is that my friends in the other party have made the idea of preventing these people from getting health care their holy grail, their number one priority. The one unifying principle in the Republican Party at the moment is making sure that 30 million don’t have health care.”
Forget the fact that every analysis you read about Obama's pet health care law will tell you that costs are going up for everyone, access to healthcare will be drastically restricted due in part to the fact that doctors are bailing on the profession as fast as they can AND 30 million Americans will STILL not have insurance under Obamacare.
Just like the community organizer this sorry excuse for a president has been and always will be, he's again (for the millionth time) lying to whip up partisan sentiment against people who want to inject some reason into this process.
First of all, ALL Americans have access to "health care". Much of the time truly needy people (and some who aren't truly needy) have better access to "health care" than those of us who pay for their health care (yes those of us who pay for our own health care ALSO pay for health care for the "needy"). What the liar in chief doesn't want you to know is that no one can be denied "health care" if they truly need it and well care is provided free of charge to the needy through various state and local programs.
Secondly, the fact that the poor have ready access to "health care" puts the lie to the notion that Obamacare the massive government scheme to provide HEALTH INSURANCE (not "health care") to everyone is not about "providing health care". It's about redistribution of wealth and government control of one of the most personal aspects of your life: Your health, your health care and how you pay for it which is none of the government's damn business.And this is exactly the way the punk community organizer who became president likes it. You can take the community organizer out of the community and put him in the White House. But with that "all grown up" title President of the United States he's still what he always has been: A punk community organizer who is now trying to organize the country by "fundamentally transforming" it. Bend over, folks: Here comes your "fundamental transformation".
Allegedly the most powerful Republican politician in the U.S. (even though he seems to have misplaced his testicles). Third in line for the presidency right behind Bozo Biden. Yes, John Boehner has really important business to do. The economy is in shambles; four or five times as many people give up looking for work as find work in any given month. The mother of all entitlements is headed down the tracks to bankrupt us faster than any other entitlement the Democrats have conceived in the last 80 years. A former weak ex-super power is increasing in strength even as we weaken and it's non-dictator dictator regularly flips Barry the bird. A former third-world laughingstock is about to become the world's biggest economy. Yes, China is in the midst of a massive military build-up even as we tear ours down. RINO Boehner certainly has a lot of important things to fight for and against. Like announcing on his web site that the U.S. Capitol Christmas Tree has been selected:
It’s beginning to look at least a little like Christmas now that an 88-foot tall Engelmann spruce from Colville National Forest in Colville, WA has been selected to serve as this year’s U.S. Capitol Christmas Tree.
The announcement was made this week by Forest Supervisor Laura Jo West:
“‘It’s a very beautiful tree, one that the people of this great state will be proud to send to our nation’s capital,’ said West. …
“Last month, Ted Bechtol, Superintendent of grounds at the U.S. Capitol, visited the Colville National Forest to look at all the candidate trees identified. He evaluated trees in Stevens, Ferry and Pend Oreille Counties. Bechtol shared, ‘All of the candidate trees are excellent specimens, but the chosen tree has the fullness and width needed for the Capitol grounds.’”
The tradition of “The People’s Tree” dates back to 1964, when a 24-foot tall Douglas fir was planted on the Capitol grounds at the suggestion of Speaker John McCormack. After the fir died in 1968, the nation’s Forest Service began providing the tree.
As the Church lady would say "well isn't that spe-cial" With the country going to hell in a hand basket, it really makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that we aren't going to go without a Christmas tree this year. If you want "to get a better sense of this process" RINO Boehner has a video of the 2011 U.S. Capitol Tree being erected.
Tell you what Johnny: Here's the process I'd like to get a better sense of: The process of you pulling your head out of your ass and taking SOME action -- ANY action -- to attempt to reverse the wholesale destruction of our country at the hands of a bunch of radical leftists.
Read more!
Superpower no more after less than five years of the most destructive presidency in modern times: Rather than vowing to defend our embassies against the Islamic terror threat The Great and Powerful Obama wants so hard to deny the existence of, he has chosen instead to shut them down:
WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States issued an extraordinary global
travel warning to Americans Friday about the threat of an al-Qaida
attack and closed down 21 embassies and consulates across the Muslim
world for the weekend.
The alert was the first of its kind since
an announcement preceding the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist
attacks. This one comes with the scars still fresh from last year's
deadly Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, and
with the Obama administration and Congress determined to prevent any
similar breach of an American Embassy or consulate.
"There is a
significant threat stream and we're reacting to it," said Gen. Martin
Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He told ABC News in an
interview to be aired Sunday that the threat was "more specific" than
previous ones and the "intent is to attack Western, not just U.S.
interests."
Unfortunately for General Dempsey, when you are a military leader during the regime of a leftist totalitarian administration, you are forced to be a stooge for their capitulation to Islamic terror. Hence the fact that he is being trotted out to telegraph the obvious weakness of the former most powerful nation on the face of the earth.
Time was when we would staunchly defend our interests overseas - we vigorously defended our position as leader of the free world and had no problem letting any rag-tag bunch of terrorist thugs know that fire would rain down on them from above should they decide engage in cowardly attacks on our sovereign territory. But first came James Earl Carter Jr. Then came William Jefferson "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton. Now we have Barack Hussein "fundamental transformation" Obama who's "foreign policy" (such as it is) has fundamentally transformed our country into a cowering shell of it's former self overseas. Let's review for those folks who either are in total denial or simply choose to forget what happens with foreign policy and military affairs when we (they, not us) elect Democrats as president:
The Obama regime started with the worst secretary of state since Madeline Aldumb bringing a big red button to her slavish ass-kissing session with Vladimir Putin. That "reset" of U.S./Russian relations worked great as we all know with Putin giving us the finger over the Ed Snowden debacle. Now, while this administration is in the middle of a massive cover-up of the terror attack in Libya, we've decided to just wave the white flag early rather than keep our embassies open and defend them.
Before this, GW Bush was forced into waging a war on terror after eight years of neglect of the terror threat by Slick Willie's administration. So GW started less than nine months into his first term having to fight two wars simultaneously while rebuilding the military from Slick's 40% cuts.
Likewise for Ronald Reagan who had to bring the military back from Carter's weakness, capitulation, hand-wringing and military cuts in the face of the hostage situation in Iran.
Remember Vietnam, a war conceived by Democrats and run by Democrats that it took a Republican to get us out of after just over ten years and 58,000 of our brave soldiers lost?
These are just a few of the most prominent examples of what happens when you let Democrats run foreign policy. We become weak, we become a laughingstock, we cower, and citizens of the still-greatest country God gave man die and the hands of terrorists.
This year is the first time this event has been nationally publicized. National Employee Freedom Week is an attempt to reach out to unionized employees and let them know about their right to self-determination when it comes to belonging to a union. Sure, unionized employees (as well as non-union employees) have the right to join a union if they want but it's pretty obvious most employees don't. Private sector union membership is at it's lowest point since unions rose to prominence in the 40s and 50s when 35 percent of the private sector workforce was unionized. Now less than seven percent of the private sector workforce is unionized nationwide. And there's a great reason for this.
Go to unionfacts.com and look up the salaries of the union bureaucrats in the big unions. If you are a union member, compare your wage to what YOU pay your local president, your business agent or the bureaucrats on up the chain. You know how hard you work for your money. What do the union bosses do for their fat salaries? Are you getting the representation you deserve? If not, maybe it's time to stop pissing hundreds of dollars a year away to pay the huge salaries of your union reps. You have to right to opt out in 24 of the 50 states. Unfortunately, if you live in one of the 26 forced unionization states, you may not have a choice.
Decades ago, before child labor and wage and hour laws and workplace safety rules and regulations. unions may have served a purpose. Now they are just fat, bloated corrupt bureaucracies that rob from the worker to give to the fat cat union bosses. In 24 states, you have the right NOT to participate in this scam. Employee Freedom Week is a great reminder to find out what your rights are.
Actually there are four stooges. But we already knew John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake were stooges. But wait, you say, that leaves only one stooge -- Marco Rubio. I didn't say BOTH stooges were in the amnesty "gang of eight". If you haven't guessed yet, the other stooge is Paul Ryan.
What a waste. Two bright, young up and coming conservative politicians co-opted by the Washington political class and turned into a couple of mealy-mouthed stooges. If you listen to Marco debating Charlie Crist on immigration less than three years ago and listen to his schtick today, he sounds downright Obama-esque; that is to say hypocritical.
Note to Marco and Paul: Your first clue that supporting this bill was political suicide was that you have to jump into bed with a completely reprehensible greaseball like Chuckie Schumer to support it. If Chuck Schumer is for something, that's the best reason I can think of to be against it. Put it this way: If Chuck Schumer came out in favor of the sun coming up in the morning, I'd have to re-evaluate my thoughts about sunrise.
The second clue that supporting amnesty 2013 is a bad thing would be that commie pig bastards from hell start a PAC with the word "conservative" in it and misappropriate your names for the radio commercials that are playing on conservative talk radio every five seconds. Fortunately most conservatives pay attention to what's going on and aren't stupid enough to fall for a commercial full of outright BS that drops the names of two purported conservative politicians who once had bright futures.Did you ever ask yourselves, Marco and Paul, why they don't drop Chuckie the Schmuck's name in these commercials? While you're thinking about that dudes, answer this one: How does it feel to be willing, active and enthusiastic participants in your political demise? Because this is exactly what these commercials are intended to do: Neuter your political futures.
If either of you aspire to higher political office you'll end up being like John McCain and your former running mate, Paul: Wishy-washy politicians conservatives have to settle for rather than principled conservative leaders. Because if the Washington political class can sway your principles on this issue what other important issues will you roll over and play dead on if God forbid we were to elect you to higher office? Controlling entitlements? The budget deficit? Obamacare? Personally, I'm done "settling for" mealy mouthed politicians that call themselves "conservative". I'm afraid I couldn't even hold my nose and vote for either one of you if you were nominated for national office even if this putrid bill doesn't pass. Any trust I had in your adherence to conservative principles is gone.
You might remember Marco and Paul: We tried this same thing when you were just a couple of punk kids too young to vote. Back in 1986, liberals managed to get one of the best presidents this country has ever seen to support a bullshit immigration bill that made all of the same promises this bill makes: Controlling the borders, amnesty for current illegals in return for a crackdown on future illegals -- the same kind of empty promises both of you are making today. Twenty seven years and 12+million MORE illegals later, we are seeing just what a pile of crap the 1986 amnesty bill was. Your are admitting that the same thing we tried in 1986 doesn't work while pushing the 2013 version of the same old crap.
The point has been made that our immigration system isn't broken: We already have an orderly process for allowing up to one million immigrants into our country legally every year. These people that you and the other "gang of eight" idiots claim are "in the shadows" are here of their own choosing -- they are interlopers here illegally.We don't have to accommodate them: We need to send them back. I'll tell you the real system that's broken, Marco and Paul: It's the Washington political system that swallowed you up and made you a part of the problem.
If you were an alien, just landed here for another planet, one thing you would know for certain from watching the news this week: Law abiding Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights are more of a threat to the world than a punk tyrannical dictator threatening nuclear war.
Barack the Terrible and his wife Marie Antoinette, let us eat $100 a pound Japanese steak, Obama are racing around the country exploiting shooting victims and their familes in the name of making it more difficult for law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Meanwhile in North Korea, the pot-bellied punk in with the bad haircut is moving his missiles into place and threatening to wipe the home of the Kia off the face of the earth -- South Korea or Japan or perhaps Guam, a US territory -- and the leftist despot that heads our executive branch seems utterly unconcerned. Not even after a classified report was unwittingly released that voices the Pentagon's concerns that the Norks might well be able to arm a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead:
A Pentagon spy agency concluded for the first time that North Korea
likely has the ability to launch nuclear-armed missiles, illustrating
the high stakes surrounding the escalating tensions on the Korean
peninsula.
But a Defense Department spokesman later on Thursday cast doubt on
whether Pyongyang is fully capable of firing nuclear missiles, as a
study dated last month by the Pentagon's own Defense Intelligence Agency
suggested.
The secret assessment - which was mistakenly marked as unclassified
and partially revealed at a congressional hearing - said the agency had
"moderate confidence" that North Korea is able to launch nuclear-armed
ballistic missiles. But it said the weapons would probably be
unreliable.
But never mind, chirps the lapdog leftist media "the weapons would be unreliable" - no worries about that pot-bellied punk behind the curtain threatening to blow us to hell. How much do you want to bet that the A bombs we dropped on Japan were deemed to be "unreliable" at the time?
Not to be distracted by minor annoyances like a dictator threatening to launch a nuke, back in Washington, twit politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, are in the process of dealing with important business: Negotiating away our Second Amendment rights:
Controversial gun legislation cleared a key Senate hurdle Thursday,
as lawmakers voted 68-31 to start debate on the package which includes
expanded background checks and new penalties for gun trafficking.
Senate Democrats, joined by 16 Republicans, were able to overcome an
attempted filibuster by GOP senators opposed to the current bill. Those
senators could still slow-walk the debate, but the Senate will
eventually begin votes on amendments -- one of which is considered
crucial to winning support for a final vote.
Though the bill cleared a 60-vote hurdle on Thursday, supporters will
likely have to corral another 60-vote majority when it comes time to
call a final vote, which Democrats acknowledged is a heavy lift.
Background checks for whom? For law-abiding citizens attempting to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Does anyone with one tiny shred of common sense think that putting more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners will prevent criminals and lunatics from creating mayhem? These aren't the type of people who are concerned about legally obtaining guns and it's rampant idiocy to think otherwise.
"New penalties for gun trafficking"? Is this a joke? Gun traffickers worried about "new penalties" for their already illegal activity? This would be hilarious if it weren't so serious. Anyone who seriously believes that "new penalties" will deter gun traffickers is mentally deranged.
Meanwhile there is a lunatic across the pond who keeps threatening to nuke us and his neighbors who happen to be our allies and we have every right and every means by which to put a stop to his lunacy. After all, how many times has he declared war on us in the past couple of weeks. And yet this is our official response from Secretary of State John F'in Kerry:
"If Kim Jong Un decides to launch a missile, whether it's across the Sea
of Japan or some other direction, he will be choosing willfully to
ignore the entire international community," Kerry told reporters. "And
it will be a provocation and unwanted act that will raise people's
temperatures."
Well, now that's the understatement of the year: Launching a test missile as a prelude to nuking South Korea or Guam or Japan will be "provocation and an unwanted act".
Meanwhile the folks who haven't provoked anyone -- law-abiding Americans wanting to exercise their Second Amendment rights -- are under assault by Barack the Terrible and his merry band of leftists. And the punk who may or may not me able to wipe Seoul off the face of the earth with the push of a couple of buttons (we don't really know and apparently don't care all that much) sits over there being provocative. I guess when assessing REAL threats to the world, a madcap leftist like the liberal's statist president has to have priorities.
This is the logical extension of anti-gun idiocy based on Dylan Quick's stabbing spree in which he injured 14 people yesterday:
Quick told investigators
he had fantasies of killing people and had been planning the attack for
some time, sheriff's officials said late Tuesday. Quick used "a
razor-type knife" to stab his victims, they added.
"According to the
statement the suspect voluntarily gave investigators, he has had
fantasies of stabbing people to death since he was in elementary
school," a statement from the Harris County Sheriff's Office said.
Quick has been charged
with three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, said Donna
Hawkins of the Harris County Prosecutor's Office.
Of course ... the "razor type knife" "had fantasies of killing people and had been planning the attack for some time"
Read that quote above and you see the idiocy of the anti-gun debate in a nutshell: If Dylan Quick couldn't find a "razor type knife" he would've used something else. Should we make everyone go through a background check to buy a set of steak knives? Maybe we need to check every steak knife purchaser against the national steak knife database. Perhaps we should limit the number of steak knives that can be held in a butcher block. What about box cutters? Sharp butter knives? Knitting needles?
It's not the gun, folks, it's the nut holding the gun, or knife or knitting needle or baseball bat, or hammer, or steak knife .... I hope you get the picture. What do we do to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of psychopathic nuts? Well, whatever the answer is, taking away the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens won't do it.
Head nutrition Nazi Michele Obama is studying plans for getting veggies to the masses. Yes, this is the much-ballyhooed interview in which she called herself a "single mother", but we all know that the marriages of most leftist politicians are marriages of political expedience. The fact that her and Barack's marriage isn't a "storybook" marriage isn't much more of a surprise than the fact that Slick Willie and Hillary's marriage is a sham. The quote from this interview that should really concern all of us is this one:
"We're looking at new models of getting farmer's markets you know to create buses and drive-ins to communities that are under-served. So, we have to deal with the question of access"
I can't believe I'm the only person who thinks that having a first lady conniving a plan to deliver vegetables to the "under-served" masses is more troubling than the Freudian slip she made about being a "single mother". Yet you'll have a hard time finding this whole quote in a news search. The front end of this salient quote is cut off at the beginning of the video clip amidst the breathless reporting about Michele's "single" motherhood. The fact that the woman feels isolated from her husband the president who seems to have no time for work or family and all the time in the world for recreation with his rich and famous buddies ain't news. The fact that the first lady of the United States has tasked herself with central planning the quantity, availability, nutritional value and content of our food is a lot bigger deal.
Of course this doesn't come as a surprise to those of us who are actually paying attention, but the rest of us had better start paying attention if we want to continue to enjoy our Constitutional right to put whatever we want to in our mouths because Evita Obama would is on the process of changing that. How many of us with school-age kids have heard about how new rules governing "school nutrition" have turned their school lunches to crap -- crap that gets thrown away. The stranglehold that various federal bureaucracies have on the food supply has been increasing over decades but has greatly accelerated under Barack the messiah's regime with the full-blown support of Evita's actions and rhetoric. Now she's looking at various central plans for to busing the masses to the veggies .... or is it busing the veggies to the masses? I'm confused. And that's even before I try to think about what a drive-in farmer's market will look like.
The bottom line is this: There is nothing in our Constitution that gives Evita Obama the right to look at "new models" for getting any type of food anywhere. It's none of her damn business where veggies are sold or whether I even eat veggies or not. If people in "under-served communities" want veggies bad enough, they can figure out a way to get to the veggies themselves. Out here in flyover country between May and October, you can't go a block and a half without running into a veggie stand. That's the free market at work. And the actual farmer's markets are a whole hell of a lot closer to what Evita Obama would consider "under-served communities" than they are to my house in the country. And when Evita talks about the "under-served community" just what in the hell isshe talking about? The rent-subsidized apartments or the high-rise condos and lofts that are a couple blocks away ? They are both in the same "community". But the leftist who sees everything through the prism of class division and class envy gerrymanders that "community" to exclude people whose incomes arbitrarily fall above their preconceived notion of what "under-served" is.
A little message to Evita and Barry (and the rest of the leftist cabal running the administrative branch of the federal government): Keep your central plans off my food supply.
I really don't understand why the people that have somehow managed to get elected can't seem to comprehend how this nation's system works. The Founders laid it all out in two relatively short documents. Much less reading than your average week in college--even a community college requires better retention of the required material than our elected "leaders" have shown. If the past four plus years were a take-home examination on American government, John Houseman (remember Paper Chase?) would be handing them a dime and telling them to go home and tell their mothers they will never be American citizens.
The Declaration of Independence lays out the case for the formation of the new nation quite succinctly, rooting it firmly in natural law, asserting specific pre-existing rights, and explaining what government is for:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[.]
Is that so difficult to grasp? God gives us rights to which we are entitled (a word woefully misused in this age of food stamps and welfare). These rights belong to us by virtue of our status as free men and women. Government has one, and only one, purpose: "to secure these rights."
The purpose of government--federal, state, or local--is not (pay attention, Mayor Bloomberg) to educate us. It is not to bring about (pay attention, President Obama) fairness. It is not (pay attention, Governor Cuomo) to substitute its judgment for that of the people, as expressed in the Constitution.
Today we are verging on a nation half-slave, half-Constitutionalist. Everywhere we look, the rights of the Bill of Rights (without which the states refused to ratify the original Constitution) are under (you'll excuse the expression) assault by the well-meaning ignorant, as well as those with evil intent and no respect for our system of government.
In particular danger is the Second Amendment, the discussion of which has ranged from the thoughtful (rare) to the almost comically misguided (nearly every episode of Piers Morgan since the Sandy Hook massacre). It has been promulgated that the Second Amendment is all very well and good, so long as one limits one's gun ownership to the intention of hunting--or, perhaps, defending one's self with a genteel firearm of no large size and as few bullets as the mayor of New York, the legislature of Colorado (operationally now one and the same), and the President of the United States believe you "need". This is utter foolishness.
It is immaterial to what extent the Founders may have hunted (in those days, known as "shopping"). The fact is that nothing was further from the minds of those who wrote the Second Amendment than where one's daily meal was coming from (you'll note there is no "right to go to market" enshrined in the Constitution--were side dishes of no import?). The Founders were finishing a bloody war against a tyrannical King who had done everything within his considerable power to prevent their becoming a nation. This war was pursued not with knives, forks, karate, or rape whistles--but with guns. Unregistered, unaccounatable guns--obtained, owned, maintained, and used without benefit of any form of background check.
They knew how freedom had been won and how it was to be kept. By force of arms, when necessary. Those who ridicule this notion by asserting that the government cannot be fought by its citizens, because it has tanks and rocket launchers merely prove the case for the Second Amendment. If, indeed, the government has become able to overcome its citizens fighting for the right to be free, then it has become a potential danger to that very freedom. At the very least, the people have the right to a fair chance against those who would abuse them and their precious liberty.
Justice Scalia founded his opinion in the Heller decision in the pre-existence of the right to bear arms as protected in the Constitution and stated conclusively and clearly that:
the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
The President believes this right is his to bestow, as he will. But he is wrong. Wrong on the issue, and wrong on the law. What other right does he deem optional at the whim of the president?
Certainly not the right to privacy as expressed in the use of birth control. It is strange indeed that the Administration will fight to the death to protect an interpreted Constitutional right--not only for its protection, but for its unhindered and fully-funded exercise by all, paid for by even those who choose not to exercise it. Yet he has no concern to protect a right explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights itself, requiring no logical acrobatics to read, and no imagined "penumbra" to inhabit. By the logic of the comically-named Affordable Care Act and the Secretary of Human Services, guns should not only be easily available, they should be free to all who want one (or one a month, I suppose).
The Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot place an "undue burden" in the path of someone exercising a Constitutional right. Yet, the current web of governments is not shy about admitting that stopping people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms is precisely their aim. Diane Feinstein, the queen of gun bans, seeks to eliminate "assault rifles" (for which is there is no technical manufacturing definition), "high-capacity" magazines, and guns with one "military characteristic."
The objection of the gun-grabbers is that "assault rifles" fire quickly, can fire many bullets, and have been used in high-profile massacres. The first two characteristics might be seen as the features of any decent product (i.e., it is efficient and useful), while the last is statistically irrelevant.
While the "assault rifle" (specifically the AR-15) has been showing up in massacres, such presence is easily explainable by the fact that it is the most popular gun in America. The better statistical question is not how many assaults have these weapons been involved in--the better statistical question is, "of these weapons in circulation, how many have been used in a deadly assault?"
But Democrats will never ask that question, because it makes the "assault rifle" uncomfortably irrelevant in the gun discussion. Most sources estimate that there are something like 250,000,000 guns of all kinds in America. Of those, according to the FBI, 323 rifles were used in homicides. 323. That's a percentage so small I can't even do the math. Knives, blunt objects, hands and feet and unspecified "other" weapons did more damage than the guns Feinstein wants banned.
I say, let's ban "other."
But all of this is irrelevant. Even if there were any evidence that gun bans, background checks, or other nannyish interferences in the ownership of guns in America had any effect whatsoever, it would not matter.
Because there's this Second Amendment, and it protects the right you have as a free person (with or without a government) to have those arms.
One more time: You have rights. Government exists to protect them, or it does not legitimately exist at all. And the promise of the Constitution is that your right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed."
Got that? Good.
Now go tell the Senate.
Read more!
Mere hours after he advised women to unleash both barrels of a 12-gague uselessly into the air, Shiftless Joe Biden emerged from the woodshed to toe Barry's anti-gun line. The Washington Post called this idiocy a "point by point rebuttal" to the National Rifle Association's arguments that the Second Amendment means what it says: That "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed":
Vowing that there is
“a moral price to be paid for inaction,” Biden sought to publicly shame
lawmakers who are hesitant about voting for President Obama’s gun-control agenda.
“I can’t imagine how we will be judged as a society if we do
nothing,” he said. “If you’re concerned about your political survival,
you should be concerned about the survival of our children. And guess
what? I believe the price to be paid politically should go to those who
refuse to act.
. . .
The American people are with us.”
Biden, his voice growing louder and louder, delivered a point-by-point rebuttal of arguments made by the National Rifle Association
and other gun-rights activists. He argued that people do not need
AR-15s and other military-style assault rifles for self protection.
“They
say, ‘Well, it’s about our culture,’ ” Biden said. “The facts are, our
culture’s not killing 25 people a day. It’s weapons and high-capacity
magazines. It’s criminals who get guns without going through a
background check.”
Biden accused some questioners participating in
his online chats of planting questions designed to place roadblocks to
his gun-control agenda.
“They say, ‘All you’re going to do, Biden,
you and the president, you’re going to deny law-abiding citizens their
rights under the Second Amendment,’ ” Biden said. “Not true.
An actual point by point rebuttal to this nonsense isn't difficult to muster.
First of all, trying to "publicly shame" lawmakers with a moral compass who are on the right side of this issue is going to be difficult.Better than 10,000 Americans are killed each and every year by drunk drivers. Do we ban cars for law-abiding drivers because of this carnage? Then why does Bozo Biden insist that there is "a moral price to be paid" for not depriving law abiding citizens of their right to keep and bear arms?
If Biden were truly "concerned for the survival of our children" he would be campaigning to replace every motorized vehicle on the road with pedal cars that achieve a top speed of five miles an hour because a hell of a lot more kids are killed at the hands of drunk drivers than at the hands of crazed psychos with guns. And can we once and for all dispense with this idiocy that criminals and psychos will obtain their guns legally by going through background checks? Just how stupid do you think we are Bozo Joe?
Biden is right on one point: Our culture is NOT killing 25 people a day ( obviously one of those "statistics" Joe pulled out of his ass). This is an argument for the Second Amendment Joe, you moron. But weapons and high capacity magazines aren't killing people anymore than a Ford Explorer kills people. It takes psychos with weapons (not necessarily guns) and drunk drivers behind the wheel to kill people with guns and cars.
As far as denying "law abiding citizens their rights under the Second Amendment" who the hell are you, Moron Joe, to tell a law-abiding citizen that they "do not need an AR-15". By the way, for you ObamaBot Zombies out there, you can read up on what an AR-15 actually is right here. Or better yet, I'll just explain it to you in simple terms: An AR-15 is essentially a scary-looking .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle. It isn't difficult to use, as Shiftless Joe would have you believe, and is commonly used for target practice and hunting.
“If you want to protect yourself, get a double barrel shotgun, have the
shells of a 12-gauge shotgun … and fire two blasts outside the house. I
promise you … You don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim. It’s harder
to use, and in fact, you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a
shotgun, buy a shotgun,
Now I'm not necessarily against having a shotgun in the house for protection but has the liberal's vice president not figured out by now that he is the court jester in a regime that wants to totally compromise, if not completely eviscerate the Second Amendment? Barry is probably none too appreciative of the fact that as his homeland security department is recommending such ridiculous self-defense techniques as attacking a shooter with a pair or scissors or peeing or barfing on your rapist-to-be, his buffoonish VP is making the case us Second Amendment defenders have been making all along: There's nothing like arming yourself with a big gun to equalize the situation if you happen to be faced with a break-in or assault.
The other point that needs to be made here is this: Who in the hell is the stupidest vice president in modern history to be telling me what gun I need to defend myself? The Second Amendment doesn't read "the right of the people to bear whatever arms the stupidest vice president in modern history shall deem necessary shall not be infringed". And why should my Second Amendment rights have to conform to this idiot's notion of how many rounds I need in my clip (or the idiot governor of New York for you New Yorker's)? I bet this woman in Georgia who fended off an intruder that hunted her and her nine-year-old twins down in a crawlspace in the top floor of their house thinks she could've used a few more than the five bullets it took her to wound her attacker.Suppose there were two intruders and she just spent all the bullets moron Joe thought she needed on one? Every situation is different and who the hell is some idiot liberal to tell me how many bullets I need?
Will someone tell this dumb ass that he can stop campaigning? He's a lame duck, he doesn't have to campaign any more.Yes, I'm talking about the liberal's president of the United States. But apparently Barry figures that campaigning beats the hell out of actually governing because he doesn't do a hell of a lot of governing.
Why doesn't he govern? Because he doesn't know how to. He's a "community organizer" whatever the hell that is and that's all he's ever known (other than being a malcontent teenage druggie punk). And a community organizer's job is to is to whip up anti-establishment sentiment in a quest for "change", never mind that Barry is the establishment and has been for the last four years. He pretends like he isn't and reinforces that notion by spending his time, golfing with Tiger Woods vacationing by himself, and playing pick-up basketball with Jay Z.
Which brings us to the looming sequester -- automatic spending cuts that were his idea -- and the campaign stops Barry made (flanked by first responders as props) today to warn about how dangerous these cuts, which were his idea and agreed to by a bunch of panty waist Republican lawmakers, will be to damn near everything liberals hold near and dear:
This so-called sequester “won’t help the economy,” Obama said. “It won’t create jobs.”
The “meat cleaver approach” will lead to such things as the layoffs
of teachers, cutbacks in the air traffic control system, furloughs of
FBI agents and a compromised military, Obama said as he again called for
heading off sequestration with a “balanced” debt reduction plan — and
laid the groundwork for blaming the Republicans if the automatic cuts
come to pass.
“These cuts are not smart, these cuts are not fair,” Obama said. “People will lose their jobs.”
A balanced plan means both spending cuts as well as new tax revenue
to be derived from closing loopholes and deductions that benefit the
wealthy, Obama said.
Wow, all this from $85 billion in cuts in a four thousand billion dollar budget. Rather than slash all these programs Barry, we could just cut food stamp card benefits to all those folks I see in line ahead of me at the grocery store who are buying $400 worth of groceries on my dime, including every name brand food you can imagine.
Let the sequester happen. We need to call the bluff of the punk community organizer who holds the highest elective office in the land.
I didn't watch the liberal's president and his State of the Union address -- the stupidity was just too much for me to take. But you can't escape the the stupidity as reported by the media. One of the more stupid of the stupid utterances that passed the lips of America's very own Hugo Chavez was this:
“In the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand
birthdays, graduation, anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by a
bullet from a gun.”
No Barry, let's try this one more time: "In the two months since Newtown, more than a thousand
birthdays, graduation, anniversaries have been stolen from our lives by" psycho bastards from hell who need to be punished for their crimes (or do us all a favor when they blow themselves away).
Bullets don't kill people, Barry: People kill people. Psychos and criminals don't care whether a gun is illegal or a bullet is illegal -- hell they don't even care if they have a gun or bullet. They'll kill with a bat or a hammer or anything else they can get their hands on.
And while we're on the subject of Barry's magic bullets, why is Janet Napolitano's Homeland Security Department buying up every bullet they can get their hands on?
Well, well isn't this a surprise: Insuring people that aren't insurable is an expensive, money losing proposition! Which is why, the Obamacare stop-gap program designed to cover the medical bills of 400,000 Americans with preexisting conditions is closing down because it ran out of money after covering only 135,000 of the 400,000:
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Citing financial concerns, the Obama
administration Friday began quietly winding down one of the earliest
programs created by the President’s health care overhaul, a plan that
helps people with medical problems who can’t get private insurance.
In an afternoon teleconference with state counterparts,
administration officials said the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan
will stop taking new applications. People already in the plan will not
lose coverage.
Designed as a stopgap solution until the law’s full
consumer protections are in effect next year, PCIP is currently serving
more than 100,000 people, a lifeline for patients with serious medical
problems such as cancer and heart failure. However, Congress allocated a
limited amount of money, and the administration’s technical experts
want to make sure it doesn’t run out.
“We’re glad this program was here and able to help,” said
Amie Goldman, who oversees the program in Wisconsin. “I’m certainly
disappointed we won’t be able to serve everyone who has a need for this
coverage.”
The plan covers people who have had problems getting
private insurance because of a medical condition and have been uninsured
for at least six months. Premiums are keyed to average rates charged in
each state, which means they’re not necessarily cheap, often amounting
to several hundred dollars a month for middle-aged individuals.
It's a sad fact of life that when you have existing medical problems, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to get health insurance coverage. However, the law as it existed BEFORE Obamacare was a better compromise that what we have now. Under current law, an insurance company can't refuse to cover you as long as you don't have a lapse in coverage. Which means if you have a preexisting condition, you have to do what you can to make sure your coverage doesn't lapse. Granted, sometimes this doesn't work, but covering people who have preexisting conditions is a difficult challenge as the Obamacare Wizards are finding out (and the 265,000 people with preexisting conditions who were promised coverage under Obamacare but aren't getting it are finding out as well). Of course, a substantial majority of those with preexisting conditions don't HAVE to live with them. Many preexisting conditions -- diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, etc. can be traced back to poor lifestyle choices: If you take care of yourself better, you most likely won't have to deal with some of these afflictions, which would come in handy for the healthy among us because we are going to need plenty more healthy people to help pay for Obamacare's ultimate solution for taking care of those with preexisting conditions:
Starting January 1, 2014, insurance companies will no longer be able to
turn anyone away because of poor health. At the same time, the federal
government will begin subsidizing coverage for millions of individuals
who have no access to employer plans. That means many of the people
currently in the PCIP program may end up with lower premiums once the
government’s financial help is factored in.
Let me break this down into the simplest terms for those of you who have proven that you are a little slow on the uptake -- by that I mean you Obama voters: Healthy and young Americans need to stay that way and earn lots of money in the meantime because your health insurance premiums are going to be jacked up to pay for the health care of the unhealthy -- that's the "insurance companies will no longer be able to turn anyone away because of poor health" part. And "the federal government will begin subsidizing" is the part where your taxes are going up to pay for the unhealthy as well. So in other words healthy tax payers, bend over twice.
There is no such thing as a free lunch as the Obamacare Wizards are finding out. Granting health insurance to every American with a preexisting condition is a wonderful altruistic aim. But the details are a bitch for the rest of us.
"Liberal idiot of the week" is kind of like saying "sun rising in the East" -- the fact that liberalism is rampant idiocy is like the fact that di-hydrogen monoxide is water (see Penn and Teller's YouTube video about the petition to ban water). But as liberal idiots go, the liberal idiots described in this segment go above and beyond the call of duty in liberal idiocy for the week. And here we go:
1. Barack Obama: The supreme liberal idiot in chief apparently thinks that raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour will magically raise millions and millions of Americans out of poverty:
"Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one
who works full-time should have to live in poverty, and raise the
federal minimum wage to $9.00 an hour. This single step would raise the
incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference
between groceries or the food bank; rent or eviction; scraping by or
finally getting ahead.
"Millions of working families", Barry? Let's get real dude! The Bureau of Labor Statistics tells the story: Minimum wage workers tend to be young, single and/or uneducated and working part time -- not "millions of working families". 99.999% of the 4.4 million minimum wage workers ain't trying to support families. And while we're on the subject of "working families" am I the only mid-level management person working his butt off that resents the implication that because most of my work product is management, administrative and intellectual and done at a desk that it is somehow less "work" than other types of work?.The fact that the number one administrator in the federal government seldom gets up before 9AM, spends copious amounts of time golfing and vacationing and couldn't be bothered enough by the fact that people were dying at our embassy in Libya to stay up and monitor the events might lead him to believe that other managers and administrators don't work either. But we do.
2. The second liberal idiot of the week is Iowa's own Tom Harkin, who has fortunately tendered his resignation as our commie pig bastard from hell junior senator with damn near 40 years in Washington. Harkin came up with this little gem this week:
"Everyone keeps saying we have a spending problem. And when they talk
about that, it’s like there’s an assumption that somehow we as a nation
are broke. We can't afford these things any longer. We’re too broke to
invest in education and housing and things like that. Well look at it
this way, we’re the richest nation in the history of the world. We are
now the richest nation in the world. We have the highest per capita
income of any major nation. That kind of begs the question, doesn’t it? If we’re so rich, why are we so broke? Is it a spending problem? No."
Tell me folks: If you made $54,000 a year but spent $100,000 every year, year after year, and put that extra $46,000 a year on a credit card or borrowed it from your neighbor who doesn't really like you, would you say that you have a spending problem? I thought so. So is Harkin drunk, on drugs, senile or just stupid? I think it's the latter.
3. Then you have Dr. Mark Lamont Hill, leftist extraordinaire, calls Chris Dorner a superhero, avenging the racist wrongs of the LA police a la Django Unchained:
Even some of the biggest lefties in the commentary business couldn't stomach Hill's asinine comments. This faux-intellectual young punk has deserved to be marginalized for his many other radical leftist opinions and perhaps this idiocy will be enough to do in his career for good. He's entitled to his opinion, of course, but he's not entitled to be taken seriously while holding such an asinine, obnoxious and downright dangerous opinion.
Stay tuned for next weeks installment of Liberal Idiots of the Week. Finding examples of liberal idiocy isn't hard. Choosing the most idiotic of the idiocy is. I'll do my best to make those tough calls. So much liberal idiocy, so little time.
Despite concerns about pro-union protests hampering Black Friday sales, Wal-Mart Stores (WMT) said Friday that fewer than 50 of its employees nationwide participated in the demonstrations while about 22 million customers flooded into its stores.
The protests, which were planned by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, appear to have been tamer than some had expected. The demonstrations that did occur included many non-Wal-Mart employees, such as union organizers and workers in other trades like teachers.
“Only 26 protests occurred at stores last night and many of them did not include any Walmart associates,” Bill Simon, CEO of Wal-Mart U.S., said in a statement.
Wal-Mart said it did not experience “the walk-offs that were promised by the UFCW” and less than 50 of its associates participated in the protest nationwide.
Oh yes, the lefty media TRIED to make it sound like "hundreds" of the 1.3 million Wal Mart employees protested:
According to organizers from the union-backed group OUR Walmart, hundreds of workers and thousands of supporters rallied across 100 cities, including Landover Hills, Md., Miami, Oakland, Calif., Chicago, Danville, Ky., Dallas and Kenosha, Wis.Wal-Mart pushed back, saying it knew of only a "few dozen" protests, and that most of the protesters were not its employees
In one of the biggest protests, nine people were arrested outside of a Paramount, Calif., Wal-Mart store for failing to disperse, according to a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department statement. An OUR Walmart spokesman said three of those arrested were Wal-Mart workers. Those arrested were to be released without bail, unless they had previous arrest warrants.
What is "OUR Walmart"? "OUR Walmart" is a front group for the UFCW's attempt to organize Wal Mart workers -- a group of utter malcontents who want everyone -- certainly all Wal Mart workers -- to be as miserable and pissed off as they are. First of all it's Wal Mart not "OUR Wal Mart". Perhaps these protesters and the UFCW need a little lesson in capitalism. Wal Mart is not a collective owned by its employees or the community. It's not a group non-profit owned by a bunch of collectivist malcontents. It is a public corporation owed by its shareholders and it has as its primary goal to make money and grow its profits for its shareholders. As the corporation grows and prospers, employees and investors alike profit from their relationship with Wal Mart Corporation. Secondly, this protest has nothing to do with low wages, long hours and poor working conditions. It has everything to do with a greedy big union attempting to greatly enrich itself at the expense of Wal Mart and its workers. If the UFCW could organize every Wal Mart in the country, it could effectively double its membership which means doubling the dues it takes in that pay for the largess of the UFCW leadership. The average Wal Mart worker makes $14 an hour. No one could argue that this is an unfair wage for the relatively unskilled labor most entry-level Wal Mart workers bring to their positions. And while entry-level Wal Mart workers certainly don't start at $14 an hour, Wal Mart promotes from within so literally thousands and thousands of entry-level Wal Mart employees have moved up the ladder and made lucrative careers at Wal Mart by sticking with them, showing up for work everyday, doing a good job and proving their worth to the organization. As with any organization, being a malcontent and bitching about your low wages, "poor" (a relative term) benefits and working conditions, is not going to get you anywhere. Doing your best to prove your worth to the organization is what helps you move up the ladder at Wal Mart as it is at any large organization. The UFCW doesn't care about proving your worth to your employer -- they think the employer OWES the workers. The UFCW doesn't really care about wages, working conditions and benefits; it cares about taking money from hard-working employees to pay the outrageous salaries of its top brass. Take a look at the UFCW International's LM2 -- their government tax filing -- on the U.S. Department of Labor web site and count the number of union bureaucrats making over $200,000 a year. THIS is the reason they want to organize Wal Mart -- more money for organizing activities and to pay bloated salaries to their overpaid bureaucrats. Money they take $20 or $30 or $40 a month from workers making $30,000 a year. And they claim employers like Wal Mart mistreat their employees. Let's think about that for a second. How exactly DOES Wal Mart mistreat its employees? Poor wages? Consider what is asked of the average Wal Mart worker: They are checking out customers, staffing a store department, stocking shelves, greeting customers -- all jobs which are entry-level with the job training provided by Wal Mart, of course. They provide insurance benefits to full-time employees. Don't like the level of coverage? Find another job. This is a free country and any worker is free to vote with their feet. Most workers these days are just happy to have a job and benefits. And Wal Mart provides opportunities for advancement. Just talk to one of the tens of thousands of Wal Mart managers, department heads and higher who started at the bottom. How many of us who have been going to the same Wal Mart for years have seen someone start as a cashier and after a couple of years they are walking around the store carrying a clipboard and a radio? Don't want to move up? That's fine. I'm sure Wal Mart is more than happy to have good cashiers and other employees who are dependable and want to stick around. In fact, Wal Mart probably does more to keep seniors who have nothing else but a Social Security subsistence to look forward to in their homes and out of cardboard boxes under freeway overpasses than any government program. So it's pretty easy to see that the average Wal Mart worker is hardly mistreated. Another thing Wal Mart does? It improves everyone's standard of living by selling merchandise at the lowest prices possible. Shop for groceries at your local Wal Mart Super Center for a few weeks THEN try to go back to your local (or even national) supermarket chain and check out the major sticker shock you experience. Average middle class American families across the income spectrum, including Wal Mart's employees, save literally hundreds of millions a year (collectively of course) by shopping at Wal Mart. Now let's consider what the UFCW does for employees: It's easy: The UFCW doesn't produce or sell products and doesn't employ the workers it "represents". Therefore, it brings nothing to the table when bargaining with employers that the employer won't agree to first. The only leverage the UFCW has are these idiotic protests and strikes that bankrupt and destroy families. And employers like Wal Mart are increasingly standing up to the UFCW's thug-like tactics. Which means the UFCW can't do a whole hell of a lot for employees besides take their money and give them a whole bunch of empty promises in return. In fact there were a handful of employees out in front of Wal Marts yesterday who found out EXACTLY what the UFCW could get for them -- arrested -- because that is what they got for disrupting store operations. If I were Wal Mart management, they'd be fired as well. If you can't show up on time and put in a fair days' work but instead show up on the street in front of the employer that gives you a paycheck and benefits with a bunch of malcontents to complain about the company that provides your bread and butter, why would your employer want to keep you? The UFCW Wal Mart protest was an utter failure -- in other words, it perfectly mirrors the state of union representation in the private sector in 2012. Even after four years of the most union-supporting presidential administration in history -- Barack Hussein Obama started his career as a community organizer" which is essentially a union organizer without a union -- and the leftist union thug radicals Barry has appointed to the National Labor Relations Board, they STILL aren't able to make any headway in their attempts to organize large companies like Wal Mart. Private sector union membership is dropping from record lows to even lower record lows. Face it, UFCW -- your group and your front group "OUR Walmart" are a collective of malcontents and losers. As the failed Wal Mart protests prove, Wal Mart employees are just like the vast majority of employees working for companies large and small: Generally happy, hard-working and dedicated to their jobs. They understand that unions bring nothing to the table and the dues paid to them serve only to enrich union fact cats at the expense of the employees they purport to represent.
President Barack Hussein Obama, current and future leader of the formerly free world for the next four years, hosted a cabal of lefty loons at the White House today, ostensibly to allow them to convey their wildest wet dreams to him in order that he could make them coming to life in bright, living color during his second term. Here's what the ebulent lefty loons had to say upon emerging from the White House according to that stellar, Obamacentrict news organization CBS News
Progressives coming out of today's meeting expressed confidence that Mr. Obama would stand his ground on the issue of raising taxes.
"MoveOn's 7 million members will be pleased to know that President Obama today strongly reiterated his steadfast commitment to ensuring that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent finally end December 31--and to protecting the middle class in the process," MoveOn executive director Justin Ruben said in a statement. He added that his organization is staying "fully mobilized" after the election in order to pressure Republicans on the issue.
Similarly, the Associated Press reports, Service Employees International Union president Mary Kay Henry said labor needs to be "as engaged as we were in the election throughout the rest of this year to make sure we get the Republican House to say yes to tax cuts for the middle class."
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi stressed to reporters today that while Democrats are seeking a "balanced approach" to the fiscal cliff that includes new tax revenues, they are primarily interested in finding some kind of solution. "I want you to be disabused of any notion that there's any widespread thought that it would be a good thing for our country to go over the cliff," she said. "We want an agreement."
Let's cut through the crap and get down to what these folks really are and what they believe.
Well since the pansy-ass whipped dog John Boehner has admitted that he is not going to continue to challenge socialized medicine (Obamacare is the law of the land, don't you know) we can expect to see these types of issues coing down the pike in years to come:
AFP - French surgeons began on Monday an open-ended strike to protest against perceived threats to their freedom and pay.
The protest has been called by 30 unions and professional bodies who are making various demands, with organisers claiming a significant impact in some regions.
Hospital surgeons' union Bloc is leading a protest against an agreement accepted by the three largest doctors' unions at the end of October, which says any fees over 2.5 times the basic state tariffs is excessive.
The surgeons argue they have the right to charge higher rates.
Meanwhile, state hospital interns, who have joined in the strike, are fighting against feared new moves limiting the freedom of young doctors to work where they want.
Thousands of interns wearing white coats and surgical masks marched in Paris shouting: "Tomorrow's health lies with young doctors" and "No to discounted medical care".
Doctor's unions, state dictated fees on medical care, pissed off interns -- doctors of the future ... It's all part of the brave old world of socialized medicine. And it's already happeneing now in this country. Another aspect of the French socialized medicine system protest:
France has drawn plaudits for its health care system. But many doctors complain of being overworked and fear a slide toward free-market, American-style health care.
Many doctors suspended office hours during the open-ended protests starting Monday, forcing patients to look to emergency rooms for care.
France has drawn plaudits from whom exactly? The leftist news organization Associated Press? I've been a reporter before and I know their propesity to include little throw away lines that mean nothing but sound important like "France has draw plaudits for its health care system". Sounds like it's working real well now that it's "forcing patients to look to emergency rooms for care."
Oddly enough, this is just like the British health care system a few years back: ER service times were so poor because ERs were backed up so badly because the health care system sucked so bad that the queen's subjects couldn't get regular health care that they had to mandate minimum times for service in the emergency room. What happened then? Hospitals began to triage patients in ambulances because unless they made it through the door to the ER, they didn't count on the ER service times stats.
We already have the signs of trouble here. Medical school admissions are down -- after all, why would you take out hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans to take a job where your prosepcts of making the type of money you need to pay off those loans is shrinking by the day? Current doctors are refusing to see Medicare patients because goverment reimbursement rates are way down and going down even more under Obamacare -- the exact thing France's doctors are protesting about is starting to happen here and that limits availability of care.
French doctors are so wedded to their broken socialist system that they are also protesting because they fear free-market reforms -- free-market reforms that are essential to keep France's health care system from collapsing further. Despite AP's claims that France's health care system is great, do you see anyone running to France or Great Britain or Canada for high-quality health care? Hell no, they go to the greatest health care system in the world bar none -- the United States health care system -- the only one in a major world power that bears any semblance of free-market capitalism.
Read the stories about the collapse of France's heatlh care system. Check out the NICE website and see how Great Britain "nicely" rations health care. Look at the waiting times for basic surgeries on the Canadian province web sites and find out how long you have to wait for surgery (Welcome to the surgical wait times web site!). This is where we are headed folks. And we don't want to go there. But apparently, this is what the majority of us want. And until Texas secedes from the union, this is what the rest of us are going to get as well. Forward! Obamacare!
Read more!
WASHINGTON -- Some big-name celebrities will help President Barack
Obama make his closing case to voters in the most competitive states.
Rock singer Bruce Springsteen will perform and introduce Obama on
Monday as he kicks off the last day of the campaign in Madison, Wis. The
two will then travel together to Columbus, Ohio, for another event with
rapper Jay-Z.
First lady Michelle Obama will meet up with the president,
Springsteen and Jay-Z later Monday in Des Moines, Iowa, for Obama's last
event of the campaign. It's a nod to the state that put Obama on his
path to the White House when he won the Iowa caucuses in 2008.
Bear in mind folks: These rich twits don't have to be smart; in many cases they don't even have to be talented. They are rich due to their mass appeal and have drifted through the last four years utterly unaffected by the wreckage their big buddy in the White House has strewn in the wake of his "fundamental transformation" of our society.
As food prices skyrocket, Bruce Springsteen doesn't have to worry when his housekeeper goes out to stock up the pantry. Likewise, it doesn't matter to Jay-Z whether the gas for his Maybach or Rolls Royce or Ferrari is $5 or $10 or even $20 a gallon -- he can afford it. And you can bet that the values on the dozens of mansions these twits own all over the country haven't dropped a whole hell of a lot.Hence, they don't have to spend a whole hell of a lot of time considering what will happen to the average middle class family (their fans) when their tax bill goes up $3,000 or $4,000 a year when Barry allows everyone's taxes to go up. Barry is cool, he's hip and the fact that they are supporting the re-election of the "first Black president" helps them assuage their rich liberal guilt.
Every totalitarian society has their "rich" class. When the society collapses to the point where the proletariat can no longer afford to pay outrageous prices to be entertained by these brainless twits, the brainless twits will still survive.They have plenty of money stashed away. They'll just spend their time entertaining and sucking up to the ruling class. It's kind of funny how liberals spend so much time obsessing over Mitt Romney's wealth but never worry about the wealth of rich twits like Jay-Z and "The Boss".
Liberal special interest groups interested in giving the rest of us four more years of misery and stagnation, are cranking up the voter fraud. Here's one recent example from Texas:
HOUSTON, TX - Friday afternoon at an early polling
place located at 6719 W. Montgomery Road in Houston, NAACP members were
seen advocating for President Barack Obama according to volunteer poll
watchers on location at the time.
According to Eve Rockford, a poll watcher trained by voter integrity
group True the Vote, three NAACP members showed up to the 139 precinct
location with 50 cases of bottled water and began handing bottles out to
people standing in line. While wearing NAACP labeled clothing, members
were "stirring the crowd" and talking to voters about flying to Ohio to
promote President Barack Obama.
After watching what was occurring, Rockford approached Polling Supervisor Rose Cochran about what she was seeing.
"I went to the polling supervisor and let her know that it was not
appropriate that they were in the building handing out water. She
ignored me. I repeated my statement. She told me that she would handle
it. She did nothing. I then went to the assistant supervisor and he
stood up, walked over to another table and then sat down. I then walked
into the waiting room and they were reloading another dolly with more
cases of water," Rockford said in a True the Vote incident report.
After handing out water and advocating for President Obama, the NAACP
members started handpicking and moving people to the front of a long
voting line inside the polling place according to the incident report.
After multiple complaints from voters about the line cutting, Rockford
received a phone call from downtown telling her to “stand down.”
I keep telling you, these leftists can't win without fraud. It was true in the presidential race 52 years ago, it's been true ever since and has never been more true than it is today.
No, not the "punk" as in "punk rocker" president: The current president who is a punk -- a detestable juvenile completely unworthy of the office of poop scooper in chief let alone commander in chief. The immature jackass told his supporters that voting is their "best revenge."
"Best revenge" against what, a reasonable person might ask? Against every person in the country besides the takers -- those folks who live off the rest of us? Here let's give it a shot at figuring out exactly what The Great and Powerful Obama meant by this:
-