Category Archives: Congress
There is a line between merely kooky and downright vile. Debo Adegbile crossed it by going out of his way to help unrepentant cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal escape his just punishment. Obama crossed it by nominating Adegbile to a powerful post that would have given him leverage to inflict his malign ideology on the American people. But even with today’s radicalized Democrat Party, seven Democrat Senators were not willing to cross this line. Consequently, Adegbile’s nomination was shot down in flames:
The nomination of Debo Adegbile for head of the Civil Rights Division was blocked, on a 47-52 vote.
Normally, he would have needed 60 votes — an impossibility with a nominee as outrageously inappropriate as Adegbile. But Harry Reid has imposed the nuclear option, with the express purpose of helping Obama ram through radical nominees against the objections of the minority party, robbing Republicans of the filibuster.
With the odious Joe Biden sitting ready to break a tie in Adegbile’s favor, the ultra-left contingent needed only 50 votes to launch this gob of saliva in America’s face. They fell just short.
Not surprisingly, police organizations exerted heavy pressure. Marxist Black Panthers alumnus Mumia Abu-Jamal is revered among leftists for executing a white police officer.
See here for background on Mumia Abu-Jamal, who is as deserving of the death penalty as any cockroach that was ever stepped upon. But he won’t be executed as he executed Daniel Faulkner, thanks largely to the ideologically motivated efforts of Adegbile, who was working for the radical left NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
That someone who would regard Adegbile as an appropriate choice for this position is President of the United States is almost too appalling to comprehend.
Yet Obama is doubling down, denouncing the Senate’s refusal to confirm Adegbile as a “travesty.”
We could be in for another recess appointment of the thumb in the eye variety. If past behavior by Obama is any indication, he may even recess appoint someone of Adegbile’s stripe while the Senate is not in recess.
That would be an opening that Republicans would be fools to pass up. Literally no decent person who is fully aware of Obama’s radicalism could support his continued presence in the White House. Already his approval rating has plummeted to 38%, despite a substantial percentage of the population that will support a black leftist no matter how awful he is (as Mumia Abu-Jamal’s fan base proves), and despite the media continuing to keep most people in the dark regarding exactly where Obama is coming from.
Recess appointment? As Dirty Harry would say, “Make my day.”
But of course the media would refuse to cover the outrage, so we would be dependent on congressional Republicans to grow a spine and make some noise. If unconstitutionally circumventing Senate confirmation won’t make them do it, nothing will — not even the presidential pardon Mumia Abu-Jamal probably has coming his way.
On tips from IslandLifer, DJ, Varla, Valerie, and Jester.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Trey Gowdy: Democrats Want You To Believe You’re Better Off Writing Poetry Than Working For Money (Video)
Once again, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) hit it out of the park today on FOX News. Gowdy blasted Democrats for their new rallying cry urging Americans to avoid the work trap.
“Well, how would you like to run for reelection if you were in the House and the Senate based on Obamacare with its rising premiums, worse coverage and now we’re trying to convince you that you’re better off writing poetry than you working and getting money? I certainly wouldn’t want to defend that in a midterm election… If you need any more evidence, or “smidgen” of evidence to use his word, how disastrous this health care law is, the architect doesn’t even want to implement it!“
From The DG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
The IRS Conservative Targeting Scandal involved:
* At least 292 conservative groups * At least 5 pro-Israel groups * Constitutional groups * Groups that criticized Obama administration * At least two pro-life groups * An 83 year-old Nazi concentration camp survivor * A 180 year-old Baptist paper * A Texas voting-rights group * A Hollywood conservative group was targeted and harassed * Conservative activists and businesses * At least one conservative Hispanic group * IRS continued to target groups even after the scandal was exposed
The Obama IRS gave preferential treatment to liberal groups during the same period.
Now their is proof the IRS and Treasury Department secretly drafted rules to target conservatives. This email shows the IRS’s Lois Lerner and Treasury Department conspired to draft new 501(c)(4) regulations targeting conservatives.
. Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) revealed this email yesterday during House Committee on Ways and Means committee hearing with the IRS commissioner John Koskinen.
. The Daily Caller reported:
The Obama administration’s Treasury Department and former IRS official Lois Lerner conspired to draft new 501(c)(4) regulations to restrict the activity of conservative groups in a way that would not be disclosed publicly, according to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
The Treasury Department and Lerner started devising the new rules “off-plan,” meaning that their plans would not be published on the public schedule. They planned the new rules in 2012, while the IRS targeting of conservative groups was in full swing, and not after the scandal broke in order to clarify regulations as the administration has suggested.
The rules would place much more stringent controls on what would be considered political activity by the IRS, effectively limiting the standard practices of a wide array of non-profit groups.
“Don’t know who in your organizations is keeping tabs on c4s, but since we mentioned potentially addressing them (off -plan) in 2013, I’ve got my radar up and this seemed interesting…,” Treasury official Ruth Madrigal wrote in a June 14, 2012 email to Lerner and others obtained by Ways and Means and provided to The Daily Caller.
Ways and Means chairman Rep. Dave Camp blasted the off-the-record plan during a hearing Wednesday with IRS commissioner John Koskinen, and called for the administration’s newly proposed 501(c)(4) rules to be halted until criminal investigations into the IRS targeting scandal are complete.
It looks like President Obama was just caught in another lie.
The IRS was targeting conservative groups despite what he told Bill O’Reilly.
. ————————————————————————————————————————— .
. ————————————————————————————————————————— .
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Thursday blasted President Barack Obama’s recent claim that there was “not even a smidgen of corruption” involved in the Internal Revenue Service’s alleged targeting of conservative groups.
. “The president says there’s not a ‘smidgeon’ of criminality or corruption,” Gowdy said during a House Ways and Means hearing on the IRS scandal.
“Do either of you,” he said, addressing two Tea Party leaders who appeared to testify on their experiences with the IRS, “remember seeing a witness named Lois Lerner, sitting at the very table y’all are sitting at?”
Lerner, formerly in charge of the IRS’ tax-exempt organization division, ignited the scandal in May after she apologized for the agency’s handling of conservative groups. She later invoked the Fifth Amendment and resigned her post in September.
“Do you remember her invoking her Fifth Amendment privilege? The same privilege that she targeted some of your groups for trying to educate people about?” Gowdy asked. “Some of your groups just want to simply educate people about the Constitution – the one she availed herself of the very second she was exposed to criminal investigation.”
“So how can the president say there’s not a ‘smidgeon’ of criminality when Lois Lerner invoked the Fifth Amendment? Forty-one witnesses haven’t been interviewed, including the two who are here right now!” he added. “How can he possibly draw that conclusion?”
Watch the South Carolina representative’s heated take on Obama’s assessment:
. ————————————————————————————————————————— .
. One of the most high-profile victims of the IRS Tea Party targeting scandal is planning to unveil surprising new allegations about the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee at a hearing this morning.
Catherine Engelbrecht, the head of election integrity group True The Vote and Tea Party group King Street Patriots, alleges Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) demanded information from her group in a similar manner to the IRS, according to her testimony. “Hours after sending letters, he would appear on cable news and publicly defame me and my organization,” Engelbrecht said.
The Tea Party leader is filing a formal ethics complaint against Cummings with the Office of Congressional Ethics, a panel of outside advisers who review allegations and refer those they consider to have merit to the official Hosue Ethics Committee.
Engelbrecht is one of several witnesses testifying at an oversight subcommittee hearing on the IRS scandal on Thursday. The committee’s subcommittee on Economic Growth, Job Creation and Regulatory Affairs will be holding a hearing titled: “The IRS Targeting Investigation: What is the Administration Doing?”
In her opening statement, published on the committee’s website late Wednesday, Engelbrecht offers the painstaking details of how the IRS and administration as a whole targeted her, noting “my private businesses, my nonprofit organizations, and family have been subjected to more than 15 instances of audit or inquiry by federal agencies.”
Engelbrecht said she is disgusted with Cummings’ behavior, and that Cummings was engaged in activity that “misrepresent[s] this governing body in an effort to demonize and intimidate citizens.”
“Such tactics are unacceptable,” Engelbrecht wrote in her prepared testimony. “It is for these reasons that immediately after this hearing I am filing a formal complaint with the House Office of Congressional Ethics and asking for a full investigation.”
Earlier in her testimony, Engelbrecht lumped Cummings’ actions in with those of the administration, writing that after she filed IRS papers to create her groups, “an assortment of federal entities – including law enforcement agencies and a Congressman from Maryland, Elijah Cummings – came knocking at my door.”
It is highly unusual for a witness at a hearing to announce she is filing a formal ethics complaint against the ranking member of the committee holding it. Cummings’ office did not respond to a request for comment sent late Wednesday.
Cummings has been a Democratic thorn in the side of oversight efforts of full committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and other committee Republicans on the IRS scandal since he ascended to the top Democratic slot on the committee in 2010.
Cummings released sensitive investigation documents this past summer, including a redacted transcript of an interview committee investigators conducted with IRS employee John Shafer. Cummings did so, according to an NPR story on the matter, because he said the transcript “debunks conspiracy theories about how the IRS first started reviewing these cases.”
But Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) said in response to that renegade Cummings action that it “will severely undermine the Oversight Committee’s ability to gain the full truth of what has transpired at the IRS.”
“Since he called for an end to this investigation, we have learned that IRS officials in Washington had been more involved in the targeting of Tea Party and conservative groups than we initially were lead to believe,” Turner said then. “This maneuver will do nothing more than obstruct the Committee’s investigation. It’s clear that Ranking Member Cummings is concerned only with ending a highly embarrassing and troubling investigation before we learn the full truth of who was responsible and why.”
On the Benghazi scandal, Cummings outed a trip Issa was taking to Libya – something Issa’s office feared could have put the chairman in danger as terror threats were being made against Issa’s life at the time by a Libyan national.
Testifying along with Engelbrecht at Thursday’s IRS hearing will be American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) chief counsel Jay Sekulow, Alabama’s Wetumpka Tea Party president Becky Gerritson and lawyer Cleta Mitchell of Foley & Lardner LLP. Barbara Bosserman of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division is invited to testify, according to the House Oversight Committee’s website but has not confirmed.
. ————————————————————————————————————————— .
Appearing on Fox News Channel’s Special Report on Wednesday, conservative columnist George Will said the scandal involving the Internal Revenue Services’ targeting of conservative groups is as serious as Watergate or Iran-Contra. The distinction between those scandals and the one involving the IRS, he said, was that the press covered those earlier controversies heavily while they have largely dismissed the latest.
Will began by recalling that, immediately after former IRS official Lois Lerner preemptively apologized for targeting conservative groups, President Barack Obama called the scandal “outrageous.” Lerner would go on to resign and refuse to testify before Congress about the details of the scandal.
Today, however, Will noted that the scandal has evolved to a point where the president dismisses the IRS’s actions as mere “boneheaded decisions.”
He added that the nation’s capital has seen three major scandals “involving the distortion and abuse of institutions” in the past 40 years; Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, and the IRS targeting scandal.
“The first two were ravenously covered by the media – they were Republican presidents’ problems,” Will said. “This is not being pursued and the president knows that. Hence, his sense of weariness and boredom as he discussed this with Bill O’Reilly.”
Watch the clip below, via Fox:
. ————————————————————————————————————————— .
.Click on image above to watch video.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
From 90 miles
Davy Crockett Explains Why Congress (and certainly not the president) has No Power to Give Away Money to Charity or Poor People
David Crockett Member of Congress 1827-31, 1832-35
One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in it’s support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
“Mr. Speaker– I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”
He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:
“Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
“The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
“I began: “Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and—-’
“Yes, I know you you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’
“This was a sockdolager….I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
“Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intended by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest…. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’
“‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, For I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’
“‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the back woods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some suffers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’
“‘Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve it’s suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’
“‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to anything and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief.
There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the suffers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditable; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.
“‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch it’s power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you…’
“I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, for the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:
“Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head, when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully, I have heard many speeches in congress about the powers of the Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’
“He laughingly replied: “Yes Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’
“‘If I don’t,’ said I. “I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbeque, and I will pay for it.’
“‘No Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none.. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbeque. This is Thursday; I will see to getting up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’
“‘Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name.’
“‘My name is Bunce.’
“‘Not Horatio Bunce?’
“‘Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’
“It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
“At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
“Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.
“I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him — no, that is not the word — I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times a year; and I will tell you sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian, lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.
“But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted—at least, they all knew me.
“In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: “Fellow-citizens — I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgement is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’
“I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:
“And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
“‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’
“He came upon the stand and said:
“‘Fellow-citizens — It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’
“He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
“I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or shall ever make, as a member of Congress.
“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday.
“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men– men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased — a debt which could not be paid by money — and the insignificant and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
Never mind the official stats that tell us the employment situation is lousy. The real situation is actually much worse:
The number of working age Americans that do not have a job has increased by nearly 10 million since Barack Obama first entered the White House. In January 2009, the number of “officially unemployed” workers plus the number of Americans “not in the labor force” was sitting at a grand total of 92.6 million. Today, that number has risen to 102.2 million. That means that the number of working age Americans that are not working has grown by close to 10 million since Barack Obama first took office. So why does the “official unemployment rate” keep going down? Well, it is because the federal government has been pretending that millions upon millions of unemployed workers have “left the labor force” over the past few years and do not want to work anymore. The government says that another 347,000 workers “left the labor force” in December. That is nearly five times larger than the 74,000 jobs that were “created” by the U.S. economy last month. And it is important to note that more than half of those jobs were temporary jobs, and it takes well over 100,000 new jobs just to keep up with population growth each month. So the unemployment rate should not have gone down. If anything, it should have gone up. …
The labor force participation rate is now at a 35 year low, and the only way that the federal government has been able to get the “unemployment rate” to go down is by removing hundreds of thousands of Americans out of the labor force every month.
As for the so-called “recovery,”
Most people don’t know this, but the U.S. economy actually created fewer jobs in 2013 than it did in 2012.
The total number of Americans a century ago was about the same as the number of Americans currently not working.
This sums up what Obama is doing to our country in a single graph:
Note that he took power in January 2009.
It isn’t an accident. Pretty much every initiative pertaining to economics that has been imposed or promoted by Obama and his coconspirators can be counted on to increase unemployment (e.g., ObamaCare, oppressive environmental regulations, higher taxes, raising the minimum wage, and extending unemployment benefits).
If you think it’s bad now, wait until Obama, McCain, Boehner, and the rest of the liberal quislings infesting the Beltway open the Third World floodgates by ramming through amnesty. That’s when the boat will stop listing and start sinking. Eventually the debt Obama is running up will put it all the way to the bottom of the sea.
On a tip from Chris Christie Traffic Shrine Monument.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Among the members of the liberal ruling class responsible for destroying our country and consequently our lives is Rep Rosa DeLauro (D-CT). Via Discover the Networks:
Only time will tell which has been the greater disaster: the multitrillion-dollar waste that is the War on Poverty (which has predictably increased poverty by subsidizing it), or allowing community organizers to achieve positions of power.
Like another community organizer who springs to mind, DeLauro has been sympathetic to communism going back to the days of the Cold War.
From 1981-87 she was chief of staff for Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd, at a time when Dodd was a leading opponent of the Contras and other anti-Communist forces in Central America. And in 1987-88, DeLauro served asexecutive director of “Countdown ’87,” a lobbying organization dedicated to ending U.S. military aid to the Nicaraguan Contras.
DeLauro has been getting reelected for decades, thanks to solid financial support.
A leading financial backer of her numerous political campaigns has been theAmerican Association for Justice, formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. DeLauro also has drawn strong support from the members and political action committees of powerful labor unions like the American Federation of Teachers, AFSCME, UNITE HERE!, the National Education Association, and the Service Employees International Union.
Backed by union money, she has continued her support of communism.
From May 27 to June 1, 2007, DeLauro toured Havana, Cuba “to examine the transition that is occurring in Cuba and the impact of that transition on U.S. policy, as well as to examine agriculture and trade with the island.” Accompanying her on the trip were such notables as former Washington, DC mayor Marion Barry and Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. A few days later, DeLauro urged an end to U.S. trade and travel sanctions against Cuba.
As for promoting communism closer to home,
DeLauro is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives.
She has also done her part to destroy Christianity by helping reduce it to a hollow farce.
In 2004 DeLauro, who is a supporter of the organization Catholic Democrats,spoke out against the Catholic Church when it threatened to deny the sacrament of communion to lawmakers who favored abortion….
Without further ado, let me present Representative Rosa DeLauro:
Voting doesn’t seem to work. Maybe we should try garlic and holy water.
On a tip from Bad Actor.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
December 19, 2013
How’s your heating bill? If you feel like you’re not paying enough, you’re in luck.
. President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is pushing new regulations on power plants – regulations that will kill jobs, jack up your energy costs, and even end up reducing families’ income because of the impact on the prices of everything you buy.
As Heritage experts Nicolas Loris, Kevin Dayaratna, and David Kreutzer explain:
<blockquotThese regulations will act as a major energy tax that would negatively impact American households. Americans will suffer through higher energy bills, but also through higher prices for goods and services, slowing the economy and crippling the manufacturing sector.
…It will cost more to heat, cool, and light homes, and to cook meals. These higher energy prices will also have rippling effects throughout the economy. As energy prices increase, the cost of making products rises.
The EPA’s war is against coal, which is the main source of electricity for 21 states. In their research, Heritage experts analyzed a phase-out of coal (thanks to the EPA’s regulations) between 2015 and 2038.
Here are their dire warnings. By the end of 2023, they project:
* Employment falls by nearly 600,000 jobs (270,000 in manufacturing). * Coal-mining jobs drop 30 percent. * A family of four’s annual income drops more than $1,200 per year, and its total income drops by nearly $24,400 over the entire period of analysis.
And for what?
Certainly not helping the environment. The authors sum it up: “President Obama’s climate plan would have a chilling effect on the economy, not the climate.”
They explain that “regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions will have no meaningful effect on global climate change. The EPA admitted this in its own proposed rule.”
So – hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, thousands in lost income, higher prices across the board—and “no noticeable climate impact.” That’s what these regulations mean.
It’s important to remember that these rules are being developed by unelected bureaucrats at the whim of the Obama Administration. We’ve already learned that the Administration delayed a number of controversial regulations, including energy-related ones, conveniently until after the 2012 election. Why? Because they’re harmful to Americans.
The authority to make such sweeping changes doesn’t belong to these unelected bureaucrats, the Heritage experts say. Congress should take back its power and prevent these rules from inflicting harm on the economy – and our wallets.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Posted on | December 18, 2013
Breitbart has the video of a certain grumpy old man, far past his sell-by date, pretending to lecture others about “intellectual integrity”. Enough. The old duffer has been in office for decades, while the integrity of the American government itself has spiraled down like an A-4 Skyhawk hit by Commies over enemy territory arriving at the Healthcare.gov crash.
Ahead of the final vote, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., tried unsuccessfully to use a parliamentary tactic to force a vote on the amendment, which he wrote to undo the cuts for military retirees. A provision in the already House-passed bill would cut retirement benefits for military retirees by $6 billion over 10 years. Sessions wanted to instead eliminate an estimated $4.2 billion in annual spending by reining in an IRS credit that illegal immigrants have claimed. He and fellow senators argued the bill unfairly sticks veterans and other military retirees with the cost of new spending.
Precisely whom do you think you’re fooling, Senator McCain? Fox echoes your point on the Senate floor in the Breitbart clip about avoiding another shutdown:
The Republican-led House passed the bill last week in an effort to avoid another stalemate leading to a potential government shutdown, like the one in October that polls showed was largely unpopular with voters.
The unpopularity has very much to do with the perception that Congress, as a whole, is just a pack of liars.
The GOP is supposed to be the adults in the room, John Sidney, but this budget deal increases spending for the next two years. That’s like vowing to quit cheating on your wife in the future, and referring to your new commitment as “fidelity”, while on your way to the strip club. “To really do what we want, we’re going to have to win elections,” said Rep. Paul Ryan.
What would also help the GOP win elections would be to purge the deadwood, e.g. YOU, Senator McCain, to clear the way for some conservative candidates. An actual reform platform, articulated by fresh, uncompromising faces of integrity: that would have voters saying “Maybe the Republicans aren’t a lying pack of swine, after all.” The indifferent majority, too disgusted with the spectacle of you selling out time and again (Amnesty? Do we hear amnesty?), might be motivated to show up at the ballot box and return the GOP to power.
So either snuggle up with Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and the boys, or just retire, but please relieve stop torturing the Republican Party with your presence. And take your fatuous daughter with you.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
Found at It Ain’t Holy Water
WASHINGTON (BHN) – House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi gushed over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Wednesday afternoon in an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell.
“He was superb, at times making perfect sense, hardly farting at all, and wearing just a beautiful suit,” said the frantically-blinking Pelosi. “I realized later his performance had made me wet myself – he was that good.”
Reactions on the other side of aisle were somewhate similar, as several Republicans said the Senate Majority Leader’s performance made them “want to puke.
Nancy Pelosi fawns over Harry Reid (file photo)
From Big hairy news: http://www.bighairynews.com/
Note: I could have posted the headline of this event from many places but The Mad Jewess has such a way with words when describing these shit heads…ZTW
Communist-Fascist, Harry Reid Has Given Obama Full Power, Today
How is this ‘law’ going to work for your Democrats when the right is forced to seize power?
In a sane world, we would take Harry Reid and hang him by his balls and then put him before a firing squad. But, America is not sane. And the Democrat party is not your Grandma’s Democrat party, it is a Communist party. Who is going to stop Harry Reid? Darrell Issa? Why men are not marching on WDC is beyond me.
Our sociopathic Government, by Harry Reid in 2008: The nuclear option, “simply put, would be the end of the United States Senate.” More on THAT.…
Excerpted from WASHINGTON POST: The partisan battles that have paralyzed Washington in recent years took a historic turn on Thursday, when Senate Democrats eliminated filibusters for most presidential nominations, severely curtailing the political leverage of the Republican minority in the Senate and assuring an escalation of partisan warfare.
The rule change means federal judge nominees and executive-office appointments can be confirmed by a simple majority of senators, rather than the 60-vote super majority that has been required for more than two centuries. Keep Reading
From The Mad Jewess: http://themadjewess.com/
An open letter to Rep John Lewis (D-GA)
Dear Rep Lewis,
While we in the TEA Party movement — that is, those Americans who stand and fight for constitutional principles, the sovereignty of the individual, and the epistemology of the Enlightenment — appreciate your timely reminder of the Democratic Party’s past involvements in segregation and the brutal subjugation of parts of the citizenry, we would like to correct your latest attempt to tie our efforts at resisting the remaking of the citizen-as-subject, as an economic unit in service of a state master, that is, as slaves, to past attempts by your Party to enslave Americans, or keep them segregated and subjugated, tied to some particular plantation or other over which you lord.
The Supreme Court has ruled before — and John Roberts, in a last minute attempt to secure for himself a legacy of bipartisan comity rather than judicial rigor, a move that will forever tarnish his reputation and damage the standing of the Court, ruled in the case of ObamaCare — that in fact the US government does have a right to force Americans into a kind of sanctioned slavery. In this case, we are told that the federal government can force us to enter in a contract it writes for us and demands we pay for under penalty of fine or imprisonment, even though to enter into that contract means we are compelled to purchase services we may not want or need, and by doing so, subsidize those same services for those who can’t afford to purchase them on their own. Legalized theft disguised as forced charity.
If to resist such coercion truly reminds you of an attempt to keep southern blacks away from lunch counters or in the backs of buses, one can only conclude that you haven’t the faculties to operate a shoe lace, much less serve as a lawmaker — though to be fair, this is not merely an indictment upon you, but upon those who vote for you, who have been taught to believe (and haven’t the intellectual curiosity to challenge) such ludicrous parallels as those you try to draw. In one instance, we have people of all races, genders, sexual orientations, and prior political affiliations rising up to protest the unpopular imposition upon us of a health insurance system that we neither want nor can afford — one that we know will decrease the quality of our health care while increasing our financial burdens, should we not be that part of your constituency that you insist be able to exist on the labor of others through your endless wealth redistribution schemes, the very thing that buys you votes and keeps your client list full. In the second instance, we have those who — while they worked to make sure they themselves were heavily subsidized and not forced to live under the very law they insist upon foisting on us, even as they’ve proven that access to the means of procuring the health insurance they claim to provide is impossible, onerous, and open to all sort of invasions of privacy and the theft of personal data — still insist we shut up and accept our lot as subjects.
And yet you have the audacity to tie the former to racial oppressors, while painting yourselves and your subjugators as noble and compassionate liberators, marchers against the predations of a capitalist system whose private health insurance providers (to the extent they’re even able to remain private, given the breadth and scope of government regulation) routinely grant claims at a higher rate than previous iterations of government health insurance (Medicare has a higher rejection rate than all private insurers)?
You sir, are a disgrace to the civil rights movement, a disgrace to the seriousness of the historic fight for equal rights for blacks (led by Republicans), a disgrace to those you purport to represent, yet upon whose ignorance and perpetually stoked victimization you continue to prey.
I despise people like you. You’ve turned a past injustice into a cottage race industry upon which you live like a parasite. And your attempts to tether that past injustice to those of us who today fight for the freedom and autonomy of the individual to resist the oppression of the state suggests that it is you, sir, who today carries the fire hoses and have shown yourself willing, time and again, to release the dogs against those who oppose your designs on their liberty.
In short, you are an opportunistic relic who, your protestations to the contrary, has become a bane to the very progress of the people your purport to speak for. So go fuck yourself.
We, the People
From Protein Wisdom: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=51752
There’s Something About Mary
According to Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Democrats had only promised that Americans could keep their insurance if it was “good insurance.”
“We said when we passed that, ‘If you had insurance that was good insurance that you wanted to keep it, you could keep it,’” Landrieu said. She declined to say if she would support a measure to let Americans keep the plans they had in 2013. “I haven’t looked at it specifically,” Landrieu said. Senate Democrats Struggle to Defend Health Insurance Promises | The Weekly Standard
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
From American Power