Hypocrisy

[festeringZit]

[h=1]Lavish travel expenses revealed as the Obamas hit the road again[/h] 54 Comments By Andrew Malcolm
Posted 04/10/2014 09:12 AM ET

• Email
• Print
• License
• Comment
• • inShare​

AP (The 41st president welcomes the 44th to Houston.)

President Obama and wife Michelle are back on the road again, this time in Texas to harvest more Democrat dollars for the looming November midterm election.
The previously-scheduled fundraising foray was tacked onto Obama's memorial speech Wednesday at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas. Why let a nationally-televised shooting memorial go to waste when you can use such an official activity to cut the Democratic Party's cost of political transportation on Air Force One for two fundraisers in Houston and another one today in Austin?
At the memorial for the slaying of three Army sergeants in a shooting rampage by a fellow soldier last week, Obama vowed "a renewed commitment to keep our troops safe." (As usual, the C-SPAN Library has video of the full remarks.)
Much the same sentiments as he expressed nearly five years ago on the same base following the massacre of 13 troops by then-Army Major Nidal Hassan, shouting "God is Great" in Arabic.
So committed to U.S. troops' welfare is this president that his administration still refuses to classify those 2009 killings and more than 30 woundings the same day as anything other than ordinary workplace violence. This denies significant disability benefits and Purple Hearts to the service members and their families.
Obama has never been accused of putting respect and propriety ahead of political fundraising. Immediately after the latest memorial service, Obama again flew off to political fundraisers, where he attacked congressional Republicans for "blocking progress" by opposing his plans.
As it happens, Obama did and said much the same on Sept. 10, 2012, when he vowed swift justice for those who killed four Americans in Benghazi the previous night. He then flew West to more fundraisers in Las Vegas. Justice for the Benghazi perps is still waiting.

At Houston's Bush Intercontinental Airport Wednesday, the Obamas were greeted on the tarmac by a wheelchair-bound President George H.W. Bush.
“I just wanted to say hello to the president and the first lady," said Bush, who turns 90 in two months. "When the president comes to your hometown, you show up and welcome him.”
The Obamas' latest Air Force One travels came on the same day that watchdog group Judicial Watch released expensive expense details of recent Obama trips, including their visit to Ireland last June for the G-8 summit.
Obtained by Freedom of Information lawsuits against various administration departments, the details show, among other things, that Michelle Obama's overnight sightseeing side-trip from Belfast to Dublin cost taxpayers more than a quarter-million dollars.



Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/politics-...l-service-obama-fundraising.htm#ixzz2yal0JvnM

 

[SheriffJoe]

Media bias is only part of the story here. Shady characters like this are often very useful to the media, and there's no one they serve more faithfully than themselves.



WSJ's Jason Riley: Media have known about Sharpton's shady background for a long time
But they ignored it.

Of course.

Just like they know about the Fraud in Chief's shady background, but are ignoring it.

 

[The Guesser]

Media bias is only part of the story here. Shady characters like this are often very useful to the media, and there's no one they serve more faithfully than themselves.



WSJ's Jason Riley: Media have known about Sharpton's shady background for a long time
But they ignored it.

Your link doesn't work, but it's a lie anyway. The New York and national Media exposed Sharpton for what he is long, long ago.

 

[festeringZit]

 

[festeringZit]

[h=3]Inside The Mind Of A Frightened Liberal Wussy[/h]
A friend of mine passed this along to me a while back. It's so sad it's actually kind of funny. Read on:
“Earlier today before I mowed the lawn and had to take some allergy pills, I was at the grocery store. There in the line behind me, when I was checking out, was someone carrying a gun on their hip. I didn't say anything. It's totally legal here in my state, after all. But, I just felt like they were somehow inhibiting my freedom to speech. I can't exactly figure out the how, or the why, or the what of the whole thing.

Maybe I was afraid to speak to the cashier? Maybe I thought that something would happen if I made a sudden move? Like if I pulled out my wallet too fast, the crazy person behind me would think I'm going for a knife to shank him, or somebody else? I mean, who needs a gun in the freaking grocery store? That meat you're buying is already dead, I promise you won't have to shoot it. I felt very conscious of all of my movements, like I was being watched, like a penned up animal at the zoo.

When I got out to my car, I just sat behind the steering wheel, angry. I wrapped my fingers tightly around the wheel, and just sat there, all tense, feeling uneasy, and flustered about the whole ordeal. I felt like I wasn't in control of the situation inside of that store at all.

I felt like I had been silenced. I felt like you would after being admonished by an authority figure, when you have no rebuttal. I felt like a child who had been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. I felt like I was the one who had done something wrong.

Why did I feel this way? I'm still pissed about it. If I can figure out why, I can fight it next time. Sorry for venting.”

I kid you not, people – this is a REAL post, on a website called “DemocraticUnderground.com.” You should read some of the responses. I can't get over the stupidity.

In all seriousness, I almost feel sorry for people like this. Why would anyone make the assumption that a person carrying a firearm in the open is a “crazy person” and they are watching your every move, seemingly just itching to just start firing at the slightest perceived provocation? It seems to me that there's some undiagnosed mental issues if those are your thoughts when you see a firearm.

It disturbs me greatly that this nation has within it so many who think this way, and act as if people freely exercising their Constitutional rights is somehow “abnormal” or wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth, but I guess I shouldn't be too shocked. These are the same people who believe abortion actually is a Constitutional right, after all.
My thoughts when I see someone carrying? “I wonder what make, model, and caliber that is.” ~ Hunter

​

​

 

[Acebb]

^ That posting reminds us that liberalism is a psychosis.

Of course that buffoon doesn't trust himself with a firearm. Because, like a child, the modern 'progressive' has impulse control problems and can not imagine that not everyone else does.

It is also worth noting that it never occurs to that obviously "smart" beta male that armed robberies take place at grocery stores all the time.

Remember, these people are the 'reality based community'

 

[festeringZit]

[h=1]Rep. Wasserman Schultz Tells Four Lies in One Sentence, WashPost Gives Her Just Two Pinocchios[/h]

By Amy Ridenour | April 1, 2014 | 00:48 83 111 Reddit0 4

A A

"When 99 percent of women used birth control in their lifetime and 60 percent use it for something other than family planning, it's outrageous and I think the Supreme Court will suggest that their case is ridiculous." - Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz on MSNBC's The Ed Show, March 25
Debbie Wasserman Schultz may have gotten two Pinocchios from Washington Post "Fact Checker" Glenn Kessler Monday for that statement above, but she got off easy.
The 60 percent number is a big lie. The real number is 14 percent.
The 60 percent lie wasn't even the first lie of the sentence. 99 percent of all women do not use birth control in their lifetime. In fact, by age 44, only 86.8 percent of women have ever had vaginal intercourse, even once.
Wasserman Schultz's two lies were meant to support a third lie. It doesn't matter to the HHS contraception mandate debate how many women use "the pill" to regulate hormones or for some other medical purpose other than birth control, because the minute the pill is used for something other than birth control, it falls outside the contraception mandate. And since it falls outside the contraception mandate part of ObamaCare, it doesn't matter what happens to that particular mandate in the courts for those who simply want coverage for a drug to regulate hormones, or for some other necessary medical purpose.
Wasserman Schultz wanted the audience to believe a fourth lie. Wasserman Schultz wanted viewers to believe some people (religious conservatives, of course) are trying to block women's access to routine health care. But nobody is. Even the Catholic Church, which famously objects to artificial birth control, does not object to women taking the pill for non-birth control purposes, and does not object to insurance policies covering the pill for non-contraceptive reasons.
It strains credibility to think Wasserman Schultz is, after years of debate in this topic, unaware that the vast majority of women who take the pill use it for birth control. It is very unlikely she truly believes 99 percent of all women use birth control at some time in their lives (are the lesbians using it too, or doesn't Wasserman Schultz believe in the existence of lesbians? How about the devout Catholics? Women who like children? Women who marry late or never? Women who know they can't get pregnant? And so forth.). And Wasserman Schultz has to know that a drug prescribed for something other than birth control does not fall under a birth control regulation, and two minutes on Google would show her that the Catholic Church does not object to the pill, or insurance coverage for same, for non-birth control purposes.
Kessler's Pinocchios grading scale grades two Pinocchios for "significant omissions and/or exaggerations." Kessler said Wasserman Schultz's ten words ("60 percent use it for something other than family planning") qualified as such.
I say Wasserman Schultz should be graded on her entire sentence: four lies. A "whopper" - four Pinocchios.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/amy-ri...-lies-one-sentence-washington-p#ixzz2ymdoNqSN
​

 

[festeringZit]

 

[festeringZit]

If you dare anger our thin-skinned President, you'd better be prepared to receive "the call." We wouldn't want to see Obama upset, now would we?



The White House wanted Dr. Ben Carson to call Obama and 'apologize for offending him'
Kiss the ring.

 

[Dave007inVegas]

 

[festeringZit]

 

[festeringZit]

 

[festeringZit]

 

[festeringZit]

 

[festeringZit]

[h=1]86M Full-Time Private-Sector Workers Sustain 148M Benefit Takers[/h]
April 16, 2014 - 5:04 AM

---

By Terence P. Jeffrey




Buried deep on the website of the U.S. Census Bureau is a number every American citizen, and especially those entrusted with public office, should know. It is 86,429,000.

That is the number of Americans who in 2012 got up every morning and went to work — in the private sector — and did it week after week after week.

These are the people who built America, and these are the people who can sustain it as a free country. The liberal media have not made them famous like the polar bear, but they are truly a threatened species.

It is not a rancher with a few hundred head of cattle that is attacking their habitat, nor an energy company developing a fossil fuel. It is big government and its primary weapon — an ever-expanding welfare state.

First, let's look at the basic taxonomy of the full-time, year-round American worker.

In 2012, according to the Census Bureau, approximately 103,087,000 people worked full-time, year-round in the United States. "A full-time, year-round worker is a person who worked 35 or more hours per week (full time) and 50 or more weeks during the previous calendar year (year round)," said the Census Bureau. "For school personnel, summer vacation is counted as weeks worked if they are scheduled to return to their job in the fall."

Of the 103,087,000 full-time, year-round workers, 16,606,000 worked for the government. That included 12,597,000 who worked for state and local government and 4,009,000 who worked for the federal government.

The 86,429,000 Americans who worked full-time, year-round in the private sector, included 77,392,000 employed as wage and salary workers for private-sector enterprises and 9,037,000 who worked for themselves. (There were also approximately 52,000 who worked full-time, year-round without pay in a family enterprise.)

At first glance, 86,429,000 might seem like a healthy population of full-time private-sector workers. But then you need to look at what they are up against.

The Census Bureau also estimates the size of the benefit-receiving population.

This population, too, falls into two broad categories. The first includes those who receive benefits for public services they performed or in exchange for payroll taxes they dutifully paid their entire working lives. Among these, for example, are those receiving veteran's benefits, those on unemployment and those getting Medicare and Social Security.

The second category includes those who get "means-tested" government benefits — or welfare. These include, for example, those who get Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, public housing, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Women, Infants Children.

Let's examine this second category first, which the Census Bureau reports as "anyone residing in a household in which one or more people received benefits from the program."

In the last quarter of 2011, according to the Census Bureau, approximately 82,457,000 people lived in households where one or more people were on Medicaid. 49,073,000 lived in households were someone got food stamps. 23,228,000 lived in households where one or more got WIC. 20,223,000 lived in households where one or more got SSI. 13,433,000 lived in public or government-subsidized housing.

Of course, it stands to reason that some people lived in households that received more than one welfare benefit at a time. To account for this, the Census Bureau published a neat composite statistic: There were 108,592,000 people in the fourth quarter of 2011 who lived in a household that included people on "one or more means-tested program."

Those 108,592,000 outnumbered the 86,429,000 full-time private-sector workers who inhabited the United States in 2012 by almost 1.3 to 1.

This brings us to the first category of benefit receivers. There were 49,901,000 people receiving Social Security in the fourth quarter of 2011, and 46,440,000 receiving Medicare. There were also 5,098,000 getting unemployment compensation.

And there were also, 3,178,000 veterans receiving benefits and 34,000 veterans getting educational assistance.

All told, including both the welfare recipients and the non-welfare beneficiaries, there were 151,014,000 who "received benefits from one or more programs" in the fourth quarter of 2011. Subtract the 3,212,000 veterans, who served their country in the most profound way possible, and that leaves 147,802,000 non-veteran benefit takers.

The 147,802,000 non-veteran benefit takers outnumbered the 86,429,000 full-time private sector workers 1.7 to 1.

How much more can the 86,429,000 endure?

As more baby boomers retire, and as Obamacare comes fully online — with its expanded Medicaid rolls and federally subsidized health insurance for anyone earning less than 400 percent of the poverty level — the number of takers will inevitably expand. And the number of full-time private-sector workers might also contract.

Eventually, there will be too few carrying too many, and America will break.

 

[SheriffJoe]

Modern liberalism is all about finding creative and sophisticated ways of avoiding reality.

 

[russ1945]

[h=2]U.S. Unfreezes $450M in Iranian Funds[/h]




AP

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
April 18, 2014 8:34 am
The State Department said Thursday that it is in the process of unfreezing $450 million in Iranian funds, Israel Hayom reports.
The release will come because of an International Atomic Energy Agency report that verified Iran is keeping up its side of the nuclear deal it signed with world powers.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that “all sides have kept the commitments made” under the agreement. She said that “as Iran remains in line with its commitments,” the United States, France, Germany, Britain, China, Russia and the European Union “will continue to uphold our commitments as well.”
The report by the U.N. nuclear agency showed that Iran had — as stipulated under the November 24 agreement — diluted half of its higher-grade enriched uranium reserve to a fissile content less prone to bomb proliferation. Tehran has also continued to convert the other half of its stock of uranium gas refined to a 20 percent fissile purity, the IAEA report said.
“Based on this confirmation and consistent with commitments that the United States made under the Joint Plan of Action (November 24 pact), the Department of Treasury took the necessary steps pursuant to the JPOA to facilitate the release of a $450 million installment of Iran’s frozen funds,” Harf told reporters.
​

This entry was posted in National Security and tagged Iran, nuclear weapons. Bookmark the permalink.

 

[vidswaps]

 

[russ1945]

Daily Caller News Foundation

Gina McCarthy testifies before a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on her nomination to be administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on Capitol Hill in Washington April 11, 2013. (REUTERS/Joshua Roberts)
[h=1]Eco-activists: EPA’s ‘Earth Week’ tour will harm the planet through airline CO2 emissions[/h]12:28 PM 04/21/2014















Michael Bastasch

• See All Articles
• Email Michael Bastasch
• Subscribe to RSS

• 
  

The Environmental Protection Agency is celebrating Earth Week by jet-setting across the country on a multi-city tour that will end up hurting the environment, according to environmentalists.
“Frenetically jetting around the country appears to undercut EPA’s message to ordinary Americans that they should conserve, consume less and reduce transportation pollution,” stated said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
EPA chief administrator Gina McCarthy will be traveling to five cities this week as part of its Earth Week tour to “ask Americans to act on climate change through simple actions to reduce carbon pollution in their daily lives.” But PEER argues that such a tour would emit tons of carbon dioxide emissions which they say contributes to global warming.
According to PEER, the carbon dioxide emissions generated McCarthy and the EPA during her week-long tour “will far exceed any concrete climate action from their travels.”
Ironically, the EPA’s tour that aims to teach people how to “commute without polluting” will be overshadowed by the fact that McCarthy and her entourage will travel by airplane and no doubt use large vehicles to transport themselves from place to place.
According to PEER, air travel can emit 2 to 3 tons of carbon dioxide per person on cross-country flights. The Daily Caller News Foundation reported that McCarthy travels home to Boston nearly every week to see her family, mostly via air travel.
“Hasn’t EPA heard of Skype?” Ruch said.
A rough calculation of the carbon dioxide emissions of her nearly weekly flights shows she emits between 7.5 tons of carbon dioxide per year to 9.4 tons per year — nearly equivalent to the yearly carbon emissions of the average American.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/21/e...-through-airline-co2-emissions/#ixzz2ze3IDX9j​

 

[SheriffJoe]

Gina McCarthy testifies before a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on her nomination to be administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on Capitol Hill in Washington April 11, 2013

Why are these radicals always so damn ugly?

uke1: