Benghazi select committee stonewalled

The Benghazi attack happened a few months before the 2012 Election. Now four years later, with a few months left in his term, the administration continues to run out the clock on the Select Committees investigation. We still don’t know what Obama was doing or what exactly Hillary did.

Trey Gowdy Levels Criticism Against Obama’s State Department

“Its justifications…are imaginary.”Western Journalism

The Committee, chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., has been seeking emails and records from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her senior staff at the State Department for over one year, including the findings of an Accountability Review Board but has yet to receive anything substantial.

“Whatever the administration is hiding, its justifications for doing so are imaginary and appear to be invented for the sake of convenience. That’s not how complying with a congressional subpoena works, and it’s well past time the department stops stonewalling,” he said.

More: Trey Gowdy Levels Criticism Against Obama’s State Department

“There is only one reason why these facts are now available to the American people: thorough congressional oversight, including the Select Committee on Benghazi’s insistence that any truly comprehensive review of what happened before, during, and after the 2012 terrorist attacks in Libya must include public records from the former Secretary of State and her senior staff,” said Gowdy.

“If anyone wonders why the investigation is not yet complete, the malfeasance and numerous problems identified in this report are Exhibit A, and prove the committee has faced serial delays from Day One at the hands of public officials who sought to avoid transparency and accountability,” added Gowdy.

We’re set to go into another election, four years later, without critical answers. At this point, to expect the answers or accountability from Obama’s administration would require the willing suspension of disbelief.

Maybe we will not get the answers but only an explanation as to why we didn’t get the answers or accountability.

Tale of 2 wealthy candidates

This is a comparison between Trump and Romney. Both independently wealthy but the contrast couldn’t be any greater.

When Romney ran, his wealth was an embarrassment used against him. Trump’s wealth is a good thing. He self funds. There are pros and cons to that but…like it or not.

Trump doesn’t hide from his wealth, it’s part of who he is. Yet he relates to working class people just as well. Romney had difficulty relating to regular or working people.

Romney’s wealth was used a weapon against him. They don’t seem able to do that with Trump. Are Democrats going to go with the old rule book and demonize him for being rich? Nice try, what will that do? Trump’s wealth is an asset not a liability.

What a difference. Romney would wait to see which way the wind was blowing before making a position statement, parsing it any way he could. Romney had his circle of advisers, who also blew it. Remember the debate where he finally took on Obama and Benghazi? Then he dropped the ball and fumbled the rest of the race. He swore he was the only one who could stand the heat and take on Obama and his long train of abuses. But the left defined him early and often, which he had no answer to. He was disconnected from the actual voters. Romney had his political record and his schizophrenic stances. Finally some concluded he really didn’t care if he won — even with all the RNC’s help and defense.

Trump, on the other hand, has none of the Romney attributes. He does not play by the politically correct rule book. Romney was all about political correctness. Trump is not the wall street insider. He is not predictable as the morning dew. He does respond and answer critics without taking days, even weeks, to formulate a palatable response. Trump swings hard. For a guy who wrote a book on “no apologies,” Romney certainly was apologetic for a lot of things, especially his wealth. Finally for losing. Romney had a history and dynasty aspect to his political career. Trump is very much all on his own, with no family baggage.

Romney allowed himself to be defined by the critics. Trump refuses to fit their mold and play their games. In fact, Trump changes the game. He defines his opponents. Refreshing.

Romney stepped on the conservative vote. Trump broadened the playing field. Trump points to the exact Romney-type people who created the messes. How many people sat out the vote and didn’t participate in 2012? The fix seemed to be in with Romney from early on. Trump redefined what the Washington fix is.

Trump can identify with people where Romney could not. Romney gave the impression of the Northeast RINO. Trump exudes the street fighter persona that Mitt only wished he had. Romney got lost in staff bureaucracy. Trump owns the face of his campaign. Romney was perpetually on defense. (don’t ever run again) Trump is on the offense to spite his critics. Trump attracts attention, Romney put people to sleep. Romney had the golden opportunity handed to him. Trump was attacked from the onset. Trump has the scruffiness of a cab driver. Romney would not think of such things.

Oh but now Romney resurfaces as a backseat critic in the primary process — I guess that’s all you could say Romney won — with his widespread team of gurus and composites in tow. Romney was entrenched in the establishment which separated him from the working class. Romney had the top down approach, Trump has the bottom up “movement” approach. When did you ever see anyone get a tattoo of Romney on their leg? Trump has a brand, like it or not, and a following. Romney had his family and a close set of advisers and hacks. Romney was the carefully scripted candidate, Trump is not.

We were told Romney expanded the party tent. RNC pushed that one. Trump actually does and attracted new and young voters. Actually, a study in December showed Trump had at least 5 points more support among young voters than polls suggested.

So Romney decides he knows better than all injecting his criticism for Trump — possibly on behalf of the RNC establishment et al — to call for a release of Donald’s tax records. There might be a “bombshell” in there he says. Romney goes down the maybe road. Romney takes Harry Reid’s slimy strategy, then asks “What’s he hiding?”

The Romney campaign was train wreck of record chases. No one bests the Democrats at their own game. Romney could not even use Obama’s spurious record trail to his benefit. Failure defines Romney. Winning defines Trump. Still, Trump’s own opposition research turns up things when needed, unlike Romney’s. Now Romney calls for records all over the liberal mainstream media. He even uses their catch phrases like a weapon. Romney is no friend to conservatives, he’s the consummate political hack carping from the bleachers. So the guy who couldn’t take on Obama now plays Mr Rough and tumble critic with Trump. This just shows Romney as the elitist establishment insider he is.

Mitt makes Trump look better, if that’s possible. Thankfully it is not 2012, again.

RightRing | Bullright

A nation in crisis

Whether you see it as a Constitutional crisis or as the many individual scandals the current Oval Occupant has, one thing is clear we are a nation in crisis.

Scandals now too numerous to list: a border being trampled on, our laws being selectively enforced or ignored, accountability at an all time low, and a WH resident that many see as impossible to impeach. It’s like one of those steamy soap operas that ‘has it all’.

This twisted scenario plays out while the national press, media plays Tiddlywinks. TiddlywinksIf they need a story, which can occasionally happen, they can just ask someone in the administration or their shadow press relations for a recommendation. So much of their coverage could be programmed by the administration. What’s the problem with that?

As the nation is mired in one scandal after another, it is strange how the narrative becomes about those “nuts” talking about so-called “phony scandals”. It’s a surreal place even Orson Wells couldn’t have imagined. Equality is a euphemism for get your share, and some will naturally be more equal than others. Everyone demands their share except on accountability.

We go from one election to the next, with a pause for intermission between where nothing can be done because this or that is reserved for the next election. Can’t get ahead of ourselves. And “we the people” are always trying to keep up but predictably wind up a few steps behind. Nothing is what you see in front of you, and there is always a plausible explanation — okay, not so plausible.

For their part, the elite ruling are always running to try to stay far ahead of us, or our wrath…whichever seems the greater threat at the moment. We are asked to participate in the election process but cannot be expected to understand the issues correctly. That’s why we need their interpretation for us. We could not get the proper perspective without their enlightenment. It’s all very complex, you see.

If we are as dumb as they think, then it is an indictment on electing them. It’s a double-edged sword. “We the people” get lectured about accountability and tolerance, while their ruling class has neither. Sound sort of depressing? Well, welcome to 2014, and the long range forecast is no better, since things do not change. Maybe the cast of characters is altered from time to time but the script remains the same.

RightRing | Bullright

Hillary’s choices, what difference does it make

Hillary has a new book. Didn’t she have books before? (aka., ‘it takes a village of socialists’; ‘uncomfortable with history’; ‘history on life support’) They act as if its some new insight. It’s called “hard choices”. She really dug deep for a title. Bush had a book called “Decision Points”. Sound similar? It could just as well be called ‘soft choices’, ‘no choices’, or ‘political choices’. Dare I say “wrong choices”? Look at all the fun Libs had attacking Bush’s book.

Ironically, Hillary as an authoritative source “requires the willing suspension of disbelief”, as does Obama. The Left complains about Republicans’ succession of candidates running the next person in line. This is Hillary’s turn. Damn the person who gets in her way.

Her book is only posturing. Except “Hard Choices”? Pulease! Her lack of wanting to make choices….and maybe that’s hard. (Let’s start off with a lie) What she supported she’s against, and what she was against she is really for, for now. It is “the evolution of a candidate.” Maybe that would have suited the title better? One thing Hillary should be noted for, her inability to make hard choices.

Like Jay Rockefeller, she supported the Iraq action it was convenient until it wasn’t. But she was hoodwinked. How abut Benghazi? Why do they like to emphasize what they are not good at? — Obama on foreign policy and budget issues.

She says one major accomplishment was restoring US leadership in the world. I always appreciate Liberals talent for revision. It never stops. Want to know their position on something? After the fact they’ll tell you. That’s leadership. Hillary declares she helped clean up Bush’s mess. But who cleans up Hillary’s messes? Now in her wisdom of reflection, she says:

“The most important thing I did was to help restore America’s leadership in the world. And I think that was a very important accomplishment. We were flat on our back when I walked in there the first time.

We were viewed as being untrustworthy, as violating our moral rules and values, as being economically hobbled. And we had to get out there and once again promote American values and pursue our interests and protect national security. Because of the eight years that preceded us — it was the economic collapse, it was two wars, it was the war on terror that led to some very unfortunate, un-American actions being taken. That was my biggest challenge. It was why the president asked me to be secretary of state.”

Yea, values like abortion, appeasement, and leaving no Islamist behind, spying on angela Merkel’s cell phone, gun running to Mexico, rewriting immigration law from the Oval Office, getting an ambassador and three Americans killed and secretive arms running, lying about it, ignoring security threats in Libya (Obama’s war), supporting terrorists and thugs in Egypt. Values like that.

Now the scary thing is what more tricks she might have learned from Marxist-in-Chief. We’re heading for a trifecta: a combination of Bill Clinton politics, Obama politics, and her own.(triangulation on estrogen) She wants to sell it as a 3rd term for Bill and a continuum of Obama. And throw in some Elizabeth Warren and Al Gore for seasoning.

Obama, now what has not been said about him? Well, now he releases five top Taliban, for one deserter. Make sense? It does to the Liberal mind, which generally runs contrary to all logic. Oh, here’s something that hasn’t been said. Start by remembering the Clintons. Could the Taliban Five be Obama’s bin Laden. I know, he supposedly killed bin Laden. But that’s not the point. These five could be Obama’s bin Laden. Get it now?

Clinton was criticized for failure to get bin Laden. And how about the Cole? Remember the missiles where he just missed him? Everyone asked how he let bin Laden slip away. Yea, now these five are released. What does Zero’s act portend for the future? But Democrats have offered, ‘don’t worry, we can get them, kill them, drone them’. Remember the illusive bin Laden… it wasn’t easy, was it? Barry has no concept of the future or how he will be liable. He can’t even remember the lesson from bin Laden . All that matters to Democrats is the politics of now.

Team Obama finally gets a mastermind of the Benghazi attack, just short of 2 years, and he wasn’t hiding in a cave in Tora Bora. He did as many interviews as Susan Rice. But don’t worry about the Taliban Five, according to Liberals, we can can repeal their right to life on a moment’s notice. It has taken this long to do anything about Benghazi.

Hillary has the same mindset. Election and winning is all that is in her mind. She is practically anointed to begin with. She’s only looking out for anything that might jeopardize that. It’s the same mindset of Obama, “be on the lookout for anything which could destroy you” Self-preservation is job one. Everything else ranks a distant second to that.

Anything that has the potential to bring you down must be attacked, broken, or destroyed. Using Alinsky tactics of course. Show that any criticism flung at you is faulty. And she’s running to be the easy choice for Democrats. The only choice… what choice? She could have written, “How I created the vast right-wing conspiracy”. Foggy Bottom was only dress rehearsal. She could’ve called it “Rewriting History.”

RightRing | Bullright

Select Committee whoas and pose

With the announcement of a Select Committee formed by the House, there was a lot of strategizing going on yesterday. (as many reported)

What with the Democrats Sunday saying they are going to boycott it, they wasted no time. I guess they found something else they can turn into a “civil rights” issue.

Even Jay Carney said he did not know if the White House was going to comply with the investigation. Is this one of those “choice” things? Or is it another Holder thingy?

So thinking about it, you know what? If Dems go along it depends on what way, doesn’t it? Given their inherent radical nature, would you expect them to try to sabotage the investigation? It’s right up their alley. Being on the Select Committee, to do it from the inside. If Obama’s campaign can distort the death of 4 Americans, Dems could do anything. Leaking or supplying intel to the WH, or obstructing the process would fit their radical tactics.

Here’s “drop the radical pose” for the radical ends, Van Jones and Plouffe on Sunday

In fact, the odd thing was that Plouffe on Sunday(above) was talking about campaign strategy, and Jim Messina said early on that they needed to run as an insurgency. That’s the real mode they were in.

President Barack Obama’s supporters must “act like an insurgent campaign” if they want to ensure his 2012 re-election, campaign manager Jim Messina told supporters in a Web video Monday.

Using the charts and graphs that were then-campaign manager David Plouffe’s staple in 2008, Messina said he aims to “really reinvent this campaign” using technology. His goal is to “make 2008 look prehistoric,” Messina said, adding: “If we just run that same campaign, we stand a good chance of losing. We’ve got to run a new campaign.” — Roll Call

Here was his video presentation. Context matters. And that political context took precedence on 9/11/12.

“We ought to not act like an incumbent, we ought to act like an insurgent campaign that wakes up every single day trying to get every single vote we can…..scratch and claw for those votes.”

Any surprise then that this kind of campaign — and insurgent, scratch and claw mentality — would do anything possible to frame Obama in the best favorable light, even if it meant spinning or revising a terrorist attack on an Embassy facility in Libya killing four Americans? That… while Obama was out claiming al Qaeda was defeated and on the run. After they had promoted and extorted bin Laden’s death for all they could, politically. And after his countless victory laps for it.

Their reaction to Benghazi was scratch ‘n sniff politics, and it looked and smelled rotten. Four dead Americans and their circumstances will not go away.

RightRing | Bullright

When fiction becomes reality

Maybe next the White House could do a project with Dream Works.

Obama Adviser That Edited Benghazi Talking Points Wrote Short Story About A Character That Edits Talking Points

Patrick Howley — 05/04/2014  | Daily Caller

President Obama’s national security adviser Ben Rhodes, who edited the administration’s Benghazi talking points, is a former fiction writer who penned a short story about a supernaturally gifted professional note-taker who rises through the corporate world by taking notes that make other people’s statements sound better.

Rhodes, it was recently revealed, sent a 2012 email after the Benghazi terrorist attack instructing then U.N. ambassador Susan Rice and other administration officials “to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”

Rhodes, who has worked for Obama since the president was a U.S. senator, holds a Masters degree in Fiction from New York University. His one known published short story, “The Goldfish Smiles, You Smile Back,” was published in Beloit Fiction Journal in the spring 2002 issue. The story was about a man with an incredible gift for note-taking.

“My notes are so impressive that they have taken on the form of ideas…I capture other people’s words in a manner that not only organizes them, but inserts a clarity and purpose that was not present in the original idea,” states the protagonist of Rhodes’ short story.

Obama’s little sensitive artist is the brother of CBS News president David Rhodes, whose network prevented investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson from digging too deep into the Benghazi scandal and finding out who edited the administration’s talking points.

Daily Caller

I jokingly said he should be writing fiction on a secluded island, wish he was. I didn’t know how immersed he was in it, with a degree in writing fiction.

Almost too surreal. Except Benghazi was bad enough it didn’t need a fiction writer messing with it. The White House and their cohorts created quite a story line all by themselves. But maybe having a fiction writer on staff, close to the president, should have given them a clue how deep in a plot they were way before 9/11/12. The alarm bells should have been going off at staff meetings and briefings instead of in the Situation Room on 9/11. If Obama even took the briefings.

See, its rather ironic that the story lines contrasted so widely. On one hand, they depicted(wrote) a great victory over terrorism. On the other, reality, they were caught by their own shortfall in taking credible threats seriously. Yes, only a fiction writer could be scheming behind the scenes of that delusion. The real truth here is that nothing was as it was portrayed to be — when fiction becomes reality and reality is fiction.

But  it makes perfect sense that a pretender like Obama would need a fiction writer on his staff all along the way.

RightRing | Bullright

Marvels of modern technology, or not?

Okay, so science never ceases to amaze. Well, if it did no one would pay attention.

But careful, things are not always what you think either — this post for one.

Well, they identified the oldest star, dating its formation to 13.6 billion years ago. How do they know? Trust them… they know.

However, seems strange how we/they can find and date the oldest star but yet cannot figure out what Hillary or Obama did a year and a half ago when terrorists attacked Benghazi. That is now one of the toughest riddles to solve in the world to date – or so it would seem. It’s a giant mystery.

If they can predict rising tides, glacier melts 40-50 years ahead of time, and climate effects, wouldn’t you think these brains could solve the Benghazi mystery? Uh, which is really the Washington and State Department mystery. Come on scientists and brainiacs, a little help please! Inquiring mines have just been dying to know.

Meanwhile, our amateurish, common sense probable hypotheses about Benghazi are ridiculed or dismissed as untrue out of hand by so called experts. But still we do not get so much as a rational explanation of their whereabouts, actions, or their subsequent actions. It’s a blur in space.

I know, there must have been some sort of time warp and a black hole ate up all the evidence. Yea, that’s the ticket.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama in the state of denial

The setting might have been Super Bowl pregame, but Obama was in the state of denial. Not one question did he answer with a degree of sincere honesty. It was straight denial.

He started by denying the continuing failure of healthcare.gov, then moved on to admit regret over the lie of the year, only to add that more people were later grandfathered into his original lie so they did not lose their plan. No mention about rewriting of the legislation countless times. His reelection campaign was filled with lies.

To IRS, there was “not even a smidgeon of corruption”. I guess his original concerns about the situation were unfounded. Lois Lerner and Rachael Bade pleaded the fifth for nothing. Records ending up at Obama’s campaign means nothing. Even his scandals have baby scandals when the person to lead the investigation is donor to Obama. Roseman and Castillo’s scheme of 500 million in contracts? Not a smidgeon anywhere.

To Benghazi, he resorted to the ‘but I called it terrorism’ lie…. er, before he blamed the video. Then he lectured us that people are in dangerous locations. Say what? And who put them there then abandoned them? Not even a hint of accountability.He admits failures in protections as if there were someone else in the White House. Then he claimed he was explaining it, which to date he has never done.

About all he could do is blame Fox news. Even NYT said “Obama tackled by O’Reilly”. And Obama would say he never laid a glove on me. I guess New Jersey and Christie are about to get more attention.

[transcript]

Related: http://www.humanevents.com/2014/02/03/obamas-superbowl-sunday-interview/

RightRing | Bullright

GENERATION SCREWED: Young People Finally Come To Their Senses About Obama

Doesn’t that give new meaning to “youthful indiscretions” ?
So, welcome back to earth. But those indiscretions leave a stain.

pundit from another planet

youth-revolt

Most young adults would vote to recall the president

(CLEARLY, THEY’RE ALL RACISTS)

Teresa Mull reports:  Obama doesn’t even have youth on his side anymore.

America’s youngest adults, the voting block who elected the diverse, hip, hopeful Barry O. the first time around, have become disenchanted with the president’s lies and plain bad policy. Even the young guns, who are assumed to be ignorant, naive, and imprudent, are proving we’re not so easily duped. We’ve seen right through the Obama Administration’s healthcare folly.

The National Journal reports:

Young Americans are turning against Barack Obama and Obamacare, according to a new survey of millennials, people between the ages of 18 and 29 who are vital to the fortunes of the president and his signature healthcare law.

The most startling finding of Harvard University’s Institute of Politics: A majority of Americans under age 25–the youngest millennials–would favor throwing Obama…

View original post 324 more words

Obama Lied and People Cried

It is now clear as daylight that Obama lied — if there ever was any doubt. It was the fundamental crux of his plan. Even more important, it was the important key selling point to ObamaCare, the holy grail. So he sold it on a big fat lie, not just on a false premise.

 He said if you like it “you can keep it, no matter what.” This is a guy who not only has a penchant for lying, he gleefully does it. They knew it was not true but the political aides  won out. Obama used it a couple dozen times as the central selling point of his plan.

ObamaCare

ObamaCare

 Now comes the cries from all the people who lost. It hardly matters whether they bought into ObamaCare or didn’t, they lost. Of course, they try to revise his remarks but he said it over and over, succinctly and deliberately, so everyone would hear and understand it.

 “Period”  He even punctuated his remarks. It was Bill Clinton pointing the finger a thousand times over. But the blue dress is in broad daylight.

 The anti-choice president now says he meant something else. They blame insurance companies. They set out to make other plans illegal using the mandate. So not only do you not have choice, but you are taxed for it, since that is what Obamacare actually is.

Now he even has the gall to lie while trying to explain and excuse his first lie. He claims if it wasn’t changed after the ObamaCare passed, you could keep it. Lie.

 But wait, it always gets worse with Obama. In the last speech he delivered to try to hedge his declining approval, he transformed the word mandate into the word rights. Then he said they can’t ever take your rights away. Another specious sales tactic. This is akin to declaring anything people don’t want “a right” that cannot be taken away from you.

Over the big lie, we were sold a plan and they even lied about that. They called the tax a penalty. Then they called the mandate a patient’s right. It’s all based on lies. So they believe they are justified to tell unlimited numbers of lies to explain it. These justified lies are probably the worst. Remember Nixon, Watergate, and the cover up? Hard to say which is worse, though you can trace which came first. (read  my above description again, this is his latest pitch…trying to gloss over his lies and the truth in one swoop)

A woman described her typical situation in WSJ. She is a cancer patient.

“What happened to the president’s promise, “You can keep your health plan”? Or to the promise that “You can keep your doctor”? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.

“For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people’s ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that’s a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that’s the point.”

Ms. Sundby lives in California.

Obama lies busted: no, you can’t keep your plan or doctor.

Then there are the effects of ObamaCare. Remember up till lately, deny, distort and defer any suggestions of economic effects. A simple search reveals the top 5 or 6 claiming it is bogus to suggest ObamaCare had no effect. Remember, it reduced the level of part time to 30 hours.

They claimed there is no evidence of ObamaCare affecting jobs and business. Even during the shutdown they were quick to condemn any economic effects while denying ObamaCare effects. I postulated that they intended to blame the shutdown for X-care’s effects.

ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs

ObamaCare’s impact on jobs is hotly debated by politicians and economists. Critics say the Affordable Care Act, with its employer mandate to provide health insurance, gives businesses an incentive to cut workers’ hours. This year, report after report has rolled in about employers restricting work hours to fewer than 30 per week — the point where the mandate kicks in. Data also point to a record low workweek in low-wage industries.

In the interest of an informed debate, we’ve compiled a list of job actions with strong proof that ObamaCare’s employer mandate is behind cuts to work hours or staffing levels. As of Oct. 17, our ObamaCare scorecard included 351 employers. Here’s our latest analysis, highlighting the consequences of cuts to work hours at more than 100 school districts due to ObamaCare’s employer mandate. Recently, we examined Indiana’s 10th Amendment challenge to the employer mandate. IBD also explained why the employer mandate will undercut the goals of ObamaCare — affordable, reliable coverage — even in cases when employers don’t cut work hours. The ObamaCare list methodology is explained further in our initial coverage; click on the employer names in the list below for links to supporting records, mostly news accounts or official documents.

We’ll continue to update the list, which we encourage you to share and download into a spreadsheet to sort and analyze. If you know of an employer that should be on the list and can provide supporting evidence, please contact IBD at jed.graham@investors.com or @IBD_JGraham.

More on the list

Here are a few examples of the lengthy list.

Indiana

Indiana state gov’t

Public

Cut hours for part-time and temp employees from a maximum of 37.5 hours per week to fewer than 30

Oct-13


Florida

SeaWorld Entertainment

Private

Cut hours for part-time workers from a maximum of 32 to 28 per week

Sep-13

Utah Alpine School District Public Cut part-time hours to a maximum of 27.5 per week, avoiding $4.2 million cost. Jobs effected 800 May-13

California

Mexican American Opportunity Foundation

Private

Cut hours of employees working up to 39 hours a week to less than 30

Aug-13

New Jersey

NEMF trucking company

Private

Cut hours for dock workers and customer service reps from 33 per week to a maximum of 29.

Number of jobs 400

Jul-13

This  has been done over time. Look at the exhaustive list. Many of them public schools and universities, and local governments. Commonly reducing hours to fewer than 30 and limiting new hires to part time. As they say, “it’s all the rage”

Anyone who said there was little evidence of effects either isn’t looking or doesn’t want to find it. Fear not, more incontrovertible proof.

The Foundry reported:

Proof That Obamacare Is Hurting the Economy

James Sherk | October 22, 2013

Today’s jobs report shows the labor market recovery remains weak—and businesses are telling the Federal Reserve one of the main reasons is Obamacare.

Last week’s Federal Reserve Beige Book includes direct references to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) causing employers not to hire workers. The Beige Book “summarizes comments [the Fed] received from business and other contacts” in each of the 12 Federal Reserve Districts. The October 16 Beige Book mentions the Affordable Care Act and its regulations 10 times—and each time, the districts report it has hurt employers, increased costs, and/or depressed hiring. Look at what businesses are reporting about the Affordable Care Act:

Summary. “Several Districts reported that contacts were cautious to expand payrolls, citing uncertainty surrounding the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and fiscal policy more generally.”

Atlanta Fed. “Employers continued to report hiring hesitancy related to changes in healthcare regulation and fiscal policy uncertainty.”

Philadelphia Fed. “In regard to hiring and capital expenditure plans, firms continued to expand cautiously, as they face ongoing uncertainty from the federal government shutdown and implementation of the Affordable Care Act.”

Richmond Fed. “Many contacts also commented on reluctance to expand due to uncertainty surrounding the Affordable Care Act; some employers cut hours or employees.”

Philadelphia Fed. “Overall, most bankers remained optimistic, although they expressed uncertainty on behalf of their business customers and for themselves over the implications of both the Affordable Care Act and a prolonged government shutdown.”

Cleveland Fed. “Most of our contacts are cautiously optimistic and expect little change in demand, although many were uneasy about fiscal issues and implications of the Affordable Care Act on their businesses.”

Cleveland Fed. “There is anxiety about rising health insurance premiums [among manufacturers], which was attributed to the Affordable Care Act.”

Cleveland Fed. “Many of our contacts are concerned about the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and the effect it will have on their total labor cost.”

Chicago Fed. “Wage pressures remained mild, while non-wage labor costs increased. A number of contacts voiced concern about the uncertainty surrounding future employer and employee healthcare costs. In addition, several reported changing their health insurance enrollment periods this year in order to match the deadlines of the Affordable Care Act.”

Dallas Fed. “One contact saw a few signed contracts designed to circumvent the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by utilizing a temporary employee full time, then hiring that person on a permanent but part-time basis when the ACA goes into effect.”

Many analysts have speculated about how Obamacare will affect the economy. The answer is very specific and real: It is costing people jobs.

One couple stated changes in their medical benefits for employees of their small business from ACA. Their premiums for covering their employees went from 355 per month to 733 per month, per employee. That’s more than double. That is not an effect? Are these deniers for real?

H/T to Dave for ideas

Would Obama Stoop To Blackmail ?

This possibility is no surprise considering Obama’s operational tactics. With his campaign now operating as Organize for Action, the same methods must be alive and well, and popular. (from the same cast that brought us Obama 1.0 and 2.0)

YouViewed/Editorial

Was Chief Justice Roberts Blackmailed Into Supporting Obamacare?

 

 

 

 

” In 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote for the Supreme Court’s ruling that ObamaCare was a legal tax. Conservatives were beyond stunned. Roberts’ decision was a narrow, weaving, legal mess, unlike the clear, assured opinions he usually wrote. What the heck happened?

There were also some subterranean murmurings that the Obama administration was blackmailing Chief Justice Roberts. This was a bit far-fetched. We all knew that Obama habitually practiced a Chicago-approach to politics, one that saw him digging up secret dirt on his opponents, releasing it, and forcing them out of the election. For example, when Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his opponent was the popular Jack Ryan. As the campaign progressed badly for Obama, secret court filings from Ryan’s divorce “miraculously” appeared with unproven allegations from his former wife about…

View original post 45 more words

The Food Gestapo

What is it with power and food?

NYC’s Mayor Bloomberg believes he is the food police. And apparently Obama has to have a food taster before he can eat it.

Daily Caller

“Unfortunately, you know, the president can’t,” said Collins when asked if Obama ate at the lunch meeting.

“Collins continued, “He honestly did look longingly at it, but apparently he has to have essentially a taster, and I pointed out to him that we were all tasters for him, that if the food had been poisoned all of us would have keeled over…”

It’s long been rumored that the Secret Service has someone taste the food for the commander-in-chief before he eats meals prepared outside of the White House, but it’s never been officially confirmed.

Obama shared another fear during the campaign that an immigrant could be harassed while taking a child for ice cream.

But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen. — Obama

Obama likes his straw men with ice cream.

Bloomberg wants to regulate food like the gestapo, which tells me power is just as dangerous as crack addiction and far more seductive than alcoholism.

Newsday

“We are moving forward immediately with our appeal,” said Michael A. Cardozo, corporation counsel of the city’s law department. “We believe the judge was wrong in rejecting this important public health initiative. We also feel he took an unduly narrow view of the Board of Health’s powers.”


Maybe Bloomy could just ban large cup holders.

Obama cannot trust anything being served until it is tasted first, and Bloomberg believes he needs to regulate what the people can have. And they both believe in severely regulating what people can do.

What is with their fear and obsession over food? I wonder if Bloomberg has a food taster?

Too Bad these people weren’t around to advise Adam and Eve, they could have saved us a whole lot of trouble. That puts it into perspective, they believe they are gods and they fear what people can do.

So what are you giving up for lent? How about obsessive, power-hungry politicians…or are we too addicted to them?

I scream, you scream, we scream for freedom.

Message to Romney

My message to Mitt — [CC: RNC]

floating message in a bottle
This may not be agreeable to some people, but it is just my opinion.

Mitt, you are so well-versed and proper about things but you need to study up on making a graceful exit. My issue with this goes deeper than an appearance in an interview. It’s a bigger problem.

First of all, this is contrary to what you did between 08 and 2012 elections. Then, you deliberately took an ultra-low profile. You played games on whether you would run or not. But you organized secretly behind the scenes and coerced support within the RNC establishment – “below the radar” as your aides suggested.

Why you played “hide and seek” games is beyond me; most of which probably ended up damaging your campaign in the end.

I suggest you were wrong about that political strategy then as you are wrong about taking  on a public campaign now. On a minor note, might I also suggest you take a course on Alinsky tactics since you still don’t seem to understand them? While your campaign was in full swing, you did not take on the radical left,  so why would anyone expect you to now? Or is your motivation for reentrance onto the political stage more for “influence” like between elections?

Anyway, I for one think its time we move on. We have enough to worry about with elected reps not listening to the voters.

So I’m placing an ad, here is a draft:

WANTED IMMEDIATELY: a conservative (leader) with an honest to goodness set of testicles, not ashamed to apply them. Must share knowledge of the real threat facing America. No on the job training; must have experience dealing with loony lefties and their lying “mouthpieces”. Pay to commensurate with abilities – not all in “currency”.
Must be able to function outside support network. No babysitting or focus group services. Only died in the wool conservatives need apply. Strong backbone and stomach is required, frequent heavy lifting involved. Serious inquiries only! – 1 000 fixitUS

Obama’s Declaration of Socialism

Obama mentioned the Declaration of Independence, but his inaugural speech was all about collectivism. The philosophy behind the Declaration is rooted in individual freedom. Obama has it exactly backwards.

The “rights” movement of the left has been transformed into redistribution and class warfare, combined with the welfare state. The real “social justice” they talk about is economic redistribution. His campaign didn’t even address individual “freedom” as he calls it — unless that is about killing babies — it was all about the collective. Collective being the sum total of the special interests he panders to.

Obama said:

1)What makes us exceptional – what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:

“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.”

Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time. For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they have never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth.

2)My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction – and we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service.

Not self-executing? Remember, “you didn’t build that… somebody else made it happen.”

Individualism is out the window, long gone in his politics of division and class warfare. It is the politics of materialism. Their “social justice” is really redistributive justice. I suppose he will finally admit that is what his “fairness” doctrine is all about in his second term, unchained from the voters.

As Goldwater said decades ago, the left is driven by materialism. Even the morality they speak of has an element of materialism. Don’t you find it ironic that Obama only mentioned the Constitution he swore to uphold in passing.(…that thing) He seems to think backwards. But just as MLK Jr. used the Declaration, Obama wraps his speech with it. Then again, imagine a Liberal like Obama giving a speech based on the Constitution?

He adds:

“The patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a Republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed.

But exactly what is Obama giving us? A mob and a king. A king backed by a mob, with an absent and complacent free press. It works for him… quite literally. And a king that sanctions and endorses mob rule – if it’s within the orthodoxy of central authority.

So we see, with Obama our fight is not just against his bucket list of policies, but against a philosophy, an ideology and a political movement behind it, driven from top. (campaign org turns lobby)

He frames it trying to disguise it, and then throws a straw man in to add credibility

But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. For the American people can no more meet the demands of today’s world by acting alone than American soldiers could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias. No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

“Demands of today’s world” — whatever all that is — compared with fascism or communism, good comparison. (sarcasm) Or better comparing technology, markets, goals, ideas and personal struggles compared with fascism. From the Socialist-in-chief himself. That should make anyone chuckle. (one of those struggles is against institutionalized ideology of the Left.) But it is different when its a foreign country or an outsider that is pursuing the philosophy. When its inside your own country from the top down it’s quite different. Did the Nazis extinguish Hitler or his policies? You know the answer.

In fact, it was just the opposite; they gleefully went along and approved. Sound familiar? Just because a charismatic type A person can make a good sounding case doesn’t mean it is the best idea. ObamaCare is a glaring example, and the stimulus would be another. When the smoke cleared it wasn’t as good, or popular as it sounded. We even had Pelosi telling us they had to pass it before we know what’s in it. They tried to do it on amnesty but were stopped.

Goldwater said:
“[One] cannot be economically free, or even efficient, if he is enslaved politically; conversely, man’s political freedom is illusory if he is dependent for his economic needs on the State.”

And that is precisely what Obama has in mind and endorses, political slavery — individually and collectively.

Much of the equality or fairness Obama speaks about is really egalitarianism of the economic kind, just dressed in a fancy “fairness” package. And the left suffers under its own false pretenses about  conservatism. It is not simply an economic theory. But that is basically what the lefts ideology ends up being, a doctrine of economic egalitarianism. Or collective materialism. With a few words about civil rights thrown in, which they think they can keep on creating to suit their politics.

The Left feels it is their exclusive job to equalize, or that is what their rhetoric suggests. Enforcing that fairness just happens to lead to more power and control for ruling class elites. It also tends to get expensive to purchase all the votes to keep all that “fairness” flowing.  Sounds like another one of his “investments”.

Note: please don’t give me the ‘definition of socialism’ lecture. Do the math with the modern left(post 60’s), the green movement, EPA dictates, green industry, and Kelo’s decision. Then connect all the dots. And remember even Hitler did not want to abolish “private property”, rather everyone should understand that they are an “agent of the state.” So spare the academic arguments.

Obama’s Thugocracy

Barry’s campaign is now rolling itself into a non-profit lobby organization as an “issue advocacy” campaign. Anyone not see that coming?

That puts the lie to the mantra that it was ever a grassroots org from the beginning. It is a top down operation. It’s bad enough what Obama has done to politics and government, now he gives us a genuine thugocracy run out of Chicago, by his hand-picked thugsters, to carry it forward.

Here come the brown shirts.

The “revolving door” of Washington politics has been removed.

 

Businessweek:
Obama Converts Campaign to Nonprofit to Push Agenda

President Barack Obama is converting the machinery of his re-election campaign into a tax-exempt nonprofit group to push his second-term legislative agenda.

The new group, Organizing for Action, will be headed by Jim Messina, who served as Obama’s 2012 campaign manager. The group, separate from the Democratic National Committee, will solicit donations from corporations and individuals to augment Obama’s legislative initiatives on such issues as climate change, economic programs, reducing gun violence or overhauling immigration policy.

The organization “will be an unparalleled force in American politics,” according to an e-mail sent to supporters by the campaign under Obama’s name. “It will work to turn our shared values into legislative action.”

The transformation marks the first time a president has reconfigured the pieces of a re-election campaign into an outside group formed for the express purpose of pressuring Congress to pass the administration’s agenda.[**i.e. lobby itself]

“Organizing for Action is going to be a very effective tool to organize people all over the country for the president’s agenda,” Stephanie Cutter, who served as Obama’s deputy campaign manager, said today in an interview on MSNBC. Americans “voted for change, they voted for action and they voted for a pretty specific agenda.”
continue >>

How’s that for change you can believe in? And before he is even sworn in for a second term. I can smell the elitism, from the people who ridiculed the Tea Party as “astroturf”.

That’s “change you can believe in”.

Meet the new “Chicago Outfit”

The brown shirts are coming, the brown shirts are coming…

The Scandal That Will Bring Obama Down

Western Journalism

January 11, 2013 By
 

It’s even worse than we previously thought. A retired four-star admiral is now claiming that Barack Obama intentionally conspired with America’s enemies to stage a bogus attack and the kidnapping of an American ambassador so he could “negotiate” the release of a “hostage” and bolster his mediocre approval ratings just prior to the election!

The Washington Examiner, quoting retired Four-Star Admiral James Lyons, writes: “the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi… was the result of a bungled abduction attempt…. the first stage of an international prisoner exchange… that would have ensured the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, the ‘Blind Sheik’…”

But something went horribly wrong with Obama’s “October Surprise.” Although the Obama Administration intentionally gutted security at the consulate prior to the staged kidnapping, former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty disobeyed direct orders to stand down, saved American lives, single-handedly killed scores of attackers…and the attackers, believing that Obama had betrayed them, tortured Ambassador Chris Stevens and dragged his body through the streets.

Continue reading: http://www.westernjournalism.com/the-scandal-that-will-bring-obama-down/

 

There is a lot of food for thought to this, which is not all that new. Strange how this is the one issue Barry – or whatever his name is — does not talk about (just like fast and furious), when it sure seems he is very vulnerable on it. On everything else, they roll out the lies and excuses. He glosses over it just like fast and furious. He finally said “sloppiness” was a problem. Yuh think?

HotAir 12/31/12

Obama: What I’ve– my message to the State Department has been very simple. And that is we’re going to solve this. We’re not going to be defensive about it. We’re not going to pretend that this was not a problem. This was a huge problem. And we’re going to implement every single recommendation that’s been put forward.

Some individuals have been held accountable inside of the State Department and what I’ve said is that we are going to fix this to make sure that this does not happen again, because these are folks that I send into the field. We understand that there are dangers involved but, you know, when you read the report and it confirms what we had already seen, you know, based on some of our internal reviews; there was just some sloppiness, not intentional, in terms of how we secure embassies in areas where you essentially don’t have governments that have a lot of capacity to protect those embassies. So we’re doing a thorough-going review. Not only will we implement all the recommendations that were made, but we’ll try to do more than that. You know, with respect to who carried it out, that’s an ongoing investigation. The FBI has sent individuals to Libya repeatedly. We have some very good leads, but this is not something that, you know, I’m going to be at liberty to talk about right now.

Four Americans are dead, we were “sloppy”, but “we have a few leads” — 3 1/2 months after the fact. This is equivalent to “now move along, nothing to see here”.

How do you “fix” four dead Americans?

A few “very good leads”….yea, that’s the answer. “We’ll try to do more than that…This is not something I’m going to be at liberty to talk about right now.” Oh really? The accountability he talked about is ZERO.

Now his number one proirity seems to be gun control.(cover one scandal with another one) “Sloppiness?” Anything you say, No-Drama Obama. But we don’t need to talk about it. It makes me sick.

President Not

“I am President Not… from the enchanted land of Nope.”

One thing all the issues have in common is the way Obama argues, or demonizes, them. He is not content with telling us what he is going to do, he always has to frame it by saying what he “will not do”. I’ve been sick of this as long as he’s been in office. Every issue that comes up, he rolls out the “not” machine.

While Obama insisted he was “very open to compromise” in future talks, he emphasized he would not negotiate with Congress over the debt limit.

“I will not have another debate with this Congress over the debt ceiling,” Obama said. [Huff Po]

In November he said, “But what I will not do is to have a process that is vague, that says we’re going to sort of, kind of, raise revenue through dynamic scoring or closing loopholes that have not been identified.”

Obama’s acceptance speech in 08:

“But what I will not do is suggest that the senator takes his positions for political purposes, because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and each other’s patriotism. “

In April, 2008: “… but what I will not do is to continue to let the Iraqi government off the hook.” And keep the straw men firmly on the hook.

You can count on him trotting out the same twisted rhetoric every time he speaks. Why doesn’t he come out and just tell us his concrete plans or what he will do, instead of continually telling us what he won’t do?

So I was thinking about trying this out, and because it happens to be New Years, so I am going to make an exhaustive list of things “I will not do” in the next year. Let’s see how far that gets me.I can just sit here thinking up endless things that “I will not do”. It should b a fun exercise because I can stick anything in the list I want, and be as creative about it as possible. It is just a rhetorical tool.

Aren’t the people sick of hearing what Obama “will not do”? His inauguration is coming up and the State of the Union. How many times can he tell us what he won’t do? How come he never says he will not spend more money or all the other things people want to hear. How come he does not say “I will not demagogue the issues”? Or say “I will not mock my opponents”?

But the reality is if someone took that device away he’d have nothing left. He spends way more time saying what he will not do than what he is going to do.

The 2012 State of the Union:’
“And I will not stand by when our competitors don’t play by the rules.”
“And I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules.”

He uses this almost as much as his other favorite phrase: “Let me be clear.”

Sort of reminds me of Abbott and Costello, “who’s on first?”

The return of Obamastein: the cliffhanger sequel

 

Obama’s thought process: I think I’ll attack Republicans like I dd the Supreme Court and call them names… just before I mention my sterling bipartisan record.

WSJ: Obama Threatened Boehner With Using Inauguration, SOTU Address To Blame GOP

 

By Philip Klein

President Obama has threatened House Speaker John Boehner that if no deal is struck on the “fiscal cliff,” he will use his Inaugural address and State of the Union speech next month to blame Republicans, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Excerpt From The Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn’t reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.

At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, “I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?”

“You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/obama/2012/12/22/wsj-obama-threatened-boehner-using-inauguration-sotu-address-blame-gop#ixzz2FwBbs83w
 

 
What better place to plot it than in Hawaii? It will be the first attack on Capitol Hill from Hawaii — he’s so full of firsts.

Fiscal Cliffhanger

Geithner is making the rounds again, and a lot of noise.

So Turbo Tim is the administration’s point man on the fiscal cliff negotiations. After all, someone has to do it. All Obama can find time for is campaigning, and come up with zingers he can call the Republicans. Now they are Scrooges for resisting tax hikes.

Actually what Republicans are looking for is Obama to address the other side of the negotiations, which he hasn’t. But leave it to Timmy the tax cheat to place all the blame on Republicans. That is while the prez goes to his echo chamber to rally his base. Rally them for what? To lobby the government. Someone forgot to tell the idiot master in charge that he is prez, and that his base is supposed to be America not uber left socialists.

So tax-challenged Tim takes to the air:

[Reuters]”The only thing standing in the way of [a deal] would be a refusal by Republicans to accept that rates are going to have to go up on the wealthiest Americans. And I don’t really see them doing that,” Geithner, who is leading the Obama administration’s fiscal cliff negotiations, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Too bad he’s about 10 lightyears from reality. But their campaign of projection never ends. I have a better idea. Why doesn’t Obama resign and sign a contract with a reality show? He should be able to stretch out a nice run there since he proves he can string out anything like nobody else. He can do at least one episode on how to strain a gnat. And “how to win election and do nothing, while blaming everyone else” would be another one. Oops we’ve already seen that one.

No, Timmy, the only “thing” standing in the way is the current White House, the campaigner in chief. See if you take all his issues away, what will he campaign on to demonize Republicans with? And this genius suggests giving Obama a blank check over our debt ceiling while he can’t deal with the debt he already ran up, much less admit it without invoking George Bush.

For a guy supposedly negotiating, he spends more time talking about what he won’t do.

And he continued on a roll:

The administration has said it is willing to find savings in the Medicare and Medicaid healthcare programs for the elderly and poor, but Geithner reiterated in an interview with ABC’s “This Week” that it would only be open to looking at changes in the Social Security retirement program outside of the context of a fiscal cliff deal.

If Obama cannot address spending in the context of a fiscal cliff, what makes any sane person believe he would do so outside the cliff hanger debacle? Obama is the grinch who stole sanity. As for Tim, there is always voice-over work for the next Disney film.

Apparently campaign 2012 has not ended and will continue right through 2016.

A Meeting: Obama, Romney?

So Obama wants to have a meeting with the guy they labeled a tax cheat, that killed a woman, who is out of touch with Americans, who wants to outsource all our jobs, and who has money in a Swiss bank account. (etc, etc.)

A while back, Dana Perino said on Fox that Romney should get off the stage, go away, suggesting we don’t need to hear from him. I agreed and havent’t changed my mind. It seems every statement he makes is more fodder against Republicans, and the left calls it a gaffe anyway.

So why a meeting? Is his role as a whipping post for Democrats not quite finished? What is the deal? Does the Liar in Chief want new ideas? Seriously, would Obamassiah be interested in anything Mitt says? Is this another self-serving grandstanding of Obama….to tell everyone “I won”?

No doubt all we will hear is Obama’s side of it anyway. Or is it yet another opportunity for Obama to pander to his base?

Why oh why?