Mitt was right. The Washington Post, a/k/a WaPo, is apparently just now discovering that their candidate with off the charts intelligence, to wit Barack Obama, a/k/a President Fifty Seven State, a/k/a Dim Won is not nearly so smart as Dim Won believes himself to be:
Back in March, when Vladimir Putin’s Russia was rearing its increasingly antagonistic head, supporters of Mitt Romney saw a measure of vindication. Russia, it seemed, had become the United States’ No. 1 geopolitical foe — the same distinction Romney claimed for it in 2012 (and President Obama scoffed at). Well, here we are, four months later, and we finally have some good data to evaluate that claim.
And we can say that, at least for now, the American people agree with Mitt Romney (pretty much).
So remember this in two years when the WaPo yet again values manufactured biography over executive experience and endorses Fauxasquawa, b/k/a Lying Lizzie Warren for President.
Good grief, Eric Holder is now investigating a racist parade float, from Daily Caller:
The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating a float that appeared at the annual Fourth of July parade in the small town of Norfolk, Neb. because the float featured a blue flatbed truck carrying a zombie-looking mannequin in overalls on the door of an outhouse labeled “OBAMA PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY.”
The Justice Department sent a member of its Community Relations Service team to Norfolk (pronounced “Norfork” by many locals), reports the Omaha World-Herald.
Obvious fake. The outbuilding is much too big for any Obama library
True the World’s Smallest Violin is an old joke, but still a rather apt one, via Right Scoop:
ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS – Seventy thousand Gazans were in the dark Sunday night after a Hamas rocket hit the electricity infrastructure in Israel that supplies electricity to a part of Gaza. It’s not clear when Israel Electric Company workers will be able to repair the system, but they are apparently in no rush to do so. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has asked the IEC not to risk the lives of its employees in trying to restore power to the affected sector in Gaza, an operation that could take hours.
The Pali’s, having made their own bed, my now lie in it.
A bit of advise to Democrats…
If you think your abortion pill should be none of your employers business, don’t demand the employer pay for it. That seems a simple enough concept, even YOU can figure it out.
OK, so by now, everyone has seen Obama’s comment about how he wasn’t interested in photo ops along the Texas border with Mexico. And, of course, everyone knows that’s a crock. I note McPhillips on Facebook saying so. I also note Limbaugh saying….
nothing but photo-ops. Says he’s not interested in photo-ops? That’s all he does, photo-ops on the golf course. This is a guy who dressed a bunch of people in white lab coats for a press conference in the Rose Garden to make ‘em look like doctors so that he could persuade people that doctors supported Obamacare. Remember that? They had a casting call and then they had a wardrobe call ’cause some doctors showed up that weren’t wearing the lab coats so the White House had to scramble, get some white lab Coats to put on. Photo-op!
This guy is nothing but photo-ops, photo-ops with kids, photo-ops that illustrate that he’s not governing, that he’s removed, the Limbaugh Theorem aspect. The photo-op, the series of photo-ops are crucial to Obama in presenting the image. Everything he’s been doing the last month, you almost could call it a photo-op tour. I was thinking when I heard this sound bite today, what has Obama ever done that’s not a photo-op?
Now, it could easily be said that this comment from Obama was Sour Grapes, given the rebuff from Rick Perry. But I wonder if it doesn’t go deeper than that. There is no doubt in my mind, that Obama is all about Photo ops… but there is something deeper than getting the brush off by Perry that’s driving Obama, here.
It is my view that there is a fear on the part of the Democrats, particularly the White House, that Obama should not get too out front on the issue at the border… and I think it a mixture of two reasons.
1. Obama, for his part, doesn’t really want the problem solved, save by making the illegals, legal…. and thereby bringing in a new block of Democrat voters.
2. The Democrats don’t want Obama too associated with the Obama-made crisis, lest they own the problem in the public eye, and thereby have even larger problems in the next few elections.
The result is for the moment, that Obama is staying as much out of the light as possible on this issue.
Allegations of Barack Obama’s plantation mentality are not new, at least not here. However they may be new to the main stream media, from Politico:
A former employee of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on Wednesday compared the workplace atmosphere to a “plantation,” because of how black employees such as himself were treated.
In the third House Financial Services subcommittee hearing to address claims of discrimination against the CFPB, Kevin Williams, a former quality assurance monitor at the agency, painted a picture where black employees were constantly belittled – even to the point where they were stereotypically offered fried chicken at company lunches.
“I was a charter member in the intake unit, which, indeed, came to be referred to as the ‘plantation,’” Williams testified. “There, I personally witnessed and was the victim of racial discrimination perpetrated by black as well as white managers. The unit was dubbed the ‘plantation,’ because when we started, the majority of black employees were assigned to intake, which was basically data entry.”
I will note that as long a the black population keeps voting their plantation masters into power, they will never escape the democrat plantation.
MSNBC has discovered (just?) that with this president it is always Three AM and the President is never prepared, video:
Hat tip: Noah Rothman, Hot Air.
From the front lines of Chicagostan, “82 shootings in 84 hours:”
As Sunday night crept (no doubt cautiously) to Monday morning, residents of the South Chicago neighborhood endured a firefight. They witnessed a tide of mayhem worthy of urban war zones worldwide. This is not how Chicago wants to build its reputation as a global city. Imagine the terror of children and adults in homes on those besieged streets:
The Tribune’s Peter Nickeas reported from the scene that police officers responding to frequent shootings kept interrupting one another on their radios to report still new bursts of gunfire. So-called weapons wagons — SUVs loaded with lockers of rifles — delivered fresh throw-weight to cops who at times ran down streets toward the percussion of flying bullets. SWAT teams dressed in green walked the streets with regular officers dressed in blue. Overhead, a law enforcement helicopter circled in a futile attempt to quiet the rampage
Chicago is a gun-free safety zone. The only people allowed to have guns are Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s political allies. So Mayor, tell your people to put down their guns.
I suppose I can quit posting about Hobby Lobby, sometime after the left quits getting hysterical about it. From a federal judge with his knickers in a twist, Hercules and the Umpires:
In the Hobby Lobby cases, five male Justices of the Supreme Court, who are all members of the Catholic faith and who each were appointed by a President who hailed from the Republican party, decided that a huge corporation, with thousands of employees and gargantuan revenues, was a “person” entitled to assert a religious objection to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate because that corporation was “closely held” by family members. To the average person, the result looks stupid and smells worse.
To most people, the decision looks stupid ’cause corporations are not persons, all the legal mumbo jumbo notwithstanding. The decision looks misogynistic because the majority were all men. It looks partisan because all were appointed by a Republican. The decision looks religiously motivated because each member of the majority belongs to the Catholic church, and that religious organization is opposed to contraception. While “looks” don’t matter to the logic of the law (and I am not saying the Justices are actually motivated by such things), all of us know from experience that appearances matter to the public’s acceptance of the law.
Hobby Lobby as explained by Bookworm:
In 1993, a Democrat Congress passed, and a Democrat president signed, the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (“RFRA”). RFRA holds in relevant part that the federal government may act in a way that substantially burdens the exercise of religion only if it can establish that its action is the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling government interest. Nothing in the Act distinguishes between individuals and corporations.
The administrative rule at issue is the edict from Health and Human Services (“HHS”) mandating that all corporations affected by Obamacare must provide their female employees with unlimited access to all contraceptives available on the market.
Hat tip: Neo-Neocon.
The court ruled that a board [IOM] of unelected bureaucrats appointed by Kathleen Sebelius do not have the right to trample the religious liberty of free citizens. Not only did the IOM decree that women had the right to “free” contraception, the IOM rubber stamped every single method approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
File you don’t have to be stupid to be a liberal, but it helps, a lot. Politicio discusses “Why liberals are abandoning the Obamacare employer mandate:”
But scrapping it isn’t a snap for Democrats. The employer coverage rules were part of the ACA’s core philosophy that individuals, employers and the government should all contribute to paying health care costs. Some Democratic constituencies, including labor unions and Obamacare proponents like Families USA, still see it that way.
Obamatards, a/k/a liberals, have an unlimited faith in magic money. They seem to think that somehow employers can conjures up money without regard to the contributions, or utter lack thereof, of their employees. That is to say, that Obamatards fail to see any connection between the cost of labor and the amount of labor purchased. If you raise costs consumption will go down.
As the government produces nothing, anything the government intends to simply give away but first be taken from the productive class. Or as Uncle Eric might say, “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.” Not even if you are a liberal.
As this is written, I’m heading up I-81, from Harrisburg, PA to Syracuse, NY, and then home. I have a trainee, this week, and he’s doing the driving.
It’s July 4th.
But, frankly, there doesn’t seem much to celebrate as regards our hard won freedoms…. because there so many willing to give up those freedoms. Invariably, these are people to whom the American revolution, if it is of any import to them at all, it is the day off, and the fireworks displays. People, who go through the forms and traditions… but its just the patterns that remain… an empty shell… to steal a line from Al Stewart.
The ideas and ideals given us by the founders…. of limited government and thereby individual freedom, have given way to “what’s in it for me”.
I recognize, when I see polling data that I’m not talking about a majority, here. But I see us as being close to the point of no return, and I sorrow for the America that once was… the one that Ronald Reagan always envisioned.
Remember, Gang, there were a lot of folks in the GOP who didn’t like Reagan either, or his values, so we cannot look to the GOP to back us away from this cliff, absent some serious changes in the GOP itself.
Its well past time we get our country back from the big government types of both parties. Perhaps the best honor we can give to our founders is to ponder how we can move the country away from government and back to the people, as they envisioned things.
Enjoy your burgers and dogs on the charcoal grill. Given Obamas over’reaching EPA, it may be the last time you’ll have the chance. You did know they want to ban all charcoal fires, so they can stop global warming, right?
Well, that’s another post.
Let me preface this with a question:
If a woman’s birth control of choice is to keep her clothes on, should the government be able to force her employer to buy her wardrobe?
You see, there’s a logical inconsistency with the left’s arguments over the Hobby Lobby case. Now, granted, there usually *IS* logical problems with the left, so no great shakes, with this, but the disconnect is even more striking than usual, here.
Namely, (and leaving aside the freedom of religion aspect for the moment) ….if government can’t force an employer to pay for a woman’s clothing, why can the employer be forced to pay for her Birth control?
I suppose that the government might be able to force an employer to buy an employees clothing in specialised conditions. Say, safety equipment for a particular task. But, that doesn’t, on the surface present a constitutional conflict.
But Hobby Lobby genuinely does, in terms of our first amendment freedoms regarding religion, and that, in reality is what this case is about…. Do the left and their big government desires, trump the first amendment? The answer from the court, clearly is “no”… and the whining from the left is deafening, whining as only a 6 year old, who had a toy taken away can whine.
Contrary to their whining, this case was not about birth control per se’. A fact little mentioned by the left in their temper tantrums is that Hobby Lobby offered it’s employees 14 of the 16 methods of birth control, all paid for by the company.
So, why are liberals are upset about a company that still offers birth control and pays their employees a minimum wage of $14 an hour?
Oh, yeah, I bet they didn’t mention the bit with the pay scale, either, huh?
The objections don’t seem to make much sense. Sounds like a decent enough place to work, even by the standards of the left. The answer, though to the question is, that liberals are reacting the same way they react each and every time they find that there are limits to the power of government over the individual.
Now, I hear some say that we are dealing with a corporation, not people which, of course is absurd on it’s face. We look at Dictionary.com for a bit of help on the definition of “corporation”, to demonstrate that absurdity….
1. an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
Look particularly at the first four words… There is no case which I am aware of, where a corporation is not made up of, and run by individuals. If you know of such a case, do tell us. We’re dying to hear.
Apparently, the left would have us leave our first amendment rights, and our morality, our religious convictions, at the door… we’re not supposed to allow our personal beliefs to affect our professional lives in any way… at least insofar as it would run afoul of the liberal worldview.
I do wonder, though… if we are so busy putting up a legal wall between our business life and our religious life, is it any wonder that we find liberals forever castigating those evil corporations for acting immorally? Seems to me we’d be better off letting business owners of religious convictions ply their trade as their consciences demand, and let the market decide its validity.
Further, let’s postulate a law handed down by the FDA that mandates the use of the word “Kosher” (or, if you like, Halal) on food that doesn’t meet that standard? Clearly, there would be large numbers of food producers who would no longer be in business, since their morality wouldn’t allow them to produce such food, regardless of what the government says.
The Hobby Lobby case was not about birth control. Not about healthcare. At the end of the day, this case is about the limits of the power of government over the individual and how that individuals conscience drives all their actions, including at the place of business.
And the left is angry about it, which alone should tell you something.
Yes, this getting to be all Hobby Lobby all the time, but it is a target rich environment, from Emily Zanotti, American Spectator:
If you’re still on social media after yesterday, you’re profoundly masochistic, in need of a stiff drink, or both. Take this moment to examine your Twitter timeline for evidence of the following words: “slippery slope,” “minefield,” “ban,” and “birth control.” Use them as a drinking game and get yourself most of the way into a bottle of Smirnoff. If there were ever an excuse for day-drinking, it’s the amateur constitutional lawyering happening across the Internet. Let’s not mention the Oval Office, where the “constitutional lawyer” in residence stridently disagrees with the professional justices on the Supreme Court.
Does registering for the gender feminist convention mean checking your brain at the door?
Hobby Lobby covers circa sixteen out of twenty forms of contraception. From the hissy fit thrown by the left, you’d think the Supremes has just ruled in favor of mandatory female genital mutilation, or something, from John McCormack, Weekly Standard:
On Monday evening, Hillary Clinton said that she found the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case “deeply disturbing.” Clinton added that “it’s very troubling that a salesclerk at Hobby Lobby who needs contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception.”
Contrary to Clinton’s assertion Hobby Lobby’s owner “doesn’t think [women] should be using contraception,” the family-owned business covers the entire cost of 16 out of 20 FDA-approved contraceptives under its insurance plan. The company’s owners simply objected to covering pills or devices that may cause the death of a human embryo.
The Smartest Woman in the World, worth over five million dollars, with an eight million dollar book deal, and who commands speaking fees north of two hundred thousand dollars per speech, somehow thinks that a nine dollar per month prescription is “pretty expense.” Maybe Mrs. Clinton can donate some her two hundred thousand dollar speaking fees to buy contraceptives for the poor Sandra Flukes of the world?
Reax, Allah Pundit, Hot Air:
I knew the Democratic nominee-in-waiting was going to lay it on with a trowel — hot-button SCOTUS case tailor-made for corporation-bashing and “war on women” crap? — but good lord. She’s an inch away here from comparing the Roberts Court to the Taliban. Lying about Hobby Lobby’s willingness to cover contraception is a nice touch too. When you’ve built up a narrative head of steam like she has here, there’s no sense letting facts derail it.
It appears the Clinton’s, B.J and Mrs., were for religious freedom, before they were opposed to it.
How did a woman as stupid as Ruth Bader Ginsberg get to an associate justice of the Supreme Court? The Lord only knows. In today’s much anticipated Hobby Lobby rulingGinsberg opined, from Daily Beast:
“The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would override significant interests of the corporations’ employees and covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure.”
It would be as if Ginsberg had argued that McDonald’s wants to deny Americans access to food, because McDonald’s sells hamburgers rather than giving them away. Put another way, why should Sandra Fluke get her contraceptives for free but I have pay for my food?
Reference the title, come to think about it, Bader does look a bit skinny.