RSS

Category Archives: Uncategorized

A must read…why do the Left find it necessary to lie?

Letting Freedom Ring

Reblogged from The Waking Giant

“Let me tell you a little story,” Mr. Biden told the crowd at the University of Iowa. “I got elected when I was 29, and I got elected November the 7th. And on Dec. 18 of that year, my wife and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree. A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly — and I never pursued it — drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly, and killed my daughter instantly, and hospitalized my two sons, with what were thought to be at the time permanent, fundamental injuries.”

A false accusation of a crime such as killing somebody while driving drunk is of course automatically libel or slander, but Mr. Biden waited until Mr. Dunn had died of natural causes to make this accusation.

TRUTH:

We must say up front that…

View original post 199 more words

Advertisements
 
Comments Off on

Posted by on 10/16/2012 in Uncategorized

 

Former Aide on Obama: ‘Stunning that He’s in Politics, Because He Really Doesn’t Like People’ | The Weekly Standard

As the conservatives have said from day one…this man hates Americans ….we just thought it was those with different views…but it turns out it is ALL Americans and America…..come on November.. 

 

Former Aide on Obama: ‘Stunning that He’s in Politics, Because He Really Doesn’t Like People’
10:25 AM, OCT 16, 2012 • BY DANIEL HALPER 
Neera Tanden, a former aide to both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, had this to say about the relationship of the two presidents:

Clinton, being Clinton, had plenty of advice in mind and was desperate to impart it. But for the first two years of Obama’s term, the phone calls Clinton kept expecting rarely came. “People say the reason Obama wouldn’t call Clinton is because he doesn’t like him,” observes Tanden. “The truth is, Obama doesn’t call anyone, and he’s not close to almost anyone. It’s stunning that he’s in politics, because he really doesn’t like people. My analogy is that it’s like becoming Bill Gates without liking computers.”

It’s a revealing statement from Tanden, who “served as senior advisor for health reform at the Department of Health and Human Services, advising Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and working on President Barack Obama’s health reform team in the White House to pass the bill,” according to her bio at the Center for American Progress. She is currently president and CEO of the liberal organization.

 

via Former Aide on Obama: ‘Stunning that He’s in Politics, Because He Really Doesn’t Like People’ | The Weekly Standard.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on 10/16/2012 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , ,

The great affirmative action lie still persists | The Courier-Journal. By Edward Wyckoff Williams

WASHINGTON — Four decades after legalized discrimination was still codified in law, racial disparities persist at nearly every level of American society. From criminal justice to education, employment to housing, minorities in general and African Americans in particular continue to face an uphill battle toward social and economic equity.
Affirmative action policies — originally designed to redress problems created by centuries of slavery and Jim Crow — are being derided by some as racial discrimination against white people. The fundamental ideology is being challenged in a U.S. Supreme Court case, “Fisher v. University of Texas,” in which a white woman claims she was disadvantaged in college admissions. A similar argument failed in 2003, but today’s more conservative court may be more apt to side with the plaintiff, since the white-victim mentality has recently gained mainstream momentum — both in education and politics.
George Will, the renowned conservative “Washington Post”columnist, echoed these sentiments when he claimed that President Barack Obama’s recent success in polls against his Republican challenger is solely due to his being black. Will argued that voters are reluctant to fire Obama — suggesting that African Americans not only are living in a post-racial era that requires no affirmative government policy but are also actually enjoying some kind of benefit by virtue of their blackness. Herein lies the cognitive dissonance of white privilege and the fundamental conundrum of trying to explain the need for affirmative policy to a white majority that sees nothing wrong with the status quo.
Welcome to the land of make-believe.
Abigail Fisher, the white woman who claimed that the University of Texas policy discriminated against her on the basis of race, has since graduated from Louisiana State University. The facts of her original case reveal that she failed to meet the threshold of being in the top 10 percent of her graduating high school class — which would have automatically guaranteed admission to UT. Instead Fisher competed in a general-applicant pool that, along with merit-based variables, considers race, athletics, community service and other factors.

According to UT, this method ensures a diverse class and enriches the educational experience. Fisher, however, concluded that being white somehow disadvantaged her and, as such, any policy that considered race was a violation of her constitutional equal-protection rights. But Fisher needs a brief civics lessons.
Joan Walsh, in her new book, “What’s the Matter With White People?”, posits that too many whites incorrectly believe that minorities have benefited from affirmative action at their expense. Walsh takes a historic view, showing that most white Americans enjoyed the benefits of the Great Society social welfare programs, in particular the postwar GI Bill, expansion of public universities, FHA mortgage-lending guarantees and union jobs.
Together, these benefits created upward mobility for a strong middle class. They were social welfare programs — amounting to affirmative action government policies for poor and low-income whites — and often, almost explicitly, excluded African Americans and other people of color.
After the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, access to these programs expanded slowly for minorities. And in 1972, Title IX was passed to guarantee women equal access to higher education, but even that mostly assisted white women, since the gains of the civil rights era were embryonic, at best, and still being negotiated.
The results speak for themselves, since many women — mostly white — now enjoy positions of privilege and power from the classroom to the boardroom. Fisher’s claims aside, the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics report, released two weeks ago, reveals that for most white Americans, discrimination is the least of barriers. The unemployment rate for white women and white men over the age of 20 stood at 6.3 percent and 6.2 percent respectively, well below the national average of 7.8 percent and just shy of what is considered full employment — this even in tough economic times. In contrast, although the overall African-American unemployment rate has improved significantly from its peak of 16.7 percent, it remained well above the national average at 13.4 percent.
Fisher’s own story ignores the most crucial fact — namely, the original need for affirmative action. For descendants of African-American slaves, the combination of brown skin and state-sanctioned discrimination left no alternative option or recourse.
At the heart of Fisher’s argument is the misguided view that African Americans and Hispanics are given preferential treatment on race alone and, as such, are undeserving. Yet historical data show that white American women have been the biggest benefactors of affirmative action policies — undermining Fisher’s own argument.
George Will, in his misguided op-ed, reveals the cognitive dissonance at the heart of so many attacks on any success achieved by blacks — dismissing them as affirmative action babies. Yet he willfully ignores (pun intended) any privilege he himself experienced as a Princeton- and Oxford-educated white male, born into an America that legally deprived blacks of any opportunity to compete with him.
Though Will claims to be post-racial, it is only the success of African-Americans that he overtly racializes. As such, Will — whose career of covering American presidents extends over 30 years — has never once suggested that the re-elections of Reagan, Bush or Clinton hinged, in part or entirely, on their whiteness.
So why, in Will’s opinion, is race the sole factor of Obama’s potential return to the White House? Likewise, could it be that Fisher simply didn’t impress the UT admissions officers as much as another white candidate? Why must it have been a black or brown person who received the spot she is convinced belonged to her?
America’s original sin created a de facto affirmative action for white people that still plagues the broader sociopolitical consciousness. This malignant disease leads some white Americans to believe that they deserve something that, in an increasingly minority-majority nation, is being taken by someone who looks different from them.
The result? Hispanics and Asians are stealing their jobs. Blacks are taking their seats at university. Their Oval Office is occupied by a foreign-born, illegitimate president.
The line between white privilege and the status quo has become so blurred it’s invisible. It is time to redraw the line in black and white.
this method ensures a diverse class and enriches the educational experience. Fisher, however, concluded that being white somehow disadvantaged her and, as such, any policy that considered race was a violation of her constitutional equal-protection rights. But Fisher needs a brief civics lessons. Joan Walsh, in her new book, “What’s the Matter With White People?”, posits that too many whites incorrectly believe that minorities have benefited from affirmative action at their expense. Walsh takes a historic view, showing that most white Americans enjoyed the benefits of the Great Society social welfare programs, in particular the postwar GI Bill, expansion of public universities, FHA mortgage-lending guarantees and union jobs. Together, these benefits created upward mobility for a strong middle class. They were social welfare programs — amounting to affirmative action government policies for poor and low-income whites — and often, almost explicitly, excluded African Americans and other people of color. After the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, access to these programs expanded slowly for minorities. And in 1972, Title IX was passed to guarantee women equal access to higher education, but even that mostly assisted white women, since the gains of the civil rights era were embryonic, at best, and still being negotiated. The results speak for themselves, since many women — mostly white — now enjoy positions of privilege and power from the classroom to the boardroom. Fisher’s claims aside, the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics report, released two weeks ago, reveals that for most white Americans, discrimination is the least of barriers. The unemployment rate for white women and white men over the age of 20 stood at 6.3 percent and 6.2 percent respectively, well below the national average of 7.8 percent and just shy of what is considered full employment — this even in tough economic times. In contrast, although the overall African-American unemployment rate has improved significantly from its peak of 16.7 percent, it remained well above the national average at 13.4 percent.
Fisher’s own story ignores the most crucial fact — namely, the original need for affirmative action. For descendants of African-American slaves, the combination of brown skin and state-sanctioned discrimination left no alternative option or recourse.
At the heart of Fisher’s argument is the misguided view that African Americans and Hispanics are given preferential treatment on race alone and, as such, are undeserving. Yet historical data show that white American women have been the biggest benefactors of affirmative action policies — undermining Fisher’s own argument.
George Will, in his misguided op-ed, reveals the cognitive dissonance at the heart of so many attacks on any success achieved by blacks — dismissing them as affirmative action babies. Yet he willfully ignores (pun intended) any privilege he himself experienced as a Princeton- and Oxford-educated white male, born into an America that legally deprived blacks of any opportunity to compete with him.
Though Will claims to be post-racial, it is only the success of African-Americans that he overtly racializes. As such, Will — whose career of covering American presidents extends over 30 years — has never once suggested that the re-elections of Reagan, Bush or Clinton hinged, in part or entirely, on their whiteness.
So why, in Will’s opinion, is race the sole factor of Obama’s potential return to the White House? Likewise, could it be that Fisher simply didn’t impress the UT admissions officers as much as another white candidate? Why must it have been a black or brown person who received the spot she is convinced belonged to her?
America’s original sin created a de facto affirmative action for white people that still plagues the broader sociopolitical consciousness. This malignant disease leads some white Americans to believe that they deserve something that, in an increasingly minority-majority nation, is being taken by someone who looks different from them.
The result? Hispanics and Asians are stealing their jobs. Blacks are taking their seats at university. Their Oval Office is occupied by a foreign-born, illegitimate president.
The line between white privilege and the status quo has become so blurred it’s invisible. It is time to redraw the line in black and white.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20121015/OPINION04/310150015/Edward-Wyckoff-Williams-great-affirmative-action-lie-still-persists

 
Comments Off on The great affirmative action lie still persists | The Courier-Journal. By Edward Wyckoff Williams

Posted by on 10/15/2012 in Uncategorized

 

Short road trip then lunch

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

image

To Carrollton for our favorite lunch. Then back through connector road to check the river levels. Our neighbor has started her decorations for Halloween. This doggie is just one example. I will post more later. Then of course Muffin had to find one of her favorite things, honey locust seed pods!

 
Comments Off on Short road trip then lunch

Posted by on 10/14/2012 in Uncategorized

 

Tags:

Just another example of a LIBERAL’s compassion…..

with someones else’s money of course. 

Wyclef Jean’s Haiti charity a ‘cesspool of fraud and broken promises’ that has collapsed under mountain of debt

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
PUBLISHED: 19:25 EST, 12 October 2012 | UPDATED: 20:20 EST, 12 October 2012


Under fire: Eight years after singer Wyclef Jean founded the charity Yele, the group closed its doors amid accusations of mishandled funds

Hip hop artist Wyclef Jean started a charity called Yele to help his struggling homeland of Haiti, but eight years later, the group shuttered its doors amid allegations of fraud and mounting debt.
The collapse of the organization once labelled by its founder as Haiti’s ‘greatest asset and ally’ comes after years of accusations of mishandled funds totaling $16million.
The group, which the Haitian-born Jean stated in 2004, was small in its first years of operation, with assets amounting to only $37,000, but according to the New York Times, after the devastating 2010 earthquake, donations started pouring in.
Jean said he raised $1million in 24 hours after issuing a plea for help on Twitter. But rather than using the money to help the millions of displaced residents living on the quake-ravaged streets of Port-au-Prince, the Times reported that Yele funneled a large portion of the funds to pay for  ‘offices, salaries, consultants’ fees and travel’ to say nothing of Jean’s family, friends and legal team.
In one case, the group allegedly shelled out $30,763 to fly Hollywood starlet Lindsay Lohan from New Jersey to a charity event in Chicago that raised $66,000.
In another instance, Yele spent nearly $58,000 on private jets to fly actor Matt Damon and Jean’s other celebrity friends to Haiti.
Mishandled: Yele reportedly spent $9million of its $16million on office space, workers’ salaries and food
Celebrity friends: Actors Brad Pitt, left, and Angelina Jolie are asked for a photograph by a participant in the first anniversary party for Yele Haiti in 2006
‘If I had depended on Yele, these kids would all be dead by now,’ says Diaoly Estime, who runs an orphanage in Haiti’s capital.  
Following the earthquake, Yele spent $9million of its $16million on office space, workers’ salaries and other expenses.

Broken promises: Yele had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on revitalization and aid projects, but most of them never came to fruition

About $600,000 in donations went toward Yele’s headquarters, which have since been abandoned; another $375,000 was used to cover ‘landscaping’ costs; and more than $470,000 was spent on food and beverages.
The singer, who made an unsuccessful bid for Haiti’s presidency in 2010, reportedly paid himself $100,000 to perform in a charity concert and gave his family over $500,000 for unspecified work. Also, $37,000 was paid by Yele to cover the rent of Jean’s Manhattan studio.
According to The Smoking Gun, the charity also made payments of more than $100,000 to the alleged mistress of the married 42-year-old singer.
As for Yele’s much-hyped revitalization plans, many of them never got off the ground. The group paid $146,000 to build a medical center inside geodesic domes and another $93,000 to erect temporary housing, but neither project was completed.   
A New York attorney general’s investigation into Yele’s pre-earthquake activities has already found financial improprieties.
The forensic audit covering the time period between 2005 and 2009 found $256,580 in illegitimate benefits to  Jean and other Yéle board and staff members, as well as other improper transactions.
High-priced ticket: Jean’s charity paid $58,000 on private jets to fly Matt Damon (pictured) and other actors to Haiti
Public relations: Wyclef Jean, left, and former U.S. President Bill Clinton, right, aid a woman to raise a sack of rice which was donated by Yele Haiti in Cite Soleil in Port-au-Prince
At the end of August, Derek Q. Johnson, Yele’s chief executive, announced his resignation after Jean rejected a settlement offered by the attorney general that would have required the singer and the two other Yele founders to pay $600,000 in restitution ‘to remedy the waste of the foundation’s assets.’
Actor Sean Penn, who founded his own charity, J/P Haitian Relief Organization, told The New York Times in 2010, ‘My impression is that Yéle is at the service of Wyclef Jean and his reputation.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217090/Wyclef-Jeans-Haiti-charity-cesspool-fraud-broken-promises-collapsed-mountain-debt.html#ixzz29D31p4II

 
1 Comment

Posted by on 10/13/2012 in Uncategorized

 

Survey: Majority opposes defense cuts to reduce deficit

By Jeremy Herb – 10/12/12 03:19 PM ET

A new survey found that more than half of the public opposes cutting defense spending in order to reduce the deficit.

But the idea is still divided along party lines, with President Obama supporters in favor of cutting defense and Mitt Romney’s backers opposed, according to the survey from the Pew Research Center released Friday.

The poll found 56 percent of total respondents opposed “reducing military defense spending” in order to cut the debt and deficit, while 40 percent supported it. The idea had the fourth highest disapproval rating among 12 tested by Pew for reducing the deficit.

Respondents only supported two of the 12 ideas: raising the tax rate on those making more than $250,000 and limiting tax deductions for large corporations.

Reducing federal funding for education was the least popular idea, with 75 percent disapproving.
The poll underscores how it’s often difficult to gain public support on measures reducing the deficit, even as concern about the debt is growing.

Defense spending had a wide divide when broken down on partisan lines. For Mitt Romney supporters, 82 percent were opposed to cutting defense spending, and just 16 percent were in favor. Obama supporters, meanwhile, approved of cutting military funding 58 to 37.

The 42-point divide was the second highest in the Pew poll, as raising taxes on $250,000 earners had a 43-point swing.

The Pew poll was based on a survey of 1,511 adults, including 1,201 registered voters.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/261799-survey-majority-opposes-defense-cuts-to-reduce-deficit

 
Comments Off on Survey: Majority opposes defense cuts to reduce deficit

Posted by on 10/13/2012 in Uncategorized

 

Egypt’s Brotherhood heads urged jihad for Jerusalem

Members of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood including now-President Mohamed Morsi (3rdL) take part in a press conference in 2011. The supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, from which Morsi emanated, called on Thursday for a jihad (holy war) to liberate Jerusalem from Israeli rule.

Members of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood including now-President Mohamed Morsi (3rdL) take part in a press conference in 2011. The supreme guide of the Muslim Brotherhood, from which Morsi emanated, called on Thursday for a jihad (holy war) to liberate Jerusalem from Israeli rule.

http://www.france24.com/en/20121011-egypts-brotherhood-heads-urged-jihad-jerusalem

 
Comments Off on Egypt’s Brotherhood heads urged jihad for Jerusalem

Posted by on 10/12/2012 in Uncategorized

 
 
%d bloggers like this: