This and That...

[Warph]

Obuma's America: 58 Million Working-Age People... No Longer Working

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
May 7, 2014 10:18 am
http://freebeacon.com/issues/economy-not-keeping-up-with-population-growth/


Despite adding more than 8 million people to the working-age population since 2007, total employment has declined by half a million, according to an analysis by the Senate Budget Committee.

Before President Barack Obama took office 259.7 million people were part of the working-age population, or between ages 16 and 65.  Now, the number has risen to 267.7 million.

However, in the same time period, total employment declined from 146.3 million to 145.7 million.  In other words, 531,000 fewer people have jobs.

"This statistic highlights an alarming trend that has embodied the president's economic policies: more and more people are leaving the workforce entirely," according to the analysis, which was released by Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.). "There are 58 million working-age people who are not working, and the labor force participation rate stands at 62.8 percent, the lowest level in 36 years."

In defining the pool of potential workers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) includes anyone over 16, excluding inmates in penal and mental facilities, and active duty members of the Armed Forces.

For their analysis, the Budget Committee compared Labor Department and Commerce Department data to manually exclude persons over 65.  The analysis of the working-age population, which totals 267.7 million, therefore, includes everyone between the ages of 16 and 65, including individuals who are students, stay-at-home mothers, and others who choose not to work full-time.

[Warph]

Report: Pelosi Tells Dems She Is Leaning Towards Boycotting Benghazi Select Committee

(Isn't she a little old to be throwing temper tantrums?)

Via Politico:
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/benghazi-panel-investigation-nancy-pelosi-106456.html?hp=f1

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told her colleagues she was leaning toward boycotting a newly announced committee to probe the attack in Benghazi, according to multiple sources in the Wednesday morning meeting.

Pelosi (D-Calif.) said she would listen to as many of her Democratic colleagues as possible before a decision is made. But it was clear to several participants in the meeting that she was leaning against tapping Democrats to sit on the panel, which Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) will chair. Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), the assistant Democratic leader, aligned himself with Pelosi in the House Democratic Caucus meeting — as did Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

But there are several high-profile dissenters, including her close ally, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). Waxman, a former chairman of the House Oversight Committee, spoke in the closed meeting and made the point that Democrats should sit on the Republican-controlled committee to combat Republicans. Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) agreed with Waxman, according to sources in the meeting.

[Ross]

THE LEGAL LIMIT:
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S
ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND FEDERAL POWER
Report No. 4: The Obama Administration's Abuse of Power

By U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) Ranking Member Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on The Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the President's persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat. The President's taste for unilateral action to circumvent Congress should concern every citizen, regardless of party or ideology. The great 18th-century political philosopher Montesquieu observed: "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates." America's Founding Fathers took this warning to heart, and we should too. Rule of law doesn't simply mean that society has laws; dictatorships are often characterized by an abundance of laws. Rather, rule of law means that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men. No one—and especially not the president—is above the law. For that reason, the U.S. Constitution imposes on every president the express duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Rather than honor this duty, President Obama has openly defied it by repeatedly suspending, delaying, and waiving portions of the laws that he is charged to enforce. When President Obama disagreed with federal immigration laws, he instructed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the laws. He did the same thing with federal welfare law, drug laws, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act. In the more than two centuries of our nation's history, there is simply no precedent for the White House wantonly ignoring federal law and asking others to do the same. For all those who are silent now: What would they think of a Republican president who announced that he was going to ignore the law, or unilaterally change the law? Imagine a future  president setting aside environmental laws, or tax laws, or labor laws, or tort laws with which he or she disagreed. That would be wrong—and it is the Obama precedent that is opening the door for future lawlessness. As Montesquieu knew, an imperial presidency threatens the liberty of every citizen. Because when a president can pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore, he is no longer a president.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz released a definitive list Wednesday of 76 "lawless" Obama administration actions and abuses of power.

Cruz's "The Legal Limit Report No. 4," obtained by The Daily Caller, delves into little-known and little-reported details of President Obama's executive actions. Cruz was set to discuss his report at the Federalist Society in the Promenade Ballroom of the Mayflower Hotel in Washington at 2:15 PM Wednesday.

"Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the President's persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat," Cruz stated in the report's introductory remarks.

"President Obama has openly defied [rule of law] by repeatedly suspending, delaying, and waiving portions of the laws that he is charged to enforce. When President Obama disagreed with federal immigration laws, he instructed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the laws. He did the same thing with federal welfare law, drug laws, and the federal Defense of Marriage Act," Cruz wrote. "In the more than two centuries of our nation's history, there is simply no precedent for the White House wantonly ignoring federal law and asking others to do the same."

Cruz details 76 specific actions over eight chapters. We've listed eight of them, as chronicled by Cruz, below:

1. "Obama implemented portions of the DREAM Act by executive action"

2. "Ended some terror asylum restrictions"

3. "Recognized same sex marriage in Utah despite a Supreme Court stay on a court order allowing the institution"

4. "Illegally revealed the existence of sealed indictments in the Benghazi investigation"

5. "Illegally delayed Obamacare verification of eligibility for healthcare subsidies"

6. "Ordered Boeing to fire 1,000 employees in South Carolina and shut down a new factory because it was non-union"

7. "Terminated the pensions of 20,000 non-union Delphi employees in the GM bankruptcy."

8. "Government agencies are engaging in 'Operation Choke Point,' where the government asks banks to 'choke off' access to financial services for customers engaging in conduct the Administration does not like—such as 'ammunition sales.'"

See the full report: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/07/ted-cruz-releases-definitive-list-of-76-lawless-obama-actions/#ixzz315051vFJ

[Warph]

Over Strong Joint Chiefs Objections, House Moves To Preserve Military Pay, Benefits

(The Princes in the Puzzle Palace called the Pentagon have done it again.  They have thrown those serving, those that served and those that will serve under the MRAP in favor of politics)

Via Stars and Stripes

Military leadership on Tuesday pressed plans to slash popular troop benefits and curb pay raises but House lawmakers remained committed to preserving those benefits.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff testified during a rare gathering in the Senate and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel spoke in Chicago on the need to reduce personnel costs.

Meanwhile, the House prepared for debate Wednesday on a defense budget that would "nickel and dime" some ship, aircraft and construction programs to help fund pay raises and benefits for troops, said Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

The Republican-controlled committee has rejected the Department of Defense proposals to cap pay raises at 1 percent and slash the costs of military supermarkets, housing allowances and the Tricare health care system – despite dire warnings by the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff in Senate testimony Tuesday that readiness could suffer otherwise. Armed Services is expected to cobbled together a final draft of the defense budget late Wednesday and send it to the full House for a vote.

"Through smart planning, rearrangement of capital and resources, targeted cuts, and reduction of some bureaucracy, we've been able to shield our military from a crippling blow," McKeon said during a speech at the Heritage Foundation.

Pay and benefits remain untouched. McKeon and other Republicans in the House say the DOD has given Congress a false choice between cutting spending on troops and their families or overall military readiness.

The $521 billion budget – and an additional $79 billion for the Afghanistan war effort – would compromise on the embattled A-10 Warthog. It would take the aircraft out of service, but keep it in a high-level storage status; the planes could be quickly activated.

"It has saved the lives of countless American men and women in combat," McKeon said. "It still has over a decade of service life left in it, and it's to be replaced by a plane, the F-35, that is better suited to do other jobs."

The House budget also cuts spending on Navy ships, the KC-46 Pegasus aircraft and aircraft carrier-based drones.

[Ross]

How about making it illegal for politicians to lie?

Politics: Chuck Schumer:
Let's amend the Constitution
so
Congress can restrict free speech

More reining in of freedom.

Oh those New York Democrats! First we have Hillary (OK, only a New Yorker in a carpetbagging sort of way, but still . . .) wanting to "rein in" our notions that we have real Second Amendment rights. But that's the Second Amendment. That's not as important as the First, right? So for that one, we need Chuck Schumer, Hillary's senior as a senator before and after her tenure, to launch the attack.

And he is:

    The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision allowing unions and corporations to donate to independent political groups has driven liberals to such fits that they now want to amend the First Amendment. At a Senate Rules Committee meeting last week, New York Democrat Chuck Schumer announced a proposal to amend the Constitution to empower government to regulate political speech.

    "The Supreme Court is trying to take this country back to the days of the robber barons, allowing dark money to flood our elections," Mr. Schumer said. The Senate will vote this year on the amendment to "once and for all allow Congress to make laws to regulate our system, without the risk of them being eviscerated by a conservative Supreme Court." He even rolled out retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens to pronounce his unhappiness with freedom's bedrock document.

    According to the text of the proposed revision to James Madison's 1791 handiwork, sponsored by New Mexico Senator Tom Udall, the states and federal government would have the power to regulate the "raising and spending of money" through a wide range of means "to advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all."

A Chuck Schumer attack on free speech is hardly a big surprise. He's one of the senators who goaded the IRS into going after Tea Party groups based on the rationale that they were undermining confidence in government. Oh no, not that!

To amend the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress and the ratification of 38 states. That is not going to happen. But that doesn't mean there's nothing to be concerned about here. When a U.S. senator is willing to be so brazen as to propose we amend the Constitution to weaken the First Amendment - and specifically to empower Congress to restrict free speech - what that really tells us is where the political landscape stands. Not long ago it would have been inconceivable that mainstream politician hoping to remain in office would propose to take away basic First Amendment rights for the purpose of empowering politicians to impose new restrictions on same. At least in the reading of Sen. Schumer and others who back this proposed amendment, the political landscape has changed and it is now possible to propose such a thing without being flogged by the voters as a result.

This is all cloaked, of course, in language about "dark money" and so forth. You know what that's about, right? What has been the leading Democrat theme this year? It's sure as hell not how wonderful ObamaCare is. It's attacking the diabolical Koch Brothers. Democrats have decided to turn major donors to conservative causes and candidates into objects of public disdain, and they don't like it when they can't do so. They also don't like it when they can't put any restrictions on such individuals, groups or corporations.

But the Constitution was not written for the political protection of incumbent politicians. It was written to protect the rights of the people who have to live under the governance of such people. If that's creating problems for Chuck Schumer, then I'd say it's doing exactly what it was supposed to do. I hope enough of the citizenry still understands that sufficient to recognize what an obscene power grab Schumer and his allies are attempting.

http://www.cascity.com/howard/forum/index.php?action=post;topic=14296.2760;last_msg=219337

[Warph]

British Supermarkets And Restaurants Sell Halal To Customers To Save Money

(The stealth take over continues. Achmed could open his own halal and goat rental stand.
Hint for the Brits: If the menu doesn't include pork don't eat there)

Via The Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2623860/Now-halal-sneaks-schools-Parents-angered-councils-ban-pork-sausages-bacon-replace-ritually-slaughtered-meat.html

Supermarkets and restaurant chains face being forced to label food containing halal meat as a row grew over millions of customers being left in the dark about what they are eating.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg today demanded better labelling using a designated logo, but insisted he was happy to eat a halal pizza.

MPs could use a debate on new consumer legislation next week to force a change in the law, after it emerged ore than 70 per cent of all New Zealand lamb in supermarkets is from halal abattoirs – a fact not stated on labelling.

Tesco, Sainsbury's, Morrisons, Waitrose and Marks & Spencer all confirmed they sell the imported meat.

The switch to slaughtering animals in line with Islamic ritual saves money because the end product can be eaten by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

David Cameron refused to intervene on the issue. His spokesman said: 'The Prime Minister's view is that it is an issue of consumer choice and consumer information.

'So it is a matter for retailers and restaurants to work with customers and consumer groups and representatives of faith organisations.'

But Mr Clegg said: 'It is a question of labelling. I think there should be more information.'
The Deputy Prime Minister said he has 'absolutely no problem with eating a pizza with halal meat on it at all.'

And Commons Leader Andrew Lansley told MPs that a debate on the Consumer Rights Bill next week could be used to address public concerns.

He said the legislation was focused 'giving consumers not only rights but information on which they can base their purchasing decisions.'

It also emerged that all chicken served by Pizza Express is halal – something made clear only on the company's website.

Chains including Domino's, GBK, Nando's, KFC, Ask and Slug & Lettuce use halal meat in some dishes, mainly chicken, and locations.

When contacted by the Mail yesterday, many of the restaurants were reluctant to discuss the issue. Only Subway and KFC overtly label halal meat products on their menus.

[Ross]

[Warph]

Obuma Attacks "Climate Deniers" Who Are "Wasting Everybody's Time On A Settled Debate

"

jpg

(I love how he declares unilaterally the debate is over
and nobody is allowed to talk about it)

Via Daily Caller:


President Obama took time in his Friday speech at a California Wal-Mart to bash "climate deniers" for obstructing him by debating the science behind man-made global warming.

"So unfortunately, inside of Washington we've still got some climate deniers who shout loud, but they're wasting everybody's time on a settled debate," Obama said, doubling down on remarks made during his State of the Union Address this year by adding that, "Climate change is a fact."

"Here in California, you've seen these effects firsthand," Obama told the audience at a Mountain View Wal-Mart. "You know what's happening. And increasingly, more and more Americans do — including, by the way, many Republicans outside of Washington."

Obama's speech to announce more executive orders to promote solar energy development and energy efficiency subsidies comes just days after the White House released the third National Climate Assessment (NCA)
The NCA claimed that global warming was already happening and had caused the U.S. to warm about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1895. The report also claimed that temperatures could increase another 4 degrees Fahrenheit and sea levels could rise 4 feet in the coming decades if no action is taken.

"Hundreds of scientists, experts and businesses, not-for-profits, local communities all contributed over the course of four years," Obama said. "What they found was unequivocally that climate change is not some far-off problem in the future. It's happening now. It's causing hardship now."

Obama stressed that storms, floods and droughts — like the one California is currently experiencing — have been made more severe by rising global temperatures, a talking point the administration has been pushing hard in the last year.

The NCA also warned that global warming was making weather more extreme, saying that risks "associated with extreme events like hurricanes are increasing." But this contradicts data from governmental sources and independent researchers.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported that there "is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century" and current data shows "no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century. ... No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin."

The IPCC also noted "there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale" adding "that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends."

"Actually: US hurricane landfalls have decreased by ~25% since 1900," said Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., a climate scientist with the University of Colorado.

Pielke has presented extensive evidence that weather has not gotten more extreme because of global warming.

"It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally," Dr. Pielke told the Senate last summer. "It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases."

"Hurricanes have not increased in the U.S. in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900," Pielke added. "The same holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 1970."

So far this year, the United States has experienced a record-low number of tornadoes, according to Pielke, and the number of deaths and the amount of property damage from tornadoes has decreased dramatically in the past six decades.

"The average annual U.S. property losses caused by tornadoes, from 1950 to 2013, is $5.9 billion in today's dollars," Pielke wrote in the Wall Street Journal. "However, for the first half of the data set (1950-81), the annual average loss was $7.6 billion, and in the second half (1982-2013), it was $4.1 billion—a drop of almost 50%."

[Warph]

[Warph]

Mooch Gets It On

(Cracks me how they act like Boko Haram is some kind of new phenomenon, anyone who reads
has known all about them and the atrocities they've been committing,
mainly against Christians, for years)