The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm President of the United States of America." — Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) March 31, 2008.
Did the Million Vet March and the truckers symbolically fire the first shot Sunday. Was moving the fences to the white house the symbol of the Boston Massacre, The Tea Party Tax Revolt, or Lexington – Concord?
Or was it Sunday’s News Cycle and forgotten and overriden by:
We previously reportedthat Samantha Lewthwaite, the so-called “White Widow,” had been reported to have been killed — though we noted that the killing had not been confirmed — in the terrorist attack on the mall in Kenya. It looks like that was premature. From Milblogging:
Samantha Lewthwaite, also known as the White Widow, is one of the world’s most wanted terrorists.
Lewthwaite is a member of the terrorist group Al-Shabaab, which took responsibility for the Westgate mall attack that resulted in the deaths of over 60 civilians and soldiers in September 2013. Many suspect she was in some way involved in the attack, although her role is unknown.
As the world’s most hunted female terrorist tries to evade authorities, a number of news sites are reporting that she is taunting authorities via Twitter.
For Better or Worse: Student Loans now tied Directly to Economy
President Obama about to discuss student loans, April 24, 2009. (By Chuck Kennedy (Source; Story) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons)
Whether you plan on attending a brick and mortar school, or are seeking to enroll in any of the growing online colleges, student loan rates will affect your future. And now your financial future will be tied directly to the performance of the overall economy. President Obama recently signed into law a bill that will keep Stafford loans (colloquially referred to as “student loans” in general) near their traditional rate. While there has been some confusion regarding the matter, the details are simple once the media fluff and bias is stripped away.
Early in his first term, President Obama signed an Executive Order effectively placing all student loans under control of the federal government. While the White House did their victory dance, it was quickly revealed that the plan would save students less than $10 a month, according to a report from The Atlantic. And while the goals of the White House were noble, most of them already existed under previous legislation. (i.e. caps on income percent for payback, loan forgiveness, etc)
And it was largely this action that lead to the bill mentioned above. The student loan interest rate was set to double if no action was taken. So, the President actually saved students from disaster that he originally caused, or set up, within his own Executive Order.
Tied to The Economy; Interest Rates & Why a Degree is Needed More Than Ever
Congress and the White House have been fighting over this problem with student loans, and their interest rates for a while. Both political parties wanted their own plans, which caused a stalemate on the issue. Ironically, even though the new law stops the interest rate from doubling, the interest rate still increases. And it increases right within the range the President originally set out to raise it in his Executive Order. In the Atlantic report mentioned above, the Executive Order stated they would only raise interest rates by a maximum of 0.5%. Which is exactly the increase we got. Rates were set at 3.4% before the bill was signed, and now according to the CS Monitor report (linked above):
Undergraduates this fall will borrow at a 3.9 percent interest rate for subsidized and unsubsidized loans. Graduate students would have access to loans at 5.4 percent, and parents would borrow at 6.4 percent. The rates would be locked in for that year’s loan, but each year’s loan could be more expensive than the last.
The reason that each year’s loan could be more expensive than the previous year is that the interest.
“Springhill Police Chief Will Lynd confirms they were called in to help the employees at Wal-Mart because there were so many people clearing off the shelves. He says Wal-Mart was so packed, ‘it was worse than any black Friday’ that he’s ever seen.
Lynd explained the cards weren’t showing limits and they called corporate Wal-Mart, whose spokesman said to let the people use the cards anyway. From 7 to 9 p.m., people were loading up their carts, but when the cards began showing limits again around 9, one woman was detained because she rang up a bill of $700 and only had .49 on her card. She was held by police until corporate Wal-Mart said they wouldn’t press charges if she left the food.
More at the link.
If you continue, you’ll read that once it was announced over the store loudspeaker that the system was running properly again, a bunch of shoppers simply left their full carts and walked out. And that means that they knew that they were stealing from the government, and only stopped stealing when they knew that they couldn’t steal any more.
All of this stuff is computerized, of course, so the government can easily tell who outspent their EBT cards; it would be easy enough to prosecute them for theft. The Obama Administration won’t, of course, so the next easiest step would simply be to deduct the overcharges from their Food Stamps EBT cards next month, and the month after that, and the month after that, until the overages are made up, and if they happen to go hungry during that time, well too fornicating bad.
It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacey Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as putting pictures of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Alyssa Milano in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude.
A top general in charge of the U.S. Air Force’s arsenal of nuclear ballistic missiles has been relieved of his command due to loss of trust, defense officials told NBC News.
Air Force officials said Maj. Gen. Michael Carey was fired for “personal misbehavior” while on temporary duty at an unspecified location outside his usual command. The officials would not describe the behavior, other than to say that it did not involve any sexual improprieties, drug use, gambling, or criminal conduct.
Carey oversaw the 20th Air Force, with a total of 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles at three locations across the U.S.
An Air Force statement said that Carey was relieved from command “due to a loss of trust and confidence in his leadership and judgment.” The statement goes on to say that “the allegations are not related to operational readiness, inspection results, nor do they involve sexual misconduct.”
More at the link.
Major General Carey’s firing is the second one in a week; Vice Admiral Tim Giardina was reduced to two stars (Rear Admiral, upper half) and removed from his position as second in command of U.S. nuclear forces at U.S. Strategic Command due to a gambling investigation.
Both RADM Giardina, a 1979 graduate of the Naval Academy, and MGEN Carey, who entered the Air Force in 1978, are eligible for retirement, and in most cases not involving an actual crime, such officers would be urged to retire quietly.
I absolutely understand making certain that the top military officers involved with control of our nuclear arsenal have to be honest and fit beyond any doubt, and that any who fail to meet those high standards cannot remain in such positions. But the public nature of the dismissals is bound to raise questions about command and control of our nuclear arsenal, period, and it’s very unusual that such things would be made public in such a manner when no criminal charges are being contemplated.
“Of course, I want people to have health care,” (Cindy) Vinson said. “I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”
A lot more at the link. The story references the winners and losers from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Yes, there are absolutely some winners, mainly people who had expensive insurance because they had chronic health problems, but there are many losers as well, people who had much more moderately priced insurance plans, who must now pay a lot more, because their insurance plans must now cover things that they didn’t choose to have covered in the past, and because the insurance companies must now spread the costs of care for previously uninsurable people, whom they must now cover at no additional cost, over the mass of people who don’t have such conditions.
One of the lessons liberal economists — a term which is almost an oxymoron — never seem to have learned is that nothing is free: for a person to receive something, someone must pay for it. Under the PP&ACA, the people who are getting things they didn’t have before are having those things paid for by other people.
Are you ready for yet another climate tipping point article fable?
(Washington Post) Locations around the globe will soon reach climatic tipping points, with some in tropical regions — home to most of the world’s biodiversity — feeling the first impacts of unprecedented eras of elevated temperatures as soon as seven years from now, according to a study released Wednesday.
On average, locations worldwide will leave behind the climates that have existed from the middle of the 19th century through the beginning of the 21st century by 2047 if no progress is made in curbing emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, said researchers at the University of Hawaii at Manoa who sought to project the timing of that event for 54,000 locations.
More at the link, but Mr Teach noted that we’ve heard these projections before, and they haven’t exactly panned out.
In every previous shutdown, the furloughed workers have received back pay for the days they were off. Perhaps the feds will simply count these days as the regular furlough days caused by that horrible, draconian, absolutely unlivable sequester we have somehow, miraculously, managed to survive . . . though just barely, I’m sure.
Remember, we had to pass the law to find out what was in it.
I’ve been covering the ongoing issues with the Obamacare website in the days since its glitch-filled launch, which you can read here, here and here. From day one, the Obama administration has spun the problems as a good thing, blaming all the site’s technical misfires entirely on high traffic volume – demand that it claims was beyond its expectations.
As I’ve written in all of my posts on the subject, I’ve been highly skeptical of that claim and have provided numerous citations, as well as some of my own commentary, to support such skepticism. I ended one of those posts by writing, “While some media outlets have focused on the long wait times, very few are actually breaking down the glitches and testing the administration’s claims that volume is solely to blame.”
Well, that has certainly changed since I wrote it.
There is a great divide in America. On one side, you have liberalism, voiced by a group of progressive Democrats that believe in greater government control of almost every aspect of our daily lives. On the other, there is conservatism. More and more, conservatism is being voiced by the people who lean more to the libertarian side of the political spectrum. Many of us want nothing more than to be simply left alone. We do not desire the government to be in our homes or in our lives and we see much of the federal government as an unneeded and unwanted intrusion into our personal lives. The differences between the two sides of this divide could be no greater. My question is this. To borrow the words from Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make, as long as we are all still Americans? My answer to that question may also be simple, but I would contend that it makes a great deal of difference in the direction America is going.
Liberalism vs. Conservatism: Stop and think about this for a moment. Have you ever seen a time when so many things you do are controlled by the federal government? I was talking to a gentleman yesterday about his car. He had a tire pressure monitor (TPMS) light on because the sensor itself was bad. He didn’t want to spend the money to fix the problem and voiced this question. He wanted to know why the vehicles were required to have the TPMS systems. I informed him it was because of federal regulations and he wanted to know what business it was of the federal government if his car had the system or not. He went on to mention numerous items that the federal government requires, but in reality were none of their business.
The sentiment expressed by this gentleman is the same sentiment I see in action all across the area where I live and work. There is a battle going on that we may or may not be aware of. Most of us want nothing to do with the federal government. We desire to go back to the foundations laid down by the Founding Fathers. The federal government is supposed to be small and not so strong. They are supposed to be focused on national defense and other enumerated powers. Instead, we find them creeping into every aspect of our daily lives. We are told what safety systems our vehicles will have, what kind of light bulbs our houses will have, what kind of food we should eat, etc. This list could go on for a few paragraphs.
Those few more paragraphs can be found at the original. As for me, I found the illustration pretty profound, because it summarizes modern liberalism perfectly. Of course, it’s all for our own good, don’t you know?
Jeff Goldstein noted that one of the Framers anticipated the possibility of a government shutdown:
The House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.
Much more at the link. But it seems that our 4th President, one much wiser than our 44th, was very much a supporter of the concept that Parliament had the power to stop the excesses of the King by denying him the revenues to act beyond their consent. It’s a slightly different situation with the shutdown and the debt ceiling here, but the concept is the same.
Feminism’s ultimate lie is that you have to be like man to be more like a woman. I fail to understand how this is even possible. I thought we were supposed to still be women? We have certainly made great strides in our liberation. We have control of our bodies (except Sandra Fluke, who needs the patriarchal, male dominated government to stay out of her uterus, but pay for her birth control), we hold political office (although that even leads me to believe that some women should have stayed home), we run corporations, we serve and lead in the military (but in order to be fair, evidently we are going to have to sign up for the draft and be subjected to serving in the Infantry).
But the most important thing we women do is teach our sons how to interact with the women in their lives, and what is expected of them by us. The next most important thing we do is teach the young women in our lives the importance of men in their own lives and how to expect to be treated by them.
But an ideology that hates and marginalizes men can’t be reasonably expected to teach them about the importance and necessity of men, and an ideology that fails to recognize the inherent differences between men and women, despite the massive amount of evidence in this regard, is doomed to failure. In today’s society, the constant marginalization of men has created a backlash, among both men and women about our roles.
What happened to the Democrat Party? When and how did the psychological impulses of radical alienation seize control of a large segment of our society, infusing them with the anti-religious, anti-family, anti-capitalist, anti-American spirit that dominates the souls of Democrats today?
More at the link. But it wasn’t so very long ago that we had a Democratic Party which represented the working man rather than the non-working welfare leech, that represented freedom and individual liberty and opposed communism, and which said that all men are created equal, and ought to be treated equally by their government, regardless of the color of their skin. It was a Democratic Party of which America could be proud. I don’t know where that Democratic Party went, but it sure isn’t around here anymore.
Today, continuing your education is a smart choice. Many people are returning to school to get an advanced degree, such as a Master’s in Public Administration. This degree is an excellent choice for people who already have their Bachelor’s degree in economics, anthropology, law, sociology, or political science. Getting a masters of public administration degree can help someone boost their chances of getting a promotion at work, and it can also open new doors for different job positions.
Today, many schools offer a Master’s degree in Public Administration. Some schools will even offer this degree program through online learning. This makes it easier for someone to go back to school if they have a job or a family. It is also an excellent option for people who have chronic health issues. Online learning can be done completely from home, and there is no travel required. Most schools offer the same exact classes for their online degrees as they do for their on-campus programs.
Most degree programs in public administration require a total of 32 to 68 credits be completed. This means programs typically take 12 to 36 months, depending on the course load a student takes at a time. In order to graduate, you may need to have a certain GPA. It typically needs to be 3.5 or higher. Before you apply for the program, get together all required documents. This will ensure you can apply as quickly as possible and start immediately after acceptance into a program.
Enrolling in an online program is no different from enrolling in a traditional on-campus program. To apply for acceptance to a continuing education school, you will need to fill out a university application. Other documents will be required as well. These could include the scores from a GRE, professional letters of recommendation, a personal essay, and possibly a career and academic resume. Sending all these documents at the same time makes it easier for the university to process your information.
Receiving a Master’s degree is not just helpful for a career, but it is also a great personal achievement for an individual. A good school will have plenty of resources to help a student achieve this worthwhile goal. This could be in the form of academic advisors, career services, and even tutoring. A student should feel free to use these resources at any time during their degree program.
I think this explains well BO mentality of being a Bully, being detached, pictures with his nose in the air, his giving his opponents the finger while appearing to be in thought, his petty attitude and all the other immature ways he acts. I think his maturity level is stuck in his teens. He acts like the sandlot bully kicking sand in people’s faces and taking his toys home. Is he close to being unhinged??????
Is Obama locked in a victim mentality? By Dr. Keith Ablow
Published October 10, 2013
President Obama’s rhetoric is finally coming closer to what appears to be his psychological truth: Because America victimized him and countless millions of others, any person or party or movement that opposes his views and does not yield to him is not just his adversary, but abusive, predatory and even threatening.
Again and again, President Obama has described members of Congress who insist on fiscal responsibility as having taken “hostages,” “demanding a ransom,” using “extortion,” and threatening to “blow up” the government.
On Tuesday, in fact, the president used these exact words when speaking to the press, “What you haven’t seen before, I think from the vantage point of a lot of world leaders, is the notion that one party in Congress might blow the whole thing up if they don’t get their way,” he said. Later he added, “you do not hold people hostage or engage in ransom taking to get 100 percent of your way.”
It is exceedingly difficult to come to terms with a person who sees you as his oppressor, his kidnapper, and someone terrorizing him who might well destroy him. You aren’t likely to consider whether your assailant and jailer and would-be killer has a few good ideas, after all.
Seeing Barack Obama as someone who has a victim mentality would explain a lot. That mentality relies on believing one has been harmed, that one was not responsible for the injuries that occurred, that one could not have prevented what happened and that the person’s suffering makes that person morally right and deserving of sympathy.
WASHINGTON—House Republicans on Thursday plan to unveil a six-week increase to the nation’s borrowing limit that doesn’t include additional policy conditions, in a potential major breakthrough in the deadlock that resulted in a partial government shutdown and threatens the country’s ability to borrow.
The measure appears to deal with just one of two major components of the spending standoff. It doesn’t reopen the government, which has been partially closed for 10 days, possibly leaving that question to additional deliberations between lawmakers and the White House over a broader debate about government spending.
A White House official suggested Republicans needed to do more to break the impasse. “Once Republicans in Congress act to remove the threat of default and end this harmful government shutdown, the president will be willing to negotiate on a broader budget agreement,” the official said in a statement.
The official also said the administration prefers a longer-term debt-ceiling increase to the six-week version House Republicans are considering. “It is better for economic certainty for Congress to take the threat of default off the table for as long as possible,” the official said.
More at the link. But note how the Administration has said that the Republicans need to give up even more. The Republicans showed a willingness to compromise, and the Democrats immediately saw it for what it was: a sign of weakness. Their response wasn’t, OK, let’s get together and hammer this out, but to stand firm.
At some point, the Democrats will throw a face-saving bone to John Boehner, and it will all be over; the Speaker will call it a great compromise, in our national interest, while the Democrats will laugh at him as they celebrate their virtually complete victory.