Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !

If ISIS Beheaded A Golf Club Obama Would Bomb Their Ass Into Oblivion


Unemployed by ObamaCare – IT CONTINUES TO GET WORSE

Three new Fed surveys highlight damage to the labor market.
Most of the political class seems to have decided that ObamaCare is working well enough, the opposition is fading, and the subsidies and regulation are settling in as the latest wing of the entitlement state. This flight from reality can’t last forever, especially as the evidence continues to pile up that the law is harming the labor market.
Obama care
On Thursday the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia reported the results of a special business survey on the Affordable Care Act and its influence on employment, compensation and benefits. Liberals claim ObamaCare is of little consequence to jobs, but the Philly Fed went to the source and asked employers qualitative questions about how they are responding in practice.

The bank reports that 78.8% of businesses in the district have made no change to the number of workers they employ as the specific result of ObamaCare and 3% are hiring more. More troubling, 18.2% are cutting jobs and employees. Some 18% shifted the composition of their workforce to a higher proportion of part-time labor. And 88.2% of the roughly half of businesses that modified their health plans as a result of ObamaCare passed along the costs through increasing the employee contribution to premiums, an effective cut in wages.

Those results are consistent with a New York Fed survey, also out this week, that asked “How, if at all, are you changing (or have you changed) any of the following because of the effects that the ACA is having on your business?” For “number of workers you employ,” 21% of Empire State manufacturers and 16.9% of service firms answered “reducing.”

To complete the triptych, an Atlanta Fed poll earlier this month found that 34% of businesses planned to hire more part-time workers than in the past, mostly because of a rise in the relative costs of their full-time colleagues. ObamaCare may be contributing to that surge to the extent the law’s insurance mandates and taxes increase spending on fringe benefits for people who work more than 30 hours.

Liberals will dismiss this as merely anecdotal or of minor impact, but it makes sense that ObamaCare’s labor effects would be concentrated in some industries with relatively low-wage or marginal workers. The data points also help explain why the number of people employed part-time surged by 12% during the recession but the rate hasn’t fallen even as the economy has improved. Or why labor force participation is the lowest since the late 1970s.

Chief White House economist Jason Furman put out a report in July that attempted to explain this collapse in the share of Americans working. He attributed about half the decline to an aging population and a sixth to the conventional expected result of the downturn. But he simply threw up his hands and assigned a third of the responsibility to an “unexplained” category.

Our view is that Mr. Furman’s gnomes were wrong to gloss over government-fueled labor distortions like ObamaCare. People are responding at least in part to the incentives to work fewer hours or not at all, as the research of University of Chicago economist Casey Mulligan on marginal tax rates has shown. But there are also simply fewer jobs available that would have been created in the past, as the Fed surveys show.

Slow growth is the great tragedy of the Obama Presidency, and maybe these findings will eventually get past the liberal Iron Dome of only positive thoughts.

$80 billion secret Democrat spending program

Bloomberg News Food Obama
Published: August 22, 2014

Imagine a government program that has exploded in size, is the subject of bitter partisan haggling and spends almost $80 billion a year in secret.

No, not the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency or the Department of Homeland Security, which all spend less (as far as anyone call tell). The program in question is food stamps, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which now is used by one in six Americans.

But after the Department of Agriculture lost a court case in January, in which it opposed telling the public which businesses get all that money, the government is reconsidering: This month it said it would think about revealing how much money individual retailers receive. The department is accepting public comments on the proposal. If the past is any indication, big-box retailers, supermarkets and convenience stores will oppose it.

Let’s hope the department ignores them, if only to make good on the principle that taxpayers deserve to know how their money is spent. Nor is there sound legal precedent for withholding food-stamp spending data. Other social programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, provide a bounty of data on how much specific vendors receive in government payments and are releasing more all the time.

What might the food-stamp information tell us? At a minimum, we would get confirmation that they make up a large part of the sales of some of the country’s biggest retailers, such as Wal-Mart Stores. Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest grocer, has already acknowledged the importance of food stamps in its latest annual report. It warned that if the program ever experienced large spending cuts — as House Republicans unsuccessfully demanded during much of the past two years — its results could be hurt. Wal-Mart had about $279 billion in U.S. sales last year, about half from groceries.

We might also get some insight into where and how fraud occurs in the food-stamp program. That was one rationale in the court ruling, which noted that “Congress has clearly indicated its intent to involve the public in counteracting fraud perpetrated by retailers participating in the program.” Although fraud is estimated by the Government Accountability Office at about 1 percent, that’s as much as $800 million a year.

If the data were public, watchdogs and the news media could ferret out retailers that do an inordinate amount of food-stamp business, perhaps because they permit misuse of the benefits. This was one of the reasons that the USDA ended up in court in the first place: A newspaper in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, the Argus Leader, filed a Freedom of Information Act request as part of an investigation into claims that beneficiaries received cash from retailers instead of food.

A number of food activists think the Agriculture Department should go further and disclose what products are purchased. The department shouldn’t hesitate to do so. Food stamps can be used to buy almost anything, with the exception of tobacco and alcohol and a short list of nonfood goods such as pet food, soap, household supplies and some prepared foods. That leaves the entire universe of junk food, which is responsible in large measure for the U.S. obesity epidemic. Obtaining product information might help public-health officials persuade lawmakers to adopt reasonable prohibitions on food-stamp use; a parallel nutrition program known as Women, Infants and Children already bars almost all heavily processed foods.

Any complaints by the USDA that imposing limits would be too complicated have to be viewed skeptically. Food stamps are stamps in name only: Beneficiaries make purchases with a card much like that used at an automated teller machine. The cards could be programmed to help the USDA glean valuable data on what recipients are buying. With that, the government could develop a “do-not-sell” list that retailers could incorporate into the product codes that are scanned at the point of sale.

This might even pay dividends:

Along with ensuring that beneficiaries have healthier diets, it might steal some of the rhetorical heat from those who think too many people on food stamps are living high on the taxpayer’s dime.

Defense secretary: ISIS threat ‘beyond anything we’ve seen’

hagel_082114ck Hagel
By Kristina Wong – 08/21/14 05:56 PM EDT
The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is beyond “just a terrorist group” and poses a greater threat than Al Qaeda, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Thursday.

“This is beyond anything that we’ve seen,” he said during a briefing on Thursday afternoon about the Sunni militant group that has taken over territory in Iraq and Syria and earlier this week beheaded American journalist James Foley.

“ISIL is as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen,” Hagel said. “They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded.”

“So we must prepare for everything. And the only way you do that is that you take a cold, steely, hard look at it…and get ready,” he said.
Hagel’s remarks come months after Obama dismissed ISIS, calling the group “JV”.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it was possible to “contain” ISIS, but “not in perpetuity.”

“This is an organization that has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision and which will eventually have to be defeated,” said Dempsey, who spoke alongside Hagel.

Dempsey said for ISIS to be defeated, they would have to be addressed in Syria, possibly in part by airstrikes.

“And that will come when we have a coalition in the region that takes on the task of defeating ISIS over time. ISIS will only truly be defeated when it’s rejected by the 20 million disenfranchised Sunni that happen to reside between Damascus and Baghdad,” he said.

“It requires a variety of instruments, only one small part of which is airstrikes. I’m not predicting those will occur in Syria, at least not by the United States of America. But it requires the application of all of the tools of national power — diplomatic, economic, information, military,” he said.

Hagel also pushed back against the notion that there was any “mission creep” in Iraq.

Since ISIS’s takeover of Mosul in June, the president has incrementally increased the U.S. troop presence in Iraq, from several hundred to more than 800.

In addition, the U.S. troop mission in Iraq has gone from protecting U.S. personnel and property in Baghdad, to assessing the security situation and Iraqi forces, to protecting U.S. personnel and property in Erbil, to airdropping humanitarian supplies to tens of thousands of Iraqis stranded on a mountain, to, most recently, assisting Iraqi forces in protecting “critical infrastructure.”

“The president has been very clear on mission creep. And he’s made it very clear that he will not allow that. This is why he’s been very clear on what our mission is. We comply with the War Powers Act and informed Congress on how many people we have,” he said.

So far, the U.S. has delivered 636 bundles of food, water and medical supplies, are conducting more than 60 intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance sorties per day, and have conducted 89 targeted airstrikes in northern Iraq.

Hagel also discussed why the administration disclosed a failed attempt to rescue Foley and an unspecified number of other American hostages held in Syria earlier this summer.

The disclosure came a day after Foley’s beheading, and fueled speculation among Republican lawmakers that the administration was attempting to improve its image in the wake of Foley’s death and an inability to recover him.

“There were a number of news outlets that were aware of the action, of the raid. And it was a decision made by the administration, which we concurred with, to address the mission,” Hagel said.

“Also, the administration had informed the families of the hostages of this effort. So it was the decision and it was unanimous that we should, in fact, acknowledge this effort without going into any of the specifics of it, which we, as you know, will not,” he said.

“The mission was executed flawlessly after a significant period of preparation and planning and rehearsal. And the — it turned out that the hostages were no longer at that location,” said Dempsey.

Hagel said the failure of the operation was not an “intelligence failure.”

“Intelligence doesn’t come wrapped in a package with a bow,” he said. “It is a mosaic of many pictures, of many factors.”

Read more:
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Kurds Send All-Female Soldiers To Fight ISIS, The Reason Why is Hilarious

kurds-300x180 Kurdish women are bad-ass. You’ll never guess why they’re the ones on the frontline’s against ISIS. Check this out…

The Kurds have adopted a rather unique strategy for not only eliminating their targets, but also humiliating them along the way.
According to WZ, Kurds are deploying whole units comprised of female fighters to the front line, which has boosted their recruitment numbers, and given them a psychological edge over ISIS. One female fighter explained why the Kurds have decided to put women in the thick of the battle, and it’s sure to make radical Islamists go crazy.
“The jihadists don’t like fighting women, because if they’re killed by a female, they think they won’t go to heaven.”
Awesome. The Kurds have an understanding of what it will take to stop ISIS, and it isn’t peace talks or goodwill offerings. It’s bombs, bullets, and brute force.


Homeland Security ‘Partnered With’ UN Migration Organization, Triggered Border Crisis

Even the mainstream media can no longer ignore US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) refusal to follow or enforce federal law.

ICE and US Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) have become possibly the world’s largest human trafficking organization, using buses and commercial airlines to openly transport illegal aliens all over the United States; even as far away as Alaska, Hawaii, and the Virgin Islands.
As far back as 2011, independent media and watchdog groups were issuing warnings about the reckless dereliction of duty by ICE that would result in a major crisis.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) highlighted the Morton Memos, issued by ICE Director John Morton, beginning in March 2011. These memos ordered changes in policy ensuring that ICE and CBP would be unable to perform according to their mandates.
In the October-November 2011 issue of Migration Policy Practice, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) announced that in March, it had ‘partnered’ with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
An IOM/DHS workshop, held around the same time as the first ‘Morton Memo’, planned how to best facilitate a mass migration of illegal immigrants into the United States, or as the IOM summarized it:
“examined the balance between the need for agile and compassionate responses by immigration systems and the need to preserve the integrity of those systems. Among the key themes raised there were the importance of preparedness and pre-established immigration policies that can be quickly implemented as soon as an emergency occurs; the establishment of mechanisms for quickly identifying individuals in need of international protection; and the critical value of coordination for both the immediate and longer term migration response.”
On July 18, 2014, the IOM posted this article on their website, clearly claiming credit for facilitating the crisis:
IOM Stresses Need to Increase Assistance to Unaccompanied Children Traveling to the United States
Excerpt – “The ability of transit countries to deal with the situation is strained, and once in the U.S., the government’s capacity to properly receive and assist child migrants is equally stretched.
IOM, through its presence in all countries in the region, has considerable experience addressing these challenges. Through information campaigns, IOM warns parents of the dangers of sending their children north with smugglers. IOM also works with migrant children and families in shelters in transit countries and when returning home.” (emphasis mine)
DHS and IOM didn’t discuss maintaining border integrity or preventing illegal immigration because the IOM is a UN agency with the singular mission of facilitating ‘migration’ with no regard for national sovereignty.
Since this ‘partnership’ was unaccompanied by press releases, it passed unnoticed by the media and the American People. So, in December of 2011, when Government Security News filed a report stating that DHS Secretary Napolitano had “directed ICE to develop a national-level mass migration plan”, only a few independent media outlets even bothered mentioning it.
That announcement would be echoed in January 2014, when ICE posted a request on for Planning, Briefing, and Reporting Anlaysis for Emergency Response and Mass Migration Support only months before the historic influx of illegal immigrants into Texas.
The requests included:
“Assist in coordination and collaboration with internal and external stakeholders to facilitate a “Whole Community” approach to comprehensive emergency preparedness facilitating the alignment of leadership guidance, organizational requirements, and equities.”
“Provide support for program/project management, operations, coordination, planning, and policy support regarding all-hazard emergency/crisis management, preparedness, continuity of operations, and enterprise resilience before, during and after natural/man made and or technological incidents or events.”
The request was posted on January 21st, 2014 with a response date of February 14th.

In hindsight, the posting contained some very ominous indicators disguised by it’s mundane language. For one, the limited response time certainly gives the request a sense of urgency.
Keywords like ‘preparedness’ and ‘all-hazard emergency/crisis’ are strikingly similar to our news headlines now as we enter the third month of the officially recognized Border Crisis.
Support was sought for ‘enterprise resilience’ bringing to mind widespread looting or even economic collapse “before, during and after natural/man made and or technological incidents or events”
Eerily, it was these three elements that created the Border Crisis.
Reports of numerous pandemic-causing diseases have not slowed the regime’s efforts to accommodate anyone willing to violate our border. Central and South American newspapers have, for months, reported that ‘children’ and families will not be turned away, but instead will be eligible to vote and receive welfare. Once again, a statistically unlikely computer glitch has conveniently provided the regime with a form of plausible deniability, just like with Obamacare.
Over the past year, as independent journalists monitored the FedBizOpps site to keep track of the record stockpiling of ammunition and other suspicious acquisitions by the Federal Government, several requests by FEMA in August 2013 raised red flags, signaling the government’s preparation for some unknown, imminent emergency.
Requests from FEMA were put out for an indefinite supply of freeze-dried food, bottled water for up to four years, cutlery kits, beverage dispensers “capable of holding hot or cold beverages,” paper towel dispensers, assorted tea bags, hot chocolate mix, drink/punch mix, lemonade mix, and assorted fruit juice in bottles.
That same month a request was made for emergency shelters, and shelter cleaning kits. Then, in February 2014, came a request for 150 manufactured homes per week that could be deployed to any state in the country, with the potential to become permanent housing.
Additional orders for Bulk Hygiene Kits, Waste Removal Services, and “Evacuation Planning and Operational Support for Motor Coaches” left little room for speculation. The government seemed to know for certain that something terrible was coming.
(full story here)
These preparations finally made sense this summer when an unprecedented number of illegal immigrants started flooding across the border and the Federal Government gave them refuge instead of turning them back.
Why would the US Government partner with the United Nations in order to create an immigration emergency that’s predicted to cause an ‘overwhelming public health crisis’, and may possibly be the last nail in the coffin for our domestic economy?
The real question is, given the multi-billion dollar surveillance apparatus that we funded after 9/11 (largely to prevent people from sneaking over our border) and with the omniscience of the NSA at it’s disposal; how could the Border Crisis happen if the Federal Government wasn’t allowing it?


Please donate any amount you can to help us try to recover legal costs in defending liberty and the right of free speech !