By Josh Fieldman
Former Democratic congressman Dennis Kucinich joined Hannity guest host Tucker Carlson on Friday night to say that if President Obama goes around Congress to take unilateral military action on Syria, he risks impeachment for going against the Constitution. Carlson told Kucinich he’s always considered him “one of the more honest liberals anywhere,” asking him about a tweet he sent out suggesting Obama risks impeachment if Congress is not given the opportunity to vote on Syrian intervention.
Kucinich explained “there is no imminent or actual threat” from Syria, and said that in spite of Obama talking about what he thinks and what decision he wants to make, the decision needs to be decided by the elected representatives of the people. And if not, well, that could easily be an impeachable offense.
Maybe our leaders here should watch this basic documentary to see the mess they are forcing the US into, a centuries old civil war among to sects that can’t seem to live peacefully next to each other for very long. The only way to deal with this is diplomatically, and sending “a shot across the bow” according to our President, is not diplomacy.
“If we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, ‘Stop doing this,’ this can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term,” he told “PBS Newshour” in a televised interview.
read the rest @ Obama makes case for Syria strike, British house votes no
By Todd Konrad
Speaking before a group of State Department workers last week, Secretary of State John Kerry gave voice to the frustration authoritarians experience because of the easy access to information on the internet. Secretary Kerry told the audience that the world had been “complicated” by “… this little thing called the internet and the ability of people everywhere to communicate instantaneously and to have more information coming at them in one day than most people can process in months or a year.”
This pesky internet, Kerry says, “makes it much harder to govern, makes it much harder to organize people, much harder to find the common interest.” This is a great source of aggravation for our political masters, who, for nearly all of the 20th century, were able to limit and control the information available to their subjects. This is why government efforts to control the internet are on the rise and will continue to increase in intensity and frequency; an informed public is just too darned hard to “organize” and to dictate a “common interest” to.
Authoritarians like Kerry don’t even realize how revealing such comments are. They actually believe in their personal infallibility and the inherent goodness of the monstrous governmental beast they have created in Washington and state capitols across the country. They know with absolute certitude that if they only had, as Congressman Barney Frank asked for in 2010, “more authority and more ability,” they could fix everything.
By Dana Hughes
Obama administration officials have rejected comparisons between the buildup to the 2003 Iraq war and the military strikes in Syria the administration is currently contemplating.
“What we saw in that circumstance was an administration that was searching high and low to produce evidence to justify a military invasion, an open-ended military invasion of another country, with the final goal being regime change,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest said of Iraq on Wednesday.
On Syria, Earnest told reporters President Obama “has been very clear that he is not contemplating an open-ended military action,” and again drew a distinction between the two scenarios.
“What we’re talking about here is something that’s very discrete and limited,” said Earnest.
Pay close attention to how the White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest parses his statements. He basically says that Syria is different from Iraq because they are “not contemplating an open-ended military action” but fails to also declare that its different than Iraq because they are not “searching high and low to produce evidence to justify a military invasion”. You really have to read between the lines with this administration.
By Tim Kane
If we are to restore economic sobriety and intergenerational fairness to the budget, a more binding solution on how Congress makes those budgets may be needed. I believe a 28th Amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget is the only way to control the red ink. While this idea may appear radical, it was initially proposed over 30 years ago, when in 1982 some version of balanced-budget legislation passed one but not both chambers of Congress. The 28th amendment should be a constraint should be on expenditures only. Congress shall spend no more in the current year than it collected, on average, over a previous set of years. Such a constraint would limit overspending in years of rapid growth, a brake that is currently nonexistent.
Read the Rest @ A simple argument for a balanced budget amendment
A balanced budget amendment is vital. Not convinced? Check out Rand Paul’s take on the subject near the halfway point of this video. Despite a hostile journalist it should be easy for most to see the logic behind his argument.
By Thomas Sowell
Many years ago, I was a member of a committee that was recommending to whom grant money should be awarded. Since I knew one of the applicants, I asked if this meant that I should recuse myself from voting on his application. “No,” the chairman said. “I know him too — and he is one of the truly great phonies of our time.” The man was indeed a very talented phony. He could convince almost anybody of almost anything — provided that they were not already knowledgeable about the subject.
… Like other truly talented phonies, Barack Obama concentrates his skills on the effect of his words on other people — most of whom do not have the time to become knowledgeable about the things he is talking about. Whether what he says bears any relationship to the facts is politically irrelevant. A talented con man, or a slick politician, does not waste his time trying to convince knowledgeable skeptics. His job is to keep the true believers believing. He is not going to convince the others anyway.
By Megan McArdle
Obviously at some level, this is a true but trivial insight: Wal-Mart could pay a cent more an hour without going out of business. But is it true in the way that it’s meant — that Wal-Mart could increase its wages by 50 percent and still prosper?
I wrote about this last spring in regard to Wal-Mart and Costco. Upper-middle-class people who live in urban areas — which is to say, the sort of people who tend to write about the wage differential between the two stores — tend to think of them as close substitutes, because they’re both giant stores where you occasionally go to buy something more cheaply than you can in a neighborhood grocery or hardware store. However, for most of Wal-Mart’s customer base, that’s where the resemblance ends. Costco really is a store where affluent, high-socioeconomic status households occasionally buy huge quantities of goods on the cheap: That’s Costco’s business strategy (which is why its stores are pretty much found in affluent near-in suburbs). Wal-Mart, however, is mostly a store where low-income people do their everyday shopping.
As it happens, that matters a lot. I produced the following graphic to sum up the differences that these two strategies produce…
Read the Rest @ Why Wal-Mart Will Never Pay Like Costco – Bloomberg.
By Avik Roy
A few weeks ago, I discussed the fact that labor unions have been increasingly vocal about their objections to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare will “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class,” wrote three labor leaders in July. Now, according to a report from InsideHealthPolicy, the Obama administration is considering offering insurance subsidies—intended for the uninsured—to labor union members who already have employer-sponsored coverage.
Unions seek additional subsidies for multi-employer plans
The issue at hand is the way Obamacare affects multi-employer health plans, also known as Taft-Hartley plans. These plans consist of employer-sponsored health insurance that is arranged between a labor union in a particular industry, such as restaurants, and small employers in that sector. Approximately 20 million workers in the United States are covered under such arrangements, including 800,000 of the 1.3 million members of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, whose leader, Joseph Hansen, signed the letter I described above.
Workers with employer-sponsored coverage don’t qualify for subsidized coverage on Obamacare’s insurance exchanges. Those subsidies are designed for low-income people who aren’t offered coverage from the employers, and have to shop for insurance on their own. But the labor union leaders want those subsidies to also apply to their members with employer-sponsored coverage, even though they already get those benefits tax-free due to the employer tax exclusion for health insurance.
It’s really hard to grasp how so many people cannot see why the Affordable Care Act is such a scam. What kind of well designed “affordable” program requires handing out tax payer funded subsidies from one group to another in order to make it “affordable”. Now labor unions who want in on the subsidies too? Its simply wealth redistribution. Maybe now the public will realize what defund Obamacare is all about.
By Caroline Humer
(Reuters) – Aetna Inc has decided not to sell insurance on New York’s individual health insurance exchange, which is being created under President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform law, the fifth state where it has reversed course in recent weeks.
The third-largest U.S. health insurer has said it is seeking to limit its exposure to the risks of providing health plans to America’s uninsured, but did not give details about its decision to pull out of specific markets.
“We believe it is critical that our plans not only be competitive, but also financially viable, in order to meet the long-term needs of the exchanges in which we choose to participate. On New York, as a result of our analysis, we reluctantly came to the conclusion to withdraw,” Aetna spokeswoman Cynthia Michener said.
Read the Rest @ Aetna pulls out of another Obamacare health exchange
I posted this news weeks ago, glad to see this is finally being spread around in a video. Luckily, Glenn Beck does a better job of going viral. Here’s the original article…
Putin says West arming Syrian rebels who eat human flesh | Reuters
“Are these the people you want to support? Are they the ones you want to supply with weapons? Then this probably has little relation to the humanitarian values preached in Europe for hundreds of years.”
The incident Putin referred to was most likely that of a rebel commander filmed last month cutting into the torso of a dead soldier and biting into a piece of one of his organs.
Read the Rest @ Putin says West arming Syrian rebels who eat human flesh | Reuters.
By Stephen Braun
WASHINGTON (AP) — The National Security Agency on Thursday disputed a published report that secret intelligence budget files provided by agency leaker Edward Snowden show that the surveillance agency warned in 2012 that it planned to investigate up to 4,000 cases of possible internal security breaches.
The Washington Post, citing documents it said were provided by Snowden, said the NSA’s concerns about insider threats were aimed at “anomalous behavior” of agency employees with access to top secret data. The account cited NSA concerns about “trusted insiders who seek to exploit their authorized access to sensitive information to harm U.S. interests.”
The NSA concerns were outlined in top-secret documents provided to the Senate and House intelligence committees in February 2012, well before Snowden emerged this summer as the sole source of massive new disclosures about the agency’s surveillance operations. The Post released only 17 pages of the entire 178-page budget document, along with additional charts and graphs, citing conversations with Obama administration officials who voiced alarms about disclosures that could compromise intelligence sources and methods.
Read the Rest @ Dispute over report about secret NSA budget
When FDR first created the minimum wage in 1938, it was 25 cents. Adjusted for inflation, that would be worth $4.07 today.
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: This is a complete humiliation for the Obama administration. Forget about the merits of what Obama wants to do, which I think it’s a bad idea, but let’s assume it’s a good idea. This involves the elementary conduct of international diplomacy, trying to get some allies aboard so you don’t act unilaterally.
So who’s the main ally in the world who has been with us in every trench for the last 100 years? The British. And now the British have voted against us. The other supposed ally was the French, President Hollande, and now he’s saying we got to wait for the report from the UN inspectors which will be early next week. So here is Obama and the Democrats, who railed against the Bush administration for its supposedly unilateral invasion of Iraq where we had 48 allies for a mission that involved boots on the ground — a real invasion, a real war. And here’s Obama trying to gather an ally or two for a pinprick, and he gets nothing.
This is just on the basis of thinking ahead, let’s say, a week ahead. When they leaked all this information about exactly what we’re going to hit, where we’re going to hit it, what the reasons are and the objectives are’ and we’re going to have a coalition of the willing, did nobody actually think to check with the allies? I mean, these are guys who couldn’t organize a three car funeral.