Thursday, July 11, 2013

Racism Is Not The Answer

These are pictures of racists and race baiters


Al Sharpton
Jesse Jackson
Ku Klux Klan
  


  To me it does not matter what one's  political affiliation is whether you are a democrat, 
a republican, independent or even a tea party member. These three photos have one thing in common
and that is the disgusting hatred of anyone who does not see things their way and God forbid someone doesn't see things their way.
 Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton both socialist left wing ideologues want to blame all the world's problems on white people and the KKK want to blame black people.
 Jackson and Sharpton who over and over again use the term African American to push their crap filled political agenda thus using hatred. No difference for the KKK who hide cowardly behind these white bed sheets pushing their venomous hatred for Jewish people along with the hatred for other races of people other than their own.
 I am putting up this post on my blog to show that we as a nation have put up with the issue of race long enough. We are a better country than this WAKE UP AMERICA!
 Please WAKE THE HECK UP!





 

I want to issue a challenge to all my fellow AMERICANS let us be united not divided as a nation

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Same Old Same Old In Massachusetts


   Latest EBT scandal: Hoarding handouts... including $12,088 in 1 food stamp account

By: Chris Cassidy, Matt Stout

 Nearly 1,800 welfare recipients are carrying taxpayer-funded food stamp balances on their EBT cards in excess of $1,500 — with one account topping $12,000 — the latest twist in a state welfare scandal that now has a former Massachusetts inspector general 
 calling for a sweeping probe.A Herald review of a seven-month tally of EBT accounts also showed 37 welfare recipients have separate cash balances in excess of $1,500 — with one of more than $4,600. Unlike food stamps, which are federally funded, these payments are paid for by state taxpayers.“There should be an investigation by the 
administration and an investigation by all of the law enforcement agencies — including the IG’s office — to look at the question of integrity with the income reporting of people on welfare who 
receive food stamps,” former Inspector General Gregory Sullivan, now of the Pioneer Institute, told the Herald. “Massachusetts, in my view, has a very poor system.”
 The Herald review comes 
after state Rep. Shaunna O’Connell paid $800 to pry the welfare data on sky-high benefit balances from the state Department of Transitional Assistance after a store owner in Pittsfield sent her a receipt showing a customer’s alarming $7,000 EBT balance.Among the shocking totals in the DTA data:• Of the state’s 550,000 food stamp,
 or SNAP, recipients, 1,794 have balances of more than $1,500, and another 45 are carrying more than $5,000.• One balance in March hit $12,088, the highest from any of the seven months of data the Herald reviewed.• For those receiving state taxpayer-funded cash assistance, one EBT cardholder had a $4,622 balance, and another $4,320.On average, state households receive $230 a month in food stamps and $450 in cash assistance, meaning some of these EBT cardholders are going months, even years, without using their accounts.“It’s even worse than I thought it was going to be, what we’ve seen at this point,” O’Connell said, adding she needs more time to dig deeper into the numbers. “Once again, this is the tip of the 
iceberg.”Less than two hours after 
delivering the data to 
O’Connell’s office, officials at the Department of Transitional 
Assistance announced new rules to curb high balances. However, those officials denied the timing of the new initiatives was meant to blunt outrage over these 
bloated EBT balances.For those receiving cash assistance from the state, officials will now close EBT accounts exceeding a $2,500 balance and expunge all accounts not used for 90 days. Officials said they also will contact all those with more than $1,500 on EBT cards, asking them to call DTA to explain their cash kitty.As a federally administered program, there is no limit to how high SNAP accounts can soar. But DTA officials plan to deactivate any account not used after six months and then erase the balances after 12 months of no use. When balances reach $5,000, only then will caseworkers start a case review.DTA Commissioner Stacey Monahan refused a Herald 
request for an interview last night but said in a statement that high balances are “inconsistent with the department’s goal of helping vulnerable individuals meet their most basic and immediate needs, and that’s why we are taking this action.”O’Connell scoffed at the welfare agency’s new rules, calling them “one sorry excuse” for 
reform.“If you’re letting people accumulate thousands of dollars,” she said, “that flies in the face of any kind of genuine concern about fraud and any actual real reform.”

Joe Dwinell contributed 
to this report

Commentary

As the old saying goes the More things change the more they stay the same

Monday, July 8, 2013

Massachusetts Republicans Are DOOMED!


 

Massachusetts



MassLive.com




               Massachusetts Republicans regroup after defeat in U.S. Senate special election



Scott Brown & Gabriel Gomez
Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Gabriel Gomez, left, is seen across from former Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown in this composite of Associated Press file photos. Gomez had hoped to achieve in 2013 the same feat Brown pulled off in 2010- defeating a democratic frontrunner in a special U.S. Senate election in liberal-leaning Massachusetts
 
 
  BOSTON - When Democrat Edward Markey defeated Republican Gabriel Gomez in the June 25 special election for U.S. Senate, it was only the latest loss for the Massachusetts GOP, and the string of defeats is leading some Republicans to rethink the party’s strategy.
“A lot of the folks being defensive right now, saying we have to keep doing things the way we’ve done things, are obviously mistaken,” said Paul Moore, a long-time Republican political strategist, pointing out that Republicans have only won one statewide election since 2002.
In past years, Republicans have had some success winning the governor’s seat. There have been three Republican governors elected since the 1990s – William F. Weld, A. Paul Cellucci and Mitt Romney. But, there has been only a single Republican U.S. senator from the Bay State since 1979: Scott Brown, who won a 2010 special election to fill the seat left vacant by the death of U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy but then lost last year to Democrat Elizabeth Warren in a race to hold onto the post.
A Republican has not represented Massachusetts in the U.S. House since 1997.
Several viable Republican candidates have lost in recent election cycles – Gomez, Brown and congressional candidate Richard Tisei in 2012, and gubernatorial nominee Charles Baker in 2010.
There are just four Republicans in the 40-seat state Senate, and 30 Republicans in the 160-person state House. On Beacon Hill, Democrats hold all constitutional offices, and all but one seat on the eight-member Governor's Council.
Part of the dynamic is due to demographics – Democrats outnumber Republicans three-to-one in Massachusetts.
Other experts say, however, problems with organization and its message are at the core of the GOP’s difficulties.
Thomas Whalen, a political historian and associate professor of social science at Boston University, views part of the problem as structural, saying the GOP in Massachusetts has never figured out how to organize at a grassroots level.
“The leadership at the top more or less look out for themselves, but don’t look strategically at the long term for the party and the state,” Whalen said. “The old cliché is Massachusetts Republicans always want senator or Congress but never local water commissioner or dog catcher.”
The losses at the top, Whalen said, then contribute to other candidates’ hesitancy to run. “Because of the recent losses, there might be Republicans who promised they’d sit it out or give it up entirely,” Whalen said. “There’s a loser mentality that might prevent talented people from jumping into the fray.”
Others point to problems with messaging.
Moore said Republicans should learn from the Gomez campaign that it takes more than a candidate with a “nice biography” to win an election. That must be combined, he said, with a strong, topical message – which Gomez’s campaign did not have. “With so many huge, critical issues facing the country, the idea that most of the campaign seemed devoid of a discussion of these things, voters have to scratch their heads and say what planet are you living on?” Moore said.
Moore said the Republican Party needs to back off from talking about social issues like gay marriage and focus instead on areas like the economy.
“If political candidates spent time around strangers’ kitchen tables to listen instead of talking, most people don’t give a rat’s behind about what other people are doing in their bedrooms,” Moore said. “They’re concerned about jobs, the economy, crime, are we going to get into more wars, what about the people still dying in Afghanistan.”
Janet Leombruno, a Republican state committeewoman from Framingham who was active in the Gomez campaign, said part of the challenge is that Republicans disagree on why Gomez lost.
“He lost because he was too liberal or he was too conservative. This is what you’re hearing,” Leombruno said.
Massachusetts Republicans need a better way of getting their message out, rather than letting themselves be defined by the national Republican Party or the Tea Party, Leombruno said. She points out that Brown lost among women after Democrats tied him to two Republican senators who made controversial comments about rape and abortion.
“It’s just frustrating,” Leombruno said. “I saw a lot of it in this race with Gabriel. They tried to define him as just another Republican.”
Leombruno said a candidate in Massachusetts must be moderate to appeal to independents and be successful. Leombruno believes Republicans must stop talking about abortion and gay marriage, and focus on pocketbook issues like college affordability and taxes.
“We have to agree to give up a little something,” she said. “It may not be our perfect candidate but there’s never any one perfect candidate out there.”
Not everyone agrees that moderation is key.
Paul Santaniello, a Republican political activist and Longmeadow selectman, said one problem the GOP faces is that candidates like Gomez act too much like Democrats, and have lost their own vision.
“You try to run in the middle of the street, you tend to get run over,” Santaniello said. “That’s what’s happening to Republican Party.”
Santaniello said he believes it is a mistake for Massachusetts Republicans to distance themselves from Tea Party activists. “Those are the same kind of folks who will stand out for you in the rain or a driving hail storm to hold your sign,” he said.
Despite the recent losses, some Bay State Republicans remain hopeful, looking toward 2014 when there will be races for governor and U.S. senator.
"Gabriel Gomez did extremely well in a lot of different pockets of the commonwealth,'' said state Rep. Todd Smola, R-Warren, and one of only four GOP legislators from Western Massachusetts. "There's a lot of red territory in the state of Massachusetts after that election."
Gomez, in his first statewide election, won large swaths of Bristol, Essex, Hampden, Worcester and Plymouth counties, though he lost key cities such as Brockton, Gloucester, Lowell and Quincy. In Middlesex County, home to almost 23 percent of the state's voters, Gomez won 21 of 54 communities, but was crushed in swing communities such as Lowell and Waltham, which Brown had won in 2010.

Smola said Gomez's victories in certain communities are a good sign for a Republican statewide candidate in 2014 such as Baker or Brown. "Next year will be a good chance for the Republican Party to make some gains," Smola said.

State Rep. George Peterson, R-Grafton, who serves as assistant minority leader in the state House, said the GOP should continue to emphasize the need for more balance on Beacon Hill.
Republicans can win, Peterson said, by emphasizing a need for lower taxes and more reforms in state government. Such a platform could appeal to independents, who might be eager for change next year, he said.

With state spending at record levels and the economy still sluggish, "That's going to be a huge argument for the Republican Party and a very good one for us," Peterson added.

Peterson is among those who expects Baker to be the frontrunner for the party's nominee for governor. He said 2014 could be like 1990 when Weld won the corner office; that year, the Democrat-controlled Legislature raised the income tax to 6.25 percent when the state's economy was in poor shape.

Now, Democrats on Beacon Hill are poised to raise the gas tax by 3 cents a gallon and impose the sales tax on computer design services.

"A lot of people are going to be pretty upset," Peterson said.
 
Commentary

As I said in the title of this post they are DOOMED!

Sunday, July 7, 2013

Liberal ULTRA ULTRA Hypocrisy At It's Finest



                                            University Bans Religious Necklaces

cross
 
 

     There is no better example of political correctness and religious intolerance run amok than the liberal bastion that is our colleges and universities. Long a breeding ground for what was supposed to be “tolerance” and the acceptance of opposing viewpoints, a large number of our academic institutions have become the epitome of the intolerance they supposedly abhor. A perfect example of this intolerance is the recent controversy at Sonoma State University where a female student was asked to remove her cross necklace because a school supervisor thought other students would find it offensive. The resulting controversy, according to news reports, was characterized by “political correctness that got out of hand”.
  The student, Audrey Jarvis, was forced by the University to seek a “religious accommodation” to be able to wear the cross. Rightfully she has asked for an apology from the University.
  According to Ms. Jarvis’s attorney, Hiram Sasser, it’s “amazing in this day of diversity and tolerance on university campuses that a university official would engage in this type of religious discrimination.”
  Mr. Sasser likely means well, but in this case is sorely mistaken.  University campuses have become a bastion of intolerance, specifically in regards to anyone who holds Christian and/or conservative beliefs.  For decades the liberal establishment has been doing their best to indoctrinate university students into their leftist worldview. As a result the push for “equality” and “tolerance” has created an atmosphere where any opposition to the preferred liberal, pro-abortion, anti-religious, pro-gay rights mindset is not tolerated by the establishment whatsoever. The sad fact is the concept of our universities as a model for open debate and multiple viewpoints is an antiquated notion.
  In the Sonoma State example Ms. Jarvis was told that she could not wear her cross necklace because it might “offend others and it might make incoming students feel unwelcome.” This pathetic mindset, not unusual among the liberal elite, is a sad reminder of the point we’ve reached as a country when it comes to political correctness. The idea that an incoming freshman would somehow be offended by a Christian symbol that’s been around for two-thousand years and something they’ve seen numerous times before is indicative of how weak our culture has become in the endless quest never to offend anyone. Of course a gay pride symbol or a pro-abortion sign is as offensive (or more offensive) than a Christian cross. Good luck getting Sonoma State to tell a student to remove a gay pride symbol from anything. In the process of trying not to “offend” other students the university effectively discriminated against a student who has every right to display the symbols of her personal belief system. While Sonoma State moves to dismiss the case as an isolated incident it’s a perfect microcosm into the mindset of a good number of our liberal college professors and academic staff.

Commentary

I never ever want to hear some blovating big mouth on MSNBC, CNN or even the NYT on tolerance diversity and acceptance its all bullshit


 
 
 
 
 

A NYT OPED From July 4,2013


Opinion/Editorial




 
 Normally I would take an oped from this mornings New York Times and the error of their ways but I figured I would look at the one published on our nations birthday to see what they wrote.
 This is the second lead OPED from three days ago "Every Ordinary Fourth" is the title.
 It begins "Here we are in the high seas of summer, rounding the corner called the Fourth of July. Most years, it seems, we barely get a glimpse of it before changing tack and sailing on toward all those months that end in “ber.” It would be nice to anchor here, to stretch the day into a week or a month, to see what the waves wash up and to learn the tides before the current carries us away.Do we, as a nation, eat more hot dogs on July Fourth than any other day of the year? What about potato salad and deviled eggs? Are there still legions of children hand-cranking ice cream, watching the pale gray slurry of rock salt and ice with appalling impatience while the grown-ups stand by recalling their own apprenticeship at the crank? This is a day for the historical re-enactment of Fourth of Julys past, if only the ones we remember from childhood. In a way, that is the point of fireworks in the dark, to recapture a childlike sense of awe and surprise. We watch with our reflexes, vulnerable to the boom and sizzle in the night sky.
   Wow the NYT waxing in a poetic fashion this is a first.
   It continues "There is something self-evident about the Fourth of July. We know its origin and its meaning. Its iconography is straightforward, even if the text behind it — the Declaration — is complex. It retains a simplicity that resembles no other major holiday. It celebrates a vital principle, but it is lacking in rites and ritual. We set aside the day, which seems to include a bit of everything — family, patriotism, parades, and simply doing nothing. Yet you could say its significance can be found in the doings of any ordinary American day — something that’s all too easy to forget until July Fourth comes along as a reminder.
 Here we go it is not complex the Declaration of Independence you make it that way you morons at the NYT editorial board because you all don't understand or give a dam about what it means.
 Again it celebrates a vital principal but it is lacking in rites and ritual because you idiots embrace political liberal/socialism with the far left in this country for so long you dumb asses at the NYT which has nothing whatsoever to do with our nation or it's founding principals and even what our God Blessed founders believed in.

Sunday, June 30, 2013

NYT And Voting Rights


Opinion/Editorial


 
 

  Now the New York Times this morning wants to get involved (poking it's nose) in the rights of voting. Funny I find this amusing since they believe in socialism so much and tout liberalism at every turn.
  This mornings lead OPED is entitled "The Future of Voting Rights" according to their warped view of things. It begins "When five justices of the Supreme Court disabled the Voting Rights Act last Tuesday, they left it to Congress to find a new formula to restore one of the great landmarks of equality and once again protect the nation’s most fundamental democratic right. That is unlikely for the moment given Congressional dysfunction, as the justices certainly knew, but it is hardly impossible in the months and years to come. What is needed now is a new coalition — as loud and as angry as the voices of 1965 — to demand that Republican lawmakers join Democrats in restoring fairness to the election system. Discrimination at the ballot box continues and is growing.
  I would love to see what the NYT interpretation of restoring fairness to the election system would be but I have an idea already.
  It rambles on "It comes in more forms than it did a half-century ago, but it is no less pernicious. Instead of literacy tests, we now have rigid identification requirements. Instead of poll taxes, we now have bans on early voting, cutbacks in the number of urban precincts, and groups that descend on minority districts to comb the registration rolls for spelling errors.
These measures, largely undertaken to reduce Democratic votes in the Obama period, have a direct impact on minority voters in dozens of states. But they also affect the poor of all races, older people, students and legal immigrants, increasing the need for expanded legislation.
  Rigid requirements Yes NYT so we have less voter fraud this is being more than fair.
They can't stay away from the race game.And this ridiculous conspiratorial point from the NYT "These measures, largely undertaken to reduce Democratic votes in the Obama period."
Here is the last part of the whining "Fortunately, the court did not throw out Section 5 of the act, which allows the Justice Department to invalidate discriminatory voting practices, but it got rid of the formula that determined where the department could act. That leaves Congress and the Justice Department several ways to restore the government’s jurisdiction. The department can still use Section 3 of the act to get states or cities back into its jurisdiction, allowing it to judge election changes. To do so, though, it must show clear intent of racial discrimination, which is easy to hide. Congress should revise that section to allow coverage when a state makes a voting change with a disparate racial impact, not just discriminatory intent.       
Section 2 of the act also gives the department or private citizens the right to sue any local or state government for an improper election practice. These kinds of legal actions, though expensive and difficult, are likely to become the principal tool for enforcing voting rights, and the department needs to gear up to fight many more of them.
The day after the court’s decision, in fact, a group of black and Hispanic Texas residents filed a Section 2 lawsuit in Corpus Christi to stop the state’s revived voter ID law. Texas was one of five states that triumphantly used the Supreme Court’s decision to move ahead on ID requirements that had previously been blocked. Congress has the power to make these suits easier to file — one way, for example, would be to allow plaintiffs to show that a practice diminishes minority voting rights, a standard in the now-paralyzed Section 5.
Congress can still make Section 5 usable again with new rules for inclusion. For example, it could require pre-clearance for any state found to have violated a federal election law in the last few years, which would include most of the Southern states along with many others. At a minimum, all states and localities should be required to disclose on the Internet any voting change, allowing citizens and Washington a chance to raise concerns.
The most fundamental change Congress could make would be a law declaring a universal right to vote that could not be infringed by any level of government. The Voting Rights Act was aimed at combating discrimination “on account of race or color,” which was the urgent problem of the time. Discrimination has now broadened to encompass more groups of different kinds, and it is time for a broader law, especially given the Supreme Court’s clear intent to dismantle all racial protections.
That is not just a liberal fantasy, either. It was encouraging last week to hear several House Republicans, including the majority leader, Eric Cantor, say they were interested in restoring protections to voting. One of them, James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, put the challenge well: “This is going to take time and will require members from both sides of the aisle to put partisan politics aside and ensure Americans’ most sacred right is protected.”
  Once again needless hyperbull from the liberal mouth piece of this country.
    

 
 
 
 

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Budget Blame Game From NYT


Opinion/Editorial

 
 

  They still don't get it and they never ever will these self righteous idiots at the New York Times especially their holier than thou editorial board on how to build an economy or even how to recover from a bad economy which of course the people with their political warped views helped to cause.
  This mornings lead OPED shows this to be true "Extreme Budget Cuts of 2014" well we will see what extreme is to the NYT I have no doubt that we already know.
  It begins "The most shameful achievement of the House Republican majority has been the elimination of $1.5 trillion in discretionary spending through 2022, which has already held back the economy from substantial growth and done real damage to people and communities that depend on government dollars. The widespread pain caused by this year’s sequester is the best-known aspect of these cuts, but caps that will continue to limit virtually every program for nine more years will also be extremely harmful.Republicans, though, still aren’t satisfied, and are continuing their campaign to radically reshape Washington’s relationship to the country. The 2014 spending bills now emerging from the House Appropriations Committee are worse than in any previous year and would make some programs and departments unrecognizable."
  The NYT still buys into the BS about how Government $pending spurs the economy. To quote the NYT "The 2014 spending bills now emerging from the House Appropriations Committee are worse than in any previous year and would make some programs and departments unrecognizable." It would be unrecognizable because it would cut Government spending this is the correct way to go.
  More waste of time "The spending limits imposed by Republicans in the Budget Control Act of 2011 will be different in the upcoming fiscal year. The arbitrary, across-the-board cuts of the sequester will come to an end for most discretionary spending (the kind that has to be renewed each year), but the severe overall limits on each department’s budget will get worse as total discretionary spending declines by 2 percent. The difference in 2014 is that lawmakers can reallocate money within departments as they see fit, within the limits, and won’t be confined by the sequester rules.
House Republicans, of course, have decided to exceed the caps for their favorite programs. They want to give the Pentagon a 5.4 percent increase — $26 billion it doesn’t need — along with a 3.3 percent raise to Homeland Security. To pay for that, and still shrink the budget, they are demanding severe cuts from spending bills for which they have little use: nearly 19 percent out of the labor, health and education bill; 15 percent from the financial services oversight bill; 14 percent from the interior and environment bill; and 11 percent from the energy and water bill.
Those percentages, just to be clear, represent cuts below this year’s already ruinous sequester levels. The effect is visible in several of the bills that have emerged from the Appropriations Committee:
TRANSPORTATION AND HUD The overall level is cut by 9 percent, or $4.4 billion, below the 2013 sequester. That means Community Development Block Grants are cut by 45 percent to $1.6 billion, well below the $2.7 billion put in place when President Gerald Ford created the program in 1974. Amtrak would be cut by a third, as would the HOME Investment program, which creates affordable housing.
ENERGY AND WATER Spending on renewable energy programs would be cut nearly in half to $1 billion. But somehow an extra $450 million was found for further development of coal, natural gas, oil and other fossil fuels.
AGRICULTURE The bill cuts $120 million needed by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to enforce the Dodd-Frank financial oversight law.
Even more severe cuts are likely when the environment and education bills are released in the coming weeks.The Senate, though, has taken a very different approach. Rather than perpetuate the unnecessary austerity of the spending caps, the Senate budget would raise an additional $1 trillion by eliminating various tax breaks for the rich and for corporations, while still cutting an equal amount of spending in areas that are not vital. But Republicans in both chambers have ignored all entreaties from the White House and the Senate to sit down and negotiate.       
The White House, urging compromise, has threatened to veto any Republican spending bill outside of a negotiated budget agreement that increases vital investments. The House, apparently, would rather drag the country through yet another budget showdown.
  I think the NYT has discretionary spending confused with too much Government spending but wait they don't understand the fact of too much Government or too much Government $pending.