Experts Who LMAO!

010914christie03.jpg

Photo by: 

AP

BRIDGE TO NOWHERE: N.J. Gov. Chris Christie, right, has been irreparably damaged by the scandal involving a manufactured traffic jam on the George Washington Bridge, above.

1

By:

Antonio Planas Boston Herald

                      

 

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie can kiss his White House hopes goodbye as questions mount about what he knew about the Bridgegate scandal — a development that has pushed the one-time Republican frontrunner aside while opening doors for other candidates in 2016, political experts said.

“His chances are gone in a New Jersey minute,” said Boston University Professor Thomas Whalen. “I just don’t see him recovering. … This is a huge challenger who is out of the way.”
New Jersey’s chief executive has been under fire after revelations his top aides orchestrated traffic gridlock on the George Washington Bridge as possible political payback to Fort Lee’s Democratic mayor. Christie has denied knowing of any plot and told the public he didn’t know about the traffic jam until it was over.
But a former loyalist who ordered the closures, and resigned amid the controversy, released a letter Friday saying evidence exists suggesting Christie knew about the closures as they happened in September. The letter from David Wildstein’s lawyer did not provide proof. Wildstein was Christie’s No. 2 man at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey before resigning.
Stephen Farnsworth, a political science professor at the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Va., said Christie has gone from the frontrunner who was out-polling Hillary Clinton, to just another “Republican want to be.”
“This situation, so far, has been nothing short of devastating to Christie’s presidential ambitions,” Farnsworth said.
A New Jersey newspaper, The Star Ledger, in an editorial Friday called for Christie to resign or be impeached if he lied.
Christie was pounded with boos during a Super Bowl ceremony yesterday in New York City, but he didn’t appear affected by the crowd’s reaction.
Christie’s political team went on the offensive yesterday, sending an email to donors, and columnists and pundits who might be in a position to defend the governor, bashing Wildstein and calling the report about the letter “sloppy reporting,” noting Wildstein did not present any proof to back up his claims.
But the political chaos seems to be too much for Christie’s presidential hopes. Even Republican pundits said his bid for the Oval Office is hanging by a thread.
“Chris Christie could get a second chance, but it could take a while,” said Republican strategist Ron Bonjean, who is based in Washington, D.C.
National GOP strategist Ford O’Connell said Christie is “sinking faster than the Titanic.”
“The cards are stacked against him,” O’Connell said, adding that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush will benefit from Christie’s political swan dive.
Whalen said a much more familiar candidate could emerge in the mix for 2016 — former Bay State Gov. Mitt Romney.
“This might make viable a third run for Mitt,” he said. “You’ve got to wonder if the establishment will rally around him once again through the process of elimination."

Commentary

The establishment is the only thing that will back his sorry Fat ass

 

 

NY Times Misses The Point On Labor

Opinion/Editorial


 

 

  Well here we are about to celebrate as a nation another Labor Day weekend marking the end of the summer of 2013.This mornings lead OPED in the New York Times once again and as always are the waterboy for the crying labor movement who whine about their pay nothing new here.
  Entitled "Labor, Then and Now" it begins "On Thursday, the day after the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, thousands of fast-food workers in 60 cities walked off their jobs, the latest in an escalating series of walkouts by low-wage workers demanding higher pay and the right to organize without retaliation.The parallels, though inexact, are compelling. A half-century ago, the marchers called on Congress to increase the minimum wage from $1.15 an hour to $2 “so that men may live in dignity,” in the words of Bayard Rustin, one of the chief organizers of the march. Today, the fast-food workers also seek a raise, from the $9 an hour that most of them make to $15.00 an hour. That’s not much different from what the marchers wanted in 1963; adjusted for inflation, $2 then is $13.39 an hour today."
  No offense to the fast food workers but I don't want to pay double for a whopper or Biggie fry.I love it how the left tries to incorporate the celebration of Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. 50th Anniversary of his infamous "I have a dream" speech in correlation to labor day. Makes me laugh LOL!
  It goes on "The strikers are targeting their employers — profitable companies like McDonald’s, Yum Brands (which includes Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC) and Wendy’s. But Congress could help. Today’s minimum wage is a miserly $7.25 an hour — which is actually lower, adjusted for inflation, than it was 50 long years ago. Raising it would support the legitimate demands of the strikers and underscore the pressing needs of the country’s growing ranks of low-wage workers.

President Obama has noted, correctly, that increases in labor productivity have long failed to translate into higher wages for most Americans, even while income for the richest households has skyrocketed. His proposed remedies, however, leave much to be desired — a pathetic increase in the minimum wage, to $9 an hour by 2016, plus hopeful assertions that revolutions in energy, technology, manufacturing and health care will create good-paying jobs."

  Sorry NYT but todays young people are getting dumber and dumber that's why there are a lot of low wage earners out there I see at the McDonalds here in the Pittsburgh area most of the register help can't give the exact change back they can't even count right. And they want $15.00 an hour LMAO!

As far as assertions that there will be good paying jobs in the health care field NOT! with Obama care taking effect soon.

  More from OPED "On its own, however, growth will not raise wages. What’s missing are policies to ensure that a large and growing share of rising labor productivity flows to workers in the form of wages and salaries, rather than to executives and shareholders. Start with an adequate minimum wage. Provide increased protections for workers to unionize, in order to strengthen their bargaining power. Provide protections for undocumented workers that would limit exploitation. Add to the mix regulations to prevent financial bubbles, thereby protecting jobs and wages from ruinous busts. Adopt expansionary fiscal and monetary policies in troubled times to sustain jobs and wages.

Low-wage workers would also benefit from executive-branch orders to ensure fair pay for employees of federal contractors. All workers need stronger enforcement of labor law so they are not routinely misclassified in ways that deny wages, overtime and benefits. They also need a tax system that is more progressive to shield wage earners from unduly burdensome tax increases or government cutbacks.

They need, in brief, pro-labor policies that have been overlooked for decades, with devastating results: from 1979 to 2012, typical workers saw wage increases of just 5 percent, despite productivity growth of nearly 75 percent, while wage gains for low-wage workers were flat or declined.

Recent experience has been even worse. In the decade from 2002 to 2012, wages have stagnated or declined for the entire bottom 70 percent of the wage ladder. The marchers had it right 50 years ago. The fast-food strikers have it right today. Washington has it wrong."
  Here we go NYT blaming the rich again same old liberal old BS tactic. What I highlighted in green since when does the NYT advocate for burdensome tax increases they are the kings of calling for tax increases all the time LOL!
  I have no problem with fast food workers getting a raise like everyone else but they have to earn it by doing their jobs CORRECTLY and efficiently. Besides the fast food workers can have better help carrying their water than having the NYT do it for them.

 

 

 

Dr.King Fought For "EQUAL" Rights Not Civil Rights

August 24, 2013

Column: King’s courage helped fuel civil rights movement

Arthur I. Cyr

“I have a dream” is how the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. highlighted his momentous speech in Washington on Aug. 28, 1963, and that phrase resonates strongly. His address was the centerpiece of the historic March on Washington, which involved over 200,000 people. In June 1963, President John F. Kennedy had addressed the nation, underscoring the importance of his administration’s proposed civil rights legislation.
King’s efforts were part of a massive current of historic change in American race relations. In 1955, Rosa Parks helped spark the modern civil rights movement by refusing to move to the back of a bus in Montgomery, Ala. Early in the 20th century, A. Philip Randolph organized the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, the first predominantly black labor union. These leaders and others built the American civil rights movement.
King’s leadership qualities were recognized while he was still young. Striking rhetorical skill was one key ingredient, cast in charismatic delivery. He was also often, though not always, a shrewd politician.
We honor King not because he was a perfect man, but rather for personal courage as catalyst for the civil rights revolution. Initially, he was reluctant to assume leadership beyond his local community, concerned about physical safety. He took on the job nonetheless, persevering until his assassination April 4, 1968.
Especially in the case of a murdered martyr, we tend to idealize the leader. That is unfortunate for two reasons. First, oversimplifying the complexity of the human spirit can easily diminish the person described. The leader actually seems less consequential as the internal personal as well as external battles that define courage are erased. Second, oversimplifying past times limits our own capacity to draw the most accurate and therefore best lessons for our future.
King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which preached racial integration and nonviolent tactics, became challenged by a range of radical groups. The Congress of Racial Equality staked out much more militant ground. The separatist Black Panther Party, always a very small fringe faction, nonetheless garnered enormous media attention through alarming rhetoric and occasional violence.
As the turmoil of the 1960s grew, King seemed to become overshadowed by the militants and the violence they preached, both near the end of his life and for a time thereafter. The fact that he and his message endure from that era, so sharply defined, testifies to the value of his leadership.
Fully making this point requires including noteworthy white political leaders. President Lyndon B. Johnson secured passage of major civil rights legislation in 1964 and 1965, with vital help from Senate Republican leader Everett Dirksen. Less visible today is President Harry S. Truman’s historic decision in 1948 to desegregate the armed forces.
Also in 1948, at the Democratic national convention, young Minneapolis Mayor Hubert H. Humphrey pressed to include civil rights in the party platform. Many advised Humphrey against this; he persevered successfully. In the resulting maelstrom, Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina led Southern delegates in bolting the convention and establishing the breakaway Dixiecrat Party. In the fall election, Dixiecrat presidential nominee Thurmond won Southern states, but Truman nonetheless was re-elected.
King was a particularly important leader, and without him another much less desirable national course might have resulted. Both his message and efforts were fully congruent with our most fundamental principles.
President Barack Obama’s political success personifies King’s victory.

Commentary

Mr.Cyr has it all wrong as it is with most of these kool-aid drinking leftist Professors. It doesnot take a rocket scientist to figure out that Rev.Dr.Martin Luther King Jr. was a great leader who fought for not CIVIL rights but EQUAL rights for all.
So for this leftist to say Obama's poiltical success personifies King's victory is ludicrous to say the least.If the great Dr.King was alive today he would be getting on Obama's case for all the political correctness and BS

More Immigration BS From NYT

Opinion/Editorial

   It seems that we are now back to the argument of immigration reform with the New York Times this morning. The title of this mornings lead OPED is "Of Courage and Cantaloupes" on the so called immigration reform bill that is now in the U.S. House.
  Here is their opening salvo "After the Senate passed a comprehensive immigration bill in June, hope for reform shifted to the House. That is where hope sits, on ice, getting freezer burn.The House leadership has rejected the Senate bill, saying it will instead move slowly on “piecemeal” measures. That means things like border fencing and visas for farmworkers, but nothing to allow 11 million unauthorized immigrants to become American citizens — a pillar of the Senate’s bipartisan compromise. “Compromise” and “path to citizenship” remain dirty words to Republicans like Representative Steve King of Iowa, who has likened immigrants to dogs and livestock. He has recently taken to calling them mules — drug runners, that is, with “calves the size of cantaloupes” from lugging marijuana bales over the border.
   And Congressman King says the truth.
  It continues "Dysfunction, inaction, demeaning blather — is this any time to be optimistic about immigration reform? It could be. Because with Congress now out on vacation for five weeks, when it can’t do anything awful, it is the people’s turn to push, to be heard and, if at all possible, to move Congress in the right direction. To that end, an amazing array of determined advocates from all corners of the country has plunged into a month of protests, rallies, vigils, town-hall meetings, phone-calling and canvassing, focusing on Republicans in their home districts.       

Their message is that comprehensive immigration reform deserves a vote in the House, and that any legislation must allow unauthorized immigrants to seek full equality as Americans — not, as some Congress members are proposing, to remain a permanent underclass of provisional, deportable, disposable laborers. They also are highlighting the urgency of fixing the broken system now because, as Congress dawdles, deportations are continuing at a record pace — thousands of lives and families torn apart every month, hundreds of thousands every year.

The advocates see hope in pressuring Republicans relentlessly for the next few weeks. They also find hope, believe it or not, in reasoning with them. Many House members are relative newcomers to Congress, having missed the last great immigration debate in 2007. Their rejection of the Senate bill could simply be reflexive recoiling at anything touched by Democrats. When asked to consider immigration reform point by point, on the merits — with stronger border and workplace enforcement and tough-but-fair rules for granting the undocumented legal status and citizenship — perhaps many may accept that path as sensible. (It happens to be the Senate’s.).

  Wow! evidently there is a new politically correct term for illegal immigrants now started by the NYT instead of "undocumented immigrants" the new definition is unauthorized immigrants. As usual now the rest of the lame stream media outlets in both print and TV will follow suit in using this new BS terminology.

  Here is the remainder of the BS "If reason doesn’t work, maybe embarrassment will, unease at having to associate with the anti-immigrant hard-core, exemplified by people like Mr. King, who is Exhibit A for those who see the ugly nativism behind the naysaying. Mr. King is an immovable “no” on any kind of positive immigration reform, but he isn’t the only member out there. Advocates have counted the votes, and they say there are enough Republicans and Democrats to pass a comprehensive bill, with a citizenship path, right now. But the House would have to agree to hold a vote, which the Republican leadership has, so far, rejected.

On Thursday, a group of leading immigrant-rights advocates were arrested while blocking traffic near the Capitol. Other advocates delivered cantaloupes to the offices of more than 200 House members, including some Democrats, who in June voted with Mr. King to halt an Obama administration program that deferred the deportations of some young people who were brought here illegally as children. A sticker pinned to each fruit read: “This cantaloupe was picked by immigrants in California. You gave Steve King a vote. Give us a vote for citizenship.”

Those were two actions; there will be hundreds of others across the country in the next few weeks. Immigration reform is stalled, so now is the time for advocacy and relentless optimism. Pressure makes heat, and a hot summer is about to get even hotter."

  Real immigration reform would be to enact and follow all the laws that are currently on the books for example making those to wait in line to become American citizens it would be the moral thing to do but don't expect that from the lame stream media and their socialist elites.

  

NYT Defends Wrong Way To Defend Voting Rights



Opinion/Editorial

 

  Is it me or should the New York Times just shut up when talking about the rights of others and first of all understand what they are supposedly defending. Most often they don't even understand what they're Opining about.

  This mornings lead OPED entitled "A New Defense of Voting Rights" is just an example.

  It begins "On Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. took an important step toward repairing the damage from last month’s Supreme Court ruling striking down a central element of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He is right to adopt an aggressive approach to defending the most fundamental right in our democracy."

  Yeah please like the NYT believes in any fundamental rights when it comes to a democracy,they only want to defend rights of those who buy into their warped socialist political leftist agenda.

  It goes on "In a federal lawsuit first brought by black and Hispanic voters against Texas over its redistricting maps, the Justice Department relied on a rarely used provision of the act, Section 3, to ask a federal court to require Texas to get permission before making any voting changes in the state."

  In true left wing fashion if all else fails bring a law suit. Asking permission of who the Big HUGE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT how about the 10 the amendment. On another point I would be willing to bet that the Hispanic voters most of them are probably illegal immigrants (oh for you idiotic liberals out there your favorite politically correct term "undocumented immigrants")

   The remainder of the hyperbull "Until last month, Texas already had to get such permission under the act’s “preclearance” process. This process had long been the most effective means of preventing racial bias in voting laws in states with histories of discrimination. It required state and local governments that wanted to change the laws to first show there would be no discriminatory effect. In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the act as unconstitutional; that provision laid out the formula that determined which jurisdictions had to get permission.

In theory, the court’s ruling allows Congress to update the list of nine states and parts of six others identified by Section 4. But given the dysfunction of Congress, that will not happen anytime soon.

This is why Mr. Holder’s decision to rely on Section 3 in the Texas case is so significant. Section 3 — also known as the “bail-in” provision — may be the most promising tool we have to protect voting rights after Shelby. It allows courts to identify jurisdictions that are passing intentionally discriminatory voting laws and then “bail” them in as needed — that is, require them to get permission before establishing new voting rules.

This is functionally similar to the system the court struck down last month, but Section 3 has several distinguishing features. It does not contain a preset list of jurisdictions, and it is forward-looking: instead of relying primarily on historical evidence of discrimination, it allows individual voters or the government to ask courts to zero in on any jurisdiction, like Texas, that continues to try to impose racially discriminatory voting laws.

Section 3 is also flexible. The period of coverage for preclearance under Section 3 is determined by court order, and may last for only as long as a federal judge deems it necessary to overcome voting discrimination in that jurisdiction.

These features make Section 3 a useful provision, but it has its weaknesses. The preclearance may be imposed only if a federal judge determines that the jurisdiction’s laws are intentionally discriminatory. When the Voting Rights Act was passed, such laws were much easier to identify. But lawmakers have since discovered countless ways to discriminate on the basis of race without saying so explicitly, and will continue to do so.

In the Texas case, a Federal District Court in Washington found that state redistricting maps showed intentional discrimination — among other things, black and Hispanic lawmakers were excluded from the map-drawing process, and districts were drawn to minimize the power of minority voters in ways that “could not have happened by accident,” including one district shaped like a lightning bolt. While the Texas record is full of clear evidence of discriminatory intent, in most places such a claim is harder to show. To address that problem, the Congressional Black Caucus has called for Section 3 to be amended to apply to voting laws that have a discriminatory effect, whether or not intent can be proved. If Congress is serious about protecting voting rights, it should pass this amendment immediately.

Some Republicans, like Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, have spoken out recently in favor of Section 3 as a method of protecting voting rights after Shelby. But Republican support for any amendment is uncertain at best, and some party members have vowed to oppose any fixes to the Voting Rights Act in light of the Justice Department’s filing.

Texas remains a hothouse of voter discrimination, where laws of dubious legality seem to sprout every day. The Justice Department’s brief cited four instances in the last three years alone in which local jurisdictions failed to show that proposed voting changes did not have a discriminatory purpose. That’s not including either the redistricting case or a separate suit filed over Texas’s new voter ID law, which will also be put on hold if the Section 3 request is successful.

Gov. Rick Perry has complained that the Justice Department’s action was an “end run” around the Supreme Court and cast “unfair aspersions” on his state. He should be more concerned with reversing Texas’s long run of discriminatory voting laws."

  Does the NYT think we are stupid apparently this is so.But as Constitutionalists such as those of you who follow this blog know that the only reason why the NYT picked Texas because it isn't a politically correct blue leaning state and a state that believes in it's constitutional rights.

 

 

 

 
 

Neither One Of These Idiots For Massachusetts 6th Congressional District

US Rep.John Tierney
 

Richard Tisei

 
  Neither one of these hack liberals are any good with Tierney as a far far way out left Democrat and Tisei one of the most RINO of Massachusetts members of the establishment Republican party both of these idiots are one in the same where they stand on the issues.
 It's time for those who live in the Mass 6th especially the tea parties in that district to band together to support a CONSTITUTIONAL GOD fearing type candidate to run and defeat these two life long members of the establishment.
 I know that the Constitutional tea parties will but not a particular group who supported Tisei that being the Greater Boston Tea Party who poke their noses into everything even when it doesnot involve their own district they need to mind their own business but they never do.
 I mean the Massachusetts Republican Party have never and never will support anything that is CONSTITUTIONAL or for that matter conservative they are trying to be like Democrats all the time.



NYT Fixation With Race Continues

Opinion/Editorial



 

  I could not wait for the New York Times to run their perversion of the George Zimmerman verdict. Well here it is DUMB ASSERY at its finest. The title of the lead OPED in the MONDAY morning BS is "Trayvon Martin’s Legacy" or in the proper terminology legacy of a criminal.

 All of us knew that it would only be a day or two before the NYT sunk to the levels that they always do especially with their Communist editorial board on a opinion like this. They never fail at putting their heads up their collective asses.

 The biased race laced garbage begins "It may not be possible to consider the case of George Zimmerman, who was acquitted Saturday of all charges in the killing of Trayvon Martin, as anything but a sad commentary on the state of race relations and the battle over gun rights in America today."

 For the record NYT Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY but hey what's the TRUTH to you morons. Hey got to give it to them they hit a big miss on this one hitting both race and guns rights in one big swing and a miss. Oh for you liberals that baseball lingo.

 The swill goes on already coming to their holier than thou conclusion "Certainly it is about race — ask any black man, up to and including President Obama, and he will tell you at least a few stories that sound eerily like what happened that rainy winter night in Sanford, Fla.

 While Mr. Zimmerman’s conviction might have provided an emotional catharsis, we would still be a country plagued by racism, which persists in ever more insidious forms despite the Supreme Court’s sanguine assessment that “things have changed dramatically,” as it said in last month’s ruling striking down the heart of the Voting Rights Act. (The Justice Department is right to continue its investigation into whether Mr. Zimmerman may still be prosecuted under federal civil rights laws.)"

 Maybe to you stupid braindead asses at the NYT our country is plagued by racism because of you in the lame stream media and the NAACP and the RINOS and Demorats  in this country still harping on the issue of race.

 Here is the rest of this bile crap from the NYT "The jury reached its verdict after having been asked to consider Mr. Zimmerman’s actions in light of Florida’s now-notorious Stand Your Ground statute. Under that law, versions of which are on the books in two dozen states, a person may use deadly force if he or she “reasonably believes” it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm — a low bar that the prosecutors in this case fought in vain to overcome.

These laws sound intuitive: who would argue that you may not protect yourself against great harm? But of course, the concept of “reasonable belief” is transformed into something deadly dangerous when firearms are involved. And when the Stand Your Ground laws intersect with lax concealed-carry laws, it works essentially to self-deputize anyone with a Kel-Tec 9 millimeter and a grudge.

It has been a bad year so far for gun control. But if anything, cases like this should be as troubling as the mass killings that always prompt a national outcry and promises of legislative remedy. We were heartened that President Obama, in his statement after the verdict was issued, took the opportunity to denounce once again “the tide of gun violence” sweeping the country.

In the end, what is most frightening is that there are so many people with guns who are like George Zimmerman. Fear and racism may never be fully eliminated by legislative or judicial order, but neither should our laws allow and even facilitate their most deadly expression. Trayvon Martin was an unarmed boy walking home from the convenience store. If only Florida could give him back his life as easily as it is giving back George Zimmerman’s gun.

 For the record and I mean this from my heart I will pray for the family of Trayvon Martin for their loss but that doesnot remove the fact that he was a punk kid with a record a mile long.

 This has nothing to do with race but once again for the record Mr.George  Zimmerman is a registered DEMOCRAT and he is a Hispanic man.But of course that is forgotten by the NYT and everyone else how convenient.