Yeah, let’s get four more years of crap like this, right?
A proposal from the Obama administration to prevent children from doing farm chores has drawn plenty of criticism from rural-district members of Congress. But now it’s attracting barbs from farm kids themselves.
The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land.
Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.”
“Prohibited places of employment,” a Department press release read, “would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions.”
The new regulations, first proposed August 31 by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, would also revoke the government’s approval of safety training and certification taught by independent groups like 4-H and FFA, replacing them instead with a 90-hour federal government training course. …
There’s more there, and you really should read it. Good grief, will this statist nincompoop please be booted in November?
This is a joke…right?
The Times needs to offer an aggressive look at the president’s record, policy promises and campaign operation to answer the question: Who is the real Barack Obama?Many critics view The Times as constitutionally unable to address the election in an unbiased fashion. Like a lot of America, it basked a bit in the warm glow of Mr. Obama’s election in 2008. The company published a book about the country’s first African-American president, “Obama: The Historic Journey.” The Times also published a lengthy portrait of him in its Times Topics section on NYTimes.com, yet there’s nothing of the kind about George W. Bush or his father.
According to a study by the media scholars Stephen J. Farnsworth and S. Robert Lichter, The Times’s coverage of the president’s first year in office was significantly more favorable than its first-year coverage of three predecessors who also brought a new party to power in the White House: George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan.
Writing for the periodical Politics & Policy, the authors were so struck by the findings that they wondered, “Did The Times, perhaps in response to the aggressive efforts by Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal to seize market share, decide to tilt more to the left than it had in the past?”
I strongly doubt that. Based on conversations with Times reporters and editors who cover the campaign and Washington, I think they see themselves as aggressive journalists who don’t play favorites. Still, a strong current of skepticism holds that the paper skews left. Unfortunately, this is exacerbated by collateral factors — for example, political views that creep into nonpolitical coverage.
Nope, we’ve been right down the middle, no favoritism on our part. How do we know? Because we just checked ourselves. And as luck would have it, we’re clean. So there.
So nope…no liberal media bias!
One sentence tells you all you need to know.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney announced that White House legal counsel has concluded no White House staff engaged in any “misconduct” in Cartagena.
Oh. Well, h3ll, issue resolved.
Hope everyone had a stellar Earth Day yesterday. I spent mine setting off a bunch of aerosol cans while my Hummer idled for hours, savoring the smell of the fresh manatee fillets on the coal-fired grill.
How did you guys properly observe Mother Gaia’s holiday? 😆
…then I’d vote for Chairman Zero and other members of the Jackass Party.
Hey, libs…you started this, remember? 😆
From Sen. McCain:
By now, many of you know that the Romneys are catching hell over the way they transported the family Irish setter nearly 30 years ago on family vacations, namely on the roof of the car. Ann Romney says the dog enjoyed it, and considering my dog darned near steps all over my passengers to stick his head out the window, I can see that. Would I put my dog on the roof? No, probably not. But if the dog didn’t die, didn’t suffer, and it happened three decades ago, then I don’t give a wet fart on a dry January Monday how they transported their dog.
But the MSM cares. They do not want any talk about the sky high unemployment, the exploding deficit, our crippling debt, hemorrhaging of jobs, skyrocketed fuel prices, unconstitutional power grabs…but instead, Mitt Romney’s dog from the 1980’s.
OK, you hacks. You wanna go there? You really wanna go on the “who loves dogs?” track. Fine. Let’s go there. I’ll stipulate that Obama loves dogs more…especially with some fava beans and a nice Chianti. Slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp-slurp! From the Daily Caller:
Hey, if we’re going to talk about how presidential candidates treated dogs decades ago, let’s talk about how presidential candidates treated dogs decades ago.
Can you name the author of this quote?
“With Lolo, I learned how to eat small green chill peppers raw with dinner (plenty of rice), and, away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy). Like many Indonesians, Lolo followed a brand of Islam that could make room for the remnants of more ancient animist and Hindu faiths. He explained that a man took on the powers of whatever he ate: One day soon, he promised, he would bring home a piece of tiger meat for us to share.”
Yep, that’s Barack Obama, writing about his childhood with his stepfather Lolo Soetoro in Indonesia, from Chapter Two of his bestseller Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.
“So what? It was a long time ago,” you say. “He was a lot younger. Customs are different there. He was just doing what his stepfather told him. And hey, you can’t even prove that the dogs were ever left on top of a car, you racist.”
Hey, whatever you have to tell yourself, libs. Say what you want about Romney, but at least he only put a dog on the roof of his car, not the roof of his mouth. And whenever you bring up the one, we’re going to bring up the other.
It’s no fun when we push back, is it? That’s why it’s so much fun.
You must read the updates and the comments, which are friggin’ hilarious! One to whet the appetite:
Q: What does Obama do when his dog gets stuck?
A: Grabs a toothpick.
Game on, beyotch.
This is a great takedown of that CNN poll from yesterday that is wildly different from other recent polls. In the CNN poll, Obama leads Romney 52%-43%. In polls from two and three days before, Romney leads Obama in both, albeit within the margin of error.
Why am I talking about polls at this stage of the game? Simple: media malpractice. Excerpt of the takedown:
…That might not be the biggest problem with the poll, though. Its biggest problem is … math. Reader Raymond O did some math and asked a rather interesting set of questions in an e-mail last night about how CNN did theirs. First, let’s start with the topline results, as reported by CNN: Obama 52%, Romney 43% among registered voters, 53/41 among all respondents. If that’s the case, then the number of respondents in the latter case voting for Obama should be 538, and the number supporting Romney 416.
However, when reading the questions on page 3 of the poll report, that’s not at all what we see:
BASED ON 484 RESPONDENTS WHO PLAN TO VOTE FOR OBAMA — SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS.
3. (Asked of Obama voters) Is that more a vote FOR Barack Obama or more a vote AGAINST Mitt
BASED ON 476 RESPONDENTS WHO PLAN TO VOTE FOR ROMNEY — SAMPLING ERROR: +/- 4.5 PERCENTAGE PTS.
4. (Asked of Romney voters) Is that more a vote FOR Mitt Romney or more a vote AGAINST Barack
Since the combined total of the two exceeds their count of registered voters in the survey (910), we have to assume this refers to the general-population response. That’s wildly different than the 53/41 split that CNN reports from the poll. In fact, it’s only a 48/47 split for Obama. And given that the poll shows a slightly better result for Romney among registered voters, it’s not difficult to conclude that Romney probably led in that category before CNN’s pollster shifted the results around to this extent.
Read the whole thing…it is fascinating to what lengths CNN is going in order to get their boy re-elected. They refuse to offer the breakdown of respondents the way every other poll does, with number of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents polled. The comPost and other fishwraps almost always oversample Democrats by double digits over Republicans for their polls, but at least they show their weighted unrealistic numbers. CNN isn’t going to bother with that. Plus…they’re even ignoring basic rules of math now!
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Romney’s team is already all over this. Check out this 0:29 video clip:
Wait…what? OMGosh! 😆
Tweeted Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul: “@davidaxelrod’s right: choice IS btwn growing economy vs continuing down down [sic] road we’re on.”
Dude…I agree with Axelrod on something. I need a shower.
President Obama paid a total federal tax rate of 20.5 percent on a gross adjusted income $789,674, a rate that may come in below that of his secretary.
Obama has spent the past week touting the Buffett Rule, which calls on those who make $1 million – just a little more than Obama made – to pay at federal tax rate of at least 30 percent. The rule was inspired by Buffett’s comment that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary.
The most recent information about salary regarding Obama’s secretary is for his former secretary, Katie Johnson, who is listed by the White House as having made $90,000 in 2010.
According to Wikipedia, Johnson is 31 years old and now attends Harvard Law School. I don’t know about her personal life or what her deductions would be, so I can’t assume any children or deductions.
On a $90,000 salary, she would pay $16,578 in federal taxes, $3,780 to Social Security, and $1,305 in Medicare taxes.
That adds up to a total federal tax burden of $21,663 on $90,000 in adjusted gross income, or a tax rate of 24 percent, well above Obama’s rate of 20.5 percent, even though Obama’s 2011 salary was nearly nine times the 2010 salary of his secretary.
That blasted 1%-er! LOL! 😆
So this is the talking point the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) wanna go with? Republicans’ “war on women”? Well, alrighty then. Game on, beyotch:
Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.
According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).
Calculating the median salary for each gender required some assumptions to be made based on the employee names. When unclear, every effort was taken to determine the appropriate gender.
The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits.
President Obama has frequently criticized the gender pay gap, such as the one that exists in White House.
“Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income,” he said in a July 2010 statement. “And with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.”
It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act. …
Oh, it’s not what you think. You probably thought “challenges” as in “calling CBS out”, didn’t you? Nope. Instead, they’re challenging CBS on trying to bastardize the English language in such a way as to advance their leftist agenda. Details:
“For far too long women have been left behind in Obama’s job market. Of the 740,000 jobs lost since Obama took office, 683,000 of them were held by women. That is truly unsustainable.”
— Statement by Sharon Day, co-chair of the Republican National Committee, April 6, 2012
In an effort to fight back against Democratic claims of a Republican “war on women,” the Republican National Committee has rolled out a new and startling fact—that under Obama, women have lost seven times as many jobs as men.
So, are the numbers correct? The comPost concludes that the numbers are indeed correct:
We cannot fault the RNC’s math, as the numbers add up. But at this point this figure doesn’t mean very much. It may simply a function of a coincidence of timing — a brief blip that could have little to do with “Obama’s job market.” (Hey, when was the last time a liberal fishwrap like the comPost chalked up bad numbers under a Republican administration to “coincidence of timing”? – CL)
And the comPost concludes…
If trends hold up over the next few months, then the RNC might have a better case. But at this point we will give this statistic our rarely used label:
TRUE BUT FALSE
Um…whiskey tango foxtrot? “TRUE BUT FALSE”? Are you bleeping kidding me?
The numbers are true…but the numbers are damaging to Chairman Zero, so the comPost has to polish this turd in the best way they know how. Which is to sodomize English.
Webster just called and asked to be lubricated next time.
Nope…no liberal media bias!
You have got to be effing kidding me! Nope, guess not.
The Obama administration is responding to the recent report that shows a federal agency spent more that $800,000 on a lavish conference near Las Vegas by putting some of the blame on the Bush administration.
“At least we have taken, bold, swift forceful action to hold those responsible accountable and put in place protections to make sure this never happened again,” a White House official told Fox News.
Just when I thought they couldn’t blame something else on Bush, they prove me wrong.
Wanna see a guy with hair plugs appear utterly delusional? Watch this short 1:06 clip, then. Money quote: “Our Energy Policy’s the Best It’s Ever Been“. If the GOP has a lick of sense (and I have no reason to believe that they do), they will play this snippet over and over until November.
I dunno. Maybe he’s trying to become the first back-to-back winner? Anywho, you’d think his speechwriter would have picked a slightly different variation of the words to display on his tele-binky. I guess not.
I swear, just this morning, I asked a colleage how long it would be until some environut blamed those tornadoes on global “warming”! Just this morning, I tell ya. And I didn’t have to wait long before CNN delivered.
By the way, I’ve often noted how these rubes were looking stupid by calling it global “warming” whenever it got friggin’ cold, so they had to call it “climate change” so as to lessen the sting of their shame. Apparently, the ladies here got the memo.
CAROL COSTELLO: Such a strange spring.STEELE: It really is. That’s kind of the climate change we are seeing. Extremes are ruling the roost and what we are seeing, more become the norm.
COSTELLO: It makes me afraid for what next spring will bring. It might be unnaturally cold.
STEELE: Because that’s not it–this global warming is really kind of a misnomer. Global climate change—so the colds are colder and warms are warmer, and the severes more severe.
Well, good to see Shelly O is focusing on the three R’s: re-electing reviling racists. Maybe if her old man gets re-elected, she’ll be proud of her country for only the second time in her life. Details:
Michelle Obama, who has quickly become the Obama campaign’s tip of the spear when it comes to fundraising and vote-getting, is now stumping for children to convince their “great-grandparents” to vote for her husband. At an event at San Francisco’s (where the h3ll else would it be, if not San Fransicko? – CL) Golden Gate Park – for which tickets cost at least $500 – Michelle said:
I mean, I can’t tell you in the last election how many grandparents I ran into who said, I wasn’t going to vote for Barack Obama until my grandson talked to me, until my great-grandson talked to me, and talked about the future he wanted for this country.
You can get out there with your parents. You guys can knock on doors. I had one young lady who brought me a petition — she’s already working. You can convince wrong people. Sometimes we don’t listen to ourselves, but we will listen to our children.
Old farts, listen to your grandkids. Because they know a whole helluva lot more than you do, despite your years of experience with life. Of course, with the Dems’ proud history of vote fraud, she was probably just campaigning for the highly coveted underage voting bloc.
I may have made up the second part of the headline above…but it’s not far-fetched! Dude, where’s this woman (SE Cupp) been my whole life? 😆
Link to 2:00 video, which you MUST see, or you officially suck:
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- affirmative action
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- Barney Frank
- big government
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bobby Jindal
- capital punishment
- Caroline Kennedy
- Charlie Crist
- Chris Christie
- Chuck Schumer
- Dan Rather
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- eminent domain
- Eric Cantor
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- gun rights
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Howard Dean
- Hugo Chavez
- illegal immigration
- Janet Napolitano
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- Larry Craig
- Lindsey Graham
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- minimum wage
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- North Korea
- Occupy Wall Street
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Paul Ryan
- political correctness
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- quote of the day
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Ron Paul
- San Francisco
- separated at birth
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- Tea Party
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- United Nations
- vote fraud
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett