Saturday, February 16, 2013

Jesse Jackson Junior just like the Senior Jackson... a conniving criminal CROOK!

Jesse Jackson Jr Charged With Stealing $750,000 In Campaign Cash Used To Purchase "Fur Capes And Parkas" And Much More


They are all Shake down crooks. If you take the percentages of African Americans in our population and the number of them that are Thugs thieves Crooked Politicians Federal Government Bureaucrats, and other forms of LOW LIFE.... you will see that something is wrong with their culture... maybe the slave shit impregnated their skulls or is it just the color of the skin and the DNA ? Its rampant in Africa too... so it can't be all about just people.

Oh yeah people can call me a racist because of this observation... but you tell me are not the facts the facts ??

I am not Racists... I admire and like Alan West, and Mia Love and JC Watts and Dr. Carlson others.. I despise the money grabbers of all colors ... but I am just commenting on the percentages...

What do you say ??

And so the surreal criminal saga of former Illinois Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. ("JJJR", "Junior" or just "Jackson") has ended. Jackson, 47, a prominent Chicagoan son of the civil-rights leader of the same name for the handful of people who are unaware, was a national co-chairman of President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign and an advocate of traditional Democratic Party constituencies. He disappeared in June, and it was later revealed that he was being treated at the Mayo Clinic for bipolar disorder and gastrointestinal issues, although now it appears kleptomania may have been one of the afflictions treated too. He returned to his Washington home in September but went back to the clinic the next month. As Bloomberg summarizes, "he pushed to maintain government support for the poor, including welfare, assistance for heating bills and the Head Start early education program." He certainly was very generous with other people's money.
So generous, in fact, that hours ago he was charged with "misusing", also known as stealing, some $750,000 in campaign funds for purchases including a $43,350 gold Rolex watch, $5,150 for fur capes and parkas, $9,588 worth of "children's furniture", Michael Jackson and Bruce Lee memorabilia and much more.
At the same time Jackson’s wife, Sandra Stevens Jackson, was charged in a separate case with filing false tax returns. She faces a maximum penalty of three years in prison. Junior's charge has a maximum term of five years in prison. More importantly, he is sorry (to be caught, we can only surmise): "I want to offer my sincerest apologies to my family, my friends and all of my supporters for my errors in judgment and while my journey is not yet complete, it is my hope that I am remembered for the things that I did right."
We hope Jackson's career-ender is a shining beacon of light what happens when the "misuse" of other people's money is finally exposed, especially, as the case may be, when once it finally all runs out.
From Bloomberg:
No court dates have been set.

William Miller, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen in Washington, declined to comment on the charges.

Jackson’s wife will plead guilty to one count of tax fraud, her lawyers, Dan Webb and Tom Kirsch of Winston & Strawn LLP, said in a statement.

“Ms. Jackson has accepted responsibility for her conduct, is deeply sorry for her actions, and looks forward to putting this matter behind her and her family,” according to the statement.
Jackson, who ended a career of almost 17 years in the U.S. Congress by resigning in November, won a special election for a vacant House seat in 1995 and began serving on Dec. 12 of that year. He subsequently never garnered less than 81 percent of the general-election vote in his district on Chicago’s South Side until last year when he won a 10th House term with 63 percent.

His wife resigned her Chicago alderman seat last month.

Jackson was a national co-chairman of President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign and an advocate of traditional Democratic Party constituencies. He pushed to maintain government support for the poor, including welfare, assistance for heating bills and the Head Start early education program.

Jackson was caught up in the scandal surrounding former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s attempts to sell an appointment to Obama’s former Senate seat. Identified in court papers as “Senate Candidate 5” who was willing to raise money for the governor’s re-election, Jackson denied the allegations and said he wasn’t a target in the federal probe.

Blagojevich was convicted in June 2011 and sentenced to 14 years in prison.

Educated at the elite Washington prep school St. Albans, Jackson graduated from North Carolina A&T State University in 1987. He earned a master’s degree in theology from Chicago Theological Seminary and a law degree from University of Illinois College of Law.
And since everyone only wants to know just what "memorabilia" and other trinkets he spent $750,000 of taxpayer money on, here is the list from the conspiracy charge:
  • $43,350 gold-plated Rolex;
  • $9,587.64 worth of children's furniture;
  • $5,150 worth of fur capes and parkas
  • $1,553 porcelain collector's items
And then this:

Chris Kyle was assasinated by the Obama Cabal

Eddie Ray Routh's sister alleges Routh told her he "sold his soul for a new truck." Will we ever hear from him again?

Chris Kyle's assassin was a paid hit man who was classified a "nut job" and did the job for the Hussein Cabal... there are too much circumstantial evidence.

Will we hear from him again ? NOPE !   He has been classified as nuts and so the law will allow him to live out his days far away or he will be killed.

Either way he has served his purpose for the Hussein Cabal... who basically said... yo make a noise against us and we will KILL YOU !! This has a chilling effect on dissent!!




The Hypocricy of the Obama Cabal is blatant towards Christianity.

USA Trying to Deport Christian Homeschooling Family Knowing They Face Persecution


Uwe and Hannelore Romeike are Christians and the parents of six children.  When their kids attended the German public schools, they were bullied and harassed because of being Christians.  The parents began looking into the schools and what their kids were being taught.  They found a number of objectionable and inappropriate things in the textbooks that they didn’t want their kids learning.
They strongly believed that their children would receive a better education grounded in biblical principles by being schooled at home rather than having their children indoctrinated by the German schools.  Uwe said:
“We knew that homeschooling would not be an easy journey.”
However, the German government had made homeschooling illegal and actively pursued Christian families who tried to homeschool their children.  In 2008, the Romeike family was ripped apart when government officials stepped in and forcibly removed the kids from the home.  The parents were fined thousands of euros.
Their only hope was to seek political asylum in a country that allowed Christians to homeschool, so they applied to the US for asylum.  A US immigration judge ruled in 2010 that the family did face persecution from the German government and granted the Romeike family political asylum.  The family moved and settled in Tennessee.
Remember at last month when President Obama issued his Religious Freedom Day proclamation?  He said:
“Today, we also remember that religious liberty is not just an American right; it is a universal human right to be protected here at home and across the globe. This freedom is an essential part of human dignity, and without it our world cannot know lasting peace.”
“As we observe Religious Freedom Day, let us remember the legacy of faith and independence we have inherited, and let us honor it by forever upholding our right to exercise our beliefs free from prejudice or persecution…”
Here’s how he lives up to his statement.
US Attorney General Eric Holder and the Department of Homeland Security are fighting the political asylum status.  Holder claims that the family’s fundamental rights have not been violated by Germany’s law forbidding families from homeschooling.  They have asked the courts to withdraw the family’s political asylum and have them deported back to Germany.
The Home School legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is representing the Romeikes family and fighting to have them stay in the US.  They say that:
“The U.S. law of asylum allows a refugee to stay in the United States permanently if he can show that he is being persecuted for one of several specific reasons. Among these are persecution for religious reasons and persecution of a ‘particular social group.’”
“In most asylum cases, there is some guesswork necessary to figure out the government’s true motive—but not in this case. The Supreme Court of Germany declared that the purpose of the German ban on homeschooling was to ‘counteract the development of religious and philosophically motivated parallel societies.’”
“This sounds elegant, perhaps, but at its core it is a frightening concept. This means that the German government wants to prohibit people who think differently from the government (on religious or philosophical grounds) from growing and developing into a force in society.”
“The Romeikes’ case is before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The case for the government is officially in the name of the Attorney General of the United States. The case is called Romeike v. Holder. Thus, the brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice is filed on behalf of the attorney general himself—although we can be reasonably certain he has not personally read it. Nonetheless, it is a statement of the position of our government at a very high level.”
“We argued that Germany is a party to many human rights treaties that contain specific provisions that protect the right of parents to provide an education that is different from the government schools. Parents have the explicit right to give their children an education according to their own philosophy.”
“While the United States government argued many things in their brief, there are three specific arguments that you should know about.”
“First, they argued that there was no violation of anyone’s protected rights in a law that entirely bans homeschooling. There would only be a problem if Germany banned homeschooling for some but permitted it for others.”
“A second argument is revealing. The U.S. government contended that the Romeikes’ case failed to show that there was any discrimination based on religion because, among other reasons, the Romeikes did not prove that all homeschoolers were religious, and that not all Christians believed they had to homeschool.”
“This argument demonstrates another form of dangerous “group think” by our own government. The central problem here is that the U.S. government does not understand that religious freedom is an individual right. One need not be a part of any church or other religious group to be able to make a religious freedom claim. Specifically, one doesn’t have to follow the dictates of a church to claim religious freedom—one should be able to follow the dictates of God Himself.”
“One final argument from Romeikes deserves our attention. One of the grounds for asylum is if persecution is aimed at a “particular social group.” The definition of a “particular social group” requires a showing of an “immutable” characteristic that cannot change or should not be required to be changed. We contend that German homeschoolers are a particular social group who are being persecuted by their government.”
If they are returned to Germany, the couple could be facing more large fines, jail time and the loss of their children.  If this is not a violation of the family’s fundamental rights, then I don’t know what is.  Perhaps more importantly to all homeschoolers in America is that if Holder wins this case, there is the possibility that it could serve as a legal precedent for Obama’s efforts to outlaw homeschooling here in the US.
What gets me really hot under the collar on this case is that Holder and the DHS are allowing nearly a million illegal aliens to remain in the US, still illegally, while trying to deport a family who only wants to homeschool their children.  When Obama penned that proclamation last month, he was lying out both sides of his mouth and had no intention of doing anything for any Christian.  He’ll leap tall buildings to defend the rights of Muslim and gays, but he’ll turn his back and walk away from Christians.  The hypocrisy of the Obama administration is enough to make me want to vomit.


Chris Kyle's Killer did not kill Kyle because he had PTSD.

OK So I am posting this so we continue to get to the bottom of the Chris Kyle Assassination by the Obama Cabal.

The Killer Eddie Routh did not kill just because he claimed to have PTSD.









Are veterans (or police officers) with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) a danger on the streets?  Are combat veterans with PTSD returning home as “trained killers?”

We have all read these newspaper headlines:  “PTSD made him a Murderer!”  “Psychologist:   Killer has PTSD!”  “War damaged vet kills girlfriend; PTSD to blame?”  “Officer uses PTSD defense for strangling, battering his wife.”HERE ARE SOME CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY FACTS!!
But what about the actual PTSD symptoms? What are they, and do they typically include violent behaviors, like murder?

Simply put, PTSD is “fear” based, not “aggression” based. The DSM-IV-R (Diagnostic Statistical Manual, Revised) is clear. In brief, the primary features of the this illness are:

· flashbacks

· withdrawal

· numbing

· hyperarousal

· and isolation.

Violence is not included. In fact, not one single research study exists linking violent behavior with the diagnosis of PTSD. While, anger and agitation are common symptoms of PTSD, these feelings tend to be turned inward, contributing to making it the terribly painful disorder it is.

These are the kind of headlines making the rounds as thousands of military veterans return from our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Not only is society fearing them, but some police departments are warning their personnel to “be on the watch” for veterans in general (as if you can tell them apart), with the implication that military service alone carries the threat of having the “PTSD germ.”   

Defense attorneys are always open for a ready-made opportunity to suggest that a suspect was conditioned by the military into responding to any stress situations with violence—and thereby commit a murder. The media, of course, sees a story guaranteed to generate both interest and controversy throughout the extended length of a trial, and the headlines, as we have seen, inflame and arouse a variety of passions.

The unfortunate consequence of this sensationalism, sadly, is to stigmatize not only veterans with PTSD, but all PTSD sufferers, as being potentially dangerous.

This is not really new. To begin with, society has always tended to view the mentally ill as “dangerous.” Mental Health America reports that characters with mental illnesses are depicted in prime time television shows as the most dangerous of all demographic groups: 60 percent were shown to be involved in crime or violence. Also, most news accounts portray people with mental illness as dangerous. The vast majority of news stories on mental illness either focus on other negative characteristics related to people with the disorder (e.g., unpredictability and unsociability) or on medical treatments.

The result is predictable. Most citizens believe persons with mental illnesses are dangerous. Instead of improving, attitudes are getting worse: a longitudinal study of American’s attitudes on mental health between 1950 and 1996 found the proportion of Americans who describe mental illness in terms consistent with violent or dangerous behavior has nearly doubled.  Many employers, already reluctant to hire anyone with a mental illness or provide them the accommodations they might need, disregard or find creative ways to circumvent the Americans with Disabilities Act and deny employment or other rights to PTSD victims, adding to the burden already faced by returning veterans. 

It is no small wonder, therefore, that we find so many police chiefs in the United States and Canada resistant to the idea that police work can lead to PTSD (and that suicide as a result is impossible).

Where do we begin, in order to address this question? Does a diagnosis of PTSD include the potential for violence?

First, we need to remember that PTSD is an injury—both emotional and physical. While it is listed as a mental illness, it is the only one listed in the DSM (Diagnostic Manual of Mental Disorders) as being caused by an external cause. Second, PTSD is caused when a person is exposed to a catastrophic event (or series of events over time) involving real or threatened death or injury to themselves or others. During exposure to that trauma, one experiences intense fear, feelings of helplessness, or horror.

There is likelihood that most people will experience a traumatic event at some time in their lifetime. Not all will suffer from PTSD, depending on a number of factors that include their individual backgrounds, their relationship to the type of trauma, the degree and manner of exposure, and other factors. Military combat and police work are particularly high-risk areas for PTSD, however, because of the intensity of the types of trauma, the frequency of traumatic events and, particularly in the case of law enforcement, the fact that traumatic events are accumulated over years and decades.

But what about the actual PTSD symptoms? What are they, and do they typically include violent behaviors, like murder?

Simply put, PTSD is “fear” based, not “aggression” based. The DSM-IV-R (Diagnostic Statistical Manual, Revised) is clear. In brief, the primary features of the this illness are:

· flashbacks
· withdrawal
· numbing
· hyperarousal
· and isolation.

Violence is not included. In fact, not one single research study exists linking violent behavior with the diagnosis of PTSD. While, anger and agitation are common symptoms of PTSD, these feelings tend to be turned inward, contributing to making it the terribly painful disorder it is. Combined with depression, it is not unusual for the sufferer to become suicidal. But a diagnosis of PTSD, in itself, does not make a person violent towards others. Again, the concern should be more that they will be a danger to themselves, not others. There is a possibility, of course, that unintentional harm could come to others as the result of a suicide attempt, not only by gunshot, but though an intentional automobile accident, jumping from a building, or any other number of self-destructive acts. John Violanti, Ph.D., in his book, “Police Suicide: Epidemic in Blue,” points out the interesting phenomenon of “suicide by suspect,” in which an officer consciously or unconsciously wishes to die and willfully involves himself in situations of extreme danger or confrontation with a criminal, thereby increasing the risk of death. Even so, in these situations the danger to others is indirect and unintentional.

The unfortunate result of this misinformation is that more and more cases are erroneously using the defense that PTSD is to blame for murders by veterans when, in fact, there were other emotional disorders and problems involved, including prior anger issues, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), and substance abuse, that were more likely responsible for the individual’s violent behavior. Society already views the mentally ill as "dangerous"--we need to be very careful not to further stigmatize these people via this illness by suggesting that a violent/murderous potential exists or was the primary factor until everything has been examined.

Obama assasination hit list

Click here and be Pissed ! THEN ACT... TIME TO HIT BACK !!

Minimum wage laws are Bullshit and never work. It creates an underclass!!

Milton Friedman on minimum wage laws

“There are always in these cases two groups of sponsors: there are the well-meaning sponsors and there are the special interests who are using the well-meaning sponsors as front men….The special interests [in this case) are, of course, the trade unions…The do-gooders believe that by passing a law saying that nobody should get less than….whatever the minimum wage rate is you are helping poor people who need the money. You are doing nothing of the kind. What you are doing is to ensure that people whose skills are not sufficient to justify that kind of a wage will be unemployed. It is no accident that the teenage unemployment rate…is over twice as high as the overall unemployment rate. It is no accident that that was not always the case until the 1950s when the minimum wage rate was raised very drastically, very quickly. Teenage unemployment was higher than ordinary unemployment because of course the teenagers are the ones who are just coming into the labour market… but it was nothing like the extraordinary level it has now reached. It’s close to 20pc. Why? Because the minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying that employers must discriminate against people who have low skills…The consequences of minimum wage rates have been almost wholly bad: to increase unemployment and to increase poverty. Moreover the effects have been concentrated on the groups that the do-gooders would most like to help. The people who have been hurt most by minimum wage laws are the blacks. I have often said that the most anti-negro law on the books of this land is the minimum wage rate. ”

Transcribed from THIS  video

As ever, the clarity and logic of his comments are compelling.
I would add two things. First, with the government earnings supplements that now exist – but did not when Friedman was speaking, I suspect – if there were not minimum wages some employers would offer wages well below the minimum wage because both the employer and the employee would know that the government would make up the difference. That is always the trouble with government wage supplements.
Secondly sometimes welfare benefits can take the place of minimum wage rates. You might have a very low or non-existent minimum wage. But if you have easily obtained welfare benefits, they take the place of the minimum wage. Their effect can be even more pernicious since, in some places, you can take the benefit and also work on the side.

The biggest problem with Americans today, and the politicians that pander to them, is that they make choices based on emotional effect and not on data.  This is why there’s no outrage over the budget-busting compensation of public sector employees like teachers, firefighters and police (yes, they all do important jobs, but the free market should dictate their salaries and compensation, not union thuggery and fleecing of the taxpayer), why nobody cares about all the stupid stimulus bills that had no impact other than to further increase our national debt (and hence, debt servicing costs), why people think price gouging is bad (gouging is GOOD) and of course, why Americans love a minimum wage.  To add insult to injury, Obama used emotional platitudes to highlight why America needs to raise the minimum wage yet again.  It is a terrible idea; here’s why:
  • Forced Overpayment for Labor – I’m sorry, but someone should be paid what they’re worth to the employer.  If it’s an absolutely zero skill job that just requires a body, why is the government mandating you pay them any set wage rate at all?  Think like an employer.  Consider a dishwasher.  There’s no prior experience required, no special skills and easily replaced.  Many restaurants use illegal immigrants for this type of role anyway, but let’s say they’re by the books and paying the full wage, payroll taxes (people forget about all the additional expenses business incur when something like this is proposed) and all the other costs associated with employing someone.  So, the free market would probably peg a job like that at something like $5 an hour.  But restaurants are forced to pay $7.25 due to existing minimum wage laws.  Now, you increase it even further to $9.  They’re not getting any additional productivity or profits for the money they’re paying; it’s just a government induced cost increase.  Well, one of two things happens here.  Either the profits must shrink forcing more restaurants out of business or they must raise their costs and pass it on to customers to maintain the same profit margins.  By passing it on to customers, this is essentially a tax on Americans (yet another tax increase).  You might say, “this is a typical argument and I don’t eat at restaurants”, but this applies to literally millions of jobs that touch goods and services you pay for.  From grocery store clerks to janitors, throughout the entire country, companies you buy from are going to have to pass higher costs on to you to support jobs that people were already perfectly willing to work at prevailing wages.  Teenagers take jobs at minimum wage all the time; now they’re getting an automatic raise just because their older college-age brother and sister voted for hope and change?  Unfortunately, the emotional appeal of helping poor people is getting in the way of reality and the unintended consequences.

  • I Thought Inflation Was Low? – Obama goes on to cite how tough it is to live on the current minimum wage, etc.  We’ve always heard these same arguments and even at $9, the same argument could be made.  So, why not just call it $15 an hour?  How about $25 and hour?  I mean, there’s no end to this philosophy.  On one hand, the government claims we have no inflation (see what the REAL Inflation Rate is with this real-life index) as justification to keep pissing away over $1 Trillion a year more than we take in, yet on the other hand, they’re citing rising costs and difficulty in raising a family as the need to increase the minimum wage.  Which is it?  Are things cheap in the US or not?

  • Handout Nation Has NEVER Been More Generous – There are entire books written on the topic, so I won’t go in to every nuance of the handout nation we live in, but just for starters, for a family living off 1-2 parents working the minimum wage, there are dozens upon dozens are various “government assistance” programs they’re already participating in.  When you hear about someone making $16K a year, there’s linear comparison whatsoever to say someone making $64K a year is “4 times better off” than them.  Yes, it sucks having a low income so don’t get sidetracked, but for reality’s sake, let’s consider all the additional benefits derived at that income level:  SNAP (foodstamps) to the tune of a few hundred bucks a month (could be say, $4-5K/year. Equating that to after tax income of a $64K earner, perhaps say, $7K equivalent). Someone at that income level pays no federal income tax. Free Obama phone.  Possibly housing assistance, health care assistance, various other forms of government assistance; the list goes on.

  • Buy Me a Robot – I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – Robots are Taking Over.  Before you laugh off this futuristic threat, just consider thresholds.  We all have thresholds.  You might decide to pay the extra 5 cents a gallon to buy gas at the station on your street rather than drive a few miles down the road, but if the spread is 15 cents a gallon and you’re on empty, you’ll make the trip right?  I was willing to pay for installation of the new flooring we bought at the $.99 per square foot deal being offered but my wife didn’t want that material (of course). What she wanted was $1.99/ft, so I spent a weekend putting it in myself.  We all make decisions based on thresholds.  Well, the more you increase labor, especially no-skill labor that has ANY chance of being either outsourced or automated, the more we see outsourcing and automation.  Consider the dishwasher example.  If the costs of physical labor increase enough, perhaps eventually it makes sense to just buy more dishes and buy some high-speed dishwashers!  Consider a large building with 9 janitors.  If their wages go up, then maybe they need to lay one off and get more out of the 8 or cut back on frequency of cleaning some less traveled areas.  Whatever businesses have to do to maintain or cut their existing cost structure, they will do.  So in the end, this is going to cost jobs both for minimum wage workers, while extracting a tax from consumers further impeding the recovery.  Don’t you see?
In the end, this is yet just another ploy by liberals to redistribute more wealth from working, tax paying Americans and businesses to the young and lower socioeconomic class to curry favor and buy more votes.  Anyone opposing this measure will be painted as a rich asshat, a Romney, because they don’t want to help the poor.  The problem is, this is a net negative for the country but politicians don’t care about that.  It’s all about the next election.